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

[JB1975]

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!!!)

I did read a section which suggested that women of Middle-Eastern origin are in particular need of shelter in the face of domestic violence, lack of support networks etc. I'd point out/link the location within the report, but as I say you've decimated my production and it seems only fair that I make you do some hard yards...

 

[JB1975]

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

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

Phew, this thread need more indignation!

 

[The Royal Sampler]

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.

I was referring to paid paternity leave on the birth of a child, not men taking extended unpaid leave from employment when the mother of the child decides she'd like to return to work or study. No doubt many mothers would like to have their husbands at home managing the kids when it suits them to do so.

 

[JB1975]

I was referring to paid paternity leave on the birth of a child, not men taking extended unpaid leave from employment when the mother of the child decides she'd like to return to work or study. No doubt many mothers would like to have their husbands at home managing the kids when it suits them to do so.

More paternity leave and more flexible working arrangements so that men can do more parenting would certainly be a worthwhile cause. I hope you take up the cause.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

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

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

Every round is children's day... I mean white male heterosexual round!

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Every round is children's day... I mean white male heterosexual round!

 

[domus]

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.

This is why Rosie Batty has been untouchable . Your reaction sums it up. What you are saying is that any public figure who experiences a personal tragedy in their lives, but continues in their public role, which includes influencing laws and deciding where hundreds of millions of dollars will go, should be entirely beyond questioning or criticism. That is patently ridiculous.

I also take offense at the suggestion that because I strongly disagree with Batty's approach to family violence that I have not expressed by deep sympathy and compassion to her for the loss of her son (I have). What you have done is in pathetic. it is a way of shutting down a debate and trying to occupy a moral high ground built on sand.

Wow-I chose to write a letter to the woman who has been the face of family violence in Australia, and who was on the advisory board for the Royal Commission into family violence and influencing the outcomes of the findings. This woman was made Australian of the Year for her stance on Family Violence. What an obscure choice of target for my questioning letter. I can't think why I targeted the woman who spoke on the issue almost every day and was in our papers and magazines every week spreading the bigoted mantra that DV is a gendered issue.

And if you want to question my compassion I would like to ask how Batty, after losing her son to family violence could so coldly and deliberately turn her back on men who have experienced the same shocking loss at the hands of their female partners.

Your only defense of her bigoted approach is to say lots of others are bigoted too!

Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]

 

[JB1975]

This is why Rosie Batty has been untouchable . Your reaction sums it up. What you are saying is that any public figure who experiences a personal tragedy in their lives, but continues in their public role, which includes influencing laws and deciding where hundreds of millions of dollars will go, should be entirely beyond questioning or criticism. That is patently ridiculous.

I also take offense at the suggestion that because I strongly disagree with Batty's approach to family violence that I have not expressed by deep sympathy and compassion to her for the loss of her son (I have). What you have done is in pathetic. it is a way of shutting down a debate and trying to occupy a moral high ground built on sand.

Wow-I chose to write a letter to the woman who has been the face of family violence in Australia, and who was on the advisory board for the Royal Commission into family violence and influencing the outcomes of the findings. This woman was made Australian of the Year for her stance on Family Violence. What an obscure choice of target for my questioning letter. I can't think why I targeted the woman who spoke on the issue almost every day and was in our papers and magazines every week spreading the bigoted mantra that DV is a gendered issue.

And if you want to question my compassion I would like to ask how Batty, after losing her son to family violence could so coldly and deliberately turn her back on men who have experienced the same shocking loss at the hands of their female partners.

Your only defense of her bigoted approach is to say lots of others are bigoted too!

Have a nice day.

[/QUOTE]

I'll say it again. The notion of domestic violence as a gendered issue has been around since the 1970s. Many thousands of people have framed domestic violence as a gendered issue, and it is this understanding of domestic violence which has helped Rosie Batty to understand and deal with the horrible murder of her son. But instead of querying those thousands of other people, many of whom are very much in the public domain, you decide to launch a letter campaign against a woman whose son was butchered by her controlling ex-husband. I suspect that I strongly disagree with most of what you might have to say, but it is your targeting of Batty which I find especially repugnant.

The thing is, the construction of domestic violence as simply a gendered issue is worthy of some critique, but the vitriol which gets directed at people like Batty (and I include that petty MP last year who refused to stand in parliament when Batty addressed it...Graham Watt) does nothing but confirm people in their pre-existing views.

Nice day to you, too. Don't come again.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

domus - was going to reply properly, but see the conversation has moved on a bit, including your responses to JB1975. I've seen your views, I've seen his responses. His views very closely align with mine, particularly in terms of your issues with Rosie Batty.

I don't think it would do either of us any good, nor anyone else reading this thread, to write further essay length posts back and forth on this. Up for a discussion around what we can do to better assist male victims of violence.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Up for a discussion around what we can do to better assist male victims of violence.

Well for one thing we need to make male victims visible. There was a front page collage on the Herald Sun today, timed with the Royal Commission findings. Seven female victims and Luke Batty. If we are making any effort to be representative there should be a couple of adult males on there. Give the vague impression that their loss is important.

 

[JB1975]

Well for one thing we need to make male victims visible. There was a front page collage on the Herald Sun today, timed with the Royal Commission findings. Seven female victims and Luke Batty. If we are making any effort to be representative there should be a couple of adult males on there. Give the vague impression that their loss is important.

There are some good sections in the Royal Commission report, TRS, well worth a look. There's something there for all ideological persuasions, and it might be hoped that the findings aren't used in a cynical way, but the report is sensitive to the presence of male victims.

For what it's worth, I've read through a few royal commissions in my time, and I've seen the way that their findings have subsequently been misrepresented by media. No surprise there! But media distortion shouldn't be allowed to hide the value of an important and rather rare fact-finding mission.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Yeah, it is the Herald Sun. Nuance and complexity ain't their thing. Half of their coverage seemed to be moaning about there not being a recommendation for tougher sentencing and sniping at Daniel Andrews about how he'd pay for the recommendations - including a swipe about the "skyrail" thing.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The Herald Sun today was just an example, of course, of how male victims are invisible in the narrative of domestic violence. This results in men who won't come forward, and a lack of resources for those who do.

I hadn't heard about Rosie Batty and the reading out of victims' names, but that would be another example. That is an horrendous oversight, although I'd like to allow myself to imagine it an honest mistake.

I'm relieved that the Royal Commission findings devote some time to male victims, but not naïve enough to think that the average person will read them.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

It will be interesting to see what the "blitz" on housing translates into. Some of the financial hardship measures proposed would, you would imagine surely be gender-neutral. If they can fix those and the housing, that starts to make practical differences to people otherwise trapped in an abusive situation.

 

[jaxter600]

the fixing the housing issue is a big one for mine. I have worked with non-custodial dads (and yes this includes perpetrators of violence) to get them into housing appropriate to have their children with them but the wait can be too long for some and makes it hard to maintain those critical parental relationships. Our crisis systems are overflowing and the overflow options are not family appropriate. I would like to see the brokerage models extended to perpetrators of violence and this is talked about in the report.

But as ever from a long time cynical worker in the community services sector I'll believe it when I see it.....

 

[domus]

I'll say it again. The notion of domestic violence as a gendered issue has been around since the 1970s. Many thousands of people have framed domestic violence as a gendered issue, and it is this understanding of domestic violence which has helped Rosie Batty to understand and deal with the horrible murder of her son. But instead of querying those thousands of other people, many of whom are very much in the public domain, you decide to launch a letter campaign against a woman whose son was butchered by her controlling ex-husband. I suspect that I strongly disagree with most of what you might have to say, but it is your targeting of Batty which I find especially repugnant.

The thing is, the construction of domestic violence as simply a gendered issue is worthy of some critique, but the vitriol which gets directed at people like Batty (and I include that petty MP last year who refused to stand in parliament when Batty addressed it...Graham Watt) does nothing but confirm people in their pre-existing views.

Nice day to you, too. Don't come again.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean this gendered violence issue has helped Rosie to understand and deal with the horrible murder of her son? Eight kids were murdered by a mum only a few months after she lost her son.. Another three were drowned by their mum. Why didn't Rosie speak of these heinous incidents and extend her compassion and empathy to the fathers and siblings of these children? What's to understand? Do dads feel less grief and anguish than mums when their children are killed?You accuse me of insensitivity but I care about all victims of family violence. It is Rosie and her peers who are selective in their compassion.

Graham Watt refused to stand because of his personal experience of abuse -I assume by a female. He made this inference after the event What gives you the right to call what he did , petty? What he did took great courage for he knew he'd receive the kind of response you are dishing up now. You are also making light of his personal suffering -a tad hypocritical given what you have written to me. This deification of Rosie Batty is nauseating and to use her tragic loss as some sort of shield from criticism when she is a public figure influencing laws which will affect countless people is contemptible. Moral blackmail one might call it.. Public figures endure personal tragedy all of the time but that doesn't suddenly make them untouchable or unaccountable for the decisions they make and words they speak.

I repeat, my compassion for Rosie Batty's loss has been expressed personally in my correspondence with her and I have made it clear that it is a very separate issue to her political/public statements on family violence.

Good evening.

 

[JB1975]

The Herald Sun today was just an example, of course, of how male victims are invisible in the narrative of domestic violence. This results in men who won't come forward, and a lack of resources for those who do.

I hadn't heard about Rosie Batty and the reading out of victims' names, but that would be another example. That is an horrendous oversight, although I'd like to allow myself to imagine it an honest mistake.

I'm relieved that the Royal Commission findings devote some time to male victims, but not naïve enough to think that the average person will read them.

Change doesn't start with the average person. The average person doesn't care about most issues unless those issues directly concern them and their own lives. Change starts from a committed few, who then find ways to convince a few more that their cause is just and worthy, and so and so on.

I've spent far too much time reading through the Royal Commission report today, and I can assure you that it contains dispassionate evidence about male victims (and female perpetrators), and about some of the issues which surround male victims. As long as a campaign finds a less confrontational way to draw attention to the cause (something more than 'Look! Women do it too!'), then the report can be a meaningful vehicle for all sorts of change.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Change doesn't start with the average person. The average person doesn't care about most issues unless those issues directly concern them and their own lives. Change starts from a committed few, who then find ways to convince a few more that their cause is just and worthy, and so and so on.

I agree, I'm pointing out that the Royal Commission findings are, at best, a starting point.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

"And a dangerous offenders register - which would list perpetrators with a history of family violence and which would be available to police and women - is likely to be put to cabinet this year, the Herald Sun has learned. This is despite the proposal not being recommended by the Royal Commission into Family Violence."

*sigh* I hope this is selective reporting rather than selective protection offered to potential victims.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

While having to be careful with what I say; this recent toddler death in Melbourne stinks to high heaven.

The mother, a 22-year-old, was followed through a park but then decided to sit down on a park bench with her daughter between trees near an area of heavy bushland.

She was then pushed to the ground, in which time a shoeless, possibly alcoholic man abducted her 15-month-old child and ran off with her. She pursued for a short time then gave up, despite the fact she was a 22-year old and her daughter's life was clearly threatened, and the abductor had no shoes and was carrying a child.

She then picked up the pram and wheeled it back to her brother's house before alerting authorities.

Seriously; questions to be asked...

1. Why did you sit down in a secluded area if you thought you were being followed?
2. How did this person following you still manage to surprise you and push you to the ground?
3. How long did you spend on the ground after being pushed?
4. How come you couldn't keep up with a drunk, shoeless man carrying a 15-month-old?
5. Do you own a mobile phone?
6. Why did you pick up the pram on the way back after your (alleged) chase?

My bet is this woman knows exactly who took her daughter, if in fact anyone did.

 

[mattys123]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces I've ever seen, calling for parents to stop taking their daughters to games.

I don't get it;

http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-an...ughter-to-be-a-footy-fan-20160409-go2e5d.html

With the greatest respect to all my football-loving friends — and especially those who used this opportunity to compliment my parenting — football is the ultimate in boys' games.

And no, I don't mean that in the obvious sense that it's played predominantly by men. I mean it in the less flattering sense that it's the pinnacle of Australia's glorification of all things male, whether deserved or not.

And from where I'm standing, it's mostly undeserved.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I can see where she's coming from in terms of the lack of money in the women's leagues... but what if her daughter just wants to play because she enjoys it?

And, in all sincerity, is there a sport in which the females are considered the equal of males? I cannot recall an elite level sport other than horse racing and perhaps NASCAR in which males and females compete in the same category. Mixed doubles tennis at a stretch. Why is AFL the exception that demands her daughter's abstinence?

 

[sirlothie]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces I've ever seen, calling for parents to stop taking their daughters to games.

I don't get it;

http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-an...ughter-to-be-a-footy-fan-20160409-go2e5d.html

Lol Daily Life has Clementine Ford on the payroll, says it all really. She is the most bigoted, man hating troll in all of cyberspace.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Lol Daily Life has Clementine Ford on the payroll, says it all really.She is the most bigoted, man hating troll in all of cyberspace.

I don't know about that. Have you seen the tweets she regularly has sent to her? So many death and rape threats.

 

[sirlothie]

I don't know about that. Have you seen the tweets she regularly has sent to her? So many death and rape threats.

Read her twitter feed and you will see why. She gives as good as she gets. She is banned from facebook.