I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's absolutely no excuse whatsoever, for a male to physically assault a female. I do accept there are occasions, under some extreme circumstances, where a female might offer some extreme provocation toward her male partner. But still I've yet to witness an example, where a male has a legitimate right even a religious obligation, to exact any form of physical punishment upon a female !

However, contingent upon the above set of circumstances, a male may defend himself from a violent attack from a female, provided his response is directly proportional too the force offered by the female. And which is reasonably necessary in the circumstances, to neutralize that attack.

Houellebecq,

From my observation your summary has a lot going for it.

My overriding concern and it is a consistent theme that I usually declare, was expressed in an earlier post in this thread: to get value for (exasperated) taxpayers' money and public accountability, through measurable outcomes, I wrote:

<First, it is unconscionable that incomplete, slanted and fraudulent advice is knowingly being spruiked to government and the public by educated professionals, including some academics in universities, who are putting their own benefit, career and entitlement ahead of community good. They have no respect for or investment in good science either.

Secondly, the inevitable negative consequences that flow from poor advising is that taxpayers' dollars are NOT being targeted and expended for best effect and value for taxpayers' money is not being obtained. Nor is there the fairness that should apply in laws (that should be based on evidence, but what if that 'evidence' is biassed and deeply flawed?).

Of course concerned citizens should be writing to those well-intentioned but misled White Ribbon Day ambassadors and to populist politicians who swing like weather vanes and avoid the challenges of drafting good policy.>

Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 26 November 2015 12:04:31 PM

Suse,

Who mentioned guns?
I merely asked what you thought was an adequate means of self defence for a woman whose life is threatened or who fears serious injury.

Why do the Australian States deny women who are at risk any means of self defence?
They do allow women to study Martial Arts but an eight stone woman against a sixteen stone, enraged male is not going to be able to throw him and put him in a disabling lock.
Perhaps it is unfair to say that the PC crowd are happier to see women dead than defending themselves, but it sure looks that way.

So, what do you really think is an adequate means of self defence for a woman in fear?

Emblix Solutions provides services like Website designing, Digital Marketing, Search Engine Optimization (SEO), Social Media Marketing (SMM), E-commerce, E-mail Marketing, SMS, Voice calls, PPC campaigns, Affiliate Marketing, Online reputation management and many other services.

Onthebeach, are you still going on about feminists? Surely you must have covered all anti-feminist arguments by now? Boring...

Let me just state for the record...I am fully in agreement that all victims of both domestic and all other forms of violence, including all men, children and women of all colours, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and disability should receive equal rights and access to legal, safety, and medical needs after they suffer said forms of violence by any perpetrator.

There now, so don't go misrepresenting my thoughts on that subject again or I will just continually trot out my statement for you to re-read every time.

My statement above in no way negates the undeniable fact that with intimate partner domestic violence there is absolutely no doubt that women are more severely injured and killed in larger numbers by male perpetrators than men are.
Full stop.

Is Mise, are you seriously expecting me to believe you weren't thinking of your fave subject of bang-bangs when talking about self defence for women?
Do you not think that everyone else hasn't also thought of that, and other forms of self defence?

It has been denied to the women because of the high chance of either their loving partner or ex-partner getting their hands on it first and turning it against them.
Anything other than camera's, high security alarm systems, distress alarms or perhaps a guard dog or three would not be helpful if the man is physically stronger than the woman.
If that were not the case, it would have been allowed already.

Suse,

If the man intends to kill the woman she has a right to defend herself, legally and morally.

The PC crowd however would deny her the means of defending herself and her children.

Why?

Perhaps they would also like to see all emergency flotation devices removed from wharves and other places where someone might fall into the water.