Poirot,

The NSW Assistant Police Commissioner said that any victim of crime deserves a service, ie fairness and equality, which is the direct opposite of what you, Suseonline and the radical feminists behind White Ribbon Day believe where victims of domestic violence are concerned.

However, to justify your position you imply that the senior NSW cop intended that police make judgements as you do on who should receive a police service. That they be biassed like you and Suseonline who reckon that a woman's budgie is more worthy than any man, child or LBGT.

Thanks to feminists like you the police might not always receive the training and instructions they need to recognise and deal effectively with (say) the DV rampant in (say) homosexual and transgender relationships and there are complaints about that. See here,

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/domestic-violence-a-silent-epidemic-in-gay-relationships-20150415-1mm4hg.html

Maybe the transphobic Greer could explain the feminists' exclusion of transgender for instance, where the concern is protecting and constantly buffing the 'Patriarchy' paradigm.

Nothing fair, equal, egalitarian or humanist where the radical feminists are concerned. Which is also why men and boys who are victims of domestic violence must be given the cold shoulder. They are liars, pretenders (refer to the unchallenged comment on the most recent Q&A mentioned earlier) and unworthy of help.

However the public are not signed up to the religion of feminism. Which is why feminists must mushroom the public, doing everything possible to conceal and distort any evidence of DV victimhood outside of feminist certified 'Wonderful Womyn'. Feminists are about political capital and the victims of DV are useful for that.

However all victims are due compassion and support, without fear or favour. No-one is seriously arguing that women are not presenting as the most common and severely affected victims of DV. Training and instructing police and health workers to recognise and provide the same service to all victims is the only acceptable standard.

Suseonline,

If that is a serious risk and consequence where duly character-checked, licensed and trained people are concerned, the same argument would disarm police (who don't require a licence) and security staff.

otb,

"The NSW Assistant Police Commissioner said that any victim of crime deserves a service, ie fairness and equality, which is the direct opposite of what you, Suseonline and the radical feminists behind White Ribbon Day believe where victims of domestic violence are concerned."

Yes he did....just before he added "...but we can't lose sight of the fact that for more than half of the cohort of male victims the offenders are male themselves."

And you can stop right there with your underhand misrepresentation of mine and Suse's argument.

Where have we stated that we believe in the direct opposite of Fuller's remark: ""Any victim of crime deserves a service..."?

Go on - direct us to the statements by both Suse and myself where we have said we don't think all victims are deserving of care and attention?

"However, to justify your position you imply that the senior NSW cop intended that police make judgements as you do on who should receive a police service. That they be biassed like you and Suseonline who reckon that a woman's budgie is more worthy than any man, child or LBGT."

Absolute BS, otb...it's obvious you're desperate here - and in the process of tying yourself in knots while inventing paths of thought to justify your own dearth of substance.

We haven't implied anything of the sort. We quoted the senior NSW policeman.

You don't like quotes when they disagree with your agenda, do you, otb?

So you start spinning a huge unintelligible tapestry of what you'd like to think about our comments.

Your old trick of misrepresentation is still with you, I see.

Poirot,

If you and Suseonline truly believe that all victims are due compassion and support, without fear or favour and all victims are due the same services as the only acceptable standard,

then,

both you and Suseonline have pretenders who have been using your nicks for years to obfuscate, obstruct and deep-six your efforts.

You should take that up with the site moderators.

Because in this thread alone there have been 'false' Poirots and 'false' Suseonlines who have trenchantly sledged Bettina Arndt for having the temerity to even suggest that male victims of DV should be recognised and there should be some balance shown in the delivery of services.

otb,

"Because in this thread alone there have been 'false' Poirots and 'false' Suseonlines who have trenchantly sledged Bettina Arndt for having the temerity to even suggest that male victims of DV should be recognised and there should be some balance shown in the delivery of services."

Still at it I see.

We've critiqued sex therapist, Arndt, due to the dodgy content of her "article" and her association and promotion of the dodgy content in the One in Three campaign.

It's just so reminiscent of climate deniers and their junk-science - as in: - "...If you need help in putting together emails to send them, send a blank email to domesticviolencetruth@gmail.com and you will automatically receive in response another email containing information you can use in your letters."

Can you post the contributions on this thread from Suse and I where we've criticised Arndt for suggesting male victims of DV should be recognised?

Just counting up your hysterical rants from your previous post...all in one haranguing post, and peppered thus:

"radical feminists

radical feminists

feminists

feminists

feminists

feminists

feminist

feminism"

A fairly accurate representation of otb's balanced outlook.

'.but we can't lose sight of the fact that for more than half of the cohort of male victims the offenders are male themselves.'

How is that even relevant? It's unfathomable to me why this matters.

Just as different races have different worth in natural disasters, female victims of violence seem more mourned than male.

In fact I bet more children of both sexes are victims of violence.

Though probably little boys had it coming being born with that original male sin.

'"Any victim of crime deserves a service..."?

ie. I'm not racist but...

The *insert label here* are killing each other. Nothing to see here, as long as they don't hurt us in the process.

But back to domestic violence. There is 2 agendas as I see it.

Mens Rights Groups: Trying to steer the conversation towards fathers losing custody via nefarious use of domestic rights protections. Probably some claims justified, some not, some a grey area.

Feminists: Attempting to paint Domestic violence as proof of the Evil Male Patriarchy, and a result of misogyny. Probably an element in it, but hardly relevant to most domestic disputes, which are much more to do with drug and alcohol abuse, violent damaged people, anger management issues, stress, hopelessness, lack of coping mechanisms, and mismatches in physical strength, abuse of power.

Truth: Men are more violent with each other due to testosterone, and are stronger than women, and when women and men argue, men have less emotional coping skills, emotional outlets or support networks, and are more likely to abuse drugs (probably due to the lack of outlets), and are just more likely physically stronger.

People lash out at those that they don't fear.

Result: Women get hurt and killed more in the home while in close proximity to men, while generally vastly more men kill each other, and men more likely top themselves.

Such is life.

Hi Houellie,

"'.but we can't lose sight of the fact that for more than half of the cohort of male victims the offenders are male themselves.'

How is that even relevant? It's unfathomable to me why this matters."

It's "relevant" to this thread which was started under the premise that women are almost as violent and prone to abusing their partners as are men. Statistics of males presenting as victims are often skewed, ie most attributed to a female partner as being the aggressor - the senior NSW policeman was straightening out that misrepresentation. A misrepresentation that fueled Arnt's article and the premise for this thread.

Note that otb totally ignored that part of the policeman's statement and its pertinence to the premise of this thread...and you (apparently) can't even connect its pertinence to the subject at all.

"Truth: Men are more violent with each other due to testosterone, and are stronger than women, and when women and men argue, men have less emotional coping skills, emotional outlets or support networks, and are more likely to abuse drugs (probably due to the lack of outlets), and are just more likely physically stronger.

People lash out at those that they don't fear.

Result: Women get hurt and killed more in the home while in close proximity to men, while generally vastly more men kill each other, and men more likely top themselves.

Such is life."

Yes - but let's not forget that much domestic abuse is about control and intimidation (including violent abuse) to maintain that control. Abuse leading to serious injury, death or police intervention is usually at the end of a series of longer term abuse.