NO IT IS NOT BETTER!!

You like many others have been brainwashed with a wall of feminist propaganda and that is the point of Mels post. I suggest you read it again.

This is not just happening in Kalgoorlie or even just in the westernised countries. Its a big problem in Africa and Asia as well but the truth is being swamped by the feminists.

For men there are no refuges, there's nobody to turn to, there's no understanding and theres no support. Just ,'oh well its better than the other way round, lets change the subject'

You live on the edge, going home at night wanting to see your kids and the women you love but you never know when she will turn. You defend, defend, defend and the more reasonable you are the worse it gets. The torture never stops. You keep trying until you get arrested (maybe for bruising her arms as you tried to restrain her from stabbing you) or until you die or until you walk away: and then you are accused of deserting your family.

Yet when a case does make the news its followed by a deluge of feminist propaganda.

Statistics on husband beating are hard to come by for many obvious reasons but all surveys agree that women are getting more violent.

Here are some old figures from a study in 1999 from the USA to get you thinking

Women are three times more likely than men to use weapons in spousal violence.
Women initiate most incidents of spousal violence.
Women commit most child abuse and most elder abuse.
Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than they hit their female children.
Women commit most child murders and 64% of their victims are male children.
When women murder adults the majority of their victims are men.
Women commit 52% of spousal killings and are convicted of 41% of spousal murders.
Eighty two percent of people have their first experience of violence at the hands of women.

If you want to see where they got these figures from the full article is here. It is well worth a read

http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13q.htm

Accurate figures are hard to come by, but accounts from men can be found on the net. Here's a short one,

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-face-men-abused-women-574311.html

I particularily liked the last paragraph so I will end this rant with it and yes you have touched a nerve.

"Men's hearts and feelings are like women's hearts and feelings. They feel the same. It doesn't matter if that heart is covered with muscles or breasts, the pain cuts deeply and the losses crowd in. And it doesn't matter if the world thinks men don't feel. You still hurt."

It's not refuse to do it, it's cannot do it. Clearly you have never been pushed hard enough to find that out. I cannot hit a women like many other men and when the woman realises this...

And to try to compare verbal abuse from a coworker with physical violence from the one you love and married and had children with is contemptable.

Its the sexists who are covering up the scale of the abuse.

Facepalm.

If the abuse happened mostly out in the open where everyone could see it, I might agree with you. The problem is that that only ever happens when the abuser gets confident enough to think they can get away with anything. Otherwise, what usually happens is authorities look at a large man reporting a petite woman abusing him, and they think it's totally ridiculous. He could snap her in half. They don't realize that the reason he doesn't is that he knows that he could, and doing so would open up a whole new can of worms.

I have no desire to argue with you because it is clear that you like so many people, know little about this. Please read all of the above and read more if you are really interested.

The feminist movement is incredibly well organised and powerful hence the USA had the Violence Against Women Act!!!!

I note that you are still using 'could', maybe you believe that you could strike your beloved in retaliation. I sincerely hope you never have to find out. I like many other men find out that we CANNOT.

(However I would have no qualms about seeing you outside if it were to come to that ) Do you get it now?

No. The OP is primarily describing the double standard regarding violence committed by women against men vs violence committed by men against women. That double standard is sexism.

There are cultures where it is not only acceptable for a man to physically abuse his wife, it is almost considered his duty to do so. I'd like to see that addressed more strongly by the authorities.

Men must be keeping quiet about all this abuse against them, because I have rarely heard about it. I've seen it happen once though, a woman violently attacking a man in the car in front of mine, while they were driving. With a child in the back seat. That was very disturbing. Mostly I've seen and heard about the results of violence by men against women.

My brother's girlfriend was a tough little woman, who would punch and kick him for being insulting and obnoxious towards her. He told me that he would laugh at her and pretend it didn't hurt and encourage her to hit him harder, but later he'd have bruises. Funny how my whole family though it was great that she didn't take any cr@p from him, but if the shoe were on the other foot.....

So are you implying that; collectively; men should just continue to take manipulative kinds of abuse and suffer for things they've never did?  Sad to say, a "nice guy" can be depicted as a "monster" should he get involved with the wrong character.

I think the point you made of implying that women (collectively) will see their wrong and change the ways men are treated simply won't happen.  We know that people can be ruthless and heartless and being meek or lying low about it won't get such characters to change their minds; if anything it will only embolden them.  Some people are just ruthless and heartless; and the "wolf-in-sheepskin" image is even more dangerous than the character who looks "dangerous", "creepy", "off", etc.

I've been witness in some ways, shapes or forms to both real cases of abuse and false claims of abuse.  The real claims of abuse aren't pretty.  If anything this should make cases regarding false claims abuse that much more worthy of punishment.  If you think about it; this is just another variation of bullying; in this case, an extreme brand.

Pretty much.
The changes in society that have allowed this have been hard won by women. Many women who have gained the benefits of feminism have not been the ones who have laid the groundwork.
Feminism OUGHT to exist. The idea of equality in the genders and in relationships and in the workforce are not bad things and the societal changes that have bought about these things are not wrong.
Like an employer finding loopholes to discriminate against disabled people or police finding ways to subvert the judical system or anything similar. The fact that there are ways for people to screw others over is not an indication of anything but moral corruption within the individual.
The feminist movement was a good thing and was driven by women. They ought to recieve the benefits and rightly so. They also ought to be able to attend the areas where their changes to society over shoot the mark.
I have faith that they will see their male friends and male family members suffer from such manipulation from women misusing the system they helped develop and seek to address it. Men being an active part of the process will give all the wrong messages and I think that this is simply unhelpful at best and at worse destructive.

I don't have time to analyze everything you said.  But I will say that this is not about equality.  Equality is about applying justice with equal standards.  When I think about this subject, it's about as good as school bullies being ignored and overlooked; and punishing the victim; when the victim tries to protect and defend himself.

Female or male; a person should not have to suffer abuse in silence and be too afraid to seek help when he/she needs it.  As I think of this subject, I've had at least one male friend and at least one female friend who have been victims of abuse by their past partners.  It is not by any means easy to escape the clutches of an abusive partner and escape can come with a tremendous cost and sometimes luck; or a combination of both.

The principle you seem to promote is "guilty until proven innocent".  Well in "he said-she said" situations; and taking credibility to that; things can get pretty ugly.  I beleive it is you who was involved with the "succubus".  That is very unfortunate.  But it is not right you should have to suffer because she decides to do/say what she does/says.

I've been in relationships whetre I was "walking on eggs" all the time.  It is not good or healthy.  I was just lucky I was able to get out of them the way I did.  My second wife had even slapped me in the face a couple of times.  If I had done the same to her, in the same manner (i.e. "kidding around" or "roughing up" in situatyions where I didn't automatically get my way) that would constitute abuse.  The fact that I was slapped made things even more troubling in a troubled relationship.  Over time, I know things would have gotten alot worse; given that this sort of thing (the physical stuff starting of lightly and infrequently) grows more pronounced over time.  Before she left, she suddenly became extra nice to me because she was getting deported; but that's the only reaon she made a sudden change from being generally plain nasty to being artificially sweet (a$$-kissing, over agffectionate, etc.).  I am grateful she is gone and that I don't have to live in fear because of her.

It doesn't at all does it? I mean you are not being at all serious when you suggest this are you?

It is no surprise to you (being a rational person with an articlate way of writing that) that society is comprised of men and women of their time. We are not going to pretend for a second are we, that the society we live in is that of a third world country nor of a different era to the era we exist, nor are we going to pretend that the social mores of such a time and a place will be embedded into the social consciousness of today? No? Good.

So what are the social mores and current social discourse.

Is it that men and women ought to actively given equal rights? Regardless of whether you personally believe this is happening would you contest the fact that society is set up for such a societal value?

Is it set up to make sure that men are not financially taking advnatage of women and that women are not chattels as they were in times gone past? These types of assertions would be absurb and I really think this kind of society is not the society we live in.

Isn't it also true to say that the society that we currently live in strives with legislature and communal values to fairly dispense such values and hold them true to their hearts?

If we agree to this then we are not going to say "Oh but men in that culture will tend towards a bias out of touch of the dsocietal values because they are men and if the legislative and judical bodies have men or even a majority of men then they would surely do away with the social mores and favour their own gender."

That would be both bigotted and stupid and completely unreasonable and i know this is not what you meant, because no doubt you are none of these things.

So that said.....of course men will be screwed over in court from time to time using the existing frameworks in place which OFTEN favour women. Why? Because men are happy to condemn men. Women are happy to condemn men. If a woman suggests falsely that through a relationship a man was voilent, she does not nee to prove it. The accusation need only be thrown out there and the men presiding over proceedings will think "What a weak *** not showing the self-restraint that I was taught and not having the reserve to keep in check his anger towards a physically weaker woman. I will treat him like the animal he is".

A woman presiding over him may think "Thank God this poor woman is now in court and was not 40 years ago when bastards like him will get away with voilence towards women. Here he will see a woman stand up to him. I will throw the book at the animal"

You know why this is? Because men and women are part of the same society so I am looking for the credibility being stretched and do not see it in

Now here is a quick one for you. What if the man was never voilent? What if the female partner merely wanted to make the male partner look bad? What if she was after a favourable decision for her and was hurt about the marital dissolution and wanted to give herself the best result and punish the male.

As incredible as you may find the suggestion i have known many cases where poor parenting, voilent tempers, emotional abuse and worse have been used against good men by women and with no substantiation. You know many men such as myself cop a rather nasty hit on the divorce and scramble for many years because of it and at least one of my friends found it too hard and only now realises that his dreams and hopes that after being cut off from kids and finally giving up and not taking this to court again for access rights, that he no longer knows his kids and no they will no longer have him in their live or ever come to be or live with him. His boat sailed.

So by alll means i fully agree with you that the system ought not be compromised to penalise the rights of women in cases of abuse. But to say that you find it a stretch of credibility that men are in any way disadvnatged by women manipulating the court sysyem through judges (male and female) is both stupid, insincere and insulting.

I don't think you believe it because i think you smarter than that and i think that insinuating it in this discussion is a tad obscene. I do not know your reasons for bringing it up in the first place.

I will try to answer this because it would appear that many others do not understand this thread either.

Its about reverse sexism.

Womens rights movements have made great progress in gaining equality for women in many areas and long may they continue.
But in the debate on domestic violence the feminists have gone way too far.

They have grown strong and influential over the years so all we hear now is governments pledging extra funds and stricter laws for female victims of domestic violence. There are constant calls for more refuges for women and we hear horrendous statistics like, every 15 secs a women is a victim of DV in the US.

I think that men who assault women are scum and they deserve everything they get BUT it is not a one way street.

In fact all recent studies indicate that women are approaching equality in the instigation of DV as well.

When a women walks into work with a black eye and says that her husband did it, its all sympathy and you're safe now. you must call the police.
And I fully agree with that.

When a man walks into work with a black eye and says that his wife did it, it's jokes about wimps and whether she closed her legs too fast. Well OK most men can take that but its the knowledge that many will be believing the feminist propaganda that he must have done something to deserve it that stops these crimes from being reported.

And if you do go to the police the victim often ends up as the accused. And on the rare occassion that a women does get convicted of DV they can still end up with custody of the kids.
Can you imagine that happening the other way round?

So you get beaten frequently, you get a criminal record, you lose contact with your children but at least you get to keep paying the maintainence.

There are some accounts here

http://www.batteredmen.com/gjdvstor.htm

I am certainly not advocating for less rights for women - just equal rights for men.

Its a long time since I went to school so I hadn't even heard of girls in the playground 'ball tapping' and we are not talking soccer.
When boys do it it's bullying but a growing number of girls are doing it and by and large getting away with it.
They will soon be wives and mums.
But if a boy touches a schoolgirls breasts they will likely be labeled as a sex offender and ruin the rest of their life.

Young girls are learning from a young age that they can play the  system and it will always back them up.

Please take the time to learn the true facts about domestic violence and don't just swallow the feminist propaganda.

You could start with Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Violence Reporting:

http://www.mediaradar.org/index.php

It was where I learnt about 'ball tapping/kicking' and there are many other revelations about how the truth about DV is being suppressed and distorted.

Sexism sucks and its rife in the world of domestic violence.

LOL-- wantt to bet if the OP did that, not as many people would have posted ?The way it was posted meant the OP was impassioned about this - (Which made me interested enough to read AND post a reply)

My opinion anyway. (and the thread title sexism ... was pretty simple)

Couldn't she say "Reverse Sexism Sucks" instead? Or is that still not attention worthy?

Oh....

Well I read this a little more thoughly and I have to say I find your views biased and insulting and repulsive.
They are an absolute affront. You would do well to not discuss so glibly even a hypothetical sexual assault of my daughter if you seek to try to make a point even if you are trying to make it vehemently. You debase yourself by trying.

But let's look at the rest of what you said just to be reasonable.

Now from the outset i have strongly advocated that the measures in place and the system as poor as it is, does protect womens rights and ought to be. You read me saying this and my wish for the system not to be altered for the fear that it will diminish women's right which ought to be protected. So trying to bully me into a position using my daughter and the fatherly love I have of my daughter is a little obscene, right?

Furthermore you cite that men do not know the demale experience because of their gender. You of course do know the experience of both men and women because of your gender. Correct? I mean to take this platform and this discourse you are well broached on both. No? Would that make you both a bigot and a hypocrite for suggesting such IF this were actually the case?

Corner cases? What is it you mean by this exactly? You mean it is isolated cases of no overall importance? Is that a way of saying in shorthand that when or if it happens it is of no value or worthy of consideration? Imagine if the same were said of any similar situation.

"People getting refused an interview because of their disability. A corner case. Why? Well how often do you actually hear of them taking it to court?".
"Blacks getting harassed by police. A corner case. Why? Well how often do you actually hear of them taking action?".
"Gays getting bullied and bashed. A corner case. Why? How often is it in the papers?"

You want me to keep going or would you like to have a second look at the kind of uninformed and dismissive nature of your posts?

There IS actually a bit of irony and this is worth pointing out.

Whilst you stridently defend women's rights (which I agree with) you puport the same disregard for male's experience and belittle legitimised affronts in a way that you would find repulsive if turned against women. Were one to call rape claims corner cases you would be up in arms. That is hypocrisy defined.

But let's put a personalised spin on this. I am a 'corner case' and many men i have known personally through a very small interactive circle are.

My experiences is something like this. I was married and I separated from my wife. On the divorce mediation (a necessity).
I was in the session with my ex and a female mediator. She told the mediator that I was a voilent man. The female mediator listened to her and huff and puffed my way and I was gobsmacked. I finally said "(Ex's name) have I ever punched, hit, kicked, slapped, pushed or been aggressive to you?" The Mediator looked at my ex for confirmation. With it not forthcoming I said 'Have i ever even called you a bad name?" She faltered and the mediator who was in her corner (pardon the pun) was incredulous and then my ex started with 'Well you do get "that look when you are angry, besides you have beaten men unscious with your hands" I protested how it was not ever around her and not during the time I was married and what look? But by this time the Mediator has figuratively dismissed most of what my ex was saying.

Next time we met the lady my ex had a female lawyer with her and the last time too. It came to splitting the assets. I pretty much gave her everything. Just over what was the minimum to not have it questioned by the courts and the Mediator strongly advised that I had a right to claim for more but I did not. My ex wanted it more strongly thn me and why? Because I was hurt and wanted it over quickly and to move on and I blamed myself for the break up.
I had recently been diagnosed with a lifelong condition and one that from what I knew made me difficult and faulty. I blamed my Autism and she did too.

Fast forward a couple of short years and she and i were getting on OK. I got liberal access to the children. No court orders. That was one thing we did not need. I also out of guilt gave her most of the little earnings I had because i wanted the kids and her to be happy. I lived frugally and saw the kids were happy and that was enough in a sense.

We decided that for the benefit of my boy's schooling that his Autism was not going to be catered for in the state that he was in and that going to the other side of the country were the education was better for him was the best option we could do.
We went over separately about 3-4 weeks apart. I used the little amount of monmey from the divorce proceedings to get over, buy a car (I had give the family car to her of course and had been doing without) and to survive until i could get a job.
I was over there 1 month when she are seeming to pick fight after fight with me on the phone, stated after one fight that it was it. No more access to my children. Ridiculous claim I thought.

No. Apparently not. I had to take her to court. If I wanted access the burden was on me. UNfortnately by now I had only just got a job and had no funds left. So I did what I had to. I borrowed. More than what I could afford to pay back and started the lengthy court proceedings.
Nine months of no access to my children, the stresses of a new job in a new city and with no support and little sleep.
In court my lawyer basically said do not do or say anything. Accept all she has to say because if you want to see your children I will get you this, if you contest anything, it will go against you badly.

I really wonder. In court I was branded in the dispositions as a stalker and a voilent man with bad intent. My access rather limited and originally through a mutual drop off point.

That was the month after i turned 37.

The stress had taken a toll. I started waking with heart pain every other night. It concerned me a little but I could not afford to pay it much heed. I had credit card and personal loan debt weighing on me and a mamoth child support bill to pay (yes always take reciepts and do not pay in cash, you never know) and work had become increasing harder and I could not afford to miss any overtime.
On the other hand she had recently bought and moved into a nice place with her highly salaried boyfriend (now husband)
Mother's day that year i had a heart attack. Followed by a urgent gall bladder removal (the specialist had given me not much more than 6 weeks) then Pneumonia. Still I managed throughout all of this to have no more than 6 weeks off work all in all, but my debt without the overtime was building. I also within a week of both my heart attack and my gall bladder operation, managed to meet all my committments with my children.

Things have got better. Ironically much better with her remarrying.

We now have a "cordial relationship"
About 6 months ago some mention was made with how helpful I had been with my children and such. I had stated something like "Of course they are my children and they mean the world to me. I would do anything for them."
She sighed and drew breath and then started "I know. I know that now. I know there was a time when things were really difficult between us and I umm.."
I cut her off with a 'Don't even go there (ex's name)"

Now as fantastic a story as this is in the corner cases you so happily dismiss, they are not that rare, you just don't hear them and if you do, you don't want to listen to them. It is easier to dismiss them as anomalies.

I think it makes you a bad person. But that is just my opinion. Bit of introspection before you get on a soapbox.

Well a thought just crossed my mind about the vicious "feminazi" paradigm.  Suppose every male in the world disappeared; including "ordinary Joes", sports heroes, nerds, bums, poor men, rich men, and "boy toys" (the stereotypical men "all" women like).  There would be no more men to pick on or scapegoat; period.  I can just imagine the magnitude of the "cat fights" which would occur.

You are very nice to say so and in truth I would not have had any doubt that you would have had such views.
I will let you know that after the break up with my ex, I strongly distrusted and in truth disliked women. I was not gay nor did I have an interest in men, but I certainly wanted nothing to do with women.
I was interested in thinking that women were ever anything but a secretive and subversive species. Every woman I saw i suspected of being nice on the outside but dig a little and their true motives and such will come to the fore and it did enough for me to feel my views vindicated.
Years later i joined a little Aspie forum and met a handful of brillinat women. Women who thought like me and who seemed to not talk much in the way of bullshit and seemed to have morality that echoed mine.
I was not scared but certainly intrigued by it. I waited patiently for them to slip up.
One of them is now my girlfriend and another is one of my best friends that I visit weekly.
You are a good sort too mate and not someone i expected to be anything other than what you are. Certainly more than worthy of the very laws that are set up to protect women and I would defend your right to the strength and veracity of such laws over my personal gain from the destruction or diminishing of those same such laws.

@Kevout

Yeah, but the sisterhood would keep a few in captivity to milk for their test tubes.

@Cynara

Thanks for your kind words as always.
I know that during those lost 20 years I could easily have become a women hater. I tried to keep it all in but couldn't hide it all from my colleagues at work. I laughed with the jokes with the blokes but my female colleagues started to see my simmering hatred and helped me keep my balance by constantly saying she's crazy and reassuring me that they weren't 'all like that'

That said I don't think that I could ever again allow myself to become so close to a women that I couldn't just walk away the next day. I recognise that I am damaged goods.

But I have moved away and starting a new life so perhaps I should never say never.
These days I only have to talk to her on the phone, when I am always civil but keep it short. The other day she said, 'why are you so cold to me.' As if I could possibly forgive and forget.

I think both Asperger men and Asperger women are vulnerable to get entangled in abusive relationships.  In intimate or so-called intimate relationships (which seem to start out as intimate); such relationships are relationships to the highest degree.  As in pretty much all kinds of relationships (peer-peer, student-teacher, worker-boss, etc.); Aspies are generally more vulnerable to abuse than the general NT population.  Marriage is the highest kind of relationship a person could be in.

Now when it comes to abuse and domestic violence (where the victim partner is Asperger); the perpetrators can more likely get away with it in the same manner school bullies can get away with bullying the targeted victim.  Why?  Aspies tend to lack credibility in the "real world" whether or not their claims/counter-claims are credible.  "Different" kids suffer at school everyday at the hands of their age-peers and sometimes the teachers.

Asperger women tend to be rather easily taken advantage of; and are often abused in NT-male--Asperger-female relationships (of course not all such relationships are like that).  But there is a power dynamic  In general it is hard for Aspies; male or female; to defend themselves in bad situations.  Diminished (NT-general) perception of Aspie credibility makes things even worse.  An Asperger woman victim in an abusive relationship probably has more hope of getting meaningful support compared to an Asperger man victim in an abusive relationship.

If an Asperger man gets involved with a woman with a "mean streak", he is all the more much more vulnerable.  Put diminished credibility into the equation, and such an abusive shrew can get away with alot and keep on doing it.  Such an Asperger man is "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't".  He can't just get up and complain lest he get mocked, scorned, ridiculed for being a wimp, etc.  He can't just defend himself lest he be the one accused as the abuser.  A manipulative character (in this example, a woman) knows this and that she can get away with it or is even encouraged by friends, family, etc. to be like this.

I can remember reading an account about an NT-woman--Asperger-man marriage in divorce proceedings.  The woman accused the husband of abuse and was trying to gain as much as she could and was very smug about it.  She was so sure of herself thinking that because he had Asperger Syndrome, she'd be in the right no matter what.  The Asperger husband was made out to be a tyrant when in reality he was probably as meek as a whipped puppy.  But before the divorce was final, an investigation (private ?) revealed that the woman was the abuser and the husband was the victim.  The tables turned and the woman got close to nothing.  I think there may have even been criminal charges against her because of what she was trying to do.

I hate Canada's justice system. If I wanted to kill people, I'd go to Canada where I'd get a light sentence if caught.

Actually Andy Capp was an excellent example of feminism.

Yes she bashed him with a rolling pin but the cartoon was killed off because of complaints by the movement that he bashed her. (Remember the drawings of them rolling down the street bashing each other.)

Here is a more recent example of double standards

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/sharon-osborne-leads-laughs-about-male-genital-mutilation

Its hilarious

How dare you talk about my ex like that.

I'll see you outside - well - after we've had another beer.

Of course and let's understand why Andy Capp was made as a satirical piece of cartoonish comedy. At the time the men had all the financial, social and relationship power. Andy would stay out drinking the couple's wages and rockup home to an angry wife who is incensed at his drinking and Andy would be too drunk to literally defend himself. Were he not so drunk and so often no doubt Andy would have been physically and legally able to beat, restrain, and even kick Flo out of her home.
But that does not make good comedy. I think the readers recognised that Andy was either too drunk and therefore physically inept, or that the wife (Flo if i remember right) was too strong and physically imposing for the diminuative Andy (which would also be seen as funny as he is emasculated by a woman) or that he enjoys the beatings and willing accepts his fate.
The fact that he doesn't pursue any of these readily available 1957 solutions belies some of the options I gave and more than likely a mixture of him being too drunk and her too tough.
It was a comic strip written for an audience that accepted the status quo and the role reversals in a narrow field of socialisation.

Of course now days it would be a perplexing thing. "Why does she not cut him off,  have him arrested, or kick him out or leave him for a better man?" May well be asked. It simply could not be asked back then because the answer would be "She can't"

Of course the protect women, even at expense of yourself is drummed into us males and rightly so. Men who do beat women SHOULD be viewed as no less than immoral and cowardly.

None of that actually says anything about the bias that does exist in society against men. It is real and it does affect not only the individual men and women party to such disputes but it affects society in many ways. Every time a woman gets away with this kind of manipulation, it green lights others to do the same. Any time children are involved, it affects them very strongly. Any time the extended family is privy to the machinations they deal with the fallout to some extent. Then of course are medical issues and such things as heart attacks, depression, suicide, incarseration and such.

I actually think in my instance at least that knowing how i hate change in the first place and understanding my Achille's Heel was my children and perhaps my financial situation, my ex I think, felt that I would hhave no choice but to either do something "Crazy" in my desperation and get locked up or justify her fanciful inferences about my voilent character, or perhaps that it would mentally break me or perhaps that I would simply go back to the other side of the country.

In all these instances, it would have only reflected badly on me and she would have looked like a victim of a bad ex-husband.

I had a heart attack instead....I do not think she was expecting that and certainly not on mother's Day.

I know it was humor - I just NOW went back and read the whole thread - I had heretofore only read maybe the first page - and then a post mentioning Andy Capp. (which I recalled fondly from childhood) I agree that the double standard predates feminism. (in its' current definition)

Re: this thread.  my one post was merely a tangent and was stated as such - ANdy Capp and comic strips in general remind me of our visual cultural mores. I have no interest in being on this thread (interfering such as it is) as upon reading what has gone one for the past couple of pages it calls for reflection and careful wording.

Oh yeah, and when typing my post and mentioning grits and frying pans I was also in a humorous mood (oh and I love Star Trek) and did not know the thread was not lighthearted at the time - so my bad for tangenting/

There's some truth to this but it's more complicated than you make it out to be.  I'm not at all ashamed that I was able to be taken advantage of my a woman, but the stereotypes imposed by society cause my situation to be seen very differently than if the genders were reversed.  A lot of men (certainly not all) would not want to admit that my situation constitutes domestic abuse, or would conclude that there was something wrong with me for it to be possible, since admitting otherwise would require them to give up their own sense of superiority or invincibility.  A lot of women (again, by no means all) would not want to admit it, since they would have to also admit that their gender does not have a monopoly on being victims of domestic abuse.  I don't resent being seen like a woman.  I wish people would see me in the same way they would see a woman who endured the same adversity.  I wish that they would see me as being strong and courageous for having made it through, rather than denying that it ever happened or treating my case as statistically insignificant.  (Especially when the statistics don't support that claim anyway!)

What privilege is this exactly? By which rationale do you come by this? Is it similarly a privilege to be treated as a woman?
This sounds like a strange answer. Until I get an interpretation of this that sound understandable and feasible I call bullshit.

I have really struggled to understand what you are saying.

I have read it many times and cannot see any attempt by you to explain why governments all around the world continue to this day, to ignore all the evidence accumulated over the last 30 years that women perpetrate just as much violence as men.
These governments are still producing laws that actively discriminate against men or even preclude the existence of female on male domestic violence. These are policies which just happen to fit into the neo-marxist feminist agenda.

I have gone to the trouble of supplying you with plenty of evidence and your response would appear to be, I don't want to believe it so it can't be true and here's some irrelevent befuddled logic with nothing to support it.

I do understand that you are just like the majority of the population, brainwashed into believing the tale that you have been told for all of your life, so you didn't know any better and are blameless for that. But I'm sorry, I have now put the evidence before your eyes, you can no longer plead ignorance.

This is not a problem that is going to go away, in fact it is getting worse.

As 142587 said, ' As a male child I had it drummed into me: protect the weaker sex. Never hit a girl regardless of the provocation. ' This has been going on for many years and I accept that there are still too many scum that don't follow that creed.

But for the last 30 years girls have been learning a very different lesson and guess what - it shows in the statistics. As the age groups questioned get lower so the scale of female on male violence goes way beyond that of male on female violence. And who can blame them when they see their mum's getting away with it.

For people on this forum ignorance is no longer an excuse.

personally i don't think so... it's easy to say things you don't mean, but it's hard to physically attack someone without meaning to.

I think verbal abuse is dehumanizing and can chip away at one's self image (self worth) or worse... it is a slow/er form of abuse but can be quite damaging.

I mean sexism - like in the workplace was abusive - abuses of power - and it was people using words to lower the feelings of status, make someone feel lesser, unempowered... more easily controlled and manipulated.. degraded...

Etc would call this all corner cases and no doubt d_olson would have said that wome were not in charge of the media so this all is suspiciously doubtful. I do not doubt a word of it.

What bizarre 'logic'.

I have previously posted a link to hundreds of studies that show women instigate approximatly half of all domestic violence and yet governments all around the world are either ignoring or trivialisng it.

So what happens to this ignored half of domestic violence cases; the man either becomes physically or emotionally disabled and unable to work and hence unable to support himself or his family or he walks out on the abuser.
Surely this is doubling the welfare bill and then there is the emotional damage to the children and the cost of that further down the line.

Your argument that these sexist policies are for financial reasons just does not add up.

You then go on to state, 'Bilateral violence is what is happening more often.'

That is a bold statement, evidence please. Unlike many I am always open to new evidence as I do wish to understand this crazy situation.

Just read the last couple of posts here again - and what you heterodox are saying is the same as what M said.  bilateral (50/50 from both sides) - you have already posted the evidence in hundreds of studies and she agrees (it seems to me anyway).

I do not think M said it was good that governments are trivializing it - or that they are not trivializing it even.  

Now what I think about from the topics you raised: I think that because MOST of the people split up (and now do not have anough money to feed or shleter themselves due to no longer pooling resources) and this is sometimes due to the domestic violence, the woman has the kids with her (MORE OFTEN) so the MONEY (from government agencies) goes to them (the women). ALSO, "government" programs are typically FAR behind recognizing the need.  ie: (Like there are lots of single (teen) mother group homes but not really single father group homes.)...

sorry if I am not on the same topic as you all. just my thoughts.  I agree with both of those statements (about bilateral that I quoted) and do not think they say opposite things.  
sexism s***s.

That is untrue. Nobody has said that.

A clear case of male on female violence. I hope your mum is OK. IMO She should have reported him to the police so that he could have got help.
I don't think anybody would suggest that her actions are comparable to his.

You are the only one comparing the two. All the surveys that I have quoted have made clear distinctions between levels of violence.

This is exactly what the sexist neo-Marxist feminists have brainwashed the general public to believe.
I have spent a lot of time on this thread providing evidence that this is not true.

So where is your evidence to back up this claim?

Not counting wars, gang violence, domestic violence, etc. Vampslord?

"We moved into the first house. There were bodies everywhere. The mother behind the door was motionless but alive. She had been kicked in the chest, her eyes were open and she had watched her children be slaughtered. We counted 14 dead. The father's skull was crushed. They had killed him by beating him with the butt of a gun. He had been the first to die. The children had all been shot.

We moved from house to house, discovering room after room of slain men, women and children.

"I started trying to carry the bodies away. We carried children who had holes in their eye sockets, who had had a gun put to their right ear and the bullet had gone straight through. Some had cut necks, others severed limbs. One woman had run outside to defend her husband. They shot him in front of her. In the panic she fled, forgetting her children. They killed her children. Now she is crying, crippled with guilt."

More than 10,000 families have moved to other parts of Houla, further away from the front line. But yesterday activists contacted in the town said the shelling had continued overnight, and snipers continued to rake the street."

For full story, link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9298753/Syria-Houla-massacre-for-hours-I-heard-the-screams-of-women-and-children-and-always-gunshots.html

It depends whereabouts in the world you are.  This according to the various branches of Islamic law, for example:

There are different criterions for transfer of custody to next eligible candidate as shown below:

Hanafi school of law states that a guardian must maintain the child until a boy reaches 7 to 9 years of age, and a girl from 9 to 11 or until marriage.  The boy may choose either parent as guardian.  The girl is not given a choice, but must go to her father.

Shafi’e law states that a boy or girl will have a choice of either parent untll the age of 7 for a boy, or marriage for a girl.

Maliki law has it that a boy will be under the guardianship of his paternal grandmother until puberty, and the girl until marriage.  

Hanbali law has both boy and girl given a choice of either parent until 7 years age.

Also, under all of them, the mother (if she is chosen) only has custody for so long as she remains unmarried.  Once she remarries, custody in all cases reverts to the ex-husband.

Source: Kuwaiti Encyclopaedia of Jurisprudence

Hi Alison,

I believe Vampslord was quoting me from a couple of posts prior to his where I signed off with, "Women commit most child murders and 64% of their victims are male children. "

In that instance I was actually quoting myself from my post on the first page of this thread where I listed this set of statistics,

"Here are some old figures from a study in 1999 from the USA to get you thinking

Women are three times more likely than men to use weapons in spousal violence.
Women initiate most incidents of spousal violence.
Women commit most child abuse and most elder abuse.
Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than they hit their female children.
Women commit most child murders and 64% of their victims are male children.
When women murder adults the majority of their victims are men.
Women commit 52% of spousal killings and are convicted of 41% of spousal murders.
Eighty two percent of people have their first experience of violence at the hands of women."

Of course all these figures are about spousal violence and nothing to do with wars and unrelated homicides.
Please accept my apologies for not referencing that isolated statistic properly.

Interesting use of the word usually. Sounds very much like "Does hapen and I would like to think it happens more often than not."

YOu are right about what is and is not comparable. Whilst you compared your father's treatment as not a bit like your partner's abuse, Niall said his abuse but his Father was not as bad as that of his female partner's. Many men who are attacked by woemn too are unable to restrain or retaliate and their partners know this and have carte blanche.
A tiny woman throwing a ceramic cup CAN do some big damage. Often the guy will not hit back and will usually not have anyone to confide in. He could naturally overpower her or beat her senseless BUT what if he is one of those decent men (you know, the ones that don't rape, murder or beat females) what then?

War victim are not murder victim.

Popeye the sailor man had an old episode where at the end he beats up Olive Oyl. I can't seem to find it. But I saw it on tv once and was like wtf???

so because of your experience, violence by men must be worse than violence by women? my experiences suggest the contrary, having had my jaw broken by a (slightly overweight and very unfit) woman, but i don't generalise. i dont think of one as being generally worse than the other. if someone puts me in very real danger i react. male or female. anyone can cause someone serious damage. i've done kung-fu, i know what the weakest person can do to someone much stronger, and gender makes no difference. you are generalising based on your experiences, and you are wrong in doing so. if anyone it is you that is the sexist for doing so.

Agreed.

It doesn't make them any less dead-by-violence.
Alison

For some time now women have been campaigning to be allowed to join in on this killing as well.

Give a women a sniper rifle and she is just as deadly as a man.
Give a women a machine gun and she is just as deadly as a man.
Give a women a tank and stand well clear when she tries to park it.

Glad I could enlighten someone.
A male really may just be afraid of being rejected or laughed at when trying to report abuse or rape and there's a good reason why... adding insult to injury.

I agreed with Louise.. less hurt isnt equal to ...well more hurt. Common sense. I agreed until she made that last statement.
Louise, thats not true at all, what makes you assume women wouldnt rough people up either? They think they can get away with it because of people like you. They do because of courts. Some courts are blatantly biased in their rules, or actions. There's plenty of violence in both sexes. Comes after a great deal of provocation...lol. No, some feel like they can punch, hit, for whatever, cos they won't hit back. They'll get with someone who isn't abusive and really wants them for one, and its a bonus that they feel they can't hit back.

Pretty pissed off that someone wrote that stuff in my thread. She'd be one of those judges that claim the poor woman who was finally hit was just lying about all of her admitted abuse and the man coerced the poor girl with some stare they never caught.

Cool post.

Oh I also wanted to write in the bold; "People decide not to report because of you" (which I just did)

I have some almost-personal experience of this: a man who worked at my office.  He often didn't want to go home in the afternoon because of his abusive wife.  And he'd be in before everybody else as well.  We often had to convince him to go home, and he'd come in with bruises and black eyes.  His wife was a tiny little thing, and he was a big, lanky guy.  But I was told by this man's friend at work that the wife used things to hit him with, saucepans and the like. I believe he went to the police to report the abuse and they did nothing, pretty much just told him to "man up" and stand up for himself, which as a truly gentle guy, he couldn't.  It all came to a sad end one Monday when I came in to work to find everybody in shock.  He'd hung himself in his garage after one more bashing, and it was his twelve-year-old daughter who found him.  Very tragic.  And his wife went to the funeral, and had the hide to cry.
Alison

thankyou mels (and duckfetishgirl too for having my back). i find it ironic that louise goes on about being a feminist (psycho ex who broke my jaw was too, another story though) though for some reason violence from a woman isn't as bad...that is what sexism is all about, saying that women aren't capable of the same as what men are, and i fully disagree with that.

like i said, i react based on the danger i am in, not on whether the aggressor is a man or a woman. for someone to suggest my experience was somehow less horrible based on the fact that i'm a man and she's a woman completely takes the piss and ridicules the horror i went through, considering what effect it has on me and how it still does affect me.

i'm in a new and much better relationship now and there are times i flinch, not because i am in danger but because of what my ex did to me.. there is a lot of damage been done thanks to her, and i'll thank any of you not to belittle that by going on about how somehow it wasn't as bad due to the fact that i'm a man.

also i know why statistics on men being abused by women are so scarce... they feel emasculated by it. the difference is, i am not masculine whatsoever, and don't identify as being so, so i have no bones about admitting it to anyone because i dont care about being perceived as masculine, i'm not and anyone who so much as looks at me gets the same impression.

I agree, too. And it sounds a lot like someone's trying to pass a sexist law in the US.

Some women treat men like blacks in the 1960s. Where women try to get laws passed that favor the female, even when the female was the criminal! I actually wonder if there's a female KKK-like movement going on to target males.

That's the same type of stuff African-Americans had to deal with in the 1960s!

Where I may get attacked for just wanting to meet someone, because of my gender!

Well I will not go over old ground, my earlier posts back this entirely.

Thats because Feminazie like Louise are super sexist. even the way they threat violent women is. They always twist it around to make men guilty even if they are the victim. Feminist in general are filled with hate.

Jackie Gleeson (according to my father) was a hard-core racist....

Vampslord, that's a sweeping generalization that bears no relation whatsoever to the real case.  I'm a Feminist.  I'm also a Humanist.  I'm against anybody hurting anybody else, regardless of what shape their genitals happen to be.  
Alison

Sure Louise y all means do that. So long as you do not try to show us theory rather than what happens in practice and do not try to show us what is "proved", "evidenced" or what have you as any half reading of this thread will show you that these things do not get evidenced or shown or generally are dismissed before they hget to couurts.
So long as you show that in your facts and figures in backing your positions, go for it.

I LMAO

Here we have someone who would appear to have studied criminology who has bothered to get on the internet to post on this thread on 3 different occassions but couldn't be bothered during all that time to look up her criminology notes to give us one shred of evidence for her claims.

But then it gets even funnier!!!!

Sorry to break this to you Louise but it takes two to make a child.

So tell us how does a female perpetrator of domestic violence have more dependants than the male victim?

And then why on earth should they recieve more lienent treatment?
Is it so these violent violent women can keep custody of the children?

So from your warped perspective if its a male victim, he should be chucked out of the house and the violent women, shouldn't go to prison because she has to then look after the children.

And then to cap off this hilarious paragraph you come out with ...(in the UK at least) The way I read that was you think its possible that British women might be more restrained than those brutes in the ex colonies.

Classic

Thank you Louise you have given me all the ammunition I need and I will deal with this later as I have to get over that second emotion from reading the rest of your post.

Not sure if anyone here is...are they?

I do not know how you can sit there and try to justify women killing their children. You insult all women and you besmirch all decent feminists with your perverse perception of reality.

In my line of work I meet mothers who have or are experiencing the full range and more, of the mitigating circumstances that you have described.

One just walked out of the house and just kept on walking. (Luckily a neighbour spotted the front door wide open and called the police. They found her still walking.)

One I can only describe as a Zombie, sleep deprivation, the hopelessness and the degradation of nobody believing what she told them she was going through.

And there's others but never was there any concern that they would think about harming their beloved children. I am always alert for signs of that.

The first one was doing very well, she had earned her NT children back and she wanted to get her boy back as well. The other was determined not to be defeated and do the best for her son no matter what toll on her mind and body.

You insult them and countless other decent mothers struggling under awful circumstances.

I wonder what 'psychiatric condition' you were thinking of, would it be PMT, I hear thats been used to get a more lienient sentance.

Or would you stoop so low as to blame your autism for murdering a child?

I am a man and can only speak for myself but I know that I could never kill a child. I would prefer to kill myself than live with the memory of such a dreadful deed no matter what the little brat did.

However if I was to get to the point were I couldn't take anymore I think I would probably take the cowards way out and do what many decent mum's have done before.

I would hand the child to the authorities, and if they refused to take him, I would leave him in their offices and if they prosecuted me for abandonment I would at least get a few nights peace.

That is what decent people do Louise they don't make excuses.

Murdering a child is a heinous crime no excuse.

You with your warped vision of reality disgust me.


I will leave it at that because I don't want to get banned not just yet.

(Heterodox has a rather interesting/entertaining post formulating in his simple male mind.)

No, I don't think so.  Most people who disagree with certain things done in the name of feminism have no interest in oppressing or discriminating against women.  We just believe that equal should actually mean equal.  Part of the problem is that is that a lot of people tend to assume that anyone who thinks that a man might ever be worse off because of his gender must be unsympathetic to women.  I recognize that there are plenty of circumstances where women are treated unfairly because of gender, but I am also very much aware that there are circumstances where men are treated unfairly because of gender as well.  These are not mutually exclusive, and working for greater equality for one gender should not have to mean that people of other gender must be hurt in the process.  Simple fairness requires that all people must be entitled to equal rights, whatever their gender is.

With regard to "a growing men's rights movement," I commend you for your support, but if it's growing then it's growing very slowly.  In the presidential campaign that's happening now, politicians are routinely quoting people out of context, misrepresenting statistics, and in some cases telling outright lies to accuse the other party of waging a "war on women" because they think it will get them votes.  Statistics show there are currently twice as many men as women who are unemployed, but our politicians talk about how to create more jobs for women specifically.  It seems that our leaders think that it's perfectly OK if we fall through the cracks, and it doesn't look like it's changing any time soon.

I guess if one strongly opposes feminism then one needs to take into account that without feminism we wouldn't have seen such big advances in the status of women.

I guess Vamps is a little young to have seen the changes in the status of women.

Oh purleeze!!!

Do you really believe that there are people coming out of the modern education system who haven't heard of the fight for women's equality in the 20th century from the suffragettes to the bra burners in the 60's and 70's.

I'll have you know that many of us men where happy to help support them with their worthy endeavours. (I never could get the hang of those pesky clasps.)

What people haven't been able to read about is how the feminist movement was thereafter steadily infiltrated and subverted by a group of warped sexist women preaching their neo-Marxist fantasies about how bourguoise men are maintaining their dominance over the poor prolatariat women through violence and rape. Furthermore any women who attacks a man is either acting in self defense or a pre-emptive strike against an inevitable attack from the male maintaining his priviliged status.

Have you read,

Letters from a War Zone by Andrea Dworkin
or
The Womens Room by Marilyn French
or
The Demon Lover by Robin Morgan

When I decided to enter this thread I knew I would be in for a rough ride. Coming into an aspie forum of all places, talking about a massive cover up over the last 30 yrs by a bunch of extreme left wing sexists across the westernised world, you've got to expect trouble.

I was ready - full metal jacket - and kicked off by snapping at Bloke "NO IT IS NOT BETTER!!"

During those first few pages I must admit to feeling a bit disappointed, all dressed up and nobody to dance with.

But I quickly realised that they couldn't come out to dance because they had no clothes to wear! I had all the evidence.

Because the public at large don't have access to the mountains of reports on domestic violence the responses were predictable.

So although the dance was disappointing the patterns that have evolved in this thread have been fascinating.

Firstly there has been the personal observations by members, of spousal violence which have been nearly an even split male and female which tends to back my statistics rather than the sexists claims of predominantly male.

I am very pleased that the statistics haven't been borne out in the personel experiences of the members because that would of meant 3 or 4 female members here being beaten by their husbands.

Of course with such a small sample size these observations should be treated with extreme caution but maybe 142857 had a worthy point and this is an area of aspie life that needs research.

I am going to use D'Olsen, our respected eminently sensible mod, to look at another pattern.

Like many others he couldn't believe my nonsense about a big cover up of the truth about spousal violence and stepped onto the dance floor.
He flapped around a bit misquoting and such before saying some nonsense about police rapists to try to counter my silly theory.
Bloke called him out and D'olson, to his credit, realising that he was naked, shut up.
Because D'olson is a decent person, I suspect he went off looking for some clothes and has been seeing the reality for himself. I'm sure many other decent readers have done the same and returned with a different tone.

Bloke likewise must have done a lot of behind the scenes reading. I'm on 23 posts for this thread and he hasn't been able to call BS once, that in itself speaks volumes. (He did miss one opportunity but I'll get to that later.)

Throughout I have supplied evidence like

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

I also didn't want to upset the decent feminists who had worked so hard for women's rights so I quoted decent feminists like Erin Pizzey, look her up if you don't know who she is:

"How could the entire Western world be fooled so completely by a laughable political theory that all men are potential rapist and batteres because they carry a ‘y’ chromazone? "

I provided a link to her report and quoted Murray Straus, a respected feminist academic:

"Finally, it was painful for me as a feminist to write this commentary. I have done so for two reasons. First, I am also a scientist and, for this issue, my scientific commitments overode my feminist commitments.
Perhaps even more important, I believe that the safety and well being of women requires efforts to end violence by women and the option to treat partner violence in some cases as a problem of psychopathology, or in the great majority of cases, as a family system problem."

And so we come to Louise and her pattern.
She opened on the 29/5 with some wild unsubstantiated claims.
Bloke and Shoneh called her out.
Louise returned on the 31/5
She didn't try to respond to the critics, she didn't try to substantiate her previous claims. She just launched into some fine examples of casuistic thinking and gave some more unsubstantiated claims.
Bloke called her out and I asked for evidence of what she was claiming
Louise returned yesterday 06/06
No evidence for her previous claims was submitted, just more unsubstantiated claims. I've already called her out on those.

I hope I have goaded her into responding this time because I want to perform a little piece of magic before she does.

Before that we have the whole point of this post.

We can all see the pattern of Louise's posts.

Well, WE have ALL been subjected to this pattern IN REAL LIFE for the last 30 years.

Whatever form of media you have coming into your homes, there will have been intermitant stories telling distorted statistics, misrepresentations and even outright lies about spousal abuse.

A gave the example of the claim that Superbowl weekend was peak time for husbands abusing their wives.

It didn't matter that it was reliably debunked 3 days later. Politicians, advertising execs and feminists know and have known for a long time that over time people tend to remember the original claim only.

Mud sticks and if you keep throwing it in all directions for long enough your going to have everybody believing you.

So as one example was not enough how about 50

Feel free to read the whole thing or start near the bottom of page 4 where the list starts.

http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

I'm sure many will find some myths/lies that they have believed in.

The eagle eyed amongst you will spot a lie there, that I told you earlier in this thread. Nobody called me out on it, not even Bloke because we have heard so many of these claims, that the public cannot tell the truth from the lies.

And so some magic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hGaoyfbrsI

Sorry, I had not realised you were snapping at me. I had assumed you just disagreed. That is cool. Even with similar views or excperience there are going to be differences within this and I figured that this was probably a point in case.
I do believe it is better than the alternative. The alternative being the other option of complete suppression of women's rights. The reality of gender equality and such has never been a reality.
Hoping that Future will re-balance that a little more fairly.

As to the calling bullshit out, I will always do that and when people downplay, minimise or misrepresent stuff like this, I call bullshit. Have to see it though and to agree that it is worth refuting.

I did not do any background reading. I am a middleaged divorced bloke. Most of my peers are middle-aged. I have heard some horror stories. When they all follow similar patterns you know that there is more in it than all marginal corner cases or all bad luck or all just bad spouses that were similar or poor lawyers or bad judge. Afte a while itseems to indicate something a little more worrying.

I saw this headline, I didn't watch the video.

I'm pleased he hasn't got diplomatic immunity or something similar.

Its the same wherever you meet extremists. They don't have the arguments so they resort to violence.

The death threats against decent feminists like Erin Pizzey and others by the feminstasi are well documented.

We have been talking about one of those very rare exceptions. the crime of domestic violence or spousal abuse or intimate partner violence as it is called in various places and surveys.

We have not been talking about any other offences like, arson,burglary, fraud etc which all fit the normal pattern of substantially lower female involvement.

The crime of DV however does not fit into that, the facts show that we have gender symmetry in this area, it is a rare exception.

I would have thought that this would be a concern for all women. More so because surveys show that when you break down the age groups the younger girls are even outstripping the boys for violence.

The feminists I've quoted have said this is not good for women and with a bit of thought you should be able to see that.

However all our governments have for years now been enacting laws that treat DV as a male problem when it should be treated as a family problem. Resources are poured into dealing with this 'mens' problem whilst violent women are not getting any help at all because 'its an insignificant number' when in fact they've got just as big a problem as men. (In this one exceptional area of crime.)

Just one little example, Alison's friend who committed suicide and his wife cried at the funeral. I'm sure you remember reading it.

I would say that she loved him despite all that she had done! Researchers would love to study this and other aspects but they can't get the funds. Why?

Because it's inconsequential, funds are directed at the much bigger problem of mens violence.

People would like to help these women but they can't because all the resources are being directed at the violent men.

Because nothing is being done about female initiated DV it is spiraling out of control, girls are learning from their mums.

All because of a bizarre sexist dogma that says that with female DV he must of done something to deserve it or it was a justified pre-emptive strike.

So no more attempts at misdirection. Lets have a chat about DV, the rare exception to everything you quoted.

Thanks a lot for this. I am sick to death of reading what feminists do want. At last a list of things that feminists don't want. Tell me is this all or are their other things that feminists don't want?

Just more unsubstantiated opinions about men not reporting these crimes. By my logic that would indicate that the problem is bigger than the studies suggest. Sigh.

I do hope that it is true about all your feminist friends because that would mean there is hope for you and that you have been horribly misled.

So read and learn.

BTW re those tables, I've always said that its a disgrace the way Iranian men treat women. So its great to see that the women are fighting back. Go girls, those chauvinistic pigs deserve it.
Something we can agree on?
Or do we agree that its terrible.
My simple male brain is confused

Just more unsubstantiated opinions about men not reporting these crimes. By my logic that would indicate that the problem is bigger than the studies suggest. Sigh.

I do hope that it is true about all your feminist friends because that would mean there is hope for you and that you have been horribly misled.

So read and learn.

BTW re those tables, I've always said that its a disgrace the way Iranian men treat women. So its great to see that the women are fighting back. Go girls, those chauvinistic pigs deserve it.
Something we can agree on?
Or do we agree that its terrible.
My simple male brain is confused:

Well there are two possible options a) that men are not reporting these crimes or b) that police are somehow covering them up and have been doing so for decades. Without some serious evidence to back up b), a) seems to be the more rational option.

I will have a more detailed look at the study you provided, which is much better than the list you gave, because it actually gives the methodology, offers a robust control, a large sample size and considers a variety of factors other than just "did you experience violence yes or no".

Actually I strongly disagree with this stance on violence. I think it is acceptable to use violence 1)to defend yourself and your personal property 2) to punish someone for previous violence/ other qualifying abuse 3) Because your partner has cheated 4) Because you need to get them out of your property to protect your children from morally/emotionally/physically damaging behaviour and maybe other reasons I haven't thought of (which do not include blowing money at a casino or having a bad day).

And if your comment above was directed at my post, then I think attacking someone who is in the middle of strangling your daughter/mother/ best friend is covered by defence.

I knew a guy in Thailand who got into an altercation with a ladyboy over the "look straight ahead" rule at a urinal. Next thing he has the cr@p beaten out of him by a bunch of them. He staggered over, bleeding and bruised, to a policeman nearby and told him what had happened. The policeman was in stitches, and even called over his friends to tell them what had happened. So the victim just walked off. And that was not even real women we are talking about.

Men don't report violence by women against them because it would be pointless. Even if you could find someone to lay charges you'd get laughed out of court.

In those circumstances any level of violence against the strangler would be justified.

My comment was directed at you saying that the reasons for domestic violence should be analysed. Beyond self defence I don't think that holds water. It is never valid for a man to be violent towards a woman unless he fears for his life. Why should it be acceptable for a woman to beat her partner for any reason other than that?

I did not read any double standard into your post. Your opinion on domestic violence don't carry any weight legally or socially. A man who beats his wife gets no leniency for coming up with a good excuse. By making excuses for woman who are violent towards their partners the double standard is by default, not by intent.

I'm pretty sure if I were in a divorce court, that view would be downloaded and presented to the judge in mitigation. It's also open to anyone to taking a different view to not be in a relationship with me, and I am sure there are suitors who have found it off-putting. The view of one person is not going to change the world, but I don't see why you would form your view of violence in relationships based simply on going with what the majority believe is good for the gander is good for the goose, rather than forming your own view on what is appropriate.

It doesn't follow from the fact that most people think violence against women is always wrong that the same should be true of violence against men. Most people might be wrong in their opinion that violence against women is always wrong, so the argument doesn't make sense.

OK Louise i missed this bit.
Being that we have seen in this thread that it is obvious that the men do NOT have the fair share of poitical power to do that with nor are they resourced with funding, how is what you are saying either representing what feminists at all?
If these are really the views of feminists that you are representing then is it not fairer then to say that feminists would actually be actively promoting a social discourse where mean are perpetually screwed and not at all supported by feminists.
If feminists are not even willing to concede there is a problem as we have highlighted here then they implicitly DO want men to be subjected to domestic voilence and they are at best indifferent to it and only wanting more funding and political power for women and at expense of men.

Why pretend differently. I think it is really dishonest for you to have tried saying that here. Shame on you louise. I have often not agreed with much of what you have said and you are better than you used to be but misrepresenting knowingly?

Great post!
It's spoken with knowledge rather than vague opinions based on unsubstantiated stories you've read in the past.

OK, so I disagree with you on the acceptability of violence, I have lived my life following the creed, 'Thou shalt not hurt a women.'
I feel that was right and I cannot see how your philosophy will help to decrease domestic violence. I would hate to see a time when fathers told there impressionable sons to hit a girl back if she hits them.

Re that study, I've read it too and by its make up I had the feeling it was a bit unfair on women. So although I have some small reservations like you, there is no doubt that it was conducted with full rigour, the results shocking and pretty much in line with many other studies conducted over the last 30 years by researchers wanting to find out why the crime of domestic violence doesn't fit the pattern of other crimes.

EVERYBODY on here has been convinced that DV was just like other crimes with only a small % of women perpetrators despite all the hard evidence to the contrary. Why?

Firstly a little story. When I was about your age I was working with a guy older than me with 6 kids.
One day whilst travelling to work he confided that his wife had stabbed him on 8 seperate occasions!
WTF why didn't you stop her?
Because she does it when I'm asleep.
YTF are you still living there, get out before you don't wake up.
I can't, I love my wife and my kids.

Well he was a nice guy but I thought he was crazy on this point. I think you would agree.
I also couldn't understand stories I heard about women going back to their abusers and not pressing charges. Police didn't follow up DV cases because it was a waste of time!

Now having travelled through a lifetime of experiences I can say that I understand them.

Back in those days there was no help and understanding for my friend along with all the women being battered by their husbands.

But the feminist movement was in and full swing Erin Pizzey opened the first shelter in 1971, there was hope.

The scandel of what had been going on behind closed doors could be exposed and could at long last be studied and hopefully understood.

If you want to learn more and I believe you do, then this could be a good place to start.

http://www.erinpizzey.com/

She was in the front line right from the start.

Fast forward 40 years and despite all the evidence, men's plight hasn't got any better. Why?

So many why's.

Why is funding being skewed?
Why are statistics misrepresented?
Why is evidence being suppressed?
Why don't the public know the true make up of DV?
Why do all our governments ignore the evidence and enact biased legislation to this day?

(The NIJ example you mentioned is not an isolated case, there are many examples across countries) I have supplied links to many examples earlier in this thread.Did you read the 50 myths link?

We seem stuck in a 40 year time warp in order to protect an idea encased in extremist ideology that has been comprehensively debunked for the last 30 years.

Men have protested but their efforts have been pathetic because they don't want to appear sexist. We don't want to get to the stage of men's and women's demonstrations and counter demonstrations.
Only the feminstazi would benefit from that.

I believe that decent feminists like Mels, Alison, you and your frirnds and the millions of other decent feminists need to learn the truth.
Too many men, women and children are being damaged by our present system.

True femenists need to rise up again and shout out loud and clear -  NOT IN MY NAME

Good luck to you all and thanks for listening.

Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women

By Christina Sommers

I agree that (1) and (4) make sense, but I strongly disagree with (2) and (3).  With regard to (2), if someone commits a crime, there needs to be a trial under law to determine that they actually did it and what the appropriate punishment is.  Just allowing anyone to inflict punishment and claim that the victim was a criminal in the past would allow innocent people to be victimized in the name of punishing crimes that may well have never happened.  With regard to (3), marital infidelity is wrong, but it is not so serious an offense as to warrant violent punishments that would be considered human rights abuses if done against murderers or terrorists.

What does this have to do with what has been written before it in this thread? Can you please explain the relevance?

What does this have to do with what has been written before it in this thread? Can you please explain the relevance?

I have about as much respect for people who advocate domestic violence as I have for those who commit domestic violence. On 2nd thoughts I have less respect for them.......

I assume refers to:

"the real aspirations and values of most American women and undermines the cause of true equality. Who Stole Feminism? is a call to arms that will enrage or inspire, but cannot be ignored"

There is usually a tangential link to Shrek's posts.

The next one is a tangential link to the first.

My youngest sister is childless by choice.  And there's a number of other women I know who make the same choice.  Not every woman on earth wants a child, but I do think society places enormous pressure on people to have them, maybe because they feel more comfortable assigning labels to people.  I think it's all part and parcel of that "club" mentality again: if you're with us then you do X, Y, and Z.  But if you're not with us, you're against us, and that makes us uncomfortable because we can't assign you a role comfortably.

Similarly with men, the pressure to have a girlfriend is enormous.  It seems that society equates that with success in all other areas.  It's like coupledom for men is a status symbol and indicator of their level in the heirarchy.  
Alison