Actually Poirot the original starting of the thread was not a demand that we focus just on violence against women. It was pointing out the issues of further aleniating men by the nature of the language used by the PM.

" Way to go Malcolm! If you want to stop men from behaving violently then alienate them even more by declaring them to be not ‘real men’ and horror of all horrors –un-Australian.Anyone who resorts to violent behaviour has serious issues about their own self-worth. Whatever has led them to that belief can only be made worse by bullying them into submissive behaviour. It could well be that they already do not have a strong sense of their own masculinity and all this kind of jingoism does is to make things worse. Let’s tell them they cannot play with the rest of the boys until they become ‘real men’. Let’s taunt them and deride them until they can tolerate it no further and stop their evil ways."

Above and beyond that I reject your approach targetting me posting disenting a view (and I'm pretty confident that you would reject them if you disagreed with the fundamental premise of an argument). Its not about trying to draw the focus away from violence against women other than where that focus is misrepresentative of the whole issue. Its about a strong belief that the issue needs to be addressed holistically and that the focus on just violence against women is part of the problem not of what solutions we may be viable able to achieve.

R0bert

R0bert, "I'm going to try a parallel.."

It is very decent of you to try yet again to get posters to engage with your point, which simply put is that all victims of serious crime should have equal access to and treatment by the law.

To take another example, in a burning building a firefighter should not ignore and walk past one incapacitated victim to deliver preferential rescues to others perceiving them to be more 'worthy' of rescue and of life.

Yet that is how it has always been: it has always been women first. Children are secondary and added more to legitimise the first priority, which is women.

Men are seen as easily disposable.

Where gender feminists are concerned, mens' silence and invisibility - lack of accounts of men's lives, coping and stresses - are necessary to ensure that the feminist narrative is not challenged and are completely warranted because men are the root source of all that is bad.

Men are not entitled to be heard because of their original sin: they are male, pre-wired to control, molest and do other nasties to wonderful, Earth-mother womyn. Masculinity? UGH! The best boys can aspire to is to be defective girls. The original sin cannot be erased by a male->female sex change. (S)He can never be a 'real' feminist, just a useful supporter perhaps.

The cracks in the gender feminist narrative and sloppy social research are showing though. For instance, suddenly more women are fronting courts for violent crimes. It is getting harder to claim that some man made them do it.

RObert,

Somehow I omitted reference to your argument for a holistic approach to violence in the community.

As most would be aware from my posting record and from my posts in this thread, that is something I also agree with. I chose to focus on the human rights violation of not according equal consideration and treatment to the male victims of violence.

It so happens that there is a different approach to the problem (of violence) that doesn't single out gender and as you say, that is to approach it holistically.

Gender feminism never makes sense. Well, at least not outside of the closed circle cronyism of those educated middle class women, the leftist Emily's Listers, who use feminism to benefit themselves and extend their own entitlement.

A question, is there such a thing as a feminist criminologist?

RObert,

"Actually Poirot the original starting of the thread was not a demand that we focus just on violence against women. It was pointing out the issues of further aleniating men by the nature of the language used by the PM.

Okay.....and you jumped straight in with:

"The distressing part of all that I've heard so far regarding the initiative is the continuation of the completely gendered version of the discussion.

No mention of the admittedly smaller numbers of men who lose their lives at the hands of intimate partners ( 2002–03 to 2011–12 166 males compared to 488 females http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/21-40/rip38.html thats 25% of intimate partner homicides. If I'm reading the numbers correctly 15 of those 166 male deaths were by a male partner.

No mention in what I've heard about the impacts of disrespecting men on men by their partners and where that leads to."

So how does your the majority of your comment dovetail into the thread opener - except to draw focus away from the opening comment on the alienation of men who may be prone to committing violence?

"....It could well be that they already do not have a strong sense of their own masculinity and all this kind of jingoism does is to make things worse. Let’s tell them they cannot play with the rest of the boys until they become ‘real men’. Let’s taunt them and deride them until they can tolerate it no further and stop their evil ways."

Your comment focused for the most part on female violence towards men.

You are entitled to post what you wish but, as I've mentioned, it's pretty much a given on OLO that if a subject arises pertaining in any way to DV against women, then it's a given that you will waste no time skewing the conversation away from its core.

Poroit:

So is it just RObert that is a waste of time or is it still the whole of OLO that is a waste of time?

Either way you have wasted quite a bit of time. It is rather hypocritical to keep saying it is a waste of time and then go on and on wasting such time. What does that say about your integrity? Could not the time be better spent on positive action to help women who are victims of DV?

Why worry about the angst of violent criminals? Or their gender or their ancestry or their culture or their potty training? Why not halt the DV? Throw the violent criminals in prison and lose them there? Who cares if they bash one another in prison?