Of course, it's not funny at all. In fact, the reason Rev Garner is so selective in his comments is a a little further down the page and it's got nothing to do with concern for those women and children.

"But we certainly need the resources"

As usual, following the money is the key to understanding what makes people tick.

Contemptible, money-grubbing fools have been at the root of our social degradation in this country. Some in business and far more in the "caring industries", where there's a 24 hour travelling medicine show with a panacaea for everything and all it takes is "resources".

Just one more comment on that mendacious fool Garner. He says "One reason may well be that in fact people have now more guts". By "people" he means "women", implicitly excluding men from that category. This sort of disgraceful manipulative writing off of men from the map of humanity is so common it's not even noticed any more.

For those interested, a new comprehensive study on the subject of DV has just been released.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?683

"The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, or PASK, whose final installment was just published in the journal Partner Abuse, is an unparalleled three-year research project, conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centers, and including information on 17 areas of domestic violence research."

"Among PASK’s findings are that, except for sexual coercion, men and women perpetrate physical and non-physical forms of abuse at comparable rates, most domestic violence is mutual, women are as controlling as men, domestic violence by men and women is correlated with essentially the same risk factors, and male and female perpetrators are motivated for similar reasons.

“Although research confirms that women are more impacted by domestic violence,” stated Hamel, “these findings recommend important intervention and policy changes, including a need to pay more attention to female-perpetrated violence, mutual abuse, and the needs of male victims.”

Hamel also argues that men are not only disproportionately arrested in domestic violence cases, but sometimes arrested for arbitrary reasons, citing, for example, that police often arrest the bigger and stronger party in cases where the perpetrator is unclear. “Such policies are not only ineffective but violate people’s civil rights,” Hamel concludes. “People in the domestic violence field say that ‘it’s all about the victims.’ Well, the victim is not always the one hit, but sometimes the one arrested.”

Read more about the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, or visit the world’s largest domestic violence research database at http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org for free access to thousands of pages summarizing 1,700 peer-reviewed studies."

The site has a link to an interview with Hamel.

The utopian ideal would be not to replace patriarchy with matriarchy but an equitable and egalitarian society that respects the rights of human beings.

Attempting a bit of armchair psychology/anthropology: most boys were taught that men do not hit women; and while girls were told it was not nice to hit people, possibly the message was not as strong as it related to the opposite sex. This was reinforced in movies where a woman might slap a man in a moment of pique or if he behaved inappropriately. This is a cultural norm that is changing with evolving times and a stronger masculinist movement (borne primarily out of family law issues), to a point where violence of any form will be (and should be) deemed unacceptable no matter who is perpetrator/victim.

There is more violence overall in our communities and an increase in street violence and reports that suggest women are becoming more violent. Where has it all gone wrong. I don't think the growth of violence is a gender issue but something more deep seated within our society. Lack of respect for people, property and others' rights. Did this come from the growth in consumerism and the 'me me' effect or is it more complicated.

As for Rudd's front bench (and not in response to Anti's comment about the OSW) I was annoyed at media reports on this that Rudd is promoting women to the Cabinet etc. The implication being this is the only reason women get promoted ie.their gender and not their abilities. Why is gender mentioned at all. The media are partly to blame. I've yet to read a sentence like 'Rudd has appointed nine men to the Cabinet'. That may sound facetious and I understand the under-representation of women in politics, however I reckon it would be beter all-round if gender was not considered 'remarkable' in these contexts.

Pelican I agree with all you said. Rudd was clear in response to questions that in his view gender should simply not be a topic for discussion. He made the point that promotion of a gender agenda rather than a productive one is simply not constructive.

I agree completely.

Pelican well said.

R0bert