It's Time To Stop Demonizing Men (pls read OP)

[The Royal Sampler]

Some more examples of men in abusive relationships who were certainly physically capable of defending themselves but chose not to because of their beliefs about hitting women.

One, upon being rescued by police, was sent to a shelter for the homeless because services for abused men simply didn't exist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...lashing-partners-horrifying-consequences.html

 

[jaxter600]

So how are you going to begin the work to get these sorts of programs for men. I can give you the potted history about how women's refuges etc., started in Oz but it might take a few years of lobbying to get government to fund the same kind of programs for men. In fact they only started really taking violence against women in the home seriously when cost benefit analysis was done in the health sector.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It's going to be very difficult. Given that men are seen as the cause of domestic violence, providing funding for men's welfare issues will be perceived as a luxury, or mistakenly labeled as sexist. Those with their hands on the purse strings will be able to think of 1,000 other more popular places to spend the money.

The other concern is that Australia is even more backward on the subject than many other western countries, because we are especially bound to our macho, indestructible image of the Aussie bloke.

 

[jaxter600]

Yes all that is probably true. But until men take up the cause and support each other to 'come out' as it were then nothing changes. Looking around Ballarat and the pain caused by the Royal Commission I have also seen a lot of mature 'blokes' identify as child abuse victims/survivors they have not been belittled or shamed as far as I know. I think this points the way towards a society that is becoming more equal. When men and women can both be seen as perpetrators/victims then we can all try and work towards eradicating intimate partner violence and child abuse.

Maybe talk to the good folk at Men's line and yes i know it is for perpetrators but they must be working on finding ways to support male victims.

 

[Optimax]

Want to be demonised? Try being a male teacher

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Do tell. I'd like this thread to be a place where you can unload freely and not have to worry about the stereotypes. Also to highlight the good that men and Dads do that is overlooked.

 

[jaxter600]

When you say that the good that men and dads does is overlooked - I can't help wonder by whom? As a feminist lesbian (I don't usually out myself on forums as people then pigeonhole my views) i think that dads are no less important than moms. Who honestly thinks you are less valued? Not me or anyone i know.

I think men who don't understand the privilege and joy of being an active participant in their kids lives ultimately lose (Cats in the cradle anyone). I have a dear friend who chose to rethink his career so he could b a more hands on parent (his daughter loves her daddy). I despair that workplaces struggle with making time for fathers to be dads, but i have the privilege of a male coworker who is adoring of and adored by his daughters and we juggle our workload to ensure both of us can be the best parents we are capable of.

It sounds (and forgive me if i am wrong) that you are coming from a place where you believe the stereotype of what your sons will live with or what society will label them with (trust me i understand stereotypes), i can only suggest ignore the noise and embrace the perception that men's violence is not your responsibility but silence is all of our responsibilities.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

That's not what I said.

I said I want to highlight the good they do that is overlooked.

While we're on the subject though; it's great that your circle of friends values men and fathers, and I'm glad that you and your male co-worker support each other in being available for your kids.

Having said all that, most Dads I know still only get one week of paid paternity leave, and if they split from their partners and there's a custody battle, will be lucky to see their kids outside of weekends. That's the value society places on fathers.

Furthermore, it shouldn't be assumed that just because fathers are more frequently the breadwinners and therefore have less hands-on involvement with their kids, that this is not a valuable role in parenting. Providing for your family is still something a person should be able to be proud of, and the "cats in the cradle" syndrome is not always simply due to being a disinterested father. We don't all have accommodating employers, ample lateral job mobility and a CV with x-factor! Sometimes you can only play the cards you're dealt.

 

[JB1975]

That's not what I said.

I said I want to highlight the good they do that is overlooked.

While we're on the subject though; it's great that your circle of friends values men and fathers, and I'm glad that you and your male co-worker support each other in being available for your kids.

Having said all that, most Dads I know still only get one week of paid paternity leave, and if they split from their partners and there's a custody battle, will be lucky to see their kids outside of weekends. That's the value society places on fathers.

Furthermore, it shouldn't be assumed that just because fathers are more frequently the breadwinners and therefore have less hands-on involvement with their kids, that this is not a valuable role in parenting. Providing for your family is still something a person should be able to be proud of, and the "cats in the cradle" syndrome is not always simply due to being a disinterested father. We don't all have accommodating employers, ample lateral job mobility and a CV with x-factor! Sometimes you can only play the cards you're dealt.

My understanding of custody figures is that fathers gain custody in around half of cases where custody is contested. Usually, though, fathers don't contest custody, and instead they let mothers assume primary care and then try and negotiate access arrangements. In such circumstances it makes sense that access will be confined to weekends, because the emotional minefield and logistical difficulties make it hard for all concerned (not least children, who have to be ferried from one house to another). The Family Court instituted a presumption of shared custody nearly a decade ago, which uses the presumption as a starting point in proceedings and tries to make an arrangement from there.

In such cases, the Family Court tries to arbitrate a settlement in the best interests of the child, while being caught between the emotional demands of two warring parents. Everyone has an anecdote about winners and losers, but I think it's fair to say that no one is really a 'winner' when we need to rely upon a court to settle our family disputes.

The evidence of schemes for parental/paternal leave are interesting, but one of the biggest problems seems to be that there isn't enough demand for them. Even where such schemes have existed or still exist (e.g. public sector), only negligible numbers of men have ever bothered to take them up. In other cases, there just hasn't been enough demand to bring them into existence in the first place. This is something that many women would undoubtedly support, and more fathers taking more care for their kids was something that many feminists have agitated for over the years, but men themselves just haven't been sufficiently interested in the cause. There are exceptions, but not enough to create a groundswell.

This is a shame, because I would say that there is a tension between parenting and earning money. Men are no longer 'the breadwinners'. This is a job they now share with women (even if their earnings are higher), and yet it seems that fathers are not sharing the burdens of parenting to the same extent that women are sharing the responsibilities of breadwinning. ABS (family time use survey) and other data supports this discrepancy. In relation to their families I would agree wholeheartedly with you in saying that men do have a valuable contribution to make, but this contribution need to extend beyond earning some money. And maybe fathers need to fight harder for the right to make this contribution? Maybe they need to take a leaf from the feminist movement, which was successful in fighting for workplace flexibility and child care in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and maybe fathers need to themselves agitate for a more flexible workplace and paternal leave.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It's an interesting scenario in line with the argument that men don't seek health care and don't talk about their problems; if the programs are actually designed with men in mind, men will be much more likely to access them.

On the recent birth of my third child I tried to access two weeks' paternity leave paid by the government at minimum wage, under the banner of "Dad and Partner Pay". Neither my employer or Centrelink had the slightest idea of what I was talking about, I had to speak to a million different people and in the end they still ****ed my pay up. You could argue that this ignorance is because not enough men are taking up the option, hence the processes are unfamiliar to everybody, but it seems a little too easy to me.

Even so, any extended period of paternity leave is only provided for in the event that the father is to be the primary caregiver. The vast majority of women having children are not going to be open to that, and we menfolk need their permission.

 

[JB1975]

It's an interesting scenario in line with the argument that men don't seek health care and don't talk about their problems; if the programs are actually designed with men in mind, men will be much more likely to access them.

On the recent birth of my third child I tried to access two weeks' paternity leave paid by the government at minimum wage, under the banner of "Dad and Partner Pay". Neither my employer or Centrelink had the slightest idea of what I was talking about, I had to speak to a million different people and in the end they still stuffed my pay up. You could argue that this ignorance is because not enough men are taking up the option, hence the processes are unfamiliar to everybody, but it seems a little too easy to me.

Even so, any extended period of paternity leave is only provided for in the event that the father is to be the primary caregiver. The vast majority of women having children are not going to be open to that, and we menfolk need their permission.

I'm not sure where you think the blame lies, in your specific case, but institutional ignorance and Centrelink incompetence is a force to be reckoned with.

Why aren't women going to be open to the prospect of men being the primary caregiver, at least for a temporary period? No doubt there are some women who would prefer to do it themselves, maybe some even jealously guard the privilege, but the overwhelming majority of couples I've known have preferred to share in the care of their children. Indeed, in most cases known to me the woman has wanted the father to take on more responsibility, either to return to work or to resume study. It has been a source of great anxiety and frustration that they've been expected to put their own careers on hold, which often sets them back in the longer-term in regards to opportunities and promotion.

Personally, I think that the expansion of parental leave schemes and more flexible work environments will only be achieved if men/fathers themselves push for them. Abbott was able to put up an ludicrously expensive paid parental leave scheme which was almost exclusively offered to women, and so the question might be: Why wasn't it offered to fathers as well? And another question, why wasn't there any or much protest from fathers about this inequity? Instead, the only note of protest about it came from women, such as Anne Summers and Annabel Crabb.

Until men show that they are willing and determined to take up more responsibility for the care of their children, I hardly think that the cultural and institutional obstacles are going to fall away in a hurry. Your attitude seems to be, 'Build it and they will come'. The world doesn't work that way. Instead, you need to shout, claw, bite, scratch and protest your way to change.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

It's a really interesting discussion. A book by Anne-Marie Slaughter (former top White House Aide) called something like "Having It All" talks about the issues that flow from a workplace culture that sees caring for your family as being not-dedicated, be it women or men.

I think there are lots of really valid points, but gotta say, I nearly didn't bother with this thread because I've had so many discussions online about how the current family violence focus is a feminist plot that unfairly blames men. It seems like a basic law of the internet that any article/discussion of violence against women will attract guys who try to derail that conversation by wanting to change the topic to violence against men.

Now, I'm not saying that's what you're doing here at all. I think you're talking about some really valid points like violence against men (violence is violence and is wrong) and societal pressures that harm men. I think half the trick with discussing these points is working out how to find space to make it something we can talk about AS WELL as violence against women, not instead of. And I think part of that is letting go of the idea that there is no systemic issues with how men as a group treat women.

Hope I've been clear. Not wanting to derail conversation, but that issue of how to get people to engage without getting at least half the people you want to reach out to offside from the get go.

 

[domus]

I've heard it before, men feeling victimised by the attention on domestic violence, as if men as a whole are being targeted. Thing is, as a man I feel that the only targets of such campaigns are (a) men who commit violence against women, and (b) men who think its okay to commit violence against women. I don't have any issue with campaigns designed to draw attention men's violence, and I certainly don't see as it an aspersion on me or my own son.

You seem to suggest that such campaigns have an agenda, beyond ending violence against women in the home. I probably shouldn't ask, but what do you think that agenda is?

I'd like you to explain a few things to me.

Rosie Batty says (repeatedly) that domestic violence is a gendered issue, meaning something men do to women and children. This was her mantra throughout her reign as Australian of the year. Given the fact that 52% of all child murders in the home were committed by mums in the past decade,(this figure was released by the ABS last year) how can she make this claim? Do children not count unless a male is the person doing the killing or abusing? All domestic violence campaigns present males as the sole perpetrators and women and children the victims. The ""we must protect our women and children" line is continually written and spoken by Family Violence campaigners, the media and government. How can they so deliberately misrepresent the truth of who is harming our children? When it comes to abuse and neglect of children , over 70% is carried out by women. The only area of child abuse which men perpetrate at a higher rate is sexual abuse.

I watched Rosie Batty give a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra only a few weeks after the mum in Cairns butchered eight kids with a knife. Batty made no reference to this act of mass murder-the worst in our history throughout her address yet during her speech she did cite the case of a man who killed his children many years ago as an example of toxic masculinity and entitlement. She referred to male privilege a number of times. Not one journalist in that packed room had the balls to ask her how male privilege or the patriarchy caused that mum to carve up eight kids. They were too busy grovelling at her feet.

Last year 19 men were murdered by their female partners. They are entirely invisible. They are of no importance in the eyes of Batty or the Andrew's Government. Last year Batty and Fiona Richardson (state Minister for Women and Family Violence) hosted a candlelight vigil at federation square to honour the women who had been victims of family violence.Not one male victim's name was read out.

Can you imagine the outcry if we approached the suicide scourge in the way we approach family violence "Australia says no to our men and boys killing themselves!" "We live in a society that hates men!" " Let's work together to make sure our boys and men get the mental health support they so desperately need!" The government announces 100 million dollars in funding to support men with mental health problems and the families of men who have taken their lives. Not one cent is given to female mental health support or their grieving families. When a grieving mother of a daughter who killed herself asks, "Don't girls matter?" she is dismissed with a sneer and told to stop trying to distract from the major focus which should be on men as they are the majority of victims. It sounds obscene and it would be, yet this is exactly how we tackle family violence.

Of the approximately 2500 Australians who kill themselves each year, over 2000 of them are men. No matter how often this issue has been discussed (and it isn't very often) it has never been referred to as a "gendered issue" despite the fact the overwhelming majority of victims are male. In fact , gender is rarely mentioned. We read about "Australians" and "young Australians" and suddenly statistics on who is most badly affected become irrelevant and unmentionable. Why?

Feminists push forward the stat that some 70 plus women were killed by men in DV incidents last year. This is not true. Nine of those included women killed by another woman and a number of the incidents were not domestic-they were carried out by strangers. It is clear there is an agenda to make things look as bleak as possible and to demonise men.

I have written letters to Batty-none of which were answered. Perhaps you could offer me an explanation for the invisibility of male and child victims of violent women. Surely someone who is genuinely concerned about victims of family violence cares about all of them regardless of their gender or the gender of their abuse


94% of those killed in the workplace are men. yet when the Victorian government began their work safety ads they used the term "Victorians in the workplace"-once again, a terrible problem which almost exclusively affects men is spoken and written about in entirely gender neutral terms. Why?

Why is family violence the only scourge which chooses to focus exclusively on one group of victims?

Clearly I could write pages on this issue. I look forward to a response.

 

[domus]

Sorry mate TLDR.

Stopped reading early. Men like women have "problems", unfortunately men are physically more powerful than women.
Because of this "imbalance" men are always going to be the aggressor, the power is easier. Obviously I'm not suggesting it's 100% this way but it's fuggen very high, therefore you address the biggest problem at the time, that's men.

Short & sweet.

This response demonstrates such a deeply flawed understanding of how abuse in a relationship occurs. It is this very attitude which leads to abused men remaining silent or living on the streets rather than report the abuse. I have a mate who stands around 6' tall , well muscled and tattooed. His petite female partner regularly hit him and he proudly said he never hit back. She plunged a kitchen knife into his back a few times and he nearly bled to death. He has the scars to show to this very day.

Much bigger men who have placid, gentle natures or a chivalric attitudes toward women are (ie-a man should never hit a woman, even in self defense) are absolute sitting ducks for an aggressive, dominating, abusive female partner. Have a look at this link and tell me women can't and don't beat up and inflict horrific and often fatal wounds on stronger male partners.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/th...m/news-story/248b519ae9f9a247906bd7ac2b9c824f

“They were coal miners, truck drivers, tough Australian blokes,” Lalor said.

“The majority cried talking about her and the abuse that she inflicted on them. She had a history of malevolence and a mental illness; borderline personality disorder.


I wrote an article on this subject a year or so ago. You may want to read it.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/the-myth-of-female-frailty/

 

[domus]

Programs directed at school children are often designed to address issues which might not yet personally concern them, but which one day might well concern them: bullying (cyber and otherwise), discrimination, drugs and alcohol etc. I have a son who has just started secondary school, and he's yet to be subject to information about domestic violence, but when/if he ever comes across such a program then I trust he will not take it personally. He'll hopefully accept it as reinforcing a message he's already been told many times: violence is not a legitimate form of self-expression.

The billboard you've used as an example is, to me, an interesting example of people's varied perception. You see that billboard and you feel that it's aimed at the broad category of 'Dads'. I see that billboard and I feel that it's aimed at fathers who commit violence in the home. It's actually a potentially offensive poster in another way, in the way that it signals that the bigger victim of such violence is the children who witness it, with the child prominent in the foreground and the woman all but invisible. Shouldn't the face of a wife, reeling in fear from his anger, be just as much of a wake-up call? In any case, as a father I don't feel impugned by the billboard, and nor should I. And nor should you.

As an aside, I do think that the campaigns against domestic violence are trying to enjoin men more broadly to condemn such violence. There's a feeling that men are too accepting of violence against women, and that perhaps they need to be more vocal in calling it out. But again, such a motive is hardly stigmatising the majority of men who don't engage in such behaviours, and it shouldn't be interpreted as such. I know that neither myself nor my son have any reason to feel guilty about who we are, and that guilt is only attached in these circumstances to violent actions and the consequences of them.

I can't speak to your personal experience. I think we're all shaped by our life histories in how we approach issues, and I know I am. In my immediate family, I am aware of three distinct examples of violence committed by men against women in the home. One of these examples stretched over decades, another involved frequent violence or the threat of it over a period of years, and the other was a more isolated incident. There was also violence against children, or the threat of it, which is something I experienced at the hands of males (plural, not singular) in my family. None of this was ever reported to authorities, and none of it will ever feature in anyone's statistics. But I suppose for me it has least brought a considerable amount of reflection about what is and what isn't acceptable. In my experience, at least, I've seen that men do have a disturbing capacity for violence, and I've seen most of it directed at the people they supposedly care the most about, and that lesson has been far more effective and long-lasting than the latest awareness campaigns.

It is beyond my understanding how any dad would not be deeply offended by the blatant bigotry of the billboard. If you saw a billboard saying "Black men of Australia-you are strong enough to stop abusing children" I have no doubt you would consider it racist and highly offensive. Would you tell an irate indigenous man that the billboard wasn't targeting him, just the bad black men?

The billboard is even more disgusting given the fact that the majority of murders of children in the family home during the past decade have been perpetrated by mothers! The ABS released the figures last year revealing 52% of perpetrators of child murder were mums. I'd also love to see how long a sustained campaign of billboards, tv ads and newspaper articles demanding that Australian mums stop killing their children or asking Aussie mums to swear an oath that they will not harm their babies would last. There would be street marches and outraged articles demanding that the gender bigotry and oppression of women end immediately.

I have had the opposite experience of violence among my Friends and relatives. My blind, elderly Uncle was kicked to death on a suburban street by a female junkie. My best mate was abused by his mum for years-she used to beat his penis regularly with a wooden spoon. Another mate was stabbed in the back(literally) by his wife...but only an ignorant person would extrapolate their personal experience to the broader world. It is very clear that their is an ideological agenda behind all of our family violence campaigns. It has resulted in women being granted hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and men not one cent.

http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/domestic-violence-and-the-demonization-of-men/?fb_ref=Default

 

[DAWESOME!!]

I'd like you to explain a few things to me.

Rosie Batty says (repeatedly) that domestic violence is a gendered issue, meaning something men do to women and children. This was her mantra throughout her reign as Australian of the year. Given the fact that 52% of all child murders in the home were committed by mums in the past decade,(this figure was released by the ABS last year) how can she make this claim? Do children not count unless a male is the person doing the killing or abusing? All domestic violence campaigns present males as the sole perpetrators and women and children the victims. The ""we must protect our women and children" line is continually written and spoken by Family Violence campaigners, the media and government. How can they so deliberately misrepresent the truth of who is harming our children? When it comes to abuse and neglect of children , over 70% is carried out by women. The only area of child abuse which men perpetrate at a higher rate is sexual abuse.

I watched Rosie Batty give a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra only a few weeks after the mum in Cairns butchered eight kids with a knife. Batty made no reference to this act of mass murder-the worst in our history throughout her address yet during her speech she did cite the case of a man who killed his children many years ago as an example of toxic masculinity and entitlement. She referred to male privilege a number of times. Not one journalist in that packed room had the balls to ask her how male privilege or the patriarchy caused that mum to carve up eight kids. They were too busy grovelling at her feet.

Last year 19 men were murdered by their female partners. They are entirely invisible. They are of no importance in the eyes of Batty or the Andrew's Government. Last year Batty and Fiona Richardson (state Minister for Women and Family Violence) hosted a candlelight vigil at federation square to honour the women who had been victims of family violence.Not one male victim's name was read out.

Can you imagine the outcry if we approached the suicide scourge in the way we approach family violence "Australia says no to our men and boys killing themselves!" "We live in a society that hates men!" " Let's work together to make sure our boys and men get the mental health support they so desperately need!" The government announces 100 million dollars in funding to support men with mental health problems and the families of men who have taken their lives. Not one cent is given to female mental health support or their grieving families. When a grieving mother of a daughter who killed herself asks, "Don't girls matter?" she is dismissed with a sneer and told to stop trying to distract from the major focus which should be on men as they are the majority of victims. It sounds obscene and it would be, yet this is exactly how we tackle family violence.

Of the approximately 2500 Australians who kill themselves each year, over 2000 of them are men. No matter how often this issue has been discussed (and it isn't very often) it has never been referred to as a "gendered issue" despite the fact the overwhelming majority of victims are male. In fact , gender is rarely mentioned. We read about "Australians" and "young Australians" and suddenly statistics on who is most badly affected become irrelevant and unmentionable. Why?

Feminists push forward the stat that some 70 plus women were killed by men in DV incidents last year. This is not true. Nine of those included women killed by another woman and a number of the incidents were not domestic-they were carried out by strangers. It is clear there is an agenda to make things look as bleak as possible and to demonise men.

I have written letters to Batty-none of which were answered. Perhaps you could offer me an explanation for the invisibility of male and child victims of violent women. Surely someone who is genuinely concerned about victims of family violence cares about all of them regardless of their gender or the gender of their abuse


94% of those killed in the workplace are men. yet when the Victorian government began their work safety ads they used the term "Victorians in the workplace"-once again, a terrible problem which almost exclusively affects men is spoken and written about in entirely gender neutral terms. Why?

Why is family violence the only scourge which chooses to focus exclusively on one group of victims?

Clearly I could write pages on this issue. I look forward to a response.

Yeah, you go after that hard target Rosie Batty. Obviously she's just using the brutal murder of her son to propagate a misandrist agenda for... vague reasons.

If you've got a link or actual reference to the 52% of child murders are committed by women statistic, happy to have a look at it. But the stark reality is that the vast majority of physical and sexual violence in society, be it against family members, intimate partners or strangers, male or female, is committed by men.

Violence against men (which is overwhelmingly committed by other men), and violence against men and children by women (which I acknowledge definitely does occur) are important topics for discussion, but any suggestion that talking about male violence to women and children is unwarranted or unfair because those issues exist is just wrong. So wrong that it's hard for me to see how someone genuinely concerned about these problems could argue that.

 

[domus]

Yeah, you go after that hard target Rosie Batty. Obviously she's just using the brutal murder of her son to propagate a misandrist agenda for... vague reasons.

If you've got a link or actual reference to the 52% of child murders are committed by women statistic, happy to have a look at it. But the stark reality is that the vast majority of physical and sexual violence in society, be it against family members, intimate partners or strangers, male or female, is committed by men.

Violence against men (which is overwhelmingly committed by other men), and violence against men and children by women (which I acknowledge definitely does occur) are important topics for discussion, but any suggestion that talking about male violence to women and children is unwarranted or unfair because those issues exist is just wrong. So wrong that it's hard for me to see how someone genuinely concerned about these problems could argue that.

Incredible. You have just applied the very logic I used to question the approach of Batty and countless others to this issue and attempted to turn it back on me. I said I am staggered that anyone with a genuine compassion for all victims could ignore or deny the existence of a group of people who suffer abuse and harm in the home. I supplied you with the facts to demonstrate that women are indeed major perpetrators of violence n the home. At no point did I suggest we not give compassion and support to female victims yet you now tell me I am not genuinely concerned about the problem of family violence because I am wanting to see all victims helped rather than a just one specific group.

You said violence against men and children is an important topic for discussion-but clearly no-one in the Family Violence business agrees with you! it is never discussed or focused upon and that is why I am writing this now! Do you understand how damaging it is for kids and men who are victims of violent females to have their stories believed? The media and government never speak about them-they don't exist.What must a kid being battered by his mum on a regular basis make of the ads and posters featuring dads and men on every occasion they are used?

Here's a link.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ers-report-finds/story-fni0fit3-1227337781064
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ers-report-finds/story-fni0fit3-1227337781064
I note that you could not provide me with one direct response to any of the questions I raised-you just chose to suggest I have an evil vendetta against Rosie Batty. That's what I have come to expect. How about telling me why my analogy of suicide is flawed or irrelevant. perhaps you could provide a coherent explanation for the absence of any comment by Batty on the murder of eight kids by a mum only a few weeks before her speech on Family Violence.

 

[JB1975]

Incredible. You have just applied the very logic I used to question the approach of Batty and countless others to this issue and attempted to turn it back on me. I said I am staggered that anyone with a genuine compassion for all victims could ignore or deny the existence of a group of people who suffer abuse and harm in the home. I supplied you with the facts to demonstrate that women are indeed major perpetrators of violence n the home. At no point did I suggest we not give compassion and support to female victims yet you now tell me I am not genuinely concerned about the problem of family violence because I am wanting to see all victims helped rather than a just one specific group.

You said violence against men and children is an important topic for discussion-but clearly no-one in the Family Violence business agrees with you! it is never discussed or focused upon and that is why I am writing this now! Do you understand how damaging it is for kids and men who are victims of violent females to have their stories believed? The media and government never speak about them-they don't exist.What must a kid being battered by his mum on a regular basis make of the ads and posters featuring dads and men on every occasion they are used?

Here's a link.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ers-report-finds/story-fni0fit3-1227337781064
I note that you could not provide me with one direct response to any of the questions I raised-you just chose to suggest I have an evil vendetta against Rosie Batty. That's what I have come to expect. How about telling me why my analogy of suicide is flawed or irrelevant. perhaps you could provide a coherent explanation for the absence of any comment by Batty on the murder of eight kids by a mum only a few weeks before her speech on Family Violence.

We've exchanged views on all of these issues before, in a different thread on another board. We went back and forth for quite a while, so many words. None of your words changed the way I think about these issues, and similarly nothing of what I wrote changed your mind. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't be able to ask questions and post your thoughts, but for myself I don't see the point in producing another few volumes of my irrelevant views just so that we can end up right in the place where we began.

Your campaign against Rosie Batty is a new element, and I'll quickly give a view on it. I find it disturbing. Rosie Batty does indeed express notions of gendered violence, but these notions are hardly new. They've been a part of feminist discourse for at least four decades, and Batty has simply plugged into that perspective as a way of understanding her own experience and pain. There are thousands of feminists (male and female alike) and many thousands of academics and social scientists who have similarly expressed the same idea of domestic violence as an issue of gender and power, and yet you choose to launch a letter campaign against a woman whose son was butchered by her control-freak of an ex-husband? I cannot fathom that sort of callousness, and I won't engage with it any more.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

We have indigenous round, women's round.........

When are we going to have white male hetrosexual round!!

 

[jaxter600]

On the day after the Royal commission findings are handed down perhaps everyone needs to go and have a read. It even talks about the lack of services to male victims and gives the most accurate and up to date data on Intimate Partner Homicide. here's the link for those of you who haven't looked at it yet.

http://www.rcfv.com.au/

227 recommendations I don't know when I'll find the time to read it all.......

 

[JB1975]

On the day after the Royal commission findings are handed down perhaps everyone needs to go and have a read. It even talks about the lack of services to male victims and gives the most accurate and up to date data on Intimate Partner Homicide. here's the link for those of you who haven't looked at it yet.

http://www.rcfv.com.au/

227 recommendations I don't know when I'll find the time to read it all.......

A mere 2,082 pages...skim through it in a day!

Thanks for the link.

 

[jaxter600]

i know huh! my best advice download it if you can then you can use pdf search to find the relevant sections. I expect shortly we'll get an abridged version (which whenever i say the word abridged i hear this I don't think that link worked copy and paste people.

 

[JB1975]

i know huh! my best advice download it if you can then you can use pdf search to find the relevant sections. I expect shortly we'll get an abridged version (which whenever i say the word abridged i hear this I don't think that link worked copy and paste people.

Yep, plenty of juicy fragments in there for someone to rip out, blow up and sell as the 'real' story. It's a shame the report can't force readers to grapple with the notion of 'gender' before they pick the eyes out of some of those stats...

I've just spent the last 30mins skimming through it, thanks for sabotaging my productivity!

 

[jaxter600]

Hey what productivity I'm still trying to work out what it all will mean for the Homelessness services I work for (and as a side note the clients we provide a service to - although why worry about them - tongue in cheek emoji!!!)

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I agree with a great many of your points, Domus, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree writing to Rosie Batty. Fiona Richardson would have been the more appropriate contact, especially as she's paid to do the job in question.