Ignoring violence against women costs their dignity

Carz says:

07:12am | 10/12/10

Your source is incorrect and based on discredited research tools. Stop jumping on the “poor men” band wagon and do some real research before you comment.

Babs says:

07:55am | 10/12/10

Isn’t it true that men are physically stronger and equipped to handle anything an ordinary woman or child could dish out?

Markus says:

08:23am | 10/12/10

Babs that is a ridiculously sexist stereotype. Shame on you…

Faux outrage aside, any size advantage gets thrown out the window the second she decides to pick up a knife or heavy blunt utensil.
And in a society where any retaliation will see you villified, how many guys are going to risk hitting back?

Bilby says:

08:43am | 10/12/10

@Babz - Generally yes it is, but I’ve seen a mate with scratches covering his face and chest because his gf, the daughter of a magistrate no less, didn’t understand that violence against men is also not ok. When he dared raise a hand to defend himself, she called the police who were duty bound to arrest him. He was released with the apologies of the local officer shortly afterwards. The message needs a little work.

A Bob says:

09:28am | 10/12/10

Carz, could you please deconstruct the article that Eric has linked and explain how, when and by whom the study was discredited?

Will says:

10:00am | 10/12/10

I was thinking the same thing A Bob.

Let’s just say it’s discredited without any support to say it’s ‘discredited’

Emily says:

10:06am | 10/12/10

Eric your comments are morally reprehensible

Geoff - Brisbane says:

10:39am | 10/12/10

@ Emily - I agree, how dare someone stand up for men. How immoral. Infact i bet you are one of those females who believes its OK and that deserve to slap a man but get all upity if he even thinks of wacking you back.

Jotun says:

10:58am | 10/12/10

Carz, I just did a bit of reading into Eric’s research and found his sources reliable enough. The methodology of researches conducted into domestic violence against men and women which find gender imbalance in the figures has been challenged, not discredited. The studies merely deal with incidences of abuse, not severity.

The biggest issue I put forward into this whole debate is why the western world is not focussing on stamping out domestic abuse totally, instead of harping on about violence against women, and always painting females as the victims.

Daz says:

11:44am | 10/12/10

My brother’s ex-wife used to try and hit him, he’d block it and she’d hurt her hand.  Thus she’d tell everyone he hurt her.  And having had witnesses to these ‘assaults’, it was exactly how my brother told it.  Luckily she’s no longer part of this family.

Anna says:

01:42pm | 13/12/10

@A Bob, Dr Michael Flood (see below) provides a good overview of various studies that deconstruct and criticise the research methodology that suggests women are equally as violent as men and that the outcomes of that violence are equally as harmful. They are not, according to studies (see below) and according to police and hospital records in most western countries, let alone countries where male violence is more normalised.

Babs is correct. Women are more likely to be seriously injured or die as a result of domestic violence, women are more succeptible to sexual violence, women are more likely to commit violence in self defence, women are less likely to commit violence as a whole. We can all find an individual or personal story to suggest otherwise but the weight of sheer numbers, statistics and research prove that reality. Yes, women do commit violence, but it’s generally not the same in degree or effect. Yes men are more often the victims of violence ... at the hands of OTHER MEN.

It’s not a personal attack against ALL men to acknowledge that there is a significant problem with male violence that effects us all - women, children and men. Burying your head in the sand about it helps nobody.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39560894/The-Debate-Over-Men’s-Versus-Women’s-Family-Violence-Flood-AJIA-2006

http://www.xyonline.net/content/domestic-violence-and-gender-xy-collection#attachments

Eric says:

02:21pm | 13/12/10

Michael Flood is a feminist advocate who will naturally seek to minimise any statistics that counter the conventional wisdom. It’s well established by peer-reviewed research that http://csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm; an area of true equality that is an embarrassment to misandrists.

Campaigns against “men’s violence” are really campaigns against men in general. That’s why we never see the same sorts of campaigns against women’s violence - it’s all gender politics.

Anna says:

07:36pm | 13/12/10

The research that you have cited is largely based on the use of the Conflict Tactics Scale, a method of research that has been widely criticised and discredited, including in the article I linked to. Even the author of the original research that many of these studies draw on has been critical of the way ‘men’s rights’ activists, academics and others have distorted his findings to suit their own purposes and biases. The research is also contradicted by police and hospital records in every western country, let alone anywhere else.

Personally I only have to watch the news or read the newspaper for a few minutes to see who is committing most of the violence in this world. There is an interesting pattern at play - most serial killers, mass murderers, rapists, pedophiles, sexual abusers, murder/suiciders, physical abusers, rioters, terrorists, bank robbers, etc.etc. etc. ad nuseum are male. That is not an attack on ALL males or to suggest that only men are violent . That is simply acknowleding reality so that something can be done about it. It’s certainly interesting that most men who are rightly up in arms about violence against men are only intereseted in pointing out how bad women are when it’s other MEN that commit most acts of violence against men. This suggests to me that this has more to do with an anti-woman agenda than any concern for violence against men.

Eric says:

11:24pm | 13/12/10

There are many dozens of studies, not just one. And they haven’t been “discredited” - only criticised by feminists who don’t like the truth.

Your constant references to “men’s violence” show that your agenda is anti-male rather than anti-violence.

Brenda says:

07:07am | 10/12/10

Addressing violence against men (the covert, cruel psychological damage typically delivered by females) has to be prioritised. 

Over-attention to women’s wants, needs, dislikes, demands, rights, privileges have had their turn in this country. 

Now let’s turn some long overdue attention to Australian men’s rights, thank you.  Encourage men to just say No More.  NO. Had enough, and not taking it any more.

John says:

08:11am | 10/12/10

I could not have said it better Brenda. Bravo. It is time. Woman have more than enough. I have watched far too many men die as a result of present laws.

bec says:

08:33am | 10/12/10

Ignoring that the overwhelming majority of violence experienced by men is perpetrated *by* men costs Australia brain cells.

Bilby says:

08:51am | 10/12/10

@Brenda - I’m going to step out of the box and suggest something totally radical here. How about we *all* work towards the rights of all people? Seeking rights for one group while ignoring everyone else may have achieved much, but at what cost?

Jerry says:

09:28am | 10/12/10

Precisely Bilby.

We should decry violence against all, not just the agenda of a specific gender, colour, author, article or news forum.

MK says:

09:41am | 10/12/10

@ Bec,  ture, however the following is also true
(in Australia)
the majority of violvence perpetrated by men is expereinced by men,

Men are more likely to be the victims of violence than women
In australia we have a violence problem

bec says:

11:24am | 10/12/10

Thank you, MK. I think it’s worthwhile investigating what is causing this violence against dudes as well, because none of this occurs in a vacuum. Violence against women affects men and boys too (especially the sons of women experiencing domestic violence, who are likely also being abused), and violence against men has repercussions with the women in their lives.

We need to look at what is causing men to be violent towards others - especially other men.

A Bob says:

01:07pm | 10/12/10

Bec, what’s wrong with investigating why people are violent towards other people? Certainly, it will be divided up into various demographics, but why limit the scope? This is what causes me dismay, the almost automatic assumption that it need only involve a subset of the community as if they are the only source of the problem.

Paranoia says:

01:53pm | 10/12/10

I agree with Bilby.  We need to find the cause of violence - no matter who is the victim, man, woman, child, creature - and eliminate it.  I personally would support that cause whole-heartedly!!  I would hazard a guess (and that’s all it is) that perhaps the lack of respect (by anyone, for anyone or anything) is potentially at the root of this.

However, can we please support a no-violence towards anyone or anything policy?  Every creature has the right to live peacefully.

Eric says:

02:23pm | 10/12/10

Note how bec has turned Doug’s point around - from “violence *against* men” to “violence *by* men”.

She has also redefined the victims - with women becoming the real victims of violence against men!

All while ignoring the issue of women’s violence against men, which is equally important. Good work bec, you get a gold star from the feminist collective.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

11:04pm | 10/12/10

Thank-you Brenda, when I tried to talk about the violence of my wife, now ex, the woman social worker said that I must have done something to make her scared because, women only lash out when they are scared. How a bloke holding a toddler & protecting him is scary, she couldn’t explain but was very dismissive of what I had to say, I can’t imagine that happening if the genders were reversed, can you? ? ?

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

11:06pm | 10/12/10

Bec the person to hit a small boy is invariably his mother, make of this what you will.

Eric says:

03:31pm | 11/12/10

Robert, the statistics show that mothers are more likely to abuse children than fathers. This is probably not because mothers are inherently evil, rather they simply spend more time with children.

AliceC says:

08:35am | 15/12/10

@Eric

“Robert, the statistics show that mothers are more likely to abuse children than fathers. This is probably not because mothers are inherently evil, rather they simply spend more time with children.”

Mothers are more inherintly evil? Based on what? Now who’s pushing a gender agenda?

Squeeze the Middle says:

05:34pm | 15/12/10

AliceC. Eric was agreeing with you that mothers are not inherently evil.

Eric’s point is that even if men are 5 times more likely than women to hit children (I’m not saying they are), the fact that women spend 20 times (a guess to illustrate the point) more time with children then, on basic probability, a child is four times more likely to be hit by a woman than by a man.  Eric is saying that the statistics support this basic premise.

Of course, this can never be used to excuse bad behaviour.  I.e. we should be eliminating bad behaviour.  Rather than ‘managing’ it by e.g. removing fathers from their children on the justification of ‘balance of probabilities’. Such Government action is unjustifyable ‘violence’ against a father and offends Sophie’s principle of “every single act of violence that is based on gender violates the rights, dignity and well-being of women. ”

Sam says:

10:29am | 10/12/10

Alcohol culture. Why is it legal to manufacture substances that make consumers’ lives go down the drain. If a society doesn’t condemn the manufacturer, the importer, the distributor and the retailer… how can you condemn the consumer without appearing hypocritical? The guy drinking himself to death didn’t deserve to have his life sabotaged by a system that doesn’t care about him. I bet he doesn’t care what the world thinks anymore… in the end we all lose a potential positive and instead we get stuck with a “loser” who will infect many people before he expires himself. Our mismanagement of our society is the heart of the problem. Perhaps one day you’ll understand the point of “religious nutcases” who told you the answers before you even asked the question… but no, you want your “freedom”... it’ll cost you your dearest if you don’t wake up from your childish infatuation with a false ideal. Freedom is the antithesis of harmony.

Kaz says:

11:23am | 10/12/10

While alcohol plays a significant part in violent incidents, it’s also important to remember there are other things that come into play. My father was never under the influence of alcohol when he hit my mum, he was just being a jerk that wanted his own way all the time.

Emily says:

11:57am | 10/12/10

Sam, I think your comments are totally insensitive- there is absolutely no excuse for how Deb was treated. People must take responsibility for their actions

Emily says:

11:57am | 10/12/10

Sam, I think your comments are totally insensitive- there is absolutely no excuse for how Deb was treated. People must take responsibility for their actions

NicoleG says:

12:27pm | 10/12/10

@Sam, any man who hits a woman IS a loser, pissed or not. I’m sick to death of people like you, who use alcohol as an excuse.

Sam says:

12:48pm | 10/12/10

@Emily, I’m not making excuses for deb’s ex. I’m telling everyone why I think our society sets us up to fail and then we get told rubbish like “we must take responsibility for our own actions”. Thanks for letting off the manufacturers of poisons marketed as fashionable beverages. Talk about passing the buck! How insensitive are you to the needs of people who need to be protected from themselves as well as from the corporate predators who manufacture these poisons? Why don’t we just fill the world with drugs and then sit back and watch the imperfect human beings kill themselves and each other because we refuse to accept that we are not all necessarily capable of making good decisions in the face of temptation? Keep blaming yourselves while the criminals keep profiting from manufacturing poisons that your kids won’t be able to resist… and I’m the one being insensitive?

A Bob says:

12:52pm | 10/12/10

Sam, I have never raised a finger to my wife, but I did start to drik hevily to cope with her abuse of me. I soon saw the dangers in that and gave it up, but even under the influence I never became violent. Alcohol is a disinhibitor, it makes us more likely to do something we otherwise might restrain, but it doesn’t make an otherwise placid invdividual into an ogre. It may release the ogre withing that was there to begin with.

Getting violent people to give up booze will help, but it’s not the root cause.

Sam says:

01:22pm | 10/12/10

@A_Bob, you right alcohol isn’t the root cause. I’m saying the root cause is the way we leave individuals to make their own mistakes rather than guide them (especially as adolescents). Our emphasis on freedom is hurting us… sometimes we need protection from ourselves and from others who take advantage of our freedom and our infatuation with being “independent” in a world where we can never be truly independent without either hurting someone or at least being indifferent to someone else’s problems. That’s the root cause. Cheers.

BK says:

08:10am | 10/12/10

The authors of these articles typically have a shaky hold on reality but comparing Australia to African war zones and pretending that violence against women is rarely acknowledged takes the cake.

Jerry says:

07:38am | 10/12/10

So it’s okay to have a ‘what about women article’ and not a ‘what about men article’?

Women’s issues have been at the forefront of the ‘agenda’ for decades.  Without funding, initiatives go nowhere.  The ‘activists’ are asking for fair treatment, a fair go and fair funding.

Interesting to see the blind feminists who believe that only females issues exist, are of importance and they are ‘blind’ to anyone else.  Be considerate to females issues, be considerate to opposing violence against women, just know there will be no consideration in return.

Interesting how you determine what’s ‘manly’ behaviour and you set the standard for what’s appropriate, what’s right, where funding should go…you, you, YOU!

progressivesunite says:

08:53am | 10/12/10

@ Jerry - you might want to read my comment again - I didn’t say it’s ok to have an article about women but not about men - I said that this is an article about violence against women and suggested that maybe it shouldn’t be hijacked by people wanting to write about men as victims. Sorry if that’s confusing… Feminists are interested in women’s issues, and have a right to be without having to justify their concern or interest to men. How about you fight the good fight for men if you think there’s a problem (as feminists do for women), go and find the funding (as feminists do for women), go and do all the things you think need to be done - nobody is trying to stop you - or do you think it’s a woman’s role to nurture you and fix all your problems?

Bilby says:

09:14am | 10/12/10

@progressivesunite - Just a small point, but women didn’t exactly do it on their own, so suggesting that men do is every so slightly on the nose. Without the support of men, the feminist struggle would have been dead in the water at it’s inception. It’s only because there has been a critical mass of decent men that we have come as far as we have.

Jerry says:

09:19am | 10/12/10

No there is no confusion at all.

The men here are raising the issue of injustice towards men.  This is a step in raising the issue.  After all feminists took their issues public and to the mainstream media to assist in achieving their goals.

This is what the men here are doing.  Interesting that you tell men to go and do something about it - THEY ARE, right here and you deride them for their right to do so.

They are engaging their rights, they are starting the movement.

Does it take a man to explain this simple concept to women?

progressivesunite says:

10:01am | 10/12/10

@ Jerry and Bilby - I’m perfectly happy to support a men’s movement if its aims are to free men from the straitjacket of strict gender conformity - “men’s liberation” would actually be a great thing (and, incidentally, would probably see a massive drop in violence against women…) - what I’m concerned about is men’s groups that seek to take from women what has been achieved over the last 30 years or so - there’s a distinct element of “they took our toys and we’re going to get them back”. I’m not deriding men for doing something for themselves - I’m just irritated that you’re trying to hijack and negate legitimate women’s issues to do so…

Aaron says:

10:27am | 10/12/10

I seem to remember that in the initial stages of the Feminist movement it was about “hijacking” certain events to get the message out.

Your attitude does not come across very progressive and further encourages the opinion that men must sort out their problems by themselves while also trying to sort out everybody else’s problems.

How is it that we are expecting everything to be handed to us on a silver platter? we are making the same moves, taking the same steps as the Feminists did. If you have an issue with how men are working towards getting some of the issues facing men out there then you should reconsider your high praise for the Feminist movement.

Bilby says:

11:04am | 10/12/10

@progressivesunite - I’m not so sure that gender conformity is such a straightjacket for men. I certainly don’t believe that violence is associated with our constructs, but rather with our nature. Of course that’s a harder problem to solve.

You may call it hijacking, but I would see it merely as an attempt at equity. If the message were that violence is not ok, against anyone, there would be a whole lot more support. That is not a negation, but an expansion. To me that is such a simple concept that I can’t really understand why it is lost on so many people.

As for men’s group attempting to take back the achievements of the past 30 years, it would be fair to say that not everything that has been achieved has been in the best interests of society so there will be a little redressing of the balance. Women can’t really expect men to reign in their own worst excesses while not doing the same thing themselves now can they? What’s that word again? Starts with an “E”.

James1 says:

11:38am | 10/12/10

Bibly,

Your nature, pehaps.  Certainly not mine, and many other men I know.  So please do not be so sexist as to characterise all men as being prone to commit violent acts.

progressivesunite says:

11:52am | 10/12/10

@ Bilby - what sort of ‘redressing of the balance’ do you mean? I’m not trying to attack you, just genuinely asking. What will women need to give up to ‘redress the balance’? What would you advocate? Women not being allowed to take out loans without their husband’s signature again? No access to safe abortion again? No real career prospects again? Men being allowed to rape their wives within marriage with impunity again? Seriously - what are you advocating?

Oh and I agree that violence against anyone is wrong, I just think that there are different types of violence and they can’t all be lumped in together - there is such a thing as gendered violence, just as there is such a thing as innocent men getting glassed in a pub - both reprehensible, both shouldn’t happen they are different types of violence and require different approaches. I don’t know why that is lost on so many people….

Bilby says:

12:41pm | 10/12/10

Oh dear James1. Before we can fix a problem, we must first admit that it exists. The position that much of the world’s violence is perpetrated by men is not really up for discussion. It’s a given. Head in the sand attitudes won’t help us in the slightest.

@progressivesunite - Apart from obvious things like special government and university departments for women, my idea of redressing the balance is more to do with showing each other respect, accepting that men and women, in general, face different issues in life, and not making it an us v them battle, which ultimately stuffs it up for everyone. The fact that this balance has never been achieved perhaps makes my “redressing” statement wrong. I’ll give you that.

As to violence, I don’t think there are different kinds. In my experience men will only hit someone else if they think they’ll win. It’s about imposing their will on someone else by force. Hitting his wife, or someone at the pub, or his kids, it’s all the same thing. I’d be interested to hear your response on that one.

Eric says:

02:28pm | 10/12/10

It’s not so much about “hijacking” articles like this, as about exposing and condemning them.

The whole “violence against women” campaign is really a campaign against men. It uses false theories and dodgy statistics to pretend that men, and men alone, are the problem. Its purpose is to make innocent men feel guilty for things which are not responsible, and to tilt the legal playing field against men.

It isn’t enough merely to demand equal attention to violence against men, even though this is a worthy cause. Rather, it’s necessary to expose these “violence” campaigns for what they are - anti-male propaganda.

Observer says:

03:28pm | 10/12/10

eric
you ARE a misogynist who always endeavors to hijack any thread that has anything remotely to do with women and violence.

Anyone who reads the punch knows that.

You should seek some psychiatric help with this issue. Perhaps they can discover the trigger for your psychosis and it can be treated. I suspect it has something to do with mummy issues.

dave says:

04:22pm | 10/12/10

@ observer

misogyny is not a psychosis. calling someone psychotic who is making a stand against violence seems odd.

Jerry says:

05:45pm | 10/12/10

Observer,

Before you make clinical diagnosis, perhaps you should provide us with your medical qualifications to do so.

That seem unable to accept alternative opinion without frothing at the mouth, indicates you may have identified the wrong person who needs medical intervention.

Gerard O'Hearn says:

08:31pm | 10/12/10

I agree observer

I’ve read enough of eric’s posts to know that eric is both a misogynist and a psychotic.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive you dullards.

dave says:

02:00pm | 11/12/10

Hi Gerard.

I agree that the two (psychosis and misogyny) aren’t mutually exclusive. They are also not linked - which was my point.

I have never considered myself a dullard - as you state. Perhaps you are making the same emotional leap of judgement that observer is making about the other writer.

Eric says:

03:33pm | 11/12/10

Internet psychiatrists - what would we do without them?

Bill says:

09:17am | 10/12/10

Kez, your previous situation IS why laws NEED to exist. The problem I’m seeing in the world is not that men feel like victims of violence i.e 50% perpetrated by woman…. but that they are treated differently by the laws and the courts. When men present to court they are assumed violent and WILL be given jail or orders to stop what has been ALLEGED. It’s very simple for a woman to separate and swing the ball way, way, way in to her court by claiming she is scared of her ex..or acuse him of something he has not done….It is a very big problem that has caused a lot of resentment among men. I’ve personally seen woman encourage other woman to gain the advantage with this. Until this changes, unfortunately there will be massive resistance by men for any further laws that fix the disgraceful violence that does occur. Quite a conundrum…

Karen says:

10:15am | 10/12/10

Well said Kez.  As a 43 y.o. woman who grew up in a violent family, perhaps I could easily have been documented as the violent one, when at 14 years of age I wanted to stab my father to death to stop him beating my mother to a pulp after the police had come and he had told them nothing was wrong.  Grow up boys that have comented on this site, start using your energy on helping create peaceful loving homes.  You live in a dream world.

Steve says:

11:31am | 10/12/10

With some families Karen, it wouldn’t matter what interventions there were.  My summary of what guys here are saying is they want fairness…How do you come up with “You live in a dream world”..We’ve all acknowledged that violence against woman is bad. We just don’t think men should ALL be labeled and treated as violent. It’s sad you were brought up in a violent home. It has tainted your perspective. I was given an AVO because I MAY have become violent. I am tainted and it affects my perspective. Until AVO law changes to reflect the intention I will never support more of the same and I’m guessing neither will most men.

Jerry says:

07:51am | 10/12/10

‘Many of the research tools used to “estimate” the rates of female to male domestic violence have been discredited as they do not take into account the context in which the violence occurs (self-defences rather than initiated).’

Source or sweeping generalised statement?

Punchers need to learn, quoting one article, does not substantiate your world view.

BK says:

08:14am | 10/12/10

So violence is judged as either offensive or defensive, depending on the gender of the person. Those sorts of double-standards are what feminism was supposed to liberate us from.  All of the data suggests that women initiate violence more often than men.

Carz says:

09:17am | 10/12/10

‘All of the data suggests that women initiate violence more often than men.’

Talk about your sweeping, generalised statements! What data? What are your sources? Who paid for the research? What research tools were used?

At least I provided a source for my statement. I do not intend to do your research for you. If you really want to know the truth then read from a wide range of sources.

Kateykat says:

09:45am | 10/12/10

Male victims of domestic violence need as much support as women.. EQUALITY goes both ways…

before you make generalized statements like this, read your facts… Try here first:

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/malevictims/

Women perpetuate domestic violence more through emotional abuse, though physical abuse is often involved too. On top of that, police and society are unwilling to believe when a man claims to have been abused by his female spouse.

I’m sick of domestic violence campaigns being one-sided. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS WRONG. Regardless of your gender. We should stand up against all domestic violence. A woman shouldn’t get a free ride to abuse her spouse… any more than a man should have a free ride to abuse…

A Bob says:

01:02pm | 10/12/10

Carz, from your link:

“Much data have been collected that confirms that women, in the overwhelming majority of cases, are the victims of violence from a
partner (Egger 1995). An emerging question raised within the field is, “What about the men who are also victims of domestic violence?” To date there is little statistical data recording men as victims, either within Australia or overseas.”

It starts by stating that it is “confirmed” that women are the majority of victims, then admits that there is very little data collected about men. How can one be confirmed when the converse has barely been studied? And you talk about discredited research methods.

Still waiting for a response to my question to you in Erics first post.

TChong says:

07:40am | 10/12/10

MarK , old son , in complete agreement. Your post must have been worded better than my attempt.
Appalling, and misandrist to suggest that the BS of alledged wage disparity ( by comparing apples with oranges) some how equates to the horrific violence in Liberia.
Sophie seems to be going for the very broad brush stroke of “ALL women ,ALL victims ,ALL the time”  mid 1980s Feminism 101 style of universal victimhood.

Jerry says:

07:58am | 10/12/10

...and yet they believe their twisted world views are rational and justified…which is plain scary.

Scott says:

08:03am | 10/12/10

Totally true Mark!

Do you not understand that Australian men are responsible for what happens in Liberia?

Missy says:

12:48pm | 10/12/10

Great post Mark I felt the same way reading the article.

maybe says:

09:06am | 10/12/10

“That the executioners may also be men is irrelevant” because men dish it out to other men just as much as they do to women? or more?

Larrikin says:

01:48pm | 10/12/10

Bizarre! Gendercide is practised widely against foetuses (guess which gender is usually selected for elimination). And men go to war because they go to war because they go to war. Apparently going to be a soldier is so wonderful there’s often a rush to sign up: ages are put down, health issues are fudged.  Who knows why? It seems to be just part of the masculine pscyhe.

Mel says:

02:21pm | 13/12/10

War hams men on a large scale. Many men also harm women and children during war - women and children who have no part in the war. I have seen a statement from a general in the war in the Congo who said that women and girls are more harmed in war than soldiers themselves. Rape, assault, torture, forced prostitution of women and little girls ... These are the ‘weapons of war’ and unacknowedged ‘spoils of war’ for men. There are no monuments or marches for the victims and survivors of these atrocities. That doesn’t mean that they don’t happen.

Squeeze the Middle says:

07:51pm | 13/12/10

Eric. I’m sure that sentence wasn’t meant to be interpreted to mean ’ of women and only women’.

What the author is probably saying is that even e.g. telling a joke that makes fun of violence against women/men will make life worse for ALL women; no matter who is telling the joke.  I.e.  a man telling another man, a woman telling a woman or even a woman cracking the same joke to get a laugh out of a man she likes. 

I’m guessing that Sophie believes that when gender based violence is acceptable that ALL women will end up getting pushed down.  So e.g. a woman thinking she’s getting a step up by beating up another woman or by getting her bloke to beat up another bloke will end up worse off when the inevitable downward steps that the whole sisterhood usually cops come around to bite her.

I.e. when everyone starts throwing punches the ruthless men will throw punches at everybody and rise to the top and all men will at some point end up throwing punches at women. Whereby some men will benefit.  Most men will be worse off.  But all women will be worse off. And if things completely degenerate like in Liberia, even the simplest male can dominate great women. I don’t argue against this..

But I will argue against Sophie’s comment that the Australian governments have done “their bit”. In fact, the sentence of Sophie’s that you have singled out condemns the governments of Australia. I.e. any government action that is ‘economic violence’ through reverse discrimination against men to balance the power without regard to merit “violates the rights, dignity and well-being of women”
@ Larrikin. “It seems to be just part of the masculine pscyhe.” Or by necessity to avoid a lifetime of being persecuted. After they are labeled cowards and receive their white feathers.

Squeeze the Middle says:

09:49am | 14/12/10

Eric.  You should celebrate the sentence you highlighted.  Take the logic of the sentence further. I.e. to the point that Sophie takes us where we should admonish that off colour joke in the office. I agree, we shouldn’t sit in silence.

Sophie is hence telling female sexists (and of course male) commenting here that they should admonish themselves for the negative effect they are having on all women.

But she should also admonish herself for giving the Governments’ conduct the thumbs up despite all the reverse discrimination it actively seeks and gender (rather than merit) based economic violence to exerts every day through e.g. the Federal family legal system.

And she needs to give herself a stern talking to for being so careless to allow herself to omit the ‘Australia Says No’ campaign. 

We all need to do better.  Not just through what we DO say but also through what we DON’T say

Jane says:

09:05am | 10/12/10

Just like women choose to be victims of domestic violence and rape.

And as for your assertion that men are greater victims of domestic violence - there is a plethora of peer reviewed research which blows that out of the water.

StefanR says:

09:16am | 10/12/10

You’ll probably find that the study from which the 17%/18% figure was obtained controlled for things like qualifications and industry.

Markus says:

10:18am | 10/12/10

@StefanR they did attempt to but the way they did was very, very poor.
It went on the assumption that all qualifications should be equally valued, i.e a 3 year childcare qualification vs a 3 year apprenticeship in a currently high demand trade such as carpentry.
It also excluded most full-time jobs that involve large amounts of overtime (paid and unpaid), of which men are more likely to occupy than women.

Tim says:

11:08am | 10/12/10

StefanR,
actually no they didn’t.
The 18% figure is for all males and females regardless of job or qualifications.
It includes all people, including housewives and the unemployed.

Once normalised the figure is actually 8-9% for all ages.
For people of Gen Y, the figure is 1-2%.

Even then the figures are a bit dodgy.
The researchers identified a number of factors that they thought could affect pay rates and assumed every other difference in pay was due to discrimination in the workplace.
I’ll leave it to you to figure out why that may not be correct.

And for the record I actually think it’s disgusting for the author to even mention gender pay in an article about violence.

Zander says:

11:13am | 10/12/10

Jane
I was not suggesting that men are greater victims of DV. But of violence in general. Learn to read.

StefanR
No study has actually proven that women earn less when employed in a comparable role and all other things are equal (eg hours, qualifications, output, profits etc)

Clem says:

11:51am | 10/12/10

Zander, unfortunately you have been misinformed, it is not a woman’s fault she is paid less because of her lack of education or enthusiasm for taking more challenging and better paying roles but rather that men lift each other up the ladder and corporate Australia lets employers get away with making excuses (like the ones you give) for paying women less.

It is ignorant to generalise about women and their aspirations, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest women are less ambitious than men. In fact there are more women graduating from university than men in Australia and yet you say it is about women’s lack of education.

Karen says:

10:42am | 10/12/10

Thanks Dave, finally a real man talking here.  I can’t believe some of the men here think that a woman can physically hurt a man the same as a man can hurt a woman.

Markus says:

11:03am | 10/12/10

Dave fair enough, the men commenting here just want to ensure that the manner of introducing this harsher sentencing does not open up the vast majority of men, who have/will never hit a woman in their life, to further social and legal imbalance than is already present.

@Karen, I can’t believe that women still naively think that a woman cannot physically hurt a man as much as a man can a woman. See my post above. Any advantage from physical strength has been balanced out ever since our ancestors developed the ability to use hand tools back in the Stone Age.

Bilby says:

11:07am | 10/12/10

@Karen - It’s not about outcomes, it’s about the principle.

Karen says:

11:25am | 10/12/10

Markus, I agree in theory with your club/knife/gun/whatever weapon available theory.  Let’s take a look at the number of women hospitalised/killed compared to men hospitalised or killed.  All this PC rubbish further marginalises women and children. I’m not saying violence against men by women doesn’t happen or is justly punished, just let’s look at the sheer numbers of women getting beaten up by someone they love and that is physically stronger (intimidating) than them.

KH says:

10:35am | 10/12/10

I would agree that the system of orders against other people needs some overhauling - there are too many false claims and purely vindictive claims.  Sure, there are some people who really do need protection, but there are plenty of others who are using the system to pursue their own little vendettas.  Oh, and it isn’t always men on the receiving end - I know of a few cases where it is a woman who is the victim of this abuse of the system.

Clem says:

10:13am | 10/12/10

Sam, your comments reinforce that women are blamed for the many challenges in this world, a common theme and EXCUSE used by perpetrators of gender based violence.

I think that your comments are not only wrong but morally reprehensible.

Sam says:

10:42am | 10/12/10

They are part of the problem. That should be obvious. I think it’s a poor effort to only blame the perpetrator and not investigate the causes of that man’s downfall (shocking as it may be to some - it might have been caused by another woman!) I’m not excusing his violence at all, but I’m not letting that other woman off scott free either. In my world, everything is interconnected and no criminal wasn’t born an angel and subsequently sabotaged by your poor-effort 1-level analysis.

Clem says:

11:17am | 10/12/10

Your simplistic view and chauvanisitic tone speaks to the heart of the problem which is that people are constantly saying that the problem is larger than them and that therefore that they are excused from being part of the solution.

There is never an excuse for violatiing anyone’s human rights no matter their gender, race, family history, or religion.

How convenient to say that “everything is interconnected” because it makes the problems everyones and noones- thereby not holding anyone to account. Individuals still have to be responsible for their own actions and blaming their mother is a ridiculous excuse.

Take a good hard look at yourself and take some responsibility- you’re handing on a silver platter an excuse to the perpertrators of violence.

Adam Diver says:

12:51pm | 10/12/10

@ Clem, how about the right to freedom? All do criminals not have to suffer incarceration???

Sam says:

01:07pm | 10/12/10

@Clem, no I’m not providing an excuse for the perpetrators. I’m broadening your definition of “perpetrator”. Today we say the “murderer” is the person who kills. Tomorrow we will say that the person who sold the weapon was complicit (part of the problem). The day after tomorrow, we will broaden it even further and stop the manufacture of deadly weapons.

Blaming mothers and fathers is completely fine. They also should be held accountable for their performance. If you don’t discourage bad behaviour, you are definitely part of the problem (even if you are a saintly mother). Accountability of parents is part of the law, and it will only get broader.

What about violating the human right of children to grow up in a society that minimises the pit falls of life rather than telling them “listen to me, do everything I tell you to do, until you’re 18, then you can make your own decisions, and btw good luck resisting the meriad of drugs we’ve designed to make money out of your existence, because for all intents and purposes son, you’re not really needed for the planet’s survival or our collective happiness”.

I think you’re obviously daunted by the prospect of designing a society and culture that minimises the risks rather than leave people to their own devices and let the strong survive. The law of the jungle is cruel, and every now and then even a lion will get bitten by a cobra who feels hard done by. That’s not an excuse for the cobra’s violence, but let’s face it, the lion never gave a damn about the cobra until he realised it could kill him too. What goes around comes around, I’m sure you’ve heard that. When we fail to protect our weak, we fail to protect ourselves from their revenge. It is all interconnected.

Bilby says:

01:20pm | 10/12/10

@Sam -

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Martin Niemoller

Clem says:

01:33pm | 10/12/10

Sam, I fear that you have lost track of my original point, which was; you take the easy way out by saying the reason for GBV is someone else’s fault. In fact it is the perpetrator’s fault, he has agency.  When a man hits his wife/lover/girlfriend/daughter his actions are his own. It is simply not good enough and, I might point out, somewhat ignorant to say it is society’s or a family’s fault that there is a perpetrator of GBV amongst them.

Even if a person has a neglectful mother, or father, they must at some point stand on their own two feet and if they commit acts of violence they should be held to account.

This issue should not b trivialised by ridiculous similes about animals.

Sam says:

01:35pm | 10/12/10

@Bilby, thanks for that… exactly my point. We need to punish criminals… but also work to stop normal people with potential to be good citizens from becoming criminals. I believe we are currently failing on both counts, partly because of this “people need to take responsibility for their own actions” nonsense. If A leads to B, B lead to C, C leads to D… how can we simply blame C alone? It really is a poor effort. Criminals were once beautiful babies with the world at their feet… something happened to them after they were born and before they reached perfect enlightenment, therefore the blame is not theirs alone. We are guilty of not caring about that criminal at the point of time he became a criminal.

Again, no excuses after the fact, but food for thought regarding prevention of a recurring theme.

Sam says:

02:00pm | 10/12/10

@Clem, your short-sightedness is your problem. Get past the point of who’s did it, and join the “how do we fix it” club. And if you can’t learn from the animal world, then you’re one of the ones who needs to be protected by others who have. I suggest you watch more National Geographic and less Dr. Phil.

Bilby says:

02:25pm | 10/12/10

@Sam - I totally agree. Attack the problem at both ends. Only attacking the result strikes me as an ignorant approach. I would suspect that that comes from my professional life, where if I were to only swat at bugs, rather than attempt to design them away before they appeared, I’d be on a hiding to nothing.

Sam says:

10:12am | 10/12/10

That’s a fair point, but I think it’s also worth dwelling on the role of women in a violent society. Perhaps they are part of the problem. (oh no - the unthinkable - men being damaged by women - yes it happens more than you think)

Clem says:

11:41am | 10/12/10

Turned off Eric, I don’t think that messages about gender based violence are intended to turn anyone one on.

The fact is that women are all too often the ones who suffer at the hands of the men in their lives, like it or not, men can be part of the solution because they are most certainly part of the problem.

Your comment about feminists is not only offensive but also wrong, feminism has always been about choices and equality, not demonising men, your simplistic comment reflects your lack of understanding of the issue and the world around you.

Bilby says:

12:54pm | 10/12/10

@Clem - I don’t know that you can say “feminism has always been” anything. Apart from the fact that it has changed and evolved way past its origins, as it involves people there will always be factions that do and think differently and there is undeniably a faction that seeks to demonise men.

Eric says:

02:30pm | 10/12/10

My comment about feminists is exactly right, and that’s why Clem objects to it. Feminism aims to portray men as abusers and women as victims, in every case.

Just look at the excuses for women’s violence in this thread - all of them boil down to blaming men.

“If a man hit’s a woman, it’s the man’s fault. If a woman hits a man, it’s the man’s fault.” That’s feminism.

A Bob says:

12:45pm | 10/12/10

I hate quoting Wikipedia, but this seems worth telling:

“[M]any feminist scholars reject the CTS because studies using this instrument find that about the same percentage of women as men assault their partners. This contradicts the feminist theory that partner violence is almost exclusively committed by men as a means to dominate women, and is therefore prima facie evidence that the CTS is not valid.”

In otherwords, it doesn’t get he results that fit with out ideology so it must be wong. Very scientific.

Police reports are only reliable in presenting the numbers of incidents that are reported, no the umber that may actually occur. As a target of abuse in my marriage, the counsellor I saw after my emotional collapse for three years spoke of the number of male clients she had treated in the 25+ year career. Their problems were frequently excarbated by the sense of abandonment they felt at not being recongnised or even being ridiculed if the reported it. In much the same way rape victims need to be spared the horrors of the legal system if they are to report the crimes, so to must men be made to feel safe from the stigma of not being manly if they admit to being abused. She said that the suicide rates in this group of men were higher than women, offsetting the higher incident of female deaths by murder by enraged male ex’s. A different mechanism but the same result. More suffering and lost lives.

Violence in relationships is a human problem, not a gender problem. Until the stereotype of men being animals and women being vitims is shed no progressm will be made at addressing the real problem. It needs to be elevated above politics.

Lisa H. says:

07:11pm | 11/12/10

Yak, my personal feelings are that date rape and unwanted sexual attention are something that very, very many women experience in their lives. Perhaps feeling sexually threatened is the female equivalent to a man feeling afraid of being assaulted outside a pub.
The sad fact also is that very many men are also intensely manipulative. I agree that the stereotype is that women are the manipulative sex, probably because they are seen to have more limited resources for achieving their own goals.
However there is no denying that men can be intensely manipulative of women. I haveknown many ‘nice blokes’ that have been an utter disgrace in their personal, particularly sexual, lives.
Perhaps the social construct which sees women as sexual commodities is at the heart of both these problems.

Emily says:

11:53am | 10/12/10

@Jules, you shouldn’t rush into dismissing a serious human rights abuses and such a serious helath risk. One in five women will experince sexual assault, in Australia. One in five. That isn’t whinging or wining- it is an abomination and it is happening here and now.

This article isn’t separating feminists from the mainstream, it is bringing facts about what is happening here as much as in Liberia into the light. And it does speak to men equally as it does to women, as men are deeply involved in all of the issues raised.

Ray Graham says:

12:06pm | 10/12/10

Jules, ur friggin right. When will the penny drop. Women are putting themselves in men’s ‘don’t want’ list.

Point is they’re so self centred, and have been force fed this crap from birth.

Men are absolutely sick of being thew social punching bag. Some 30 year old blokes have experienced nothing else but it is now in plague proportions. Oh and that’s right there’s a man drought. Bit like leading the camel to water.

Ray says:

12:29pm | 10/12/10

As for you Emily, get a brain, think independently, and don’t fall into line with your birth indoctrination. Women are THE most priveleged species mankind has ever witnessed, and wish to use these themes to continually derail men and perpetuate themselves as the protected species who do no wrong. And it is easy to do so. Instead look at matters wholistically.

What i can guarantee is that a closed mind inhibition, force fed most women from birth, is the biggest retardent in women’s progress. Women are going backwards though feeble internal postulation. If that is too much for you it is self induced decay from the inside.

Yak says:

12:41pm | 10/12/10

@Emily. “One in five women will experince sexual assault, in Australia.” These statistics would include that silly trollop who wanted $37m ‘cause a bloke touched her bra. That demeans the Sexual Assault data into a farce. If I had $37m for everytime a woman pinched or patted my butt I would be a happy (and rich) man. This is why I don’t take much notice of statistics such as this.
Women want the community to see how badly they are treated by men, but most men have had ,or know of someone, who has had spurious accusations made upon them by a disgruntled women.
The use of emotional blackmail by women cannot be understated. Some blokes don’t have the emotional strength to retaliate intellectually so they rely on the only retort they know. Violence.
This is not an excuse. Just the facts as I see/live them.
Have a wonderful day.

JulesG says:

01:49pm | 10/12/10

EMILY: You and your kind are singling out women for special and privileged treatment when they are already extremely privileged and treated as a special case. You women just don’t get that men are hugely discriminated against. Men have no argument about stopping domestic violence in all its forms but lets do it equally and not just for women.

This constant bickering and call by women to be treated differently is doing them no service! It is divisive and seeks to set women apart from the rest of us. It also alienates men and gets their backs up, when you women have nearly all the rights as it is.

I think that the way men are marginalised and discriminated against is a human rights abuse too and we would just like some equality and some of the rights that women enjoy.  Rights and privileges that men just don’t have.

Chloe says:

12:37pm | 10/12/10

I would like to point out the ‘Battered Women’s Syndome’ is outdated. In NSW at least it is now ‘Battered Person’s Syndrome’ available to anyone regardless of gender. Also it is only a partial defence and is linked to the defence of diminished capacity. It is extremely hard to prove, especially if either man or woman has not recieved police or medical attention for physical abuse perpetrated against them by their victim. The defence is also available for those people in same-sex relationships. I suggest researching the law before commenting on it.

Apart from that I think its a bit rich to go on about how men are abused by the system. If you had paid attention to the day for the elimination of violence against women campaign they want to include men, good men, to help stand up for their wives, sisters, daughters and mothers. It is not about the demonisation of men as a whole but trying to include them in the solution. I am all for having a society that treats people equally regardless of gender or any other difference. The reality in the statistics is clear, 1 in 3 women will suffer violence in their lifetimes, often at the hands of those who should love them. Why is this controversial? We should be appalled that we have violence at all regardless of the perpetrator’s gender. Why don’t men talk about violence against them? Stand up for each other. However, instead of criticising women for standing up for their rights and interests go and speak to survivors of domestic violence, really listen to their stories. Whining about the system and whether or not its unfair to either gender allows violence against both men and women in their family home to continue whilst we bicker amongst ourselves about who has been “done wrong” the most!

The sex discrimination act makes it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sex (man or woman). For example if a man tries to get a job at a preschool and is refused on the basis that he is male he would be able to make a claim. I agree that some women rort the system for their own personal gain, but surely that is an aspect of ALL systems? (Centrelink for example) Not all lawsuits are frivolous or unwarranted. Believe me, being a female had nothing to do with how I attained my education and I speak for quite a few other females in my courses. That comment is unfair. I and many other females like me worked extremely hard to attain the educational levels we have and I would be appalled at any treatment that gave me better grades or higher qualifications just because of my gender.

Ray says:

12:53pm | 10/12/10

Well there you go Claire, changing it to ‘Battered Persons Syndrome’, that’ll fix it. Bit like changing ‘maternity leave’ to ‘parental leave’. Do you expect a sensible person to accept that. Semantics beats everyone eh! Whatever rocks your boat, except I think it leaks.

Ray says:

01:07pm | 10/12/10

Chloe, for BWS just get a form guide through a few false or manufactured claims.

Further Chloe, the ‘Act” is written as the Discrimination (Against Women) Act. I also have correspondence from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner (in response to my representation) stating that it is not illegal to discriminate against men in education - Adn the results are evident. For your ‘statistics’ your 1 in 3 has been stated by other protagonists as 1 in 5. Nones good but hey figures out of the hat is no good either. AND there’s no statistics on 1 in ? men. 

QWith education you obviously suffer from memory fade, because in the 70s and 80s the sytem was structurally changed to suit girls better and weighting of subjects was shifted from maths and sciences to the written subjects. Of course it is easy to ignore and provide platitudes. But the cap fits so you must wear it.

Why is there not strucural change to suit boys. Or quotas. Or just equal opportunity for universary entrance.

Your views demonstrate the problem society has created with social engineering

Chloe says:

12:55pm | 10/12/10

and unfortunately it is often other men who ridicule male victims of violence for not being ‘man’ enough. (a male friend of mine was ridiculed this way when he reported an assault by his girlfriend.)

A Bob says:

01:39pm | 10/12/10

Even our own dear Penbo is guilty of this:

“Their distortion of the stats is one thing. If they want to suggest that 33.3 per cent of domestic violence victims are called Nige and Bazza and are hiding in the broom cupboard begging for mercy as the little lady gives them the rounds of the kitchen, sensible people will see it for the crock that it is.”

From this article: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/even-white-ribbon-day-is-a-sinister-feminist-plot/asc/

Apart for mocking the men, it it also shows how White Knighting actually shows contempt for women. She is just the “little lady”, and too ineffectual to hurt anyone. She needs a big strong man to stand up for her.

Ray says:

01:10pm | 10/12/10

Sha, Unequal pay? FCS, who says. Young women have all the professional degrees and their worse paid than some poor tradesman slaving in the hot , cold, or dangerous environment?

Not the blame game. Women have been blaming men all my life and done very nicely thank you. Your sentiments are hollow

Squeeze the Middle says:

03:36pm | 13/12/10

Isn’t paying someone less because of their gender illegal in Australia?

As for dialogue and debate then make yourself a strong coffee and sit down to the thousands of words of debate on The Punch ‘Claims we’ve gone soft on equal pay are rubbish’ 24 November.

Squeeze the Middle says:

03:18pm | 13/12/10

Am I in your brigade cassandra? I’m guessing I’m up to thousands of words on The Punch. See ‘Claims we’ve gone soft on equal pay are rubbish’.  I’m still waiting for the critique?  You’re all welcome to correct me.

Sam says:

09:46am | 12/12/10

As long as your focus is on women and girls… I couldn’t care less. When you graduate to protecting all people from all violence, I’ll start listening.

I don’t know how you think 1 half of the population deserves to be protected while the other half deserves less. That’s worse than racism… it’s stupidity.

Sam says:

10:02am | 12/12/10

Off-course it’s a legitimate topic… but how can you expect progress against violence for only half the population? Do you think that a law is easier to enact when it only targets females? Do you think it’s easier to change the culture of violence towards women without changing it overall for everyone? Don’t you have a younger brother who got bashed for no reason, or a male cousin who died in another war based on lies?

So, whether men are worthy of the protections you seek for women depends on whether the available statistics show a need for it? That’s great, imagine if the American constitution was written that way… “there are no stats to show that negroes aspire to anything, therefore they might as well be our slaves”!!!

Where is the harm in shifting your focus from violence against women to violence PERIOD? Would that be less effective for your personal agenda? Are all us men the same are we? Let’s not get into a competition about who has experienced more pain and who deserves to be protected more…

Squeeze the Middle says:

04:02pm | 13/12/10

A leading question Sara. What do you hope we all do about it?

As for the comments.  This site is called The Punch and even runs a (daily?) thread called “Punch On”. Don’t be disheartened. This site is what it is.  A place for those that can squeak might for once be heard.  And like so many other such sites, the words are flooding in by the billion.

Squeeze the Middle says:

02:47pm | 13/12/10

You don’t need to worry about the aggression shown here nem. It’s called The Punch for a reason. The Punch even has a regular feature called ‘Punch On’.  Daily isn’t it? So yes, even this site light heartedly uses terms with violent connotations. Kinda exactly what Sophie is on about.  But that doesn’t mean people like me support violence in any way, at all, ever. And it doesn’t mean that we don’t have your interests at heart.

But the other thing that Sophie is doing is associating the suffering of violence against women and a 18% pay difference. I kinda agree with some of these male posters that physical violence against men is more entitled to share a ‘liberty’ platform with those Liberian women than a pay decision (economic violence) that is largely in the hands of a democratically elected government. Even if these men here are complete boof heads.

BK says:

09:53pm | 13/12/10

Next, the writers of the Rafters will include a plotline where a man romantically rejects a woman.

Squeeze the Middle says:

03:05pm | 13/12/10

See my reply to Nem below

Eric says:

03:11pm | 13/12/10

Oh Sal, you are so ignorant.

I suggest you read through the comments again, and click on some of the links. You might be surprised!

Squeeze the Middle says:

12:30pm | 14/12/10

I disagree with you Zac. I think the “Australia Says No” campaign was excellent. The campaign was run under the Howard Government.  Hardly the traditional ally of the feminists you oppose.

But you’re right about there being no solution as long as government, media and feminists blame men.  And Sophie agrees too: “Every single act of violence that is based on gender violates the rights, dignity and well-being of women. ” (Violence includes phsycological and economic violence.)

The solution: common sense and equity.  But that will be put on hold while the legal profession provide a barrier to a fair hearing. (Acting on financial incentives and ‘campaiging from chambers’.  Shall we call it advocacy violence.)  In the meantime the violence will continue.