Foxy:

“And, I was merely responding to your question
directed to Poirot (she's a female by the way) -
You did ask.”

I asked Poirot – not you. If I wanted to know why you think she said what she said I would have asked you.

“ Also I've known Poirot on this forum
for quite some time. And, we all know the previous
poster who continually makes "incendiary
remarks" about women in each and every forum discussion.
There's quite a history there with him.”

Well if that’s what you think then the best way to deal with him is to ignore him. If his opinions or his attitudes are so bad then what is the point in responding to him at all? What are you afraid of? Don’t you have enough faith in the truth winning out?

Poirot was deriding the whole forum on the basis of one remark. She is suggesting that it is pointless discussing the issue because of one term used by one person. That is an insult to everyone else who is trying their best to help the discussion along. That is not a positive response but a response of someone who should put up or shut up.

“It's interesting though you did not object to
the "intimate terrorists" incendiary earlier remark
of that poster's.”

There are thousands of things said on these forums which I do not agree with but I do not feel it worth responding to every one of them.

“Ah well.
Enough said.”

There is no need to be so dismissive.

Did anybody actually read onthebeach's post? The terms that are so bothersome to some are part of a quote from a referenced article from a site http://www.medicaldaily.com That was pretty clear in the post.

The context did not in my view suggest that the terms applied to all women, just that women are more likely to be the intimate terrorists in a partner than men. No one seems to have a problem when it's pointed out that men kill more women than women kill men so why is it so offensive to discuss other parts of the picture?

I notice that those who see the issue of DV substantially differently to the way I do don't feel any need to pick up the part of the discussion about of the points I raised, the 25% of intimate partner homicide victims who are male who don't get a mention from "anti-DV" campaigners.
The far higher overall rates of male victimisation in homicide than that experienced by women (and corresponding levels of perpetration by men but the majority of homicide victims are not homicide perpetrators).

The far higher suicide rates amongst men in a discussion that in part starts with the new PM's comments about respect and no obvious statements that respect should flow both ways.

The demographics factors appear to be significant enough that they should be part of the discussion. Lung cancer can happen in the presence of lifetime healthy choices but that does not mean there is no place to talk about the role of smoking and other factors that increase the risks significantly.

R0bert

Phanto,

"This is very true and there are many reasons why men feel trapped. It takes a lot of one on one counselling to determine the genesis of this feeling of entrapment and each man would have a different story to tell. How likely would it be for the government to fund a program that focuses on this particular aspect of the problem?"

I think its doubtful, sadly.
In turn, I think the effort will be pointless if they aren't serious about digging deep into the real nitty-gritty of this issue.

Rechub,
I think if its already costing Australian taxpayers a fortune then why not try to look at the problem.
But there really isn't any point throwing more good money away if they aren't going to do it properly.

RObert,
You mentioned stats of domestic violence against men by women, as a way to balance the argument which can sometimes be framed in a "Violence against Women" sense.

Its valid to show that DV can be perpetrated by both sides and that the issue cannot be looked at simply from a "Men are Bad" perspective.

But I think in order to really deal with the issue we have to deal with the "Gendering" aspects.

For example - Men are traditional money earners and in some ways the decision makers, as decisions many times come down to money.
They're also the traditional head of the family, protector and provider, where the woman is traditionally a nurturer.

This puts pressure on us men to be leaders and make smart decisions.
(This could be one aspect of why men feel backed into a corner and lash out)
Women aren't necessarily expected to lead.

We all know illegal drugs like ice can contribute to the incidence of DV.
But the final point I want to raise on this issue is the prescription drugs.
There's some indications that Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI drugs found in anti-depressants) are also sending people crazy.

http://ssristories.org/

Many mass shooting instances in the US were committed by people on these drugs.

I think that OTB makes several good points. The real discussion should be about aggression and not just violence. There are many types of aggression of which violence is only one. If you want to hurt someone then you are going to use the most effective tools you have – for men in relationship with a woman they will more than likely use violence because they have a distinct physical advantage. Women are more than likely to use other forms of aggression such as put-downs, sarcasm, ridicule and the like. They can also destroy a man’s valuable property that he has worked hard to acquire or make. They can ruin a man financially. They can turn his children against him.

Just because they are not violent does not mean that they have no intention of doing as much damage as men. Most women do not want the discussion extended to include aggression. They take the moral high ground because more women die as a result of men’s aggression and this is seen as some kind of proof that men are by far the most aggressive gender. They have the figures to prove it.

But there is more than one way to die. A lifetime of verbal abuse, emotional blackmail, lying, cheating, and financial stress can cause all types of health problems for men. Their quality of life can be so destroyed that they are as good as dead anyway. At the end of their life they may look back and prefer that they had met a violent death.

The numbers game is not about the damage done but simply about deaths. More people are killed rock-fishing in Australia so in terms of overall importance DV deaths is not our biggest problem by a long way. Of course one death is one too many but try telling the family of the rock fisherman that his death is less important.

Fox, "Poirot is absolutely correct in questioning the comments of a certain poster's sweeping stereotypical generalisations.."

However had you and Poirot both read the post instead of doing your usual knee-jerk reaction you might have realised that the 'certain poster' you criticised wasn't making the comments at all. It was contained within quotations viz '<>' and the URL link was given. Didn't these words mean anything to you, "According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.. (etc)". Here is the link again,

http://tinyurl.com/oxwsq7t

However all is not lost because your behaviour Fox and that of Poirot answer the question I directed at RObert - who it would appear has been very patient with both of you in the past. The question to ROBert was,
"Just restricting that to OLO and remembering that the same posters adhere to the same gendered line notwithstanding opposing facts, what do you sense prevents change?"

The answer as proved by your own behaviour and that of Poirot, Fox, is rather obvious and simple: that your blinkered prejudice prevents you from considering, or even reading, anything that challenges your feminist orthodoxy. Or more likely, challenges your opinions, full stop. Taking yourself as an example Fox, you regularly advise other posters that you do not read posts you disagree with. How rude is that? Any wonder you are stuck in a rut, endlessly repeating yourself, a fembot stuck on continuous loop.

Now feel free to bounce back with your usual fembot ad hominems.

However nothing will change the fact that the research I quoted earlier that challenges 'patriarchy' was professionally done by Dr. Elizabeth Bates from the University of Cumbria and colleagues from the University of Central Lancashire and it was reported by Lizette Borreli, a Senior Reporter at Medical Daily.

Ye Gods, is there any wonder that young women run screaming from the carping, bullying, dictatorial feminists of the previous Millenium?

Beach, and to what degree does your British "research" piece relate to the Australian experience? The whole piece is based on a survey of 1,104 British students, 706 female 398 male with an average age of 24. Hardly representative of Australia with its diverse mix of population.
The use of the emotive term "intimate terrorism" which seems to have been coined by an American sociologist in the 1990's has no relevance to the Australian debate either. Is there any more representative Australian research you can point to that may corroborate your British findings. No one denies a percentage of domestic violence victims are male, and they to deserve attention.