Every Australian man is on the frontline of this battle

James Ricketson says:

08:09am | 25/11/11

The idea of wearing a white ribbon reminds of the line, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” To answer the question in any way implicates you. I’ve never hit a woman in my life. Or a man for that matter. I feel no need to take a public pledge never to do so - any more than I feel the need to make a pledge never to kill anyone, rape anyone or any of the other violent crimes I could commit. And if I see a man being violent towards anyone (man, woman or child) I will do whatever I can to stop it, report it to the police or whatever seems most appropriate to the situation in hand. Whilst I appreciate the intentions that inform ‘White Ribbon Day’ I don’t need to announce to the world, by wearing a ribbon, that I promise to behave in a civilized manner towards my fellow human beings. Sorry, won’t be wearing one and, when I see men that are, the nagging thought will be there in my mind: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Nathan says:

08:10am | 25/11/11

its not about you and your friends its about the wider community where it does occur. Somebody might not know anyone who has suffered from breast cancer does that stop them supporting the cause

Markus says:

08:51am | 25/11/11

“Somebody might not know anyone who has suffered from breast cancer does that stop them supporting the cause”

Breast cancer foundations don’t suggest that anyone who does not swear to battle cancer on all fronts is just as culpable for the pain and suffering as the cancer itself.

Erick says:

08:59am | 25/11/11

Actually, as an Australian man you really are on the front line of this battle. That’s because as a man, you are the target of the attack.

The whole purpose of White Ribbon Day and similar campaigns is to defame, shame, and demonise men. All men.

That’s why women are always depicted as victims. That’s why men are always depicted as aggressors. That’s why only men are asked to “swear” an oath not to harm women - but women aren’t asked similarly not to harm men.

You are the target. Don’t accept it. Fight back!

Shooter says:

09:26am | 25/11/11

Erick you come across like as a woman hater. You and Kyle should compare notes.

Tom says:

09:42am | 25/11/11

Markus, a bad analogy. You have completely ignored the anti-male bigotry inherent in the white ribbon day.

Selma says:

09:47am | 25/11/11

Erick
You are a very sad individual.

Deal with the facts, Princess says:

10:08am | 25/11/11

Erick, I can understand where you’re trying to come from, but there’s one tiny flaw in your argument. Women ARE victims. Sure there may be a very small number of cases in which a woman domestically abuses a man. And those cases are just as inexcusable. But in the large, large majority of cases, it is the men who are abusive, because they are physically stronger.  Not all men are violent. But most violence is caused by men.

Markus says:

10:15am | 25/11/11

Really, Tom? I thought I pointed out the ludicrousness of the entire WRD concept pretty well.

larks says:

10:26am | 25/11/11

I’m sorry Brando but you would be very unlikely to know even if one of your friends WAS a domestic violence perpetrator, because the secrecy surrounding DV is one of the tactics used to make it work. Having met DV perpetrators I can tell you that they just seem like ‘ordinary blokes’ (some quite charming and easygoing!) and you would never even have the foggiest clue of the type of intense physical violence they had subjected their partners to - choking, kicking, punching, stabbing - you name it!

The high incidence of domestic violence in our society (around a third of women and a smaller but not insignificant proportion of men) will experience it at one time in their lives. Perhaps you are not a perpetrator but a female friend of yours may have experienced DV. Actually, some people who experience DV blame themselves because they always assumed that if they experienced DV they would walk away or they would know someone was a perpetrator before they got too involved. Unfortunately this is not so.

In any case, saying it’s ‘none of your business’ is a bit like asking why you would care about the Victorian bushfires or the Queensland floods if you’re not living in an affected area. It’s a matter of ‘there but for the grace of god go I’ and social solidarity is an important support for the victims. No-one can force you to care but I do question why you are so defensive about the issue.

Erick says:

10:36am | 25/11/11

@Princess - You are wrong. In fact, women are at least as violent as men.

“SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.”

It’s your sexist attitude - and lying campaigns like White Ribbon Day - that keep you from realising this.

Tom says:

10:58am | 25/11/11

Sorry Markus, I was lazy. I missed that you were quoting Nathan.

Nick says:

10:58am | 25/11/11

I absolutely agree. The descrimination is in the subject already. I could have reported quite a few aggressive women in the neighborhood and was just about to report my ex. And why didn’t I? Because of you guys. Because Man Should Not. And Women Can?!

Princess says:

11:24am | 25/11/11

Actually Erick a quick glance at human rights worldwide would prove otherwise. Honour killings in the Middle East, rape in South Africa, genital mutilation in Africa, lack of education in most developing countries. These are all huge issues for women that still remain to this day (I assume you’re talking on a global level since you used a U.S. study). If you just want to refer to Australia - well what about rape? Men rape women, not the other way around, and that is a HUGE violence issue in our communities. I’ve only ever heard of one case of domestic violence caused by a woman - and it was because she snapped at her abusive partner. I’m sorry, but men have treated women badly throughout history, they continue to do so in some cases, and if you believe otherwise then you are very very blind.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/svaw/?

James1 says:

11:26am | 25/11/11

One of my first assignments in my undergraduate was to critically examine the contention that “if women ran the world, there would be perpetual peace”.

Everyone naturally argued in the affirmative with some waffly rubbish about women being nurturers because they are mothers and not using violence and blah blah patriarchy blah.  I argued negatively, and posited the examples provided by Golda Meir, Boudica, Queen Victoria and Margaret Thatcher, and the collective bloodbaths that those women presided over.  I even quoted at length some particularly bloodthirsty comments by a female veteran of Russia’s war against Germany.

Mine was the only one which received an HD from our second wave feminist lecturer, as I was the only one that used actual evidence.

My point?  There is hope.

Adam Diver says:

11:52am | 25/11/11

@ Princess,

You would think feminist would be focused on these issues, rather than domestic violence in australia, literary awards for women, social workers (womens jobs) being paid less, and the disproportionate number of female executives.

However that would be to assume these groups are anything but selfish, greedy and ignorant people, with a tendency for the hyperbole, and its a bad idea to assume.

@ Erick

“You are the target. Don’t accept it. Fight back!”

Poor choice of words

Mark says:

12:07pm | 25/11/11

@Princess- How many men would report being beaten by their spouce or raped by someone else? I have a friend who personally was date raped, woke up at a 35YO womans house not remembering a thing and just grabbed his things and left. In 99% of cases where the gender’s were reversed, it would be a a police matter and the man would be found guilty of rape. This went unreported. This is the exact situation that many men find themselves in. I myself, have been hit by a drunk, angry girlfriend. I didn’t hit back, but I didn’t report it either. Now, onto your arguements. You are using third world, anecdotal evidence to compare male vs female violence in domestic partnerships for a first world country. Sounds like apples and oranges to me. Don’t worry, though, all the brain washed femanists/femanist sympathisers will agree with YOUR USE OF CAPITALS, so don’t worry. You are in the majority on this one. It’s just another example of common sense being completely thrown out the window in favour of emotional/irrational appeals to personal guilt. Typical feminist type of argument. Erick, on the other hand, used a US study which, as we all know, is very similar to our own way of life. The way you should be arguing this point, without sounding like a power hungry, oppressive, third wave feminist.- is to point out the potential damage to an individual woman living with an abusive spouse compared to the potential damage to a man in the reverse situation. Obviously, men can do far more physical damage to a woman, but does that mean the argument regarding female violence towards men is null and void? No, it doesn’t. Take your offended hat off for once, Princess, and listen to reason. We do not condone bashing women- we don’t condone bashing men, as we do neither, we should not be made to feel guilty by taking a pledge on white ribbon day. Is it that hard to get?

ByStealth says:

12:17pm | 25/11/11

Erick pointed out that by accepting the White Ribbon oath you are accepting that the campaign and society views you as a potential wife beater purely because of your gender. He was immediately shamed by being called a woman hater.

Weak, but typical. Anytime anyone stands up and points out discrimination against men in a public arena they are painted as misogynistic.

Then they can’t understand why we are reluctant to take up pro-women causes when they are promoted in a George W Bush style ‘You’re either with us, or against us’ frame.

B4Bear says:

12:18pm | 25/11/11

t’s your sexist attitude - and lying campaigns like White Ribbon Day - that keep you from realising this.

And it is your hatred of women that defines your life.

The fact that women commit these crimes in no way excuses men who do the same thing. Both should be stamped out, pure and simple. So instead of condoning inaction because males are also the victims, why don’t you actually do something about helping stop the violence against men by women?

Zaf says:

12:44pm | 25/11/11

[Breast cancer foundations don’t suggest that anyone who does not swear to battle cancer on all fronts is just as culpable for the pain and suffering as the cancer itself. ]

@ Markus

I think the point is that opposing breast cancer won’t stop the cancer, but promising to oppose violence against women means that you can, personally, stop specific acts of violence against women.  Or at least that’s the theory.

And the *real* reason a lot of people are wary of swearing to do this, is that a man who is violent against his wife is a man who is likely to be violent against anybody who interferes.

Given that many people return over and over again to violent relationships (because the relationships are twisted, it is not a straightforward case of just being able to physically get away for MOST of the women involved), then people *might* ask themselves - why do I risk a broken nose and ongoing enmity with a violent person if the wife goes back to him the next day? 

It’s not something that men happily admit, but I think there are strong ‘self preservation’ and ‘this has got to be worth it’ memes at work, not necessarily a ‘women don’t matter’ meme.  It’s a human thing - I don’t think many women would genuinely promise to risk their personal safety to protect other women from violence in a relationship.

jmho.

@ James1 - and Indira Gandhi, but a good list to start with.

Andrew says:

01:04pm | 25/11/11

My issue with all of this relates to the fact that it is still all one sided. There is never an equal approach to both sides. And now we have systems in place that actively search out problems, by accusing first and then asking questions later. Case in point. We have a disabled daughter and so we get help from the government in various ways. Part of this is funding and to discuss this my wife meets with our “co-ordinator” to plan out funding over the next months etc. On one occasion my wife streched her back and said “ow”. She was asked what was wrong. She answered that she got hit and might have a broken rib. BAM!!! “did your husband hurt you” in an accusing voice. It was actually our son in a bit of an accident. But the first thought was Call the police! Arrest this man. My wife calmly explained what happened, but the fact remains that government staff “assume” the worst before any question is asked and actions are taken without constulation. This is the same in the public and private sector. Until there is a balanced approach, we will have both sides arguing from different approaches, never to agree in the middle on how to fix the “whole” problem. I can understand some men wanting to - but it does not mean they should. Communication and the ability to not always get wour way (compomise) is how we should resolve things. Not beat the crap out of each other. I do not always get what I want at home, but I love and respect my wife. She does not always get what she wants either. Until we, as people, can learn to live for the interests of other people (partner) first and not yourself, we will always have these issues. Beinf selfich is what drives our demand for things. Being prepared to forgoe some things because they do not really matter in the big scheme if things, can make all the difference. It takes ahrd work and patience, but I can tell you that it is worth it. And no, I have never hit my wife of 22 years today, nor any other woman. Happy Anniversary little one.

Michael says:

01:04pm | 25/11/11

Brando, I do understand where you’re coming from and I commend your behaviour as being the best possible advocacy that we have in stopping violence against women. Unfortunately there are a miserable, cowardly percentage of men who don’t hold the same values as you and that’s why White Ribbon Day exists. This is not about preaching to the converted. This is about men agreeing to be men, and standing up for the voiceless. It’s about men not being prepared to tolerate inhumanity. This is about men protecting those whom they love dearest, our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters from those whom they should never have to fear. It’s about educating our sons, through our actions, but also through our words. This is about you and your circle of friends being vocal where its needed, that’s all.

Brando says:

01:04pm | 25/11/11

I’m sorry Brando but you would be very unlikely to know even if one of your friends WAS a domestic violence perpetrator
larks: 11:26am | 25/11/11

What rot. More drivel to try and shore up a pathetic argument. Do you seriously think that someone could get away with years of domestic violence and nobody would ever notice?

Perhaps in your neighbourhood but certainly never in mine. This guilt trip people try to put on others just doesn’t work for me. I don’t hit women and I’m not going to apologise for that or take some dumb oath about something I’d never do anyway

Markus says:

01:22pm | 25/11/11

“Or at least that’s the theory”
And a theory it will remain, zaf.

The only way this campaign could have any real effect is if the men who take the vow were legally allowed to:

- Establish vigilante groups to take the law into their own hands against any witnessed abuse
- Deny a woman her civil rights, and remove her from her abusive boyfriend kicking and screaming if required

Without these it is just pathetic, patronising lip service, that I have to pay money for the privilege of participating in.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

01:56pm | 25/11/11

Way to miss the point Brando. Don’t keep silent when you see someone else living with violence. Half of the problem is the attitude that it doesn’t happen in my house, therefore it doesn’t happen at all.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

02:04pm | 25/11/11

@ Brando “What rot. More drivel to try and shore up a pathetic argument. Do you seriously think that someone could get away with years of domestic violence and nobody would ever notice?”

Yes! My father-in-law abused his children until they were big enough to hit back. The kids used to tell their grandparents, who thought they were making it up. They didn’t believe their son would do such a thing, and like most cowards, he hit where the marks didn’t show. Many years passed before the extended family accepted that there was a problem.

zag says:

04:14pm | 25/11/11

Mostly a pointless endeavour over all.

The idea is to have men not doing it in the first place that’s fine.

The problem though when it does happen and the cops pull up out the front and sort it out and then ask the female if she wants to press charges she’ll 90% of the time say no it’s fine I don’t want to and go back to living with the man beating her up.

That happens heaps of times over some cops will even be on first name basis with some couples due to fighting that much and the cops know she won’t do anything about it at all.

And it’s only when she is really badly bashed or killed that people bring up these white ribbon campaigns.

it’s all pointless because the person that it happens to most likely won’t leave or do anything about the abuse anyway and just put up with it.

Many chicks are clingers and just won’t give up or let go for any reason.

So really this white ribbon campaign shouldn’t be targeted at men but the females who don’t leave anyway.

Shane says:

04:58pm | 25/11/11

Princess, you really don’t have any idea do you?

I was physically abused by an alcoholic wife.  She would come home drunk every second night and hit me while I was feeding the baby.  She would scream abuse and be physically violent every time she drank.  The only reason she drank every second night was because she was too hungover on the other nights to go out.  She abused me, she abused the kids, she was simply awful when drinking.  It’s all ok though, she got custody of the children, so now she takes it out on them, the family court thought it was better that a 1 year old baby stay with her mother.

My brother is 6’4” tall, his 5’3” wife would walk up behind him and as he stepped outside and their heights evened up, she belted him over the head with a cast iron frying pan.  She would also lose her temper and kick holes in walls and doors.  She was so bad that every wall and door in their house had holes in it.  My brother stopped inviting his mates and family around because he was ashamed of his house.

I worked with a guy who’s wife would regularly piss off to the pub and get smashed, then when she got home she would smash everything breakable in the house.  She had 2 kids from a previous relationship and 2 with my mate, and he eventually had to find relief housing because of her actions.

I could go on.  Obviously you have very little life experience and haven’t a clue.

So don’t dribble your rubbish that domestic violence is a one way street, you sicken me.

Leah says:

10:49pm | 25/11/11

Brando, you’re on the frontline because you can set an example to younger men and boys, to demonstrate how a man should treat a woman. You might not personally know of any way to change domestic violence because you do not personally know of any incidents of it, but the effect you have on the people around you could last their entire lives.

James Ricketson, I don’t think wearing the white ribbon says that you have taken some sort of pledge. It just means you support the cause. Women wear them too and do you think it’s because they’ve taken some kind of pledge not to abuse women?

Markus, I see nothing here (or anywhere else) to suggest that people who do “not swear to battle (domestic violence) on all fronts” are just as culpable for it as the perpetrators. But there is a difference between domestic violence causes and breast cancer causes. The difference is that people inflict domestic violence. They don’t inflict breast cancer. And people can help stop domestic violence where it’s happening. They can’t really help stop cancer where it’s happening. The people that surround a breast cancer victim cannot, in any way, help stop the cancer. The people that surround a domestic violence victim can.

Erick, I often actually agree with your comments, but for once, shut up. You’re being an idiot. If you want to start a cause highlighting abuse against men go for it, nobody is stopping you. But the fact is, most domestic violence is perpetrated against women. Not all. But most. Yes, a lot of women may be violent - and that is not on - but if a woman hits a man, what harm is she likely to inflict? A sting for a few seconds? Maybe a bruise? If a bloke hits a woman - especially in couples where there’s a significant size difference (take for example me and my husband - me 170cm, 50kg, husband 195cm and 90kg) a bloke hitting a woman could easily break a bone, cause a concussion, knock her unconscious or even kill her.

This doesn’t make women’s violence ok. But it does highlight that when a man is violent he is FAR more likely to cause serious injury.

larks, this article is specifically about instances where people KNOW domestic violence is being perpetrated. So your excuse “you’re not likely to know if your friend is a DV perpetrator” is moot.

St. Michael says:

01:06am | 26/11/11

@ Leah:

“But the fact is, most domestic violence is perpetrated against women. Not all. But most.”

Show us some credible statistics that support that, and you might have an argument.  Thus far Liv’s had a go, lied, and failed further down the thread and hasn’t been back.  Would you like a crack at the title? Please do try and find something that trumps the ABS, by the way.

But even if you did, you are still in effect saying that women deserve more focus and more resources for their domestic violence issues than men do.  To which I say: you are equal before the law, and both women and men deserve equal treatment.  That means it has to be condemned against both genders, not one.  White Ribbon refuses to do that because it enjoys playing on the stereotype and it enjoys kicking men as pretty much the only DV abusers when the truth is quite different.

Erick says:

05:09am | 26/11/11

@Leah - You are wrong. In fact, women are at least as violent as men.

“SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.”

Ignoring this reality, and blaming men for violence, is a form of sexist abuse. As long as these campaigns are based on misandry and falsehood, people of good will should oppose them in every case.

Mel says:

08:16am | 27/11/11

@Brando

Actually - you probably wouldn’t know if a friend (male or female) suffered from DV at the hands of their partner. Often people hide the violence (emotional and/or physical) because of various reasons.

The perpetrator (male or female) can be good at hiding the “bad self” from public. That is - it may start small - bit of emotional blackmail here, a push there. Oh honey - I didn’t mean it - I just got angry, you know how stressed I am. I love you!

Psychological studies have shown that the most powerful type of reinforcement is intermittent (I don’t have a link handy but Google Scholar should help you out). So - smash them a bit and then the big “making up to them” part - keeps someone trapped in a relationship. Maybe even their partner chips away at support networks until there is no one left… anyway - all stories are different.

Just as we on this forum would probably NEVER have touched a child or fellow human being inappropriately - that doesn’t mean we can’t be on the frontline. We watch, we see, we know we will act if we suspect.

And @Erick et al - lighten up mate. No one is saying woman don’t abuse men. This is simply saying that no one accepts violence from men against women for this particular campaign. I’m not even sure how you moved on to the idea that this campaign supports the premise that women don’t abuse men. You know - campaigns start by motivated people caring enough to get something started. If you want a ribbon day for violence against men - you should spear head it! You are obviously really passionate about it - you are right that it would be a hidden statistic as well. I think you would find really good sponsors and I suggest you should get a groundswell going. I will wear a white ribbon to say I deplore violence from men against women and I would proudly also support your campaign for stopping violence against men. End violence in domestic situations for all people!

Erick says:

10:03am | 27/11/11

You are missing the point, Mel. WRD is not a campaign to stop violence against women at all. It’s a campaign to demonise men and portray us all as potential abusers.

If it really was about stopping violence, the WRD campaign would look at the backlash from good men, and wonder what it was doing wrong. Because obviously it isn’t doing anything positive to change men’s attitudes.

But that would only happen if it really was about stopping violence. It isn’t. It’s a hate campaign, nothing more, nothing less.

Erick says:

06:50am | 25/11/11

Those Family Law “reforms” will make it easier for children to be taken away from loving fathers and handed over to abusive mothers. All helped along by hate campaigns against men such as “White Ribbon Day”.

Joseph Logan says:

07:19am | 25/11/11

Er, ah, umm -do men get protected as well?

Tim says:

07:28am | 25/11/11

So you think 50-50 access to children from both parents is a bad thing?

Well at least you don’t hide your bias.

Nathan says:

07:37am | 25/11/11

@Erick
It is not a hate campaign, and you are an embarrassment to men to be honest. I have no doubt fathers for justice have a legitimate cause, just don’t demonise white ribbon day because you have an axe to grind. How is raising awareness and showing support for abused women ever going to be a bad thing?

Instead of being a complaining like a little so and so, how about you ask the punch if the would consider doing a piece on fathers obviously a worthy topic that has your attention. To be honest when people like you carry on the way that you do it turns people off in a big way, sure people will voice their support on here but you would not of changed anyones opinion

As far as your comment below “Mothers kill their own children more often than fathers do. Why is there no White Ribbon Oath campaign for women, encouraging them to swear never to kill their children?” - If men where predominantly full time care givers to children that stat would be different. There is also a lot of mental health issues that extend further than a bad temper and a love of getting on the piss.

Erick says:

07:52am | 25/11/11

@Nathan - “How is raising awareness and showing support for abused women ever going to be a bad thing?”

When it’s only ever raising awareness and support for one gender, portraying women as victims and men as abusers, it’s a bad thing.

This is not a campaign against violence. It’s a campaign to defame men.

Tim says:

08:10am | 25/11/11

Nathan,
“There is also a lot of mental health issues that extend further than a bad temper and a love of getting on the piss. “

That is a disgusting comment. Why on earth would you try to justify people killing their own children?
Do you also feel sympathy for women bashers like Matthew Newton who’s suffering from mental health issues? Or is he just a low-life who likes getting on the piss?

James Smith says:

08:25am | 25/11/11

@Erik “This is not a campaign against violence. It’s a campaign to defame men. “

I feel the same thing. This is a hate campaign against men. Somehow we’ve ended up with a community that only sees violence coming from men, racism coming from whites and sex abuse coming from men - and I dont think the media is helping.

another Rachel says:

09:45am | 25/11/11

I see White Ribbon Day as an affirmation that most men are good. Public declarations just show the strength and numbers of these men to the others who think that everyone is like them and that it’s OK to abuse women. Making a positive noise is the only way to drown out the negative minority. The only reason that it is women- orientated is because of the overwhelming imbalance in the statistics.

@Erick, have you ever done anything positive for men’s rights, or do you believe that attacking women’s rights will make everything better?

Erick says:

10:44am | 25/11/11

@another Rachel - Why do you believe that attacking men’s rights will make everything better? Because that’s what White Ribbon Day is all about.

I’m not attacking women’s rights. I’m supporting equal rights for everyone. And that means opposing campaigns that attack men, like White Ribbon Day.

Tom says:

11:12am | 25/11/11

Nathan, me suspects that you are a woman blogging with a male name.

Miles says:

11:42am | 25/11/11

Most domestic violence issues in this country would be averted in the first instance if women stopped and actually analysed exactly what kind of man they are getting into a relationship with in the first place.  Often it is all too obvious what kind of character a man possesses - yet the obvious red flags are ignored by women time after time.

Robert Smissen Of rural SA says:

12:05pm | 25/11/11

Rachel you are indeed lucky to have found a man that cares for you & your kids, however as a person who was bitten, kicked & punched but stood by the credo of “never hit a women” suffered abuse for years, always worried that I’d lose my kids to this violent woman, it wasn’t until she brutalized my daughter in front of a witness that she was removed from my home. The whole white ribbon campaign is tainted. The myth that few men are assaulted lives on because #1 men are too embarassed to report it & #2 police often refuse to act on complaints & the statistics are thus skewed

In heart felt appreciation of gentlemen one woman says:

12:29pm | 25/11/11

Miles, your comment just highlights the issue with how many in society view these crimes. How can it be a womans fault to be subject to DV for having a relationship with the ‘wrong’ man? You think a woman should be able to identify that he has the propensity to hit her when he gets mad when she first goes on a date?

That’s like saying a woman is asking to be raped by wearing a skimpy bikini.

Your comment is exactly why we have such a day, to raise awareness.

As for Eric, I can honestly say I would see a man how wore such a ribbon as a beacon of hope, rather than a potential perpetrator. Wearing the ribbon acknowledges this occurs and it must stop, not that all men are bad.

Mark says:

12:38pm | 25/11/11

@another Rachel- That’s exactly the sort of attitude that perpetuates discrimination. Why should we need campaign for men’s rights? Because female’s campaign for female rights or because we, as humans, have separate rights depending on your gender?? That’s positive affirmation and so- called rights activists are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to this. As far as I’m concerned, men’s and women’s rights are human rights. Do you want to be treated better because you’re a female?? No?? Exactly, now the shoe’s on the other foot isn’t it? You and your type are the sole cause of discrimination in this country and you accuse Erick of “attacking women’s right”- typical feminist hypocrisy. That’s where stereotypes come from, Rachel.

John Findlay says:

01:10pm | 25/11/11

What colour ribbon do I wear to promote the child abuse called PARENTAL ALIENATION ?
What colour ribbon do I wear that says I’m a victim of a MALICIOUS DVO ?  I have been alienated from my children for 4 years (for a txt message !)  They talk about the STOLEN GENERATION well there is a new vershion happening in every suburb of Australia ! Children who are encouraged to hate their father by women who are also low enough to use a malicious DVO just to hurt them. The women out there getting malicious DVO’s are your worst enemy ladies, they are stopping those who need real protection from getting it !

St. Michael says:

01:52pm | 25/11/11

“As for Eric, I can honestly say I would see a man how wore such a ribbon as a beacon of hope, rather than a potential perpetrator.”

Um ... you do realise you just said the same thing twice, don’t you?

If you say a man who wore a ribbon as a “beacon of hope”, that implies you think the majority of men—the ones who aren’t wearing the ribbons and making meaningless oaths—are all in the darkness and either complicit in if not committing domestic violence.  How’s that any different from seeing the white ribbon wearer as a potential perpetrator?

another Rachel says:

02:41pm | 25/11/11

@Erick, you always make the fallacious leap that something that is of benefit to women must always be deleterious to men. I’ll ask again ... Have you ever done anything positive or do you just try to take away from those who do?

@Mark, when the rates of violence by women against men are the same as by men against women, then there will be no need for gender based campaigns. It is people like you that refuse to accept that equality does not not mean that we are the same, and therefore treating everyone the same does not result in equality.

I actually don’t consider myself a feminist. If there were a campaign that focussed on reducing violence against men, I would be support it in a heartbeat. Gender is irrelevant.

Tom says:

02:42pm | 25/11/11

Great post, John Findlay. Filing a vexatious AVO is a disgusting tactic used by women (and lawyers and advocates) to gain power for women over their spouses or ex’s. It very rarely is used for their protection.

Sadly, this abuse of the system diverts police and court resources away from protecting the women who are genuinely in danger. I wonder how many women have died because police were not available due to being called out to “entertain” these disgusting cheats.

andye says:

03:05pm | 25/11/11

@Erick - “Why do you believe that attacking men’s rights will make everything better? Because that’s what White Ribbon Day is all about.”

What men’s rights are those that are being attacked, exactly? What exactly would a campaign against male on female violence take away from you?

Women’s groups are interested in violence against women and other issues related to women. You, on the other hand, are either involved with or strongly interested in men’s groups that look at men’s issues.

How is it that when women’s issues are dealt with it is an attack on men, but not the other way around?

Mark says:

03:12pm | 25/11/11

@Another Rachel-
@Mark, when the rates of violence by women against men are the same as by men against women, then there will be no need for gender based campaigns.
When does a man who is the victim of violence from a woman report it to police?? I sure as hell know I didn’t. Your argument is as biased as the media who perpetuates these lies. How about you be objective of the whole situation, Google “Affirmative Action” and gain some knowledge about the subtlety of this modern day gender battle. You say Gender is irrelevant, but support campaigns identifying with one gender, shows how much your word is worth then- hypocrite.

Markus says:

03:38pm | 25/11/11

“It is people like you that refuse to accept that equality does not not mean that we are the same, and therefore treating everyone the same does not result in equality.”

That you can say that without even a hint of irony just proves the point that every guy on here has made.
Unless of course you are suggesting that women are inferior and require special treatment in order to be the equal of men?

Rosemary says:

04:18pm | 25/11/11

Dont forget that domestic violence does not have to be physical, it can be mental, and most times the aggressor is very cunning and know what he is doing is wrong, but can stil hide what he is doing. On the other hand, females who want equality are getting to be more violent than the men in their quest to be the dominant partner. Look at the violence at schools and on the streets the girls are in there big time. I have never wanted to be equal to a man, why should I bring myself down to his level. I am up there and would not come down for the world.

andye says:

04:18pm | 25/11/11

@St. Michael -“If you say a man who wore a ribbon as a “beacon of hope”, that implies you think the majority of men—the ones who aren’t wearing the ribbons and making meaningless oaths—are all in the darkness and either complicit in if not committing domestic violence.  How’s that any different from seeing the white ribbon wearer as a potential perpetrator?”

That is seriously one of the most ridiculous illogical things I have seen here.

So lets say the white ribbon campaign was suddenly about both sexes… reread your “logic” in light of that and see if it still makes sense.

“If you say a person who wore a ribbon as a “beacon of hope”, that implies you think the majority of people—the ones who aren’t wearing the ribbons and making meaningless oaths—are all in the darkness and either complicit in if not committing domestic violence.  How’s that any different from seeing the white ribbon wearer as a potential perpetrator?”

Taking the “sexism” out of it, does this make sense? Does taking a stand against violence imply everyone who doesnt is violent (and maybe those who do)?

Of course it doesnt, you bloody idiot. Sex is the difference here. YOU ARE BEING SEXIST.

zag says:

04:39pm | 25/11/11

I have to agree with erick,  I’ve met so many men who get screwed in devoice court it’s not funny.

Guys paying over $600 a week for 2 kids.

Other guys paying but the mother say nothing has been paid at all and they get hit with payments plus backdated.

this is directly taken out of the pay before it gets to a bank account and the amount can be altered by a Gov dept at any time, without any notice or warning about a change, they will only know when they get a pay slip.

Only see their kids for 2 days of the week if lucky otherwise it’s court ordered vists or nothing at all.

Others have to pay but never allowed to see the kids what so ever in their whole lives, forget the 18 year old thing.

Remove all traces or documents of even being the father to a child.

Lose everything they own and most being turned into money and more than 50% going to the ex.

Ex-wives going out of their way to screw the guy out of a house even abusing new women in their lives or house mates where they have moved to and getting them forced out due to the harassment from the ex’s

Keep asking for more and more money from the court to be paid to them from the father.

These aren’t things I’ve read but been told about from guys I work with.

For a man to apply for custody of his children, it’ll be a 10+ year court battle with a 90% chance of failing, and costs going out the roof for lawyers, heaps of medical reports and living costs to be proved stated reasons that have to be proven in 10 different ways which if any one can’t be then can cause the whole case to be dismissed.

90% of the time most of the court dates are during the work hours so the guy will loose out even more money due to being away at court plus have all the cost to pay on top.

Many men only have $300 or less after a devoice and generally lose everything in the process, I don’t know of any guys who have come out better.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

08:30pm | 25/11/11

@ Tim “Yeah that makes sense.
All women who harm their children are mentally ill but all men who beat women do so because they’re evil.
With that kind of logic you could rationalise anything.”

Straw man argument.

St. Michael says:

01:15am | 26/11/11

@ andye: “So lets say the white ribbon campaign was suddenly about both sexes… reread your “logic” in light of that and see if it still makes sense.”

I’ve deleted the abusive portions of your e-mail, though may I thank you for eruditely proving my point as to that.

As to the above quote: if WRD were about both genders, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.  But it isn’t.  And it’s not going to be—because the organisers have refused to change its focus despite representation to them that they are misleading people on the statistics.  More importantly, WRD wants a monopoly on domestic violence imagery being against women and not men—because that way it can play to stereotypes without the competition of, y’know, actual reality.

Erick says:

06:21am | 25/11/11

Mothers kill their own children more often than fathers do. Why is there no White Ribbon Oath campaign for women, encouraging them to swear never to kill their children?

The reason, of course, is that these campaigns aren’t about stopping violence. They’re all about shaming and demonising men.

Maus says:

06:26am | 25/11/11

I agree that’s it’s you Tim. Do you think it would be less patronising if the oath focused more on men calling other men out on violent behavior (I.e. not staying silent, not making excuses for violence if you see it occurring?)

KH says:

06:27am | 25/11/11

It implies no such thing.  The losers who do think its OK to pick on people physically weaker than them are hoping for the complicity of other men who say nothing.  Its about speaking up.  Seeing real, normal guys saying its wrong might have some effect on the minority who think its acceptable behaviour.  The majority nearly always stays silent - sometimes they have to make some noise.

Rossco says:

06:41am | 25/11/11

And indeed it has. I also find the White Ribbon message patronising, as if all men are silent about abuse again women, when that is hardly the case. In my experiences men are quite intolerant of abuse of women in society.  The fact that white ribbon day also fails to mention men as victims is quite a disgrace.

Ron says:

07:01am | 25/11/11

I sort of agree with your comments.  It is patronising.  I would be humiliated to take the oath, and indeed I do not need to take the oath any more than I need to take the alcholics pledge.

Our comments may not be politically correct but people still need to say what they think even though they may be attacked for them.

Fiona says:

07:17am | 25/11/11

Ever heard of child protection week in September Erick? Child protection is very important, but, yes I do agree that everyone should pledge against violence.
Tim, from my own and other womens perspective, men don’t step in if they see violence, even if your partner punches you in the face in the street. While I think it’s up to women to get themselves out of such a relationship, it is disappointing that generally no one is willing to run interference.

Tim says:

07:37am | 25/11/11

KH,
then why try to make me swear to not commit violence against women?
How does that not imply that I’m a potential abuser.

I didn’t wake up in the morning and go “hey, I might bash some women today. Though in a bit of raping too. OH, wait a minute, I made that oath not to do it, Better not.”

As Erick says, If there was a similar campaign focused on women, then there would be outrage and disgust if they tried to force you to take a similar oath. But apparently us evil menz just can’t help ourselves.

If they focused on stopping violence and preventing it in the first place then I would be fully supportive.
But they don’t and so I’m not.

Erick says:

07:37am | 25/11/11

@Fiona - You missed my point.

Why is it that, even though we have child protection campaigns, women aren’t being asked to swear that they won’t harm their children?

The reason is because White Ribbon Day isn’t a campaign against violence. It’s a campaign to vilify men.

Tim says:

07:39am | 25/11/11

Fiona,
I would be reluctant to step in unless I knew the people.
I’ve seen these types of public fights between partners where a member of the public has stepped in.
Instead of being grateful for their help, both partners turn all their anger on the good samaritan. It’s strange but true.

redvixen says:

07:45am | 25/11/11

@ Tim - my husband and I were saying pretty much the same thing this morning.  My husband would never lay a hand on a woman and would certainly not stand by silently while another man did (self defense being an exception). 

When we were younger we were in the city at a bar.  As we were leaving we came across a young man punching his girlfriend in the street.  My husband interjected because he thought it was wrong.  Not only did he end up in the emergency room (nothing too serious), but the young lady in question took her boyfriend’s side.  I asked him if he would interfere again in a situation such as this, and his answer was, most definitely so.  He’s a better person than I.

My point - actions speak louder than words and all the men in the world can take the oath but it’s the people who live by it that really make a difference, regardless if they’re men or women.

Nathan says:

07:53am | 25/11/11

@Erick
“Why is it that, even though we have child protection campaigns, women aren’t being asked to swear that they won’t harm their children?The reason is because White Ribbon Day isn’t a campaign against violence. It’s a campaign to vilify men”

Ahh you have done again, by your reckoning we can’t have a campaign for anything unless you get what you want. Get over it yourself, JUST BECAUSE A CAMPAIGN IS FOR ONE THING DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT AGAINST ANYTHING ELSE

gobsmack says:

08:23am | 25/11/11

@Erick
“Why is there no White Ribbon Oath campaign for women, encouraging them to swear never to kill their children?”
Obviously you miss one of the main points of White Ribbon Day which is to overturn the culture of silence and acquiesence that attaches to domestic violence.
You can’t seriously be saying there is a similar culture in relation to infanticide.
More irrelevant nonsense from you.  You fail.

OchreBunyip says:

08:38am | 25/11/11

There is no oath because women are not held accountable for their crimes. A schoolteacher rapist in Australia, drugged and raped four of her students but was given no gaol time and no sex offender registry entry for life because she was a drug abuser and emotional at the time. Her victims were boys under the age of 15. If she was a man she’d have received a very different sentence.

Women enable the criminals within their sex and then expect men to just accept the hate campaigns that portray men as the only criminals and all men as criminals. Some of us will not be deceived.

LauraBoBaura says:

09:10am | 25/11/11

As a woman, I understand 100% where you’re coming from Tim. The idea of me be encouraged to pledge to not do something that I would never consider in the first place would piss me off no end.

I have no doubt that a similar campaign aimed directly at women would never get off the ground. The world would probably end.

Until White Ribbon Day becomes a day to condemn domestic violence as a whole, irregardless of gender & stops painting non-violent men as potential abusers with their stupid oath - I will not support it.

Markus says:

09:14am | 25/11/11

“Obviously you miss one of the main points of White Ribbon Day which is to overturn the culture of silence and acquiesence that attaches to domestic violence.”

The only ‘culture of silence’ that exists is that between the victim and their abuser. You know why so many outsiders are silent? Because the last time they stepped in to save a woman from her abusive boyfriend, not only did they get king hit by him, they got kicked on the ground by her for their troubles, then accused by both of being the instigator when the cops arrived.

Even several of the commenters on the Punch who have written about their abuse experiences have admitted they left anyone who attempted to help them in public hung high and dry.

Captain Delta says:

09:15am | 25/11/11

This is ridiculous.

I find the logic of this argument to be rather silly. If men are portrayed as bad because White Ribbon Day is about violence against women, then surely Pink Ribbons portray other non-breast cancers as acceptable because they weren’t included.

Riiiiight then.

I am wearing a White Ribbon because I do not like violence of any kind. Just like I would wear a Ribbon for violence against men, because I don’t like violence of any kind. Also why I donate to all cancer foundations that I cross paths with, even though I have only ever been personally affected by Ovarian cancer. It’s about the cause, not about you.

gobsmack says:

10:42am | 25/11/11

@Markus
I was referring to the situation where a circle of men know one of their mates has bashed his wife/partner but say nothing about it to him because they think he’s basically a good bloke or they don’t want to cause trouble.

Markus says:

11:03am | 25/11/11

@gobsmack, and how often does that situation actually happen? The assumption is that every guy knows at least one mate who beats their wife/girlfriend but doesn’t speak up because he’s such a great bloke.

That is just as big a load of shit as the assumption that every man would beat a woman if they don’t buy a ribbon and publicly proclaim that they won’t.

St. Michael says:

11:32am | 25/11/11

@ Captain Delta:

“If men are portrayed as bad because White Ribbon Day is about violence against women, then surely Pink Ribbons portray other non-breast cancers as acceptable because they weren’t included.”

Wikipedia is your friend.  Pink Ribbon Day is against only breast cancer, which afflicts 100 women for every 1 man who has it—but the point is men can have breast cancer as well.  And in fact men have a higher mortality rate from the disease, because it’s usually detected later in men.  It is slanted at women since they tend to get it more, obviously.  But it is not a campaign solely for women.  Never has been.  It’s about one disease, not about a human interaction.

The very fact you seem to think it is a campaign solely for women only illustrates how powerful that marketing message is.

White Ribbon Day, by contrast, is explicitly an oath to be taken by men to keep them from abusing women.  It contains no censure or criticism of domestic violence committed by women.  At all.  Begging the White Ribbon Day organisers to acknowledge this domestic abuse and make the day about both genders has been repeatedly rebuffed, therefore it is intentional.

It is an affront to the basic principle of equality in society that women themselves fought for and constantly complain they don’t have.  Your analogy is false.

Captain Delta says:

12:15pm | 25/11/11

@ St. Michael

Thank you for responding.

It may have been how I wrote it (at work trying to be sneaky) but I am afraid you’ve got the wrong end of the stick in regards to my analogy. I didn’t mention gender being a part of Pink Ribbon Day. What I did say is that many cancers are not included in Pink Ribbon Day, but that doesn’t mean that supporters of Pink Ribbon Day are putting forward any aggressive opinions about other cancers by omitting them from their campaign. It’s the same with White Ribbon.

I’m a lady and I don’t get the message from White Ribbon Day that all men are abusers. The day makes me stop and think about domestic violence in general.

Erick says:

01:12pm | 25/11/11

@Captain Delta - You may not “get” an anti-male message from White Ribbon day - but as the comments show, a great many men do.

You, as a woman, are not the target of this campaign. Men are the targets, and we can see what it’s really about.

It’s about hating men.

St. Michael says:

01:26pm | 25/11/11

Delta, I get your point, but I have to say I still don’t think it washes.

Breast cancer is a disease.  It involves no act of will to do it.  It also does not discriminate because it’s not intelligent or indeed self-aware.  It is due to laws of physiology that it attacks more women than men, and that it kills proportionally more of the men who get it than the women who get it.

Pink Ribbon Day (which, in passing, was started as a nice little commercial venture by a perfume manufacturer) is designed to raise awareness of this disease, which affects both genders equally in that it will kill if it’s undetected and untreated.  (Indeed the reason they do it is because if it’s caught early enough, it can be treated).  That is the same result of all cancers, and nobody suggests that other cancers are aggressively excluded by Pink Ribbon (although note that there has been criticism over the years that expansive media/commercial campaigns as Pink Ribbon has gendered tend to squeeze out research into other cancers).  Even so, suggesting Pink Ribbon is pushing out other human diseases which involve no act of will would be ridiculous.

But comparing it to White Ribbon Day you are really analogising oranges to carrots.  One similar element to both (colour like an orange and women respetively) but fundamentally different problem and fundamentally different approach to the campaign.

White Ribbon Day is devoted to stopping domestic violence against women.  Only women.  Not men.  Women are not asked to take the Oath; men are.  It is no answer, as some of the more slippery correspondents around here have cottoned onto, that the “sentiment” of White Ribbon Day is domestic violence “generally”.  It’s not.  White Ribbon Day is for women only.  And its “sentiment”, insofar as it has one, is that overwhelmingly men perpetrate more domestic violence against women as opposed to the other way round.  And that statistic is highly misleading.

That is seriously wrong-headed, and it does not attempt to fully treat the actual disease: domestic violence, whether perpetrated by men against women or women against men.

A more correct analogy is this: to do what White Ribbon does, the Pink Ribbon campaign would essentially have to be saying: “Because women between 18 and 30 get breast cancer the most, breast cancer only happens in women between 18 and 30.  Stop breast cancer in women between 18 and 30.  Take an oath that you will not infect your partner with breast cancer.  Although we don’t have to treat any man who gets breast cancer, because breast cancer only happens in women between 18 and 30.”

See the point? White Ribbon isn’t actually about treating the disease of domestic violence, it’s more interested in getting one gender preferential treatment of the disease.  The correct principle is to just treat the disease, regardless of whether the person with it has something dangling between their legs or not.  Had White Ribbon Day been expressed as applying equally to both genders, my criticisms of it would evaporate in a second.  But it is not, and doggedly not given the actions of its founders.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

02:14pm | 25/11/11

@ Erick “Why is it that, even though we have child protection campaigns, women aren’t being asked to swear that they won’t harm their children? “

Um… usually because they are mentally ill and not of sound mind when they do it!

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

02:28pm | 25/11/11

@ Erick “You, as a woman, are not the target of this campaign. Men are the targets, and we can see what it’s really about.

It’s about hating men. “

I’m a woman too and I don’t get the message to hate men from the White Ribbon campaign. I just asked several women and none of them are getting that message either. If women aren’t seeing the message to hate men, then you don’t really have a problem, do you?

I do think it’s a shame that the campaign does not point out that both genders are capable of inflicting violence upon the other. But many of us are capable of recognising that violence is not acceptable regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or victim, so give us some credit. It’s rather hypocritical for you to complain about the demonisation of men when you demonise women at every opportunity.

LauraBoBaura says:

02:29pm | 25/11/11

That’s a viable excuse for infantcide in your mind then Benevolent Rapscallion?
Does men beating their wives when drunk make them less culpablle because they are ‘not of sound mind’?

Mark says:

02:36pm | 25/11/11

@Captain Delta- But what does promoting awareness of one form of cancer over others mean? Prostate cancer is a far bigger killer of men then breast cancer is of either gender, yet there is no high profile celebrities promoting awareness on that. No, of course it’s not about gender. Probably like the Minister for Women’s Health isn’t affirmative action.. You people are so clueless, yet purport your opinion as the truth. Try Googling ‘Affirmative Action,’ people- understand the concept and see how it is being applied in all manner of legislation in the western world. When you identify race/gender/disability as a reason for enacting legislation, you are being discriminatory. It is as simple as that and yet, even the judicial and political systems of this country continue to over look the bleeding obvious.

Chris says:

03:12pm | 25/11/11

@Captain Delta
The reason that people are not agreeing with White ribbon day is it telling men to say “I am a wife beater and I will stop”. Pink ribbon day doesn’t say all cancers are breast cancer. But trying to make all men admit to being violent because they are men is where people are getting there back up. If you were told to admit that you are violent because you are a woman, would you do that? Its exactly how men are told to feel by taking the oath.

St. Michael says:

03:15pm | 25/11/11

@ Benevolent Rapscallion:

“I’m a woman too and I don’t get the message to hate men from the White Ribbon campaign. I just asked several women and none of them are getting that message either. If women aren’t seeing the message to hate men, then you don’t really have a problem, do you?”

Let’s leave the appeal to popularity aside, which is an intellectually dishonest debating tactic.

As various feminist authors have pointed out, from “The Female Eunuch” to “The Beauty Myth”, the best way to ensure a gender will propagate a lie about it is to make that gender believe it intensely.

This is known as “indoctrination”.  And it perpetuates the cycle as badly as telling women that all men are bad.

White Ribbon Day does not ask women to take an oath that implies they are all abusers.  Only men are given that signal “honour”.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

03:17pm | 25/11/11

@LauraBoBaura “That’s a viable excuse for infantcide in your mind then Benevolent Rapscallion? “

It must be nice to live in your black and white world. How useful is a pledge made when someone is well, and then expecting that person to abide by the pledge when they are mentally ill and not thinking rationally, perhaps even not realising that they are ill and in need of treatment?

Mental illness is a terrible tragedy for all involved. Not only is it tragic for children to die at the hands of a mentally ill parent, but imagine how that parent is going to feel one day when their illness has been treated and they are now aware of what they did. They have to live with that for the rest of their lives. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. Mental illness is real and in need of treatment like any other chronic disease. Would you have the same attitude towards an epileptic who had a seizure and someone happened to die due to the chain of events set in motion by the seizure?

Tim says:

04:30pm | 25/11/11

Benevolent rapscallion,
Yeah that makes sense.
All women who harm their children are mentally ill but all men who beat women do so because they’re evil.
With that kind of logic you could rationalise anything.

LauraBoBaura says:

04:41pm | 25/11/11

@BR Yes it is tragic & I am not denying that mental illness is real, but things do not often get to the stage of infantcide (or physical abuse) without someone noticing that something is wrong.

A family member, friend, spouse, school teacher etc would know that something is not right - there is help available for people who are having these thoughts.

Fiona says:

07:45pm | 25/11/11

Erick, I think you see what you want to see. Anything that’s directed towards women’s issues, you see as an attack on men. I’m not into the white ribbon campaign, nor do I expect the men in my life to be, but my hubbie doesn’t see it the same way you do, even though he thinks the campaign is a bit silly. I think you’ll find a wide range of opinions on it.
Tim, I do get what you say about intervening, but if you’re not alone when you intervene or if you draw attention at a distance to them, it can have an effect, and with far less danger to yourself.
Oh and mark, one word, movember

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

09:03pm | 25/11/11

@ LauraBoBaura “A family member, friend, spouse, school teacher etc would know that something is not right - there is help available for people who are having these thoughts.”

They often don’t see it coming. A lot of suicides take families by complete surprise. Infanticide often does too. There are many people who deny that depression is a serious mental illness. There is such a stigma attached to mental illness that it prevents some people from getting help for their loved ones, that is assuming that they actually recognise that person has a problem.

Leah says:

11:04pm | 25/11/11

Oh, what a bunch of sooky la-las.

Every person is a potential abuser. Be realistic, we all have the potential for it, male or female. But the pledge is not just about swearing not to perpetrate the violence. It includes swearing not to turn a blind eye.

I agree that a majority of men in society are not tolerant of abuse against women. And I agree the oath isn’t entirely necessary. But I do not see how swearing not to turn a blind eye is offensive.

Erick - it’s called child protection week. And it applies to women just as much as men.

Ron - “I do not need to take the oath any more than I need to take the alcholics pledge.” No, you don’t need to take it. But don’t pretend taking it is somehow the same as taking the alcoholic’s pledge. Because people who take the alcoholics pledge are actually recovering alcoholics. People who take this pledge against domestic violence are not ex-DV perpetrators. This anti-DV pledge could more appropriately be compared to the temperance movement’s pledge - “We agree to abstain from all liquors of an intoxicating quality whether ale, porter, wine or ardent spirits, except as medicine.” It doesn’t suggest you used to be an alcoholic. Just that you have agreed not to drink alcohol.

Erick says:

05:16am | 26/11/11

@Leah - “Oh, what a bunch of sooky la-las.”

Start off by insulting everyone. What a great way to persuade others.

Would you like it if I referred to women who complain about violence by men as “a bunch of sooky la-las”?

As long as people who support the White Ribbon campaign take such flippant, dismissive attitude toward the concerns of others, I know I’m doing the right thing by opposing it.

St. Michael says:

06:09pm | 26/11/11

@ Leah:

“Every person is a potential abuser. Be realistic, we all have the potential for it, male or female.”

Then why have WRD focused exclusively on domestic violence against females?

Joseph Logan says:

06:48am | 25/11/11

Are you telling the truth?
That message, if on taxi radio would be recorded and accessible.
As a (real) man, apply for it and obtain it.
Then I will believe you.

Glenn Logan says:

07:23am | 25/11/11

Which taxi company in Australia has one of those radios?
None that I know of.

John the Zombie says:

10:12am | 25/11/11

acrotel I use to drive a taxi and if this was a customer booking then it would of gone through the call centre not the taxi radio system. All the txi driver gets is a message stating were his next job is and the only time he calls up or has a conversation with the centre is if he is in danger or need a bit of help.

ICB on your comment and also shows that you are nothing but a troll digging a hole.

Bear says:

11:49am | 25/11/11

Dickheads - there are still towns who use radio taxies!  These aren’t recorded and they also don’t go through a call centre.  How about you wake up, smell the roses and come out to the country for some fresh air.  All that city pollution has made you a bunch of wankers.

B says:

12:17pm | 25/11/11

@Acotrel

Ha.  Thats the biggest lie I have heard from you yet Acotrel.  GO back to being a labor hack.  Your much better at it!!!

Shane says:

05:46pm | 25/11/11

Plenty of country taxis have radios that are patched through to the phone.  Usually they are places with only one or two taxis and they can’t afford to pay an operator to listen to the phone all day.

Usually the call is something like this;

“Hello country taxis”

“Jim, I’m at the pub, come and get me”

“Where are you going?”

“home!”

You city clowns really do have problems understanding the bush don’t you?

Peter says:

09:16am | 25/11/11

That’s just BS.  I mean, wow.  How can you live in such denial.  Use your common sense, man!  Men are more physically powerful.  We are pumped full of testosterone.  We express frustration as anger.  We are aggressive by nature.  We grow up in a highly competitive, physically violent culture which encourages violence.  Have you watched any sports lately?  Have you watched any movies? Have you visited a prison?  Have you watched children in the schoolyard? 

Erick, whether you like to admit it or not, we (men) are more violent than women and we need to work hard to curb that tendency to have a healthy society.  This campaign is directed at that.  It is nothing to be ashamed of, but what you should be ashamed of is the charade you continually perpetuate on this website about society “hating men”.  It’s just plain BS and I think you know it.

jay-ded says:

10:08am | 25/11/11

@Peter.  I bet PMS against your testosterone any day.

sick of hearing it says:

10:11am | 25/11/11

Erick, you appear to live your mean and bitter life full of hatred. How can you call this an evil project when it seeks to protect against violence?  And why don’t you get off your arse and get your own campaign started instead of constantly whingeing and banging your drum at every opportunity?

James1 says:

10:21am | 25/11/11

Surprisingly Erick, I don’t entirely agree. I don’t think it a good idea to get rid of White Ribbon Day.  We just need to balance it with a Black Ribbon Day which involves a similar pledge from women.

I derive this opinion from the fact that I do think that all men are potential abusers.  Just like I think all women are potential abusers.  Everyone is a prick - it just takes the right set of circumstances to bring it out in people.

Furthermore, I don’t think it is a deliberate evil either.  The intention is good - to stop or at least lessen the level of domestic violence in society.  It just needs to be extended, is all.

Markus says:

10:46am | 25/11/11

“We just need to balance it with a Black Ribbon Day which involves a similar pledge from women.”
Daring to suggest women aren’t always victims AND offending racial minorities in the same campaign? Shame on you, James1…

Erick says:

10:48am | 25/11/11

@James1 - I agree with many of your points, in isolation.

However, White Ribbon Day needs to be considered in context. The context is a feminist-dominated media, education system, and legal system.

In this context, the aim of WRD is not innocent. It is a deliberate attack on men.

jay-ded says:

11:18am | 25/11/11

why has my original comment to this blog not been posted?  Is it because I said that journalists should look in their own backyard first?

Oh that’s right - it’s all the sex email spam coming through…..

Leah says:

11:19pm | 25/11/11

Erick - “However, White Ribbon Day needs to be considered in context. The context is a feminist-dominated media, education system, and legal system. In this context, the aim of WRD is not innocent. It is a deliberate attack on men.”

Oh yes, I’m sure the person who invented WRD is the same person who makes the decisions in the education system and the same judges who make decisions in the legal system.

You’re a moron. If I speak to 10 men in a day, and 7 of them make a sleazy come-on “compliment” to me, and the other 3 make genuine sincere compliments, do I automatically write off the other 3 because “in the context of my day, when most of the other men have been sleazes who were just trying to get me into bed, your compliments are also sleazy deliberate attempts to get laid”?

No. Because I have a brain and can differentiate between different people having different aims.

Erick says:

08:44am | 26/11/11

@Leah - Your comment does not seem to have any relevance to my comment.

Erick says:

06:47am | 25/11/11

The Family Court still believes that children are better off with the mother under all circumstances.

“A Queensland father has been banned from having any contact with his five-year-old daughter until she reaches 18 after the Family Court accepted that the child’s mother would “destroy” the relationship rather than agree to shared care.

“In a decision that suggests the “shared care” law introduced by the Howard government was effectively dead, a full bench of the Family Court said “the mother would ignore any order for contact” and, as a result, it was pointless to order her to co-operate.

“Shared care of children after divorce was a policy goal of the previous government, but the law is now being rolled back, with key changes to the Family Law Act (1975) passing through the Senate this week.”

Women have a license to abuse men and children.

Chris_D says:

06:50am | 25/11/11

@Fidddler, I haven’t suffered at the hands of my mother like you have, but my mother was the one in our household who would use physical discipline against us regularly, usually in the form of a wooden spoon.  Personally, I don’t have a problem with physical discipline, used appropriately, but for those who oppose violence full-stop, then surely they must also be campaigning against women who impose violence on children, especially the sort of domestic violence you suffered.

Abuse from mum says:

07:36am | 25/11/11

@Fiddler: I experienced th same physical abuse from my psychotic mother, but no one, including my father believed that such a “sweet little lady” could be so brutal. The bruises and cuts were apparently of my own doing.

I too want a day for the torment I suffered at my other’s hands, and to be compensated from the State for not believing it occurred.

acotrel says:

07:38am | 25/11/11

@ChrisD
I do have a problem with physical violence. My parents never hit me, but I fought with my father on occasion, as a teenager.  I know he always pulled his punchs, he was a very strong physical worker, and he could have killed me quite easily.  But a lot of his shenanigans were a psychological game he played against my mother.  He knew very well what would happen if he ever hurt one of us.  My mother was quite capable of putting him right in his place.
But as far as discipline was concerned, my parents never found it necessary to resort to bashing us.
Even to this day, I don’t respond well to threats, and if somebody starts a fight with me, I will finish it ! By and large every problem should be settled by communicating and negotiating.  If you have to hit your kid, or anyone else for that matter, it shows your own personal failure - a flaw in your character.

Nathan says:

07:45am | 25/11/11

@Fiddler
Its sad what happened to you, but tackle one issue at a time here. Its still a worthy cause that deserves its place.

In the future their may be scope to broaden whit ribbon day to incorporate violence as a whole who knows

marley says:

07:50am | 25/11/11

I think your experiences illustrate why we should have things like the White Ribbon campaign - not to demonize men, but to force people of both genders to think about their responsibility for stopping others from committing violence.  People either ignored the fact that you were being abused, or refused to accept that it was happening.  That’s something that really does have to change.

Cry in my Gin says:

07:56am | 25/11/11

@Fiddler, Thanks for your honesty. I thought I was the only one. I copped all of it in my home as I was the only boy. Given her behaviour towards me, I have no doubt that many women are instigators of violence, not just victims. I hope you have not carried to much baggage from your youth. It helps a lot when you realise not all women are like that. It took me quite a few broken relationships and trying to explain away scratches and bruises to my fellow construction workers before I realised I was finding women with the same destrctive urges as my “loving” mother. After realising that there were alternatives and that not all the women in my life were out to hurt me, my life changed so much for the better. I only wish I could get back the years of mistrust and bad vibes with my stepmother. What a magnificent lady. We now are very close. And my gentle caring beautiful wife and our gorgeous daughters are everything I need to know that not all women are violent bloodsucking oxygen thieves. The only issue now is being twisted around the fingers of two little women. Life is good.

Let go of the bitterness Fiddler. You have every right to be bitter, but please let it go. For the sake of your future partner, your kids and most importantly yourself. It is ok to refer to her as your “gestation unit”, because “mother” is so much more than that. (Apologies to punch readers for going off topic, but fiddler deserved a man hug.)

Erick says:

08:30am | 25/11/11

@marley - No. Fiddler’s experience shows exactly why we should not have campaigns like White Ribbon Day. This campaign ignores violence and abuse by women, and portrays men as abusers.

It is hate campaigns like this that are the cause of bias against men in the family courts, and the reason why women’s violence is ignored or celebrated.

HappyCynic says:

09:23am | 25/11/11

@Fiddler

Spare a thought for those of us who still had parents who were still together and who, together, engaged in the systematic abuse of their kids.

At least you were lucky enough that it was only one crazy parent who abused you, I’d pray daily that my parents would get divorced because individually they were easier to tolerate.  There are always worse situations than your own.  I don’t want recognition or an apology, those years are long gone and having a ‘day’ isn’t going to change them. 

If, however a day like White Ribbon Day brings to the front of people’s minds all forms of domestic violence then who cares if the day itself is for women or not?  As long as domestic violence of any sort is stopped then its a good thing.  People like you will never be happy, always nitpicking about how this isn’t recognised and that isn’t recognised.  It’s pathetic and really sad.  Why don’t you just co-opt the day for yourself instead of whinging about not having your own day?

jay-ded says:

09:55am | 25/11/11

Ah Fiddler *hug*.  My parents split when I was 5.  My father had an excellent lying though his teeth lawyer and the family courts gave custody of us (5 kids) to our father.  My battleaxe of a stepmother beat the shit out of all of us on a regular basis.  What did my father do to stop this?  Not a damn thing.  Gutless wonder!  Both my stepmother and my father are now dead, but when I had my first son, I found myself saying the same things to him that my stepmother said to me.  I even went to hit him one day and then had an “inner light” go off in my head.  What the fark was I doing?  I loved my son, I loved my husband.  Just because I and my siblings were treated like a piece of shit didn’t mean that I had to do the same thing myself to my own child.  That day was one of the worst and also one of the best days of my life.  A big wake up call for me and the blessing that I hadn’t hit him.  If my kids play up now, I just take their possessions away.  No tv, no computers, no ipods etc and give them more than the usual chores to do. 

On a lighter note.  I’ve had lots of contact with my real Mum who is an absolute angel.  I don’t regrest my past but I’m glad I don’t let it rule my present or future which would have been so easy to do. 

BTW, when my stepmother died I wanted to go and dance on her grave, but they cremated her instead - the bastards!  Does that make me bad? 

Fiddler says:

10:19am | 25/11/11

@Happycynic, perhaps irony is lost upon you. I will tone down the intellect of my posts in future to accommodate.

What I posted was true, however I am having a shot at the concept of white ribbon day and the pledge. More children are murdered by their mothers than by their fathers, yet whenever a mother does it it is either ignored by the media or she is made out the be the victim herself “oh she only did it because she thought it was a way out of (insert excuse)” whereas when a male does it he is the biggest bastard in the world.

I will care about white ribbon day when it is non-gender specific. Or I could be rational and realise that the whole pledge/posting what colour your bra is on facebook etc does sweet FA in the real world for any cause.

HappyCynic says:

10:38am | 25/11/11

@Fiddler

If you want the White Ribbon Day to be non-gender specific then make it so, but ignoring it because you don’t like the type of victim it focusses on is stupid, even moreso because you’re a victim of domestic violence yourself.

Fiddler says:

10:48am | 25/11/11

@cynic, I made these comments to make a point. I don’t sit around feeling sorry for myself or judging one gender based on my experiences. I just think it’s a complete and utter WOFTAM which will have no real world results.

Erick says:

10:52am | 25/11/11

@HappyCynic - White Ribbon Day is a part of the problem. It is a psychologically abusive campaign against men and boys.

It is not enough to ignore it. This campaign should be opposed and condemned at every opportunity.

HappyCynic says:

12:17pm | 25/11/11

@Erick

How is it possibly ever a bad thing to tell men not to hit their spouses?  Most men don’t need to be told that violence against women is not allowed, this is true, but it is also true in reverse.  In fact most reasonable people find domestic violence abhorrent in any shape or form and so the message of White Ribbon Day is bleedingly obvious and largely irrelevant.  But why do you so vehemently disagree with this sentiment?

The only rational reason I can think of is that it’s abusers themselves who have a problem with campaigns to reduce domestic violence of any sort (raising awareness to the problem is the first step to fixing it afterall).  Speaking from personal experience, my parents were always terrified someone would find out what awful people they were to their kids so they always made sure to keep the bruising and the cuts hidden and had numerous cover stories prepared, making threats to us kids to keep us compliant and our mouths shut, putting the abuse back on us (“it’s your fault we hit you” etc.)

I noticed you haven’t renounced violence in anyway yet, Erick, all you’ve done is put the abuse back on to women, why is that?

PsychoHyena says:

08:45am | 25/11/11

@Al too damn right. I love how culture suggests that men should just cop it without reaction.

As you said if I was attacked by a woman wielding a weapon I would use enough violence to disarm and escape. Enough to not cause any major damage.

I would excuse violence that was perpetrated in self-defence (provided it was self-defence against an immediate threat).

I possibly wouldn’t remain silent where I had been asked to by the victim, it would probably depend on a life v death situation. Is she more likely to live and survive by me keeping my mouth shut or by me going to the cops.

ByStealth says:

12:49pm | 25/11/11

Interesting. If we asked women to never commit violence against men, would we be accused of ‘discouraging women from fighting back against their abusers’?

I’m interested in the concept of provocation in domestic violence. If a woman provokes a man to violence, its the man that is 100% legally responsible and culpable for his actions. Provocation is not seen as an excuse under the law.

For instance a man who during an argument shuts down, stops talking and tries to leave the room, but is followed by his wife who continue sledging him with verbal put downs. She might even shove him, just to get a reaction from him. Eventually he snaps and lashes out.

A ‘Time Out’ campaign focused around encouraging women to give their men space and educating them on when such space would be beneficial might reduce incidents of domestic violence. I wonder if such a campaign would be supported by women’s groups or instantly rejected as a campaign of victim blaming.

Fiona says:

07:59pm | 25/11/11

Are you serious by stealth?  Provocation has been used by defendants at murder trials (mostly in domestic cases) for years, to get charges/sentences reduced from those of murder to manslaughter.

ByStealth says:

09:38am | 26/11/11

So Fiona, would the man in my example be less culpable because he was incited to violence by the woman?

PsychoHyena says:

09:20am | 25/11/11

@Mahhrat and what about the police advice “If you see a fight, all the police. DO NOT GET INVOLVED”? They would much rather deal with as many injuries/casualties as possible, which of course is understandable.

Mahhrat says:

12:57pm | 25/11/11

@PsychoHyena, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.  If you’re saying the Police Force’s standard advice is to “Call us, stay out of harm’s way”, then yes, that’s exactly what they say, and it’s sensible risk minimisation.

It’s also what I do.  If I see something, I’ll call the police and hang around to provide testimony if required.  I’d only interfere if I thought a life was in danger.

HappyCynic says:

09:34am | 25/11/11

This is something Erick is seemingly having a problem with this morning, instead of co-opting the cause to reject all manner of violence he seems to want to fight against the entire cause and by doing so effectively endorses violence equally against all sexes.  Instead of using and expanding something limited but constructive he just wants to destroy it all.

Makes you wonder how twisted his life is not to see how simple a solution there is to his whining or does he simply want the status quo to exist as is, where men, women and children alike are discouraged from talking about all forms of domestic violence?

Markus says:

10:57am | 25/11/11

People have tried. Numerous individuals and groups have written to the WRD site co-ordinators advising that many of the stats they cite to emphasise rates of DV against women are either incorrect, or have almost as high or as high rates for DV against men, from the exact same reports that the WRD site have quoted from.

All of this advice has been either completely ignored or responded to by the WRD co-ordinators with “we don’t agree with that conclusion”, so it is very clear they have no intention of ever expanding the campaign to fight against all domestic violence.

KH says:

08:08am | 25/11/11

Easy to say.  Not so easy to do when the guy threatens to track you down and kill you if try to ‘escape’, or if there are unfortunate children involved, threaten to harm them.  Its a pretty powerful means of keeping someone prisoner in that kind of life.

xar says:

08:31am | 25/11/11

why disgust for the women? Surely pity is more apt given the kind of history and psychological trauma it takes for any woman to think that way.

Sam says:

09:03am | 25/11/11

KH more often than not they are just ‘threats’ if they are that way inclined restraining orders, or moving far away if the piss weak men are threatening those they claim to love it is not love at all these men are treating the women as property i know a few girls in this situation where threats were made but its amazing how quick these gutless scum back off when approached by friends and family of the victim, with regards to threats against women or kids they should be reported straight away dont be scared of these fools and if they are in a gang or something similar where they only throw threats out because of back up well sorry to say but the girls should have thoiught about it a bit better before getting involved i see it too much these days young girls drawn in to ‘bad boys’ and then live a life of fear and neglect just think about how the kids will grow up thinking this kind of life is acceptable and normal? quite quite sad

Sam says:

09:08am | 25/11/11

Xar if a women will continue to go back to these men what does she think will happen i know too many that say “he has changed’ , or ’ i deserved it’ bullshit no one deserves to be abused and if you think they will change your a fool if i even see a bloke I dont know abusing a woman ill say something and intervene I care not who he knows nor what he knows i believe in standing up for what is right young women are deluded into believing things will get better where by going back to these scum the guys know they will get away with it again and again

Miles says:

11:40am | 25/11/11

KH, if you’re with a man who threatens to harm your children - and then you keep the children in the company of that man, isn’t that basically knowingly endangering your children’s welfare?  I can guarantee that if a partner threatened any sort of harm to my children, then they (and I) would be outta there - no excuses.  There is NO justification in the world that can be laid out for women to keep themselves and their children in violent relationships.  He hits, you walk - no if’s, and’s or but’s.

ByStealth says:

12:53pm | 25/11/11

@ KH

‘Easy to say.  Not so easy to do when the guy threatens to track you down and kill you if try to ‘escape’,’

I don’t disagree with you. That said, do you think in every case that women stay they are in fear for their lives? What other reasons do you think women stay in an abusive relationship.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

03:00pm | 25/11/11

@ Sam - It’s frustrating when people go back to abusive partners, no matter how much we attempt to reason with them. The problem is Stockholm Syndrome and unfortunately it is very difficult to deal with.

Paul says:

12:29pm | 25/11/11

absolutely true.

As a “good” man, you try to put up with as much as you can to save a relationship and keep a good life with your children.

I put up with mental abuse, was BITTEN on the leg so badly that I couldn’t walk, and put up with it all until I got smashed in the face with a glass.  After that I left.

Violence against men is just as bad, and sometimes more insidious.

Shane says:

01:24pm | 25/11/11

@MarkS - I’ll assume you’re talking about Erick.

AdamC says:

08:49am | 25/11/11

That’s my view as well, Leopold. Personally, I find that ‘oath’ not only gimmicky and pointless, but also offensive. Of course I am not going to commit or condone any violence against women, or against anyone. Why should I take an oath that suggests I might otherwise, but for the oath, have considered doing so?

The whole thing seems like a man-shaming, man-loathing exercise to me. For example, you wouldn’t single out gay men and expect them to give a ‘safe sex pledge’ as part of a campaign against STIs. Despite the fact gay men are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours, you would still include everyone in the program because safe sex is relevant to everyone.

The same is the case with violence. Women should not, of course, commit or condone violence. Nor should they tolerate it. Which is the other problem with this White Ribbon approach. Take the author’s mother, who clearly believed that she was not in control of her life, and could do nothing to change her situation. This may have been the result of social conditioning, but it is not, and was never, true. And, as a result of her misplaced feelings of helplessness, she subjected her children to long-term abuse.

It is not only men who need to change their attitude to violence.

James1 says:

10:49am | 25/11/11

To invert the logic, Adam, why object to taking an oath you will have no trouble living up to?  That said, I am making a rhetorical point as I will not take any such oath until its focus is expanded to people, rather than just men.  It is the selectivity of it, rather than the mechanism itself, that I object to.

Should we move immediately to prevent all new citizens taking the oath of citizenship, because the necessity of taking such an oath implies that otherwise they would not be loyal?  If anything, this type of approach should be expanded rather than dismantled.  Sadly, I still doubt its efficacy, because the type of person that commits violent or disloyal acts has no honour to begin with, and will not feel bound by mere words.

Markus says:

11:08am | 25/11/11

‘Sadly, I still doubt its efficacy, because the type of person that commits violent or disloyal acts has no honour to begin with, and will not feel bound by mere words.’

And will not give a flying f**k if a bunch of guys wearing ribbons point their fingers and chant “For shame, abuser. We do not condone this”.

Tim says:

11:53am | 25/11/11

AdamC,
Exactly.
Can you imagine a crime ribbon day where Aboriginals were made to swear not to commit crimes because they were severely over represented in crime statistics? Nah, me neither.

AdamC says:

12:39pm | 25/11/11

James1, I would see the citizenship oath as an instrument of commitment and an act of good faith to one’s new nation. I approve of it on that basis. I suppose the need for it is driven by the new migrant having less of an implicit commitment to this country than someone born and raised here. Of course, that is imperfect reasoning: there is no shortage of native-born Australians who you would never grant citizenship if you had the option of refusing it!

And, while I take your point about the triviality of the oath, I still resent it as a mechanism. I believe it includes an inescapable implication that the oath-taker is somehow likely, without the moral constraint of the oath, to commit acts of violence. I agree that limiting it to women is also obnxious, but that is secondary to me.

Lastly, as some commenters have noted, we are not in the high middle ages, oaths are not what they once were. That, and thugs and abusers are unlikely to value the notions of chivalry to which the whole oath gimmick is intended to appeal. Or, in other words, the Sir Galahads and James1’s of this world don’t need an oath not to harm others. Those who do are unlikely to keep to an oath anyway.

Off-topic, Ireland went well, I take it?

James1 says:

01:31pm | 25/11/11

When it comes to this mechanism being effective, I guess at some point we hit the law of diminishing returns.  There will always be a core of people who will be violent towards their husbands/wives/partners/children, and if we are resorting to oaths which would only be effective for the Galahads then perhaps we have taken prevention as far as it will go, and need to put more resources and effort into cleaning up the messes left behind by violent people.  Either that or we have run out of ideas and have to resort to glib gimmicks like this.  In some ways, this effort seems to me the equivalent of wearing a $2 wristband signalling your desire to eradicate poverty.

Ireland was indeed very nice, albeit also rather wet and cold by our standards.  We changed plans and ended up spending a week in London before we came home.  It was good to catch up with so many family members - many of whom my daughter had never met.  Even so, it’s great to be home.

Erick says:

08:41am | 25/11/11

“Violence against women encompasses verbal and emotional abuse”

And so does violence against men.

“White Ribbon Day” is a campaign of verbal and emotional abuse targeting men. For that reason, it must be opposed.

Fiddler says:

10:45am | 25/11/11

how the hell is a male liking lots of porn violence? Maybe she just doesn’t do it for him, or he likes porn.

If that equates I call watching sex and the city and owning a vibrator violence.
The problem is these things patronise the 99% of males who don’t bash women and just piss us off and we won’t listen. Do it for all people and maybe. But then I have this interesting concept. This whole thing will not change one persons behaviour. Those who are going to do it will not change their ways because of some pledge. As for the whole “not being silent” crap they would have you believe that you can’t walk down the street without seeing some guy bashing his missus and everyone walking past looking away.
Total and absolute crap. All of it.

James1 says:

12:36pm | 25/11/11

“how the hell is a male liking lots of porn violence?”

Jesus Fiddler you just don’t get this do you.  It is violence because they have penises, duh.  If they didn’t it would be nuturing or something.

James1 says:

12:37pm | 25/11/11

“how the hell is a male liking lots of porn violence?”

Jesus Fiddler you just don’t get this do you.  It is violence because they have penises, duh.  If they didn’t it would be nurturing or something.

LauraBoBaura says:

01:28pm | 25/11/11

I’m a woman & I like porn….

What does that make me?

Am I an abuse enabler now?

Markus says:

02:21pm | 25/11/11

“I’m a woman & I like porn….

What does that make me?”

An innocent victim of the manipulation by the evil male patriarchy.

LauraBoBaura says:

03:07pm | 25/11/11

@Markus - can you please let Melinda Tankard Reist know that I need her to rescue me? I’m obviously being exploited!

Erick says:

09:07am | 25/11/11

Silly PsychoHyena.

Men are BAD and EVIL. There will never be an article about men’s problems, because ALL MEN live perfect lives, based entirely on the brutal physical oppression of women.

Journalists. In touch with reality.

Fiona says:

08:12pm | 25/11/11

They know that they’ll get a lot of hits in response to articles such as this.
I’d have thoughtat least one article about movember would’ve been appropriate.

Michael says:

09:13am | 25/11/11

Why is violence wrong?

pixel Pusher says:

12:16pm | 25/11/11

Michael: I am allergic to violence. I break out in cuts and bruises.

powermax077 says:

09:21am | 25/11/11

@Bridget Brown Then get the men who commit violence to forswear it and not the men who have never comiited it. Get the peoplewho witness violence to do something about and not just write about it years later.

And some of us do not have to make ourselves into victims we had women to do that for us.

Markus says:

09:34am | 25/11/11

Speak up about what? To whom?

On top of the assumption that men will beat women if they don’t take this vow, the other assumption is that they all have mates who they know full well are beating women, but are letting it slide because that’s what mates do.

The only men I have ever known who hit a woman were strangers in public, and the girlfriend took their boyfriend’s side when the cops arrived.

These violent acts are not ignored by friends and family, they are ignored by the victim, as are any attempts to help.

Erick says:

11:02am | 25/11/11

@Bridget Brown - It’s pretty shameful that you are attacking men here. You are the problem, not the solution.

In heart felt appreciation of gentlemen a lady says:

12:47pm | 25/11/11

Once again you guys miss the point Brdget is putting forward.

This is not about saying men being bad or evil.
This is a cry for help from victims. A cry for men who see, hear or find out about this occuring to speak out against it. To turn around to their peers and point out how pathetic their actions are, to be one of those friends or family members who confront the perpetrator and say ‘Stop!’ A gentleman who will stand up and defend a victim of this hidden, dark crime.

ByStealth says:

01:23pm | 25/11/11

‘And giving young men positive role models to look up to. ‘

Ostensibly, I believe that you really mean this. I will try to explain something that may shed light on how I and many other men feel about this situation:

I was brought up in the 80’s when feminist driven campaigns were starting up. Stranger danger, anti-domestic violence, anti-rape. As a young boy I was bombarded with campaigns telling men not to be paedophiles, not to harrass women and not to be violent. On the face of them, all ‘good’ well meaning campaigns like WRD.

Now if you are a young boy and don’t have the filters that adult men have and you exposed to these messages day after day, year after year, here are some of the messages you take on:
-Men are bad. If you are a man you will hit women and harrass them, making them feel unsafe if you walk near them in an isolated park etc etc
-If you show a woman you are sexually interested in them, its harrassment and you are a rapist
-If a girl bullies you and senses you won’t fight back, you should just take whatever she dishes out because men don’t hit woman for ANY reason. Even if you are 8 and she is 12.

So, I ended up supressing my natural masculinity and was unable to show sexual interest in women for many years because it was dirty and I would be ‘sexually harrassing’ a girl if I let her know I liked her. So I just hung around a girl like a ‘nice guy’ waiting and watched her go off with boys who weren’t loaded with the toxic programming I had. I didn’t have success with women for a good many years.

I was also bullied because I was constantly told by female teachers that I shouldn’t fight. This was taken to mean that I shouldn’t stick up for myself at all. The one time I snapped and fought back I was suspended by the principal. I had self esteem issues that took years to get over.

So, my point is that all of these campaigns program our boys in unintended ways. It took me years to deprogram myself from this sludge. I’ve raised these issues before and the standard response from the feminist brigade is ‘better boys lose their way than a woman gets harmed’.

Now I will never listen to a man=bad message again and I lose total respect for anyone that even insinuates men are bad because of their gender or that masculinity is in any way shameful or wrong.

You need to be very careful about the message you are sending. What you are saying and what is heard are two entirely different things.

andye says:

01:22am | 26/11/11

@Erick - You are so defensive that you can’t even see what she is saying. In the end, you aren’t an advocate for anything. You are so desperately caught up in your own personal war of the sexes that you cannot even consider that maybe we, as men, have a responsibility to try to deal with the problems of our gender.

If you take away attacking feminism the Erick Manifesto of Maleness is rather light reading. Your entire position is one of opposition to positive messages that have good intentions, which stems from your collective blame of feminism for all the ills of modern man. Like Don Quixote you race around fighting the feminist dragon wherever it rears its head.

Chicks are pretty awesome. I am definitely a fan. I am happy to pledge to not go around hitting them.

Shane says:

01:30pm | 25/11/11

“but also want nothng to do with women beyond that.”

You are damaged. Get the help you obviously need - it is not a random woman that caused the trauma, it was your mother. Go deal with it.

Ryan says:

03:44pm | 25/11/11

“You are damaged.” “Go deal with it.” I could use that cold heartedness for a freezer. Powermax was simply making a point. Women are the abusers just as much as men! White Ribbon day doesn’t represent the problem truthfully rather it demonises just men. Women are also at fault, men and women together must take responsibility and stand against DV.

Erick says:

11:10am | 25/11/11

Well said, T S Sebastian. If the people behind the White Ribbon Day campaign were actually interested in stopping violence, they would take heed of your message.

But I believe they are not interested in stopping violence. Their agenda is to attack, shame, and demonise men. We are morally obliged to defend ourselves.

Tom says:

02:11pm | 25/11/11

I believe you are one of many who think this way. Decent males are getting stiffed by institutionalised bigotry in Australia. Many women use the family court and vexatious AVOs to abuse their spouses or ex’s.

Eskimo says:

07:51pm | 25/11/11

“Women have been elevated to an almost untouchable level” ..... if that is the case, which I very much doubt, it has not been for very long.  Women have been oppressed by men for hundreds, if not thousands of years.  Indeed, women were once thought of as a man’s “property”.  Was society “so far wrong” in those days?  I think perhaps it was.  The “backlash” must be pretty horrendous, but blokes may have to “take it on the chin” (figuratively, NOT literally) for a while yet.

Erick says:

05:23am | 26/11/11

@Eskimo - “Women have been oppressed by men for hundreds, if not thousands of years.”

That’s feminist propaganda, which misrepresents history in order to attack men. Just like White Ribbon Day, which misrepresents present-day reality in order to attack men.

“but blokes may have to “take it on the chin” (figuratively, NOT literally) for a while yet.”

And there you have it, in plain words - the real agenda is to bash men, not to make a fairer world.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

09:12am | 26/11/11

@ Erick - “@Eskimo - “Women have been oppressed by men for hundreds, if not thousands of years.”

That’s feminist propaganda, which misrepresents history in order to attack men. Just like White Ribbon Day, which misrepresents present-day reality in order to attack men.”

Looks like Erick selectively studies history to see only the events he wants to acknowledge, conveniently ignoring anything which doesn’t fit into his theory about the giant conspiracy to demonise men. What’s next? Denying the Holocaust?

Erick says:

12:15pm | 26/11/11

@BR - No, you’re describing feminism. In reality, for most of history up to and including today, women have been regarded as the most precious members of the community. That’s because they were the only ones who could bear children.

“Women and children first!” - A common cry in times of threat. Ever wonder why?

Try studying some real history.

AdamC says:

12:43pm | 25/11/11

I couldn’t have put it better myself!

It is not so much the objectives of this campaign that are problematic. It is the techniques used to promote it.

Roscoe says:

10:35am | 25/11/11

Are you serious??

Can you produce where you got that amazing ‘statistic’??

As for your other comments - lets see how you’d react to a day dedicated to preventing violence against men - feel slightly marginalised??

LauraBoBaura says:

10:48am | 25/11/11

No. That isn’t what they’re saying at all. They’re saying that they take issue with being labelled potential perpetrators of violence against women through being encouraged to take an oath saying they’ll never hit a woman, when they never would anyway.

‘But by coming here to basically tell women who have been abused that you couldn’t care less about their suffering’ -  Where has this been implied by anybody Liv? You just made that up.

I’ve been beaten up by my ex aswell, a few times. But I, unlike you can see the problem with classifying domestic violence as solely man=perpetrator, women = victim. I don’t like the idea of good, honest decent men, being forced to take an oath to say they’ll never hit a woman, it’s insulting.

‘Are you aware that more women in this country die at the hands of a husband/partner than by any other means, including breast cancer? That’s a pretty awful statistic. ’

Yeah that would be a pretty awful statistic if it were true..  it’s a lie. Leading cause is heart disease.

subotic says:

10:59am | 25/11/11

Statistic: 4 out 5 suicides are men. That’s a REAL statistic mentioned in the following link -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-24/father-denied-shared-care-of-daughter/3692492

Many of these suicides are proven to have been men driven to suicide via child custody battles with former female partners.

Check out the link above and then ask yourself “who was the partner guilty of the most violence?”

Sam says:

11:06am | 25/11/11

I applaud you Liv for leaving your ex no woman should have to put up with these weak men thinking its ok, if only more women could take action against them like you have, alas too many are in fear from these spineless parasites. I am a male and well I cannot fathom how men beat and abuse their so called loved ones, ive even bailed up mates for talking to their girlfriends the wrong way, wish more people out there had the decency and backbone to stick up for those who are abused.

PerthPete says:

11:12am | 25/11/11

“More die at the hands of their husband/father than ANY other means”???

More then road accidents, lung cancer, breast cancer, heart attacks??

Sorry Liv, but unless you have a link to some proof, I call bullshit. That is the sort of emotional, unbelievable, slightly hysterical, over the top comment that makes me think that the whole campaign is anti-men rather then anti-violence.

No-one has said that we don’t care about women’s suffering.We are just questioning why its only violence against women, rather then against all domestic violence that is the subject of the campaign. Given that there are a number of reports that indicate that women commit the majority of instances of emotional violence and neglect against children, why are only men being required to pledge.

Perhaps if people like you spoke up against all violence rather then just against violent men, the campaign would be more widely emraced and effective. By demonising men you merely alienate people who would otherwise support it.

Erick says:

11:39am | 25/11/11

Liv is lying. Here is a real breakdown of causes of death among women, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Domestic violence doesn’t even rate.

leelee says:

01:38pm | 25/11/11

I think the statistic you were trying to remember there Liv, is the fact that women who are murdered are more likely to have been killed by there partner than any other person.

But then men are more likely to be killed by a friend and we don’t have them making oaths “I swear to never kill my friends”.

By the way, only 55 women were murdered in 2007 (the only stat I could find without spending my day on this!), and a heck of a lot more women died that year from breast cancer! (2680 to be precise).

Tom says:

02:48pm | 25/11/11

LIv, given you obvious tendencies to dick with the truth, I wonder what your ex’s version of events would be.

Stat says:

03:05pm | 25/11/11

Quick search of Aust Institute of Criminology (sorry for the year):
“for 1997/98 indicates that there were 311 homicide victims.
The proportion of male to female victims (approx 2:1) has also remained relatively constant.”

(208 males and 103 females victims of homicide)

“Homicides involving intimate partners comprised 23 per cent of all homicides “

Around 25 to 40 females were victims of intimate homicide. The M/F ratio of 2:1 would not be right for intimate homicides (hence the range), the page doesn’t state what that ratio actually is.

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/1999/february/990211.aspx

There were 2,680 female deaths from breast cancer in 2007
There were 2,911 female deaths from lung cancer in 2007

http://canceraustralia.nbocc.org.au/breast-cancer/about-breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics

In 2008 388 females died on the road.
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/pdf/rsr_04.pdf

Elizabeth1 says:

09:14am | 26/11/11

That stat should have read death and disability. It’s from Vic Health 2004.

Elizabeth1 says:

06:25am | 29/11/11

Domestic violence is not a cause of death listing.  The listing parameters are from the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD).  As it is not a disease, and is external it is not included under the disease listings. May be listed under actual injury or as homicide.  The ABS have recently released a report on Domestic Violence but I have not seen a copy.

Leah says:

11:31pm | 25/11/11

Greg, two things:

1) How dare you trivialise the author’s mother’s experience of domestic violence. You have NO IDEA what she went through - the author was clearly trying to keep it as vague as possible to protect his mother’s privacy. Maybe he locked her in her bedroom when he didn’t want her going out. Maybe he threatened to beat the children if she didn’t do what he wanted her to do. You have got NO IDEA and you make a JOKE out of it.

2) I would like to see citations of these supposed new definitions of domestic violence. Because last I checked, a guy raising his voice does NOT qualify as domestic violence, even though it still shouldn’t be tolerated as acceptable - just like a woman raising her voice at her partner shouldn’t be tolerated as acceptable either. And last I checked, letting your temper get the better of you to the point of breaking crockery demonstrates an extreme lack of self-control regardless of whether it is the wife or husband. Paycheques, I think, are a slightly more complicated matter as in many instances the woman does actually rely on the man’s income and he can be manipulative by withholding it, whereas *normally* when a woman is working, her husband probably is too, and is not reliant on her paycheque, so her keeping and using it wouldn’t be manipulative. Note the use of the terms “many instances” and “normally” - obviously there are instances where this is not the case and I am sure women could also use finances as manipulation.

Greg says:

11:05am | 26/11/11

Leah, save your sanctimonious outrage for somebody who might get intimidated by it. It has no effect on me.

And yes, the vagueness is part of the problem. Vagueness is what enables the law to be applied unequally. The author has not given any evidence or even any accusation of what happened to his mother, so given the propensity of domestic violence promoters to exaggerate, it’s reasonable to assume that not much happened at all. Allegations that somebody restricted another’s opportunities is about as weak as it gets, and a new low in vague accusations.

If you don’t believe the truth about how the definition of domestic violence has been manipulated in order to exaggerate the frequency for political purposes, try a simple google search. Or if you are incapable of that, here is one for you:

http://www.ncsmc.org.au/wsas/violence_and_abuse/definition_of_domestic_violence.htm

Of course, the trouble with such a broad and VAGUE definition, is that women can commit domestic violence just as easily and often more frequently than men.

In fact, according to the definitions on the above webpage, my wife has committed “domestic violence”  against me multiple times.

But you will never see any woman convicted of domestic violence for nagging her husband, or for managing the family finances when he has lost his job. If you can prove otherwise, then do so.

It’s time for you to put up or shut up.

Fiona says:

08:30pm | 25/11/11

John, your mangled grammar and spelling aside, you seem to like broad generalisations and now you bring out some other BS about eve sleeping with the devil etc. it went really south from there. Just please stop the crap. Maybe you’re trolling, which I sincerely hope is the case, rather than the scary possibility that you actually believe this rubbish.

Rowdy says:

11:07am | 25/11/11

.......don’t you mean a person who commits violence is nothing but a coward who deserves no sympathy?

subotic says:

11:53am | 25/11/11

@Rowdy, this is a man bashing comment. You’re out of your element with that silly old all inclusive, modern, intelligent way of thinking crap. Sheeesh.

@David, so it’s ok for you to have an opinion (right or wrong) but not Erick (right or wrong or from the 50’s)? Makes me wonder if *someone elses* head isn’t in *there* too….

Sam says:

11:29am | 25/11/11

I have always said Rapists should be castrated and woman/child beaters have their hands, arms, feet and legs shattered, Pedophiles however should just be shot or hung.

Al says:

11:32am | 25/11/11

So your answer to stopping violence is more violence?
Yeah, that makes sense doesn’t it.
While I don’t disagree with the idea it is a little hypocritical to be supporting an ‘anti-violence’ campaign while condoning violence.

Erick says:

11:43am | 25/11/11

@Jay - Should more battered men cut out the ovaries of the cowardly women who abuse them?

Erick says:

01:17pm | 25/11/11

@Jade - “The only problem is that days like today are only noticed by people who care.”

Very true. This whole campaign will have absolutely zero effect on the men )and women) who actually bash their spouses.

Its only purpose is to induce middle class white male guilt.

If we really wanted to stop domestic violence, we’d consider something quite different.

Jade says:

02:13pm | 25/11/11

I can’t think of a single thing that we could do to try and change it… the abusers are still going to abuse (unless of course they are locked up) DVO’s do nothing (I’ve had one out against my step father for years, he still comes near me and tried to act all friendly like).

The people that do this (IMO) have deep psychological/substance abuse issues (whether that be drugs, alcohol, mental illness) or they are just down right evil. Only intense counselling and admitting there is something wrong can resolve those things.

Erick says:

01:20pm | 25/11/11

@rebecca - “We need to create the culture of the world we want to live in. “

Exactly. And that’s why I refuse to help create a culture in which men are regarded as violent abusers, which is what White Ribbon Day is all about.

ByStealth says:

01:35pm | 25/11/11

I understand you’re surprised.

There is a culture of misandry in Australia, but because it isn’t directed at you, you can’t see it. I imagine that men in the 1950’s didn’t think the culture back then was sexist either. Many men are sensitive on this issue because of the culture we are in. Every day there is something in the media telling us how bad we are or how we should change our behaviour.

There is very very rarely any positive affirmation of men and masculinity. This makes us upset.

Rossco says:

02:31pm | 25/11/11

Todays culture involves much domestic violence committed against men by women, until WRD acknowledges this, I wont be supporting it. Men are the forgotten gender, and if they dare raise their voices, they are either ignored by the media, or are automatically deemed to be ‘woman haters’ or are for ‘pro violence of women’. Look at most of the comments against Erick, they assume because he doesnt support WRD, he is for violence against women or is a woman hater.

Leah says:

11:12pm | 25/11/11

ByStealth, if you think there’s “very very rarely” any positive affirmation of men and masculinity you’re either blind or purposely not looking for it.

Of course pop culture doesn’t reflect it but since when does pop culture reflect anything worth copying?!

Erick, nothing about White Ribbon Day assumes men are violent abusers. In fact it encourages men to stand up to those few who are. It encourages them SHOW that they’re not. Just like Pink Ribbon day doesn’t assume people are fans of breast cancer, it just encourages people to demonstrate how against it they are by fundraising/donating etc.

If you don’t wear a white ribbon nobody is going to assume you must be some raging violent lunatic who beats his wife. Just like if I don’t wear a pink ribbon on Pink Ribbon day, nobody is going to assume I must want breast cancer to continue in its prevalence.

What a stupid assumption.

ByStealth says:

10:09am | 26/11/11

Leah, if I and many other men are unable to feel that we live in a men=good culture, do you think the problem lies with what we are hearing rather than what society is telling us through the media and the values and attitudes of the people?

Surely you can understand that if some of us are at the point where we are ‘overly defensive’ and react to even the subtle implications in the WRD oath, then we might feel like we’ve been subjected to a lot of men=bad programming over our lives.

Thats why there is so little tolerance for even the smallest anti-men message. Because its the straw that breaks the camel’s back. We’ve had enough of the sledging and will continue to arc up until we feel that society is taking our grievances seriously and the culture returns to an equilibrium that is neither anti-women nor anti-men.

Tim says:

11:57am | 25/11/11

Have you actually read that study?
They include stuff like women abusing drugs, alcohol and cigarettes among those illness statistics.
They blame domestic violence for people smoking, drinking and taking drugs. Puhllleeassse.
Then when you look at their definitions of partner violence it is so broad as to nearly include every argument a person might ever have had.
I take the results with a grain of salt.

St. Michael says:

12:01pm | 25/11/11

“And here are the statistics that one person stated were a lie; they are freely available to read…”

You did lie, Liv.  You said more women die due to domestic violence than any other cause.  It’s right there in black and beige further up the thread if people want to read it.

That quote of yours is from a media release from Women’s Health Victoria.

It is not a set of statistics or an unbiased perspective, regardless of how much help I’m sure they gave you escaping your own abusive relationship that you have disclosed.

It does not support you any more than the Australian Bureau of Statistics stats that Erick used to rebut your false allegation.

St. Michael says:

12:05pm | 25/11/11

Oh, and by the way>

“I am sitting here wondering why some Australian men cannot support women in this country. Instead they have to take an international day, and for some reason make it about themselves.”

That is what we in debating call an intellectual straw man.  I do support women in this country.  But I support men as well.  They’re all meant to be equal.  White Ribbon Day, by its very terms of reference, discriminates between men and women.  It does not advocate equal treatment before the law.

I also think it’s amusing that you think men have “made it about themselves”.  You’re a woman.  You’re not being asked to swear an oath.  You are not being accused of domestic violence.  By implication, White Ribbon Day is doing it to men.

Sam says:

12:21pm | 25/11/11

Tim have you ever thought that alot of women who abuse drugs and alcohol have developed these dependencies because of physical/mental abuse as it is a known fact, of course there are many who develop these addictions off their own backs and they they have a tendancy to be abusive to their parteners. The broadness of definitions is to allow for everyone not just a select few there are those out there that cant handle things that ‘average’ people would not bat an eyelid at it is to cover all forms of abuse for every type of person whether sensitive or strong, personally I can take alot of verbal and physical abuse and have done from a couple exes however I am a 30 yo male stubborn and strong willed, my mother however suffers from heavy depression, has never experienced abuse from family members or friends but yet can get easily upset by many many things everyones different i know that if my father were to ever even swear at her just once she would be inconsolable so the definitions have to cover everyone.

LauraBoBaura says:

12:42pm | 25/11/11

I’m not sure whay you put “against” in quotation marks - I never said you were against all men.. In fact I didn’t actually say ‘against’ in my reply at all..  who’s putting words in who’s mouth here Liv?

‘nor was I implying all men commenting here were somehow unsympathetic’

Never said you did Liv, although ‘coming here to basically tell women who have been abused that you couldn’t care less about their suffering’ does paint them out to be ‘unsympathetic’ no?

I don’t think there is anybody who thinks that violence against women is OK.. just some people who think that violence against men is equally as bad - and White Ribbon day should be against all domestic violence, not specifically aimed at men (whether they are perpetrators or not)

LauraBoBaura says:

12:55pm | 25/11/11

Sam - I think that is understood, that is why when the results of that study are used to make claims like ‘More women die at the the hands of their husbands’ it’s misrepresting the information.
Liv may have been using ‘at the hands’ as a metaphor, but to me, it sounded like she was trying to make the case that more women die of being beaten to death by their husbands, than any other way.. which is just not true..

LauraBoBaura says:

12:56pm | 25/11/11

Sam - I think that is understood, that is why when the results of that study are used to make claims like ‘More women die at the the hands of their husbands’ it’s misrepresting the information.
Liv may have been using ‘at the hands’ as a metaphor, but to me, it sounded like she was trying to make the case that more women die of being beaten to death by their husbands, than any other way.. which is just not true..

Erick says:

01:25pm | 25/11/11

@Liv - You are still lying.

Here are the real causes of death among women, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Domestic violence isn’t even in the top ten.

And feminists wonder why we reject their hate propaganda ....

Tim says:

01:49pm | 25/11/11

Sam,
but when people use those statistics such as 1in3 women have experienced partner abuse or domestic violence is the greatest killer of women in Australia you are either:
a)Deliberately inflating the reality and misleading people to suit your position
b)Ignorant of the truth.

damned lies and statistics.

Erick says:

01:29pm | 25/11/11

@Miles - “What about the emotional and physical abuse inflicted upon men by women everyday?”

Well, that doesn’t count. Because the victims are men.

This article, this campaign, and this society are all about privileging women and oppressing men.

ByStealth says:

07:08pm | 25/11/11

To not put all of the burden on men, I would encourage women to learn more about men and their methods of dealing with arguments and pressure. In particular, it would be great if more women could learn to identify when their men are under stress or when they are past the point of having a rational argument.

Giving the man an option to retreat to a quiet place rather than following him around making emotive statements to get a reaction from him would be a good option.

More men would be amenable to ‘communication’ courses if some of these skills were taught to women at the same time, not just putting all of the responsibility on the man.

Currently in society it is assumed that men need to understand women, but why isn’t their an equal focus on women learning about men, their drives and needs?

Damian Parkhill says:

04:37pm | 25/11/11

I was thinking the same thing…....

OchreBunyip says:

08:48am | 26/11/11

Feminists find it hard to argue against Erick, he uses reliable statistics and calls them on their lies. When backed into a corner, surrounded by facts, feminists only have ad hominem attacks left to push their hate campaigns. Feminists would be pitiful if only their influence wasn’t so insidious.

St. Michael says:

12:10pm | 25/11/11

...and what are the goals of White Ribbon Day?

To stop all domestic violence, or just domestic violence against women?

Sally says:

01:00pm | 25/11/11

I whole heartedly agree with you. I’m quite shocked (as well as disappointed) at the offense being taken by what I thought was a moving, heartfelt piece. I’m almost afraid to comment in case I too am targeted and belittled simply for writing an opinion. But I strongly support this campaign and though I’m not a man I will take the pledge and take from it that which is applicable. I will also vow to teach my children to respect themselves as well as others and to care about their community and tell them violence and abuse against anyone should not and will not be tolerated.

Wynston Cruso says:

01:30pm | 25/11/11

“Not supporting this campaign for the reasons posted here makes as much sense as not supporting reconcilliation or sorry day because you were not responsible for the stolen generation…”

So it makes perfect sense then…

Erick says:

01:33pm | 25/11/11

The comments on this article make it very clear that this campaign is nothing but an attack on men - and that both men and women of good will realise this.

It’s a campaign of hatred against men, and all good people should oppose it at every opportunity.

ByStealth says:

01:47pm | 25/11/11

Imagine a campaign against women commiting child abuse. The mother acting alone is the most likely perpetrator. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that for each year between 2000 and 2005, “female parents acting alone” were most likely to be perpetrators of child abuse.

Now if I ask all women to promise they won’t abuse their children, do you think they would take offence? If they take offence should I just say its ‘for the children’ and they should start their own campaign against men commiting child abuse?

Fiona says:

08:42pm | 25/11/11

By stealth, as commenters above have posted in a similar vein, those that will pledge are the type that are least likely to be abusive anyway, with those that probably should pledge not the least bit interested. I’d be happy to swear not to abuse my kids, I haven’t yet and don’t intend to and my job entails some degree of child protection anyways.
Why don’t you get the campaign going for us?

GE says:

01:29pm | 25/11/11

Consider the Studies on DV as being Wholesale and these types of publications as the Retail that the public get to consume.

If you get all your information from the one Retailer, without seeking an alternate from another Retailer then your sum total information on a topic is whatever that Retailer wants you to know.

The gripe of Mens Rights Activists is the vicious circle that DV has been deemed to be a Gender issue and hence has been assigned to Womens Issues type Government department. These departments are Feminist based and hence the Retail information has their ideology.

Men’s Group read the raw Studies and see that DV is not and has never been a Gender issue, just an issue hijacked by Feminists in the earlier 70s. Google Erin Pizzey, creator of one of the original DV support networks for her view of this hijack.

Websites such as the http://www.oneinthree.com.au/misinformation/ attempt to bring attention to the misinformation with some Men Right groups having to get the Government Ombudsman to force the correction of statistics that were reported to their publisher as incorrect. The same statistics that still reside in other State and Commonwealth sites.
http://www.fathers4equality-australia.org/equalparenting/FiDBlog.nsf/dx/ombudsman-finds-domestic-violence-campaign-misleading?opendocument&comments;

Both the Feminists and Mens Rights people cannot both be correct regarding DV. It only takes a simple review of the Studies to see that the Feminists are selectively picking out information from these studies to support there point of view.

St. Michael says:

03:23pm | 25/11/11

@N Liv: “I agree with Lisa (12.54 pm) “The comments on this article make it very clear that we are a long way from achieving the goals of white ribbon day….it’s disappointing”. So right!”

Then perhaps you’ll answer the question that Lisa thus far has refused to answer when I asked it in response to that assertion.

What are the goals of White Ribbon Day: is it stopping all domestic violence, or just domestic violence against women?

That is the nub of the problem I have against White Ribbon Day.  Either make it explicitly about both genders, or none.

Father of 3 says:

02:59pm | 25/11/11

Of course people require proof because people do this unfortunate thing called “lying”.  I don’t mean to be cruel, but surely at some point before the 14 years were up and you realised the system wasn’t going to help you, you could manage to find another way out?  Perhaps at year 2 or 3?  Or maybe at 4 or 5?  Honestly, if you stay with someone for 14 years whilst they abuse you there is only so much welfare services and the police can do.  At some point the “victim” needs to make a judgement about what it worse.  Because there is always a choice to do something different to what has been chosen before

Rossco says:

03:11pm | 25/11/11

That is why im against White Ribbon Day, it perpetrates a lie that all men are abusers and all women are victims when anyone with common sense knows this is not the case. I too am against all violence, and will support white ribbon day when it realises the same as you. Right now it does nothing more than to discriminate and shame all men in society.

Kim says:

07:14pm | 25/11/11

I did get out 5 times. 4 of those times family, friends, church and government organizations kept telling me to give the abuser another go. To forgive and help him to be a better man. I was belittled for taking the children away from their father by a system that thinks keeping families together even when the children are in harms way, is better than supporting a mother to raise her children alone.

People do not understand that as a victim you feel completely helpless and that everything the abuser says about you is true. Unless you have been in this situation you could never understand how a person would stay in a life of abuse. Plus there is the threats to harm or take the children away. Even though I have been free for 6 years I still face a battle over the kids. What he says and does to them hurts me and really confuses them. They do not understand why a judge has the authority to make them go somewhere they do not want too. It doesn’t make sense to them.

I have no hope of saving my children. None. I’ve removed them from his home but every fortnight the law says they must spend time with a man that they are scared of.

But alas he who lies best in our legal system wins.

Sony B Goode says:

08:14pm | 25/11/11

“Not going to hit your spouse or your kids? Prove it”

Actually we don’t need to prove it, we have presumption of innocence in this country.

Tracker says:

02:16pm | 25/11/11

That reads WMD if you read the first letter of each line.

Wynston Cruso says:

02:38pm | 25/11/11

What about not getting married to begin with as the best ‘marriage solution’? Oh wait, then you wouldn’t be able to take half the guys shit that you clearly deserve. Your comment is repugnant. Seeing as you don’t need men I take it you’re using a special computer that was created by a woman to post your comments.

ByStealth says:

07:20pm | 25/11/11

4/10

Too obvious.

St. Michael says:

03:27pm | 25/11/11

Why should he? Why can’t White Ribbon Day be about both genders?

St. Michael says:

01:28pm | 25/11/11

Good God, Jade.  I think I agree with you.

Ryan says:

02:47pm | 25/11/11

It’s true, society has changed, an enlightened observation. Sadly, in some cases the oppressed have now become the oppressor and it is now time in this generation to talk about the abuse that men suffer. There should not be one standard for women and one standard for men, there should be true equality. A woman can nowadays be just as much an abuser of a man as a man can be an abuser of a woman. Hence, the disparity of this white ribbon campaign, that sadly favours women and demonises men, as if we were living in the dark ages. We need today end sexism against men not just women.

St. Michael says:

01:27pm | 25/11/11

I’m a decent man and I don’t want Erick exiled from the community.

He raises a decent point: for every ‘wife beater’, there are close to if not as many ‘husband beaters’.  But there’s no campaign to find them, charge them, and lock them up, or stop their behaviour.

JayC says:

01:33pm | 25/11/11

Here Here! Erik, you need to get some serious help with the vile & hatred towards women!
Stupid me, I actually though white ribbon day was against violence for all, and it was so show THOSE that do, that other men/women/communities support its cause and it will not be sit by and let it be swept under the rug, I can’t see anywhere where WRD says those that wear the badges are wife beaters waiting to explode!
Get over yourselves, it is about the community/society as a whole!

Ryan says:

03:28pm | 25/11/11

“You are missing the point douche bag.” Hayley, Can you stop being abusive with your name calling!!!!!! The truth is that both MEN and WOMEN are the VICTIMS of DV. This is not and will never be a one sided. Stop the sexism towards men and women, that’s true equality. DV should be condemned whether the aggressor is a man or woman. It is not right to tread men with the SAME sexism that is not ok to tread women with, it’s hypocritical.

Rossco says:

03:55pm | 25/11/11

Hayley, your response is pathetic and immature, and you need to learn to read before you respond. Basically you failed to address any of the points Erick puts foward to the argument, and then you bash him and make abusive comments towards him such as calling him a ‘douche bag’. (Oh the irony).

Then you use the strawman that Erick denies that men are violent - he has never made such a claim.

Domestic violence is a problem for both genders, as both victims and perpertrators. YOUR ignorant and immature attitude is a larger part of the problem today on this issue, as you fail to make any kind of constructive discussions towards it.

Tim the Toolman says:

03:59pm | 25/11/11

“Stupid me, I actually though white ribbon day was against violence for all”

Stupid you, indeed.  It’s specifically about NEVER using violence against a WOMEN.  That’s an absolute there, buddy, no wriggle room at all.  Never come to a mans defence if he’s being beaten senseless by a woman with a weapon, never defend yourself either.

The oath is a disgrace and repugnant.

ByStealth says:

01:55pm | 25/11/11

Provocation is not an excuse under the law.

That said, I heartily endorse educating women to not provoke their men once an argument descends into irrational yelling. I’m not victim blaming and certainly not saying all wife beating happens due to provocation from the woman.  I’m just looking for ways to reduce the incidence of physical assault.

NZ says:

01:59pm | 25/11/11

Wow Gazza!  Did you really just write that?  Maybe you wanna rethink your post.  If your partner is carrying on like this, maybe it’s time to rethink the entire relationship, not to resort to violence!

Gazza says:

02:23pm | 25/11/11

NZ - I’ve been happily single for many years now !!  My kids often ask me when am I going to find Miss Right ?  I tell them that I am having too much fun with all the Miss Wrongs !!  Have a nice day !

Ryan says:

02:36pm | 25/11/11

Recently a child beat up his bully at school, what did the Australian population do….made him a hero! what kind of message do we send to kids about how to respond to their future spouses. Where is the commonsense, society is so hypocritical and has different standards when it comes to DV, they want to make the bullies the heros. Gazza, you make a great point! It’s sad that society refuses to see the commonsense. Provocation may not be an excuses and any violence in unacceptable, but many women are SOMETIMES the instigators of their own suffering. It goes both ways, men and women need to see that not just physical abuse is abuse but also, mental and emotional abuse is abuse. We need to raise awareness about the abuse towards men as well if we want to see DV reduce in the house hold. Isn’t this the kind of logical reasoning we try to instruct and educate our children with when they have a dispute with other children? Come on, it time to grow up and take our own advise. Stop being so hypocritical.

St. Michael says:

03:35pm | 25/11/11

@ ByStealth:

“Provocation is not an excuse under the law.”

Um, actually, it is an excuse.  At least in criminal law.  It’s very hard to access—it has to be the sort of insult that would cause anyone to go off their tree and it only covers the initial lashing-out, not a half hour of beating someone—but it does exist.

Most of the time, domestic violence by either gender rightly will not satisfy that test, which means the defence fails.

ByStealth says:

04:26pm | 25/11/11

@ St. Michael

That’s very interesting.

Provocation still isn’t accepted in society though when its a man.

I don’t understand why when women commit horrific crimes the courts bend over backwards to point out outside factors, mental illness or substance addiction as the main cause of things, but for a man he is totally culpable for his actions.

We have post natal depression which seems to excuse infanticide, but no recognition of the depression and desperation likely to hit men after their kids are taken away permanently. Mens actions seem to be considered as ‘calculated’ and ‘cold’ instead.

Fiona says:

08:58pm | 25/11/11

Oh, is talking to a male that you knew from high school (or in fact any male), talking too long to your friend on the phone, or getting the shits because your partner didn’t come home from work until the next day a valid reason for a beating then?  Because if they are, then I certainly deserved it. What could I have done to bring about an improvement?

Erick says:

09:29am | 26/11/11

@Fiona - When The Free talked about his experience with violent women, you callously dismissed his story as “slanted”.

Why would you then expect anyone to take your own story seriously? Your “experience” is “slanted”.

GE says:

02:04pm | 25/11/11

I do not believe your quantification of DV as it contradicts my readings on the topic from a diverse demographic of authors.

jay-ded says:

02:03pm | 25/11/11

@skepdad.

I don’t agree with your assessment about Erick or those that choose to agree with him.  You yourself have just stated that “but I won’t take the WRD oath.”  The point you made is EXACTLY the same point that Erick has made over and over on this blog. 
I think that we ALL agree that voilence whether committed by man or woman is wrong. 
The WRD would have been fine prior to the 90’s but today is outdated and unnecessary.
If they changed it to something like a “Voilet Ribbon Day” against all violence then that would be appreciated by the masses unlike the WRD which is violence against women only.

skepdad says:

03:12pm | 25/11/11

Jay-ded, I think you need to re-read what I wrote.  I actually support Erick and Team Erick. You might have confused “misandrists” with “misogynists”.

ByStealth says:

07:14pm | 25/11/11

I understand that some women with a history of or experience with domestic violence are likely to be highly emotional about the subject.

It explains why when Erick says ‘I don’t like WRD because it insinuates every man is a potential abuser’, they hear ‘I hate women and I’m pro women bashing’.

That said, I’m highly sensitive to any insinuation that man=bad so I react strongly as well when issues like this come up.

jay-ded says:

02:25pm | 25/11/11

WTF?  Women come on heat?  As you pointed out we are human not dogs.

C says:

03:32pm | 25/11/11

Yes jay-ded, women “come on heat”.
It is called ovulation and happens on a regular cycle for the majority of women between the age of 12 and 45, unless external factors such as medications also come into effect. It is a basic tenet of biology.

St. Michael says:

03:25pm | 25/11/11

Susan, if you look at any of White Ribbon Day’s literature other than the Power Balance, er, WRD bracelet which can only fit four words on it, you’ll find it’s solely about domestic violence against women.  Not domestic violence across the board.

NC says:

02:49pm | 25/11/11

@Father of 3: They are often blackmailed and also it’s not easy just to get up and go when you share a house, belongings, have children etc etc.

Sony B Goode says:

03:24pm | 25/11/11

“Why do some women constantly choose to be with men who treat them disrespectfully”

Only people who have no understanding of male-female dynamic need ask that question, I suggest you research the seduction community and find an answer to this question, because if you don’t know the answer to that question your relationships with women will be challenging.

Kim says:

07:30pm | 25/11/11

My mother could not believe I had children with a violent man. She saw signs but believed he would never harm anyone. Why? Because most abusers are really nice guys. No anger issues to the outside world. Lots of abusers are every ones best mate. The type of guy no one would ever believe would hurt a flea let alone his wife and children.

They have the ability to hide who they truly are until it is to late for there victims. Your job is never done. Your future son-in-law could be an abuser but I hope for your daughters sake he is not.

Nothing is black and white.

Erick says:

05:27am | 26/11/11

“It is so that the silence can be broken about violence and to raise awareness of this.”

Then why is the campaign completely silent when it comes to violence against men?

The reason is because WRD is not a campaign against violence. It’s a campaign against men.

skepdad says:

04:24pm | 25/11/11

In Erick’s defence, he has been a consistent opposer of misandry for a long time on The Punch.  It’s not trolling, it’s just that this is an issue that he (and others) are clearly personally affected by and passionate about.  You can agree or disagree with him, but I very much doubt that his consistent position on mens rights is anything but genuine.

It’s reassuring to see the “where is Erick?” comments on any of the articles here dealing with gender inequality or men’s rights.  He need not even turn up now to get us thinking about the male perspective.  Job done, sir.

Greg says:

05:21pm | 25/11/11

Speak for yourself Geoff. Nothing that Erick has written has offended me.

Unlike your offensive call for Erick to self-censor himself.

You need to understand that somebody is not a “troll” just because they write something that you don’t agree with.

And asking somebody to go away, just because you can’t rebut his arguments, doesn’t do much for your cause.

OchreBunyip says:

09:02am | 26/11/11

@Geoff, when you cannot refute Erick’s arguments, when you cannot argue when he exposes the lies presented as facts, when he deconstructs the comfortable fallacies and you have no come back….then Erick must be exiled because he’s disruptive? Notice that Erick is not the only one you need to exile, others have produced facts, and argued against the misandry and denounced WRD. Are you going to advocate all opposing views are banned?

Erick is indeed here to stir up debate, because people like you don’t even acknowledge there should be a debate. You just proved Erick’s points eloquently.

John Smythe says:

04:09pm | 25/11/11

So it’s OK for movements like this to drive “men are violent perpetrators, (only) women are victims” into the community psyche then. Just man up and let it be?

It’s not manning up when you try to constitute that Domestic Violence LACKS a gender, and the correct message should be sent to the community psyche?

Got ya.

No thanks.

Mexican Beemer says:

04:51pm | 25/11/11

John Let me be clear there is no excuse for domestic violence and the reality is that domestic violence is carried out by both men and women.

Men are suppose to be the stronger gender therefore they should lead by example and not carry out acts of domestic violence and if they receive such treatment from a women then they should as I wrote either end the relationship or press charges.

I have never heard anyone claim that all men are violence perpetrators.

John Smythe says:

05:19pm | 25/11/11

My bad there…mistook the nuance. All good. It’s Friday…...and I just got denied a 200K redundancy package because I’m too important to the firm :(
In this markets, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Mark says:

06:32pm | 25/11/11

Palone-your reponse a disgrace. You actually suggested a man probably deserved it if he was abused. You hypocrite. You parade around with a white ribbon feeling all warm and fuzzy and morally superior and then spew forth abusive bile like this.

Your rant just about sums up the farce that is White Ribbon Day.

Why is questioning the gender bigotry of this day somehow proof that a person is a woman hater? What a pathetic way of dealing with an argument for which you clearly have no answers. Why can’t we accuse the promoters of this day of being man haters?

All men are saying is please present a balanced view. Imagine the screeching from women if we had continual campaigns suggesting they were child abusers, child killers and all women had to take a stand and wear a badge to show they were not supporters of child abuse.When they complained we could simply label them child haters and supporters of violence against children.

What a pathetic joke. Present arguments rather than abuse.

ByStealth says:

07:32pm | 25/11/11

He’s attacking the campaign, not women. I’m against WRD but I protect and love all the women in my life. They aren’t mutually exclusive concepts.

Frankly your shaming language reflects badly on you.

Leah says:

11:40pm | 25/11/11

Mark I suggest you learn to read.

Palone said that wife-beaters, bullies and drunks might get a reaction from their victims, and who can blame the victim for doing so? And I agree. It doesn’t suggest that all men who are victims of abuse are because of that.

Erick is beyond wanting a “balanced view”. He doesn’t just think White Ribbon Day is imbalanced in favour of women. He thinks it is an out-and-out campaign to demonise men.

Also Palone made the point that he is a regular reader of Erick’s comments and that he has established an understanding of Erick’s attitude from many instances, not just this one. His declaration that Erick is a woman-hater is based on far more than Erick’s questions today about “gender bigotry” (do you even know what ‘bigotry’ means? Because you totally misused it there).

palone says:

04:44pm | 25/11/11

The Free, who obviously isn’t, why did they all, (well, five out of seven), hit you? And you’ve been hit by your own cricket bat? What did you do about that? Nothing? You stayed? Why?
You sound like the Erick who must be obeyed.
Okay, this is what you do next time. You leave. You see, it’s easy, (as Erick knows), for a bloke to leave, but not so easy for a housewife, mother, and dependent, to leave.
So, in twenty years you have had only a maximum of twenty one months in relationships. Well, like Erick, that makes you an expert. In Erick’s book.
You see, blokes are stronger, more dominant, more “in charge of the finances” that are women. Unless of course they wish through a “I choose to be dominated” thought pattern to be the underdog. They volunteer.
I know a few of these weak buggers, who say, “Oh, I find it easier to go along with what she says, rather than speak up”, and then, like you and Erick, you whinge, whine, complain, look for sympathy, and wait for support. Not from me, you weak, gullible, cowards.
You deserve the bed you have made. Lie in it!

John Findlay says:

05:46pm | 25/11/11

Palone, empathy isnt a strong point of your character is it ?

LauraBoBaura says:

06:31pm | 25/11/11

Palone, I wonder if you would say the same thing to a woman who said made the same comment as The Free?

Not a snowflakes chance in hell, me thinks.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

08:49pm | 25/11/11

@Palone “I know a few of these weak buggers, who say, “Oh, I find it easier to go along with what she says, rather than speak up”, and then, like you and Erick, you whinge, whine, complain, look for sympathy, and wait for support. Not from me, you weak, gullible, cowards”

That comment doesn’t make you any better than the men who abuse women. Even if they are weak (and I don’t think that is often the case), isn’t the point of the campaign to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves? If a man cannot stand up for himself, is he unworthy of the support of others simply because he is a male?

Perhaps some of those men have stayed for the sake of their children. On average they get the worst deal in family court and if the woman is also a bad mother then some men would feel it is in the child’s best interests if they stay. Men are often ridiculed as victims of DV. They often lose custody battles to women who make poor mothers and role models. I can’t blame them for not wanting to take a chance with the family court if they choose to leave.

The Free says:

09:04pm | 25/11/11

@Palone

I didn’t stay - I left, that’s why there was 7.  All’s been well for years, thanks for asking.

Also, it’s nice that you somehow managed to get 21 months out of seven relationships lasting *at least* 3 months.

I spent around 15 of those twenty years in relationships, you see I am pretty nice, but sometimes when you are too nice relationships devolve.

Why is it easier for a man to leave?  Do you know what it’s like to be told you’ll never see your kids again or that you’ll be dead if you try and get custody?

Are females less able to kill?

“weak, gullible, cowards”

Good for you.  Use your words sweety and really show us how evil and wrong we all are.

It’s good to know that men who get abused deserve it, maybe you could get a T shirt made up with that in bold, I reckon copperplate gothic font would go nicely and then you could parade your belief for everyone to see and be sure to slap a white ribbon on it, just to let people know whatsup.

Good talk.

Fiona says:

09:16pm | 25/11/11

Your experience is slanted. There’s plenty of women with remarkably similar stories.

Erick says:

05:44am | 26/11/11

@Fiona - “Your experience is slanted.”

Why do you say that? Because he’s a man? That’s sexist.

“There’s plenty of women with remarkably similar stories.”

Is their experience “slanted” too?

You seem to be eager to dismiss men’s experience of violence at the hands of women. Why?

John Smythe says:

05:08pm | 25/11/11

lrn2read

I think you will see that is not the case. Nice try though.

Greg says:

05:14pm | 25/11/11

Yeah, how dare men take offence for being branded potential woman bashers, who need to constantly monitor all the other potential woman bashers, and take some pointless oath to ensure that they don’t suddenly become actual woman bashers.

If White Ribbons didn’t exist, I’m sure that the streets would be lined with bashed women within days. How did we ever cope without them?

In over 300 posts, nobody has said that violence against women is a “non-issue”.  It is the White Ribbon campaign that makes violence against children and men a “non-issue”, and also ignores any violence that is not committed by men regardless of the victim.

Despite nobody endorsing violence against women, this campaign has managed to create divisions where none had previously existed.

It is not about protecting women, it is all about demonising men.

If you can’t see that, then you are the pathetic fool.

skepdad says:

05:24pm | 25/11/11

Tanya, you should really have the URL to the Wikipedia page for Logical Fallacies tattooed somewhere on your person.  It might help you avoid making laughable non sequiturs like this.

John Findlay says:

05:26pm | 25/11/11

Tanya you may find that a lot of the men are making comment because like me they are the victims of a very dirty lie in our society.  Do you know what it’s like to have a malicious DVO placed on you, do you know what it’s like to be photographed, fingerprinted and have a police record for a txt message ? Do you know what it’s like to be removed from your own home because your partner had a knife and you grabbed her wrist ?
Do you know what it’s like to know your children hate you because of things there mother has told them so she can get revenge against you ? Do you know what it’s like not to see your children for over 4 years ? If the ladies out there were dealt the system the same way as many fathers are there would be outrage. We fathers are outraged but knowbody is listening, this is the only place we can vent our conserns. Up until several years ago I was just as ignorant as the next person about the gender/family injustices in this country, please just consider what many men here are saying, there is something terribly wrong with the whole system. White Ribbon is just waving a red rag at a bull.

Sony B Goode says:

06:14pm | 25/11/11

There are so many mechanisms to protect women such as AVOs that it boggles that the politically correct actually want more. They won’t be happy till we allow a return to men’s legal slavery.

We already have legal financial slavery care of the “Women’s er…. Family Welfare ... er Court ” system.

LauraBoBaura says:

06:21pm | 25/11/11

I’m a woman & I don’t support WRD as long as its directly & solely aimed at men, and as long as it encourages good men to swear that they will never lay their hands on a woman, it is insulting and offensive. It could easily be changed to be about both genders..

Your point is invalid.

John Smythe says:

05:48pm | 25/11/11

So you’re happy with the idea that the movement itself, and the slogan itself, purely focuses on women then?

Yup…that’s helping the fellow human beings. I’m pretty sure Domestic Violence lacks a gender. Aloha~

skepdad says:

06:10pm | 25/11/11

You make good points Melanie, though characterising the people posting here in opposition to misandry as “overly defensive” perhaps says something about how mens issues are regarded in the community.  Nevertheless.

I think the angst largely derives from the oath, which is unique among your examples.

The majority of men don’t need it because we already treat others (including women) with respect and nonviolence. Many (including myself) refuse to take it because it is not honest. for example, if a woman was threatening my or indeed any children with a knife, I would use all means at my disposal, including violence, to stop them.  Doing so violates that oath, but no rational person would condemn me for defending children.  As such, the oath is at best symbolic and flawed, and at worst actually designed to reinforce negative stereotypes against men.

Those of us who do not take the oath are stigmatised, and treated as perpetrators, excusers or silent supporters of violence against women.  The comments above are a clear indication of this. Our reasoning is not considered. We are presumed wife beaters until we take the oath.

Would you take an oath never to commit violence against a man? If you answer no, you understand my position. If you answer yes, you’re not thinking it through. If you answer “that’s different”, you are part of the reason for all of the angst on this thread.

Melanie says:

07:21pm | 25/11/11

Yes, John, I am happy that there are campaigns that focus on very specific issues in society at the exclusion of others. I would be just as happy to see campaigns that focus very narrowly on any sort of men’s issues, or young people’s issues, or father’s issues, or Aboriginal issues. Or violence against children or violence again men.

Violence against children is surrounded by very unique issues, such as the often total dependence of a child on the perpetrator - they do not have the ability to just walk out of the situation. Violence against men (by women) also has very unique issues, including the huge social stigma that prevents much of it being reported, and the legal hurdles for men who choose to try to take lawful action against their perpetrators. This campaign is aimed at one part of domestic violence. I would be just as supportive of a similar campaign speaking out against violence against men, and calling for appropriate action to prevent it, and equally wary of women - or anyone - who offered the equivalent criticisms that are being offered here.

And skepdad - the reason I say that they are overly defensive is that I really don’t think that it is necessary to take White Ribbon day so personally.

I can see your point about the oath, I really can. Guilt for not outwardly supporting a cause is not a strategy that any campaign should use. I shouldn’t be made to feel bad for saying no to the Kids with Cancer people in the shopping centre. Or for throwing out the Starlight Foundation literature that they keep sending me after that donation I made. Or walking past the beggar in the street. And I don’t, because there are causes I do support. And supporting some causes and not others is not wrong.

I have to completely agree with the sentiment that sometimes, violence continues because of the inaction of others. I know that because I was once married to a violent man.  I did not provoke him in any way. I did not deserve what happened to me just because I did not have a crystal ball to see what was in store. But there were people in my community who knew that it was happening, and made me feel guilty for wanting to leave. They assured me that he really did love me and that he was truly sorry. It’s these sort of people that this campaign is aimed at. Believe it or not, it was the words of a SONG (How Come How Long by Baby Face and Stevie Wonder) that finally made it hit home for me (pardon the pun) - that if I stayed, I could die. I then had the support of my family, but still those same people from the community made me feel wrong for leaving. Those people would tell you that they don’t condone domestic violence, but they did.

What I think is kind of ironic is that the opening comments about this Punch article, by Brando, were all so anti-White Ribbon Day, and yet he said “I’d suggest that if anyone we know suffered at the hands of her partner we would be so disgusted that there immediately would be a sufficient support network for her to leave immediately” - that is EXACTLY the sort of behaviour that this campaign is trying to promote. But you also have to be aware that it can happen for a long time without others seeing it, so you can never say that it is not happening amongst your family and friends, no matter how well you think you know them.

FB says:

08:13pm | 25/11/11

STFU?
Is that supposed to mean Shut The Fuck Up, eh, Melanie?
I’ve been a cop long enough to know what that tells me about you and your MO in dealing with those who present against you.
Thank you, by the way, for the classic indicator
Then again.  Perhaps you meant Silence The Free Unbelievers.
Perhaps.

Melanie says:

09:42pm | 25/11/11

Actually, FB, you got it right the first time. There is an awful lot of complaining going on here as though this article - and White Ribbon Day as a whole - was concocted as a personal attack against the commenters.

Just because we can’t do everything to help everyone, it doesn’t mean we don’t do anything to help anyone. Not supporting White Ribbon day by not taking the pledge is no better or no worse than not supporting Pink Ribbon day by not buying a pink ribbon. If someone isn’t wearing a pink ribbon, no-one is accusing them of wishing for others to get cancer.

I’m saying that if you have no desire to support a cause, there is no need to tear it apart either.

I would have thought that your years as a cop would have taught you more about the need for action against domestic violence than about the “MO” of someone who uses a 4-letter acronym.

Erick says:

05:49am | 26/11/11

There is nothing well-intentioned about White Ribbon Day. It is a deliberate, sexist attack on men. That’s why it needs to be condemned and actively opposed.

OchreBunyip says:

09:12am | 26/11/11

@Melanie, why should men remain silent when they are abused? Why should men not stand up for what they believe when they are being demonised? Or should men only stand up for what women tell them to stand up for?

Men do not need the approval of women; we are humans too.

St. Michael says:

04:38pm | 27/11/11

@ Melanie:

“I’m saying that if you have no desire to support a cause, there is no need to tear it apart either.”

Fail.  I have no desire to support apartheid, for example, but it would be wrong of me to stay silent where it exists or not call it for what it is.  We call that ‘sinning by silence’, and ironically it’s one of the things White Ribbon Day is against.

ByStealth says:

07:47pm | 25/11/11

I too am curious about why the punch hasn’t explored the issue of misandry in the media and society.

I think the vast majority of women love men and aren’t misandrist at all, but yet these themes are consistent within the media. As someone stated above, when men are the majority victims its a non-gender issue, but when women are the majority victims, it becomes a gender issue. Its hardly fair.

It reminds me of the legitimate feminist movement earlier this century. All the men couldn’t understand why women were so upset, because the issues didn’t affect the men. Now it seems that the shoe is on the other foot. Many men are upset, but they’re immediately discounted as trolls or women haters.

As I stated in another thread, I suspect because women have the control of the majority of spending, advertisers will not support any paper which prints stories that make women feel uncomfortable and turns them off reading. Many mens issues if not framed correctly will be taken as misogyny, because they are often seen as a zero sum game by the feminists (child custody, divorce, parental alienation).

Certainly other issues like men’s suicide rates and boys failing in schools could safely be explored though, couldn’t they?

Mel says:

08:31am | 27/11/11

@John Findlay

“It reminds me of the legitimate feminist movement earlier this century”

??? “Legitimate”??? Hahahaa. I assume you are inferring any current feminist movement is illegitimate.? Or am I wrong.

Dude - really?

Erick says:

10:11am | 27/11/11

@Mel - Among men’s rights activists, one topic of debate is whether or not feminism was ever a legitimate movement for human rights.

Some people say that feminists had some genuine grievances many years ago, which they legitimately sought to address - but that over the years, feminism became a corrupt project promoting misandry and female supremacy.

Others contend that there was never a time when feminism was legitimate, and that it was always a corrupt project promoting misandry and female supremacy.

The issue so far remains unresolved.

Support White Ribbon Day says:

07:24pm | 25/11/11

One of the best things about White Ribbon Day is how much it annoys Erick.

I mean that sincerely.

Incidently, ever notice how these “I’ve never hit a woman ...” blokes are the same ones who say “I’m not a racist but ...”.

Damaged goods indeed, huh Erick?

Erick says:

07:50pm | 25/11/11

@Budz - “Why don’t they make white ribbon day a campaign against violence?”

Because it was never about violence. It was always about spreading hatred of men.

“Need it be specifically for a certain gender?”

Yes, because otherwise it would be a campaign against violence, not a campaign against men.

The Free says:

08:31pm | 25/11/11

Oops, is that a feminist shaming tactic?

People say they don’t hit women, only to be concluded that these must indeed be the same one’s who are racist?

HOLD ON?

Did you “Support White Ribbon Day” just accuse all the men who buy white ribbons and say “I’ve never hit a ribbon of been racist?

Fail of the day, no, fail of the week, nope, possibly the biggest fail ever.

Support White Ribbon Day says:

08:46pm | 25/11/11

@The Free - reading comprehension isn’t your thing, huh?

Or maybe the difficulty was in completing the syllogism ...

The Free says:

09:30am | 26/11/11

SWRS

You Said: “I’ve never hit a woman ...” blokes are the same ones who say “I’m not a racist but .”

So men who wear white ribbons and take an oath not to be violent and say they never hit women, by your logical extension are the ones who say they are not racist but.

Maybe you could clear up what you were trying to say, because if you are not saying these men happen to say I’m not racist but…

???

Well.

Do you want a dollar each way or do you want to come out and call others bigots, but not get called on doing the same thing.

Better yet was that just meaningless drivel you wrote because:

A. You didn’t mean it or

B. You didn’t have any underlying meaning

Logic land needs your captaincy

phoenix says:

07:55pm | 25/11/11

Erick is a brick wall.He chooses not to be educated.Thats not our fault.

Erick says:

08:07pm | 25/11/11

@skepdad - Add “brick wall” to the list of insults.

I’ve never compiled or seen a list like this before. Pretty amazing!

The Free says:

08:22pm | 25/11/11

Hahaha.

Add to that “Eric is a brick wall”.  Also that he “chooses” to not be educated, unlike the one’s arguing with him who resort to attacks and name calling.

It amuses me how many times he’ll say some thing, anything and it’s misogynistic simply because it assumes women could possibly act on such a way that these women were perfectly able to assume men could.

It seems there are a lot of hypocrites that want to point fingers at men, but also want to stick those fingers in their ears and pretend the men who experience abuse don’t exist, or better yet when we say men get abused we are misogynists for bringing it up.

White Ribbon? YES! says:

08:26pm | 25/11/11

Wow skepdad, you seem a little obsessed with Erick. That is, of course, your choice and nothing to mock you for. At all.

I don’t know much about the statistics but I can tell you one thing - Erick is just a run-of-the-mill whinger. People find it fun to call out whingers. Ask Tory.

skepdad says:

09:47pm | 25/11/11

@White Ribbon Yes:

Nah, I’m just an attention whore and a bit jealous of all the delicious ad hominem that Erick gets.  Thanks for sending a bit my way.

Actually it was a combination of being stuck at work at 7.30pm on a Friday waiting for my code to compile, and a dislike of the sort of dishonest and fallacy-driven argument that Erick seems to be a magnet for.

Erick says:

07:52pm | 25/11/11

@Cyla - Do you also think the women who are complaining about being beaten by men need to take a bit of responsibility for the men they chose?

The Big Fella says:

07:55pm | 25/11/11

Cyla - most women are fake !  They pretend to be beautiful loving adoring helpful creatures that butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths while they are dating - but after they have conned you into a relationship they then turn into the nasty bitchy coniving schemeing selfish vindictive jealous things they actually are !!  And then they wonder why men get angry when they work it out !!!!!

John Findlay says:

08:04pm | 25/11/11

Cyla :- It’s probably some of the same dumb (in hindsight) reasons why women dont leave men ! We are no less stupid in relationships than women

White Ribbon? YES! says:

08:54pm | 25/11/11

Erick said: “Do you also think the women who are complaining about being beaten by men need to take a bit of responsibility for the men they chose?”

He literally blamed the women themselves for being beaten.

Of course he’ll say he was just asking the question. He thinks that particular obfuscation actually works…

All hail your champion.

I truly hope Erick does not have a girlfriend, wife, female partner, or female children.

Fiona says:

09:32pm | 25/11/11

John Findlay, your response was far more reasonable than the big fella’s.

skepdad says:

10:50pm | 25/11/11

@ White Ribbon: Oh please. Do you believe he really wants female perpetrators of domestic violence to have their ovaries cut out too? (ref Jay 12:04pm).

He’s drawing attention to the inherent sexism and myopia in the statement.  Take a breath and have a nice lie down before you embarrass yourself any more.

Erick says:

07:48am | 26/11/11

@WRY - “He literally blamed the women themselves for being beaten.”

No I didn’t, and you know it.

The fact that you have now resorted to telling outright lies about me - and easily exposed ones at that - shows that you have conceded defeat in your attempts to counter my arguments.

Your arguments have failed because they are logically wrong. Now you are telling lies, which is morally wrong. No wonder you support a campaign based on sexism, hate and falsehoods.

Erick says:

09:29pm | 25/11/11

@White Ribbon - Whoa, statistics! How scary!

What point is it, exactly, that you are trying to make? Yes, a very small number of women, and an even smaller number of men, are murdered by their partners. That affects less than 100 people in Australia each year,

Domestic violence is more common than domestic murder, even though it is still pretty rare. And all the serious research shows that relationship violence is spread evenly between the sexes.

“This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.”

That’s why the White Ribbon Campaign is sexist. It deliberately targets men, and is in itself a form of psychological abuse.

Mark says:

09:56pm | 25/11/11

So 23% of people killed were male and they receive no recognition at all in this campaign. What a disgrace. We might add the fact that there are many other forms of DV other than murder in which the stats are far more evenly balanced. The biological mother is responsible for more child murder than the biological father and women are overwhelmingly represented in the neglect/abuse of children by a large percentage.

That being said I will pose this question one more time. Not one person has attempted a response so far.

Please explain why (if the focus for any issue should be on the majority rather than the minority in any given social problem) is it that any time an article or program focuses on the issue of suicide-gender is never mentioned, even though men kill themselves at four times the rate of women.
Why isn’t suicide a gender focused issue rather than a general, gender neutral approach?
Why is it whenever there is a campaign on death in the workplace (98% men) it is presented in gender neutral terms as an issue affecting Victorian Workers?

Why is it that whenever their is a commemorative service to honour the sacrifice of our soldiers we always refer to the sacrifice of our men and women even though 99% of all deaths and mutilation were inflicted upon men?

Stats appear to have no relevance when these issues are written or spoken about.

Suddenly we talk about violence in the home, knowing full well that women have and do perpetrate violence upon their children and partners to a higher degree than woman die in the workplace, in battle or suicide-yet it is never mentioned or alluded to. It is the invisible crime.

Why are people surprised by the justified anger people feel about these outrageous double standards?

skepdad says:

10:14pm | 25/11/11

Wow WRY, you seem a little obsessed with Erick and I. That is, of course, your choice and nothing to mock you for. At all.

What is the point you’re trying to make with those stats?  It seems to me on casual inspection that it’s just another straw man to add to the list, but I’m happy to be corrected.

skepdad says:

10:19pm | 25/11/11

Andrew,

Would you mind explaining why you chose to focus only on violence against women, and not Intimate Partner Violence and/or domestic abuse in general?

thanks

Melanie says:

11:06pm | 25/11/11

Skepdad - Andrew and the others involved in White Ribbon Day have found a cause that they believe is worthwhile, and they are doing what they can to promote it and campaign for a better outcome for female victims of domestic violence.

I don’t get why that is something that so many people on here are getting so upset about. YES violence against men is unacceptable. YES parental alienation is unacceptable. YES the high rate of male suicide is unacceptable. So if that is something you feel strongly about, then go and campaign about it. Raise awareness and money to help people in those situations. BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF SOMEONE ELSE’S CAUSE.

skepdad says:

11:30pm | 25/11/11

I’m just curious. Thought it would be nice to hear it from the source as it were.  Not trying to start a fight, sorry to disappoint you Melanie.

St. Michael says:

12:55am | 26/11/11

@ “I’m not sure why everyone is so defensive about it?”

Easy.  Because it’s all about women’s rights and nothing about men’s.  They’re meant to be equal before the law.  Change that, and my objection to WRD disappears.

But we all know you won’t, don’t we?

Greg says:

12:56am | 26/11/11

Andrew, your comparisons are ridiculous, and an insult to our intelligence.

The oath of allegiance to a country is not restricted to men only because it is assumed that women cannot be traitors. Women are not excused from swearing an oath in court, because it is assumed that only men will tell lies. Similarly wedding vows are reciprocal, with both man and wife promising to love and honour eachother - there is not an assumption that only the husband will be capable of cheating.

Even if the White Ribbon campaigns demonisation of men is unintentional, which seems extremely unlikely, the fact remains that many men find it offensive.

The campaign is a divisive and spectacular failure, which is some feat considering that the condemnation of violence against women (or men or children) is virtually unanimous. It takes a special sort of incompetance to divide and inflame so many people who would otherwise be unified in condemning domestic violence.

The message that is being heard is definately not the same message that you claim you intend to send. Instead of being so defensive, why don’t you acknowledge the feedback and just admit that you got it wrong?

St. Michael says:

01:07am | 26/11/11

@ Melanie:

“Raise awareness and money to help people in those situations. BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF SOMEONE ELSE’S CAUSE.”

You could say exactly the same thing about White Ribbon Day: that it hobbles the overall cause of stopping domestic violence because it focuses on part of the problem and not the whole.  What’s good for the goose is quite literally not good for the gander, eh?

Erick says:

05:58am | 26/11/11

Andrew, it’s clear that you haven’t done the slightest research into the area of violence against men. I suggest you start here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MRRef/

As for the White Ribbon campaign, it isn’t just the silly oath that’s offensive. It’s the fact that the whole campaign is based on portraying men as abusers and women as victims, with no balance whatsoever.

It’s not a campaign against violence, but a campaign against men. That’s why it’s rightly being rejected by so many people. Instead of arrogantly dismissing valid criticism, perhaps you should actually think about what all these people are saying.

Melanie says:

08:43am | 26/11/11

Skepdad - I really am not trying to start a fight. I just don’t understand why, if it is such a big concern to you that men are the subject of violence too, and that this is an understated problem in our society, why are you addressing that problem here, to a select few? Why not try to make a difference in a larger forum? Your local MP perhaps?

I donate to a myriad of causes through a chocolate drive I do at work. And I sincerely pledge that if there is a channel through which I can donate money to a cause like raising awareness of domestic violence against men, I will.

Mark says:

09:10am | 26/11/11

Andrew- If your arguments are so strong why do you refuse to respond to the valid points raised? You hit and run with your cut and paste responses on a number of articles and do your cause nothing but further damage. It truly is cowardly behaviour. People here are willing to engage in civilized debate but you run from it. Are you afraid you will be exposed? Turn as around with some brilliant , game closing retorts.

Is that crickets I hear? Where are you Andrew?

I’ll throw in another shocking double standard. You ask people to join with you in commemorating the memory of women who have lost their lives to domestic violence with absolutely no regard for the men and children. Yet in all war commemorations we remember the men and women who have lost their lives in war even though 99% of soldier casualties are male.  Please explain, Andrew.

Erick says:

09:31am | 26/11/11

@Melanie - The problem here is that White Ribbon Day is itself an attack on men. If we want to fight violence against men, we have to fight White Ribbon Day.

Rossco says:

11:00am | 26/11/11

Andrew, your campaign is a misandrist disgrace and I will not be supporting it until you acknowledge male victims of domestic violence.

Ron says:

10:12pm | 27/11/11

Typical hit and run comment.  Are you “above the fray” and dont wish to suly yourself by engaging in debate?

Erick says:

06:04am | 26/11/11

@Eskimo - “Better to concentrate on the cause of all domestic violence and try to redress some of the inequalities that clearly do still exist between men and women.”

Good point. It’s time to redress inequalities such as:

Men live seven years less than women

Men receive less health funding, even though men pay more taxes

Men have poorer outcomes in education

Men are discriminated against in the family court, and in the legal system in general

Men are falsely depicted as potential wifebeaters, rapists and paedophiles

There are dozens of special programs to help women, but none for men

And so on, and so on ...

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

09:38am | 26/11/11

@ Erick - “It’s time to redress inequalities such as:
Men live seven years less than women”

Persuade men to stop acting like ostriches and go to a doctor when they are ill and we’ll see more of them living for longer. There have been various campaigns conducted over the last 20 years trying to persuade men to take better care of themselves. If men choose to ignore such campaigns it is no one else’s fault but their own.

“Men receive less health funding, even though men pay more taxes”

It is not as simple as funding illnesses based upon the gender they inflict. Since breast cancer is a major killer of women, is it not reasonable that it attracts more funding than a male-only condition that is not associated with such a high fatality rate?

If more men went to their doctors when they were ill, there would be stats to support a greater need for funding for men’s health issues. Men aren’t helping their own cause.

The fight for the health dollar is not limited to a gender struggle either. Some illnesses are favoured over others. For example, it is easier to get funding for leukaemia research than stroke research, but leukaemia affects less people. Neither illness targets a specific gender. It can be argued that the health dollar would be shared more fairly if distributed according to the numbers of people affected by the disease, not by gender.

“Men have poorer outcomes in education”

Yet they manage to get the higher paying jobs and their average salary is greater than that of women. That’s a good achievement considering their poorer outcomes in education. Misogynists like to complain about women being given high ranking jobs based solely on gender. If men have poorer outcomes in education then I guess it’s just misogynist propaganda.

palone says:

11:34am | 26/11/11

@ Erick, and similar. The argument seems to be that the objectors to “taking an oath” object because it , (the oath), assumes some form of participation in the bashing of women.
Not a very good argument, and one that suggests a little bit of desperation, but if you were all fair dinkum, and honestly believed such to be the case then you would tell the Judge to get stuffed when he demanded that you take the oath, or affirmation, on the basis that he assumes you are a liar. Gosh, I can see Erick now.
“How dare you accuse me of being a liar. You don’t even know me. And you question the integrity of the police, and make them swear too. And my Mum, when she gives evidence you will assume she’s a liar.”
Yes I can see that happening. And don’t come back saying you’re only after equality. That boat sailed for you ages ago.
Your repetitious nonsense has bored us all for too long. Give us all a break.

Greg says:

11:12am | 26/11/11

If they did that, then it might mean that they did actually want to target violence rather than demonise men. So it will never happen.

sha says:

09:13pm | 26/11/11

Well thats livened up my saturday night.Thankyou

John Findlay says:

05:19pm | 26/11/11

Well maybe your mother should have chosen the highway ! It’s to bad people like yourself cant GET that it’s not an attack on women, it’s an attack on organisations that actively promote division based on gender and in this case also the exclusion of children ! I would have thought PROUD feminists would also see whats wrong with this campain or dont they because it gives them an edge that they dont want to let go of ? Believe it or not you may also know many men who are themselves victims of violence by their wifes,  but just like masterbation, men dont talk to other men about these things. We have our own “collective” but unfortunatly it’s not politicly correct to point out that women are just as bad as men, hence there is ZERO help and ZERO attention, why do you think Mick Fox became so desperate that he climbed the Harbour Bridge ?

Melanie says:

06:05pm | 26/11/11

Is there a “Like” button on here?

Swarley says:

11:38am | 28/11/11

“if you’re so concerned about your own gender why don’t you start up your own collective. “

That would be sexist.

Erick says:

09:59am | 27/11/11

@phoenix - “.I blame males for every issue of domestic violence.”

That’s why we need to condemn and oppose campaigns like White Ribbon Day - because they promote false and hateful attitudes like yours.

John Smythe says:

11:11am | 27/11/11

There is method to his madness. Take a step back, rephrase everything he says about women, resubstitute “men” and you will see all he is is a “reverse” mirror to the way (extreme) feminists constantly bombard us with their slanted views, and dominate any and every topic with their views on how oppressed they are.

The fact he is allowed to keep doing this here is one of the very few reasons I bother with this site.

Personally I don’t think Erick as as “oppressed” as a lot of people think. And the fact a lot more don’t see what he is doing, only shows to reflect just how deeply imbedded into our psyche that the extreme feminist movement has become. The sheer fact he has continued so long, in such a steady consistent way, (dare I say) never getting emotional about it, signifies that he isn’t just ranting.

Mark says:

11:52am | 27/11/11

So all this whining and whinging from women is acceptable. Again- the disgusting double standards. It is quite breathtaking. This is why men are silent. They are mocked, denigrated and ridiculed when they suggest they face difficult issues just as women do. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Not one person has responded to the questions posed. The only defence seems to be vicious, patronising put downs of legitimate arguments about the disgraceful gender bias in this campaign. Why the hell should any man have to start up his own support group? Why are men labelled women haters as soon as they raise a voice in support of men’s rights or concerns? It’s a filthy tactic Palone and shows how truly devoid of any real argument you are.

Not ONE opponent of White Ribbon Day has said he supports the abuse of women. All of those who oppose the day have said they oppose all forms of DV. How does that make them women haters? It would make more sense to say those who support attacking this problem only so far as it affects women are the haters.

As far as suggesting Erick is pushing the notion that “women are evil and men superior” The sheer hypocrisy of this attack leaves me dazzled. For forty years men have been told they are abusers, morally inferior to women, stupid and potential rapists. Recently there were books and tshirts on sale with the caption “Boys are stupid-throw rocks at them.”  Books and calendars titled “All men are Pigs” sold like hotcakes back in the 80’s and 90’s.

A man had his penis cut off by an angry girlfriend recently and threw it in a garbage disposal unit. Four women on a major daily tv show including Sharon Osborne spent ten minutes laughing about it and saying his penis should have been fed to a dog. If you want to check this disgraceful episode here is the link.

http://youtu.be/muuFygvXPAM

This is true hatred of men and it is allowed to be enacted on major tv with barely an eyebrow raised by the network. People protested and there was a tongue in cheek apology. All four women continue to perform with their careers untainted.

Sam Newman was stood down for undressing a shop mannequin. Do you seriously believe any man would not be lynched were he to laugh and joke about the gender mutilation of a woman?

Kyle Sandilands calls a woman fat and his career appears to be on the line.

Yep-it’s a man’s world.

John Findlay says:

03:52pm | 27/11/11

To Erick, go to Mick Fox who climbed the Harbour Bridge.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Kids-First-Mick-Foxs-protest-that-closed-the-Sydney-Harbour-Bridge/161422747254143
Yes it’s time to get serious, it’s time for change !

Michael Tait says:

01:56pm | 28/11/11

Hear, hear Carolyn ! The truth is, by far the most victims of violence are men and yes it’s usually perpetrated by other men but the fact remains that by far men are the greater victims of violent crime so when it’s a campaign to condemn ALL violence then I will support it .

John Findlay says:

02:26pm | 28/11/11

I think you mistakenly inserted “Mothers” when you meant to say “Fathers”!  For every bad outcome for a mother there are 100 bad outcomes for fathers ! Maybe its just that you believe that all children belong with their mothers 100% of the time and fathers are just somewhere you get maintenance from ?

Elizabeth1 says:

06:12am | 29/11/11

The only outcome we should be concerned about is the children.  All of the issues that come about in the family court relate to the parents behaviours.  Research is showing that children bear the brunt of these behaviours.