This was on the Australian www.news.com.au under Lifestyle > Relationships > Sex
Please watch the video of the sex worker by Melrose.
Given everything about the attacking of men, I find this extremely interesting given that a wife is upset, fair enough and the other woman is a sex worker who is making money..
Please tell me if this is totally inappropriate here and I will delete it.
I just watched an interview with Pauline Hanson from a few months ago when she said she told Graham Perret a labor Member of Parliament fathers should have an equal role in the parenting of their children and he said "No they shouldn't. Mothers make far better parents!"
I have just written to him via his website.
I did some research and found that in the past ten years mothers have murdered 133 children and fathers 81. This debunks the feminist and government lies about this new bill being about the safety of children.
I know the stats on neglect and abuse show something like 70% of this abuse is perpetrated by mothers. The whole narrative is one big lie..
Graham Perret was showing his ignorance by that comment , but what would you expect from a Labor MP, they have all been indoctrinated by feminists man hating. The fact that he is a man makes no difference , just means he has a self loathing self effacing dark side.
In Western culture women and especially “mothers” are given a goddess status , they can do no wrong, even when they murder their own children they are usually excused on grounds of mental instability.
The role of a mother is vital to newborns that is obvious, a close bond is necessary for the best growth of the baby. Only a woman can do it and this is probably what Perret meant ,but as the child gets older it no longer applies and the father must take a lead in breaking the mother/ child bond , for the sake of the independent development of the child.
But this lost in Modern Western countries, often children grow up with no father or grandfather to “save” them from the over controlling mother , Jordan Peterson has done a lot on this subject.
More so called primitive societies have not forgotten how important the father is in the development of the child and still have rituals and processes of initiation into adulthood for both boys and girls.
Western societies in contrast allow childlike juvenile attitudes and behaviour well into adulthood and it shows, as the late Peter Ustinov said on visit to Australia “ Australia is a very juvenile country” , offensive it may have been , but truthful.
Women commit the vast majority of the neglect and child abuse.
Father's are required for newborns as well. If the Father isn't there to quell the Mothers neurotic nature, the newborn suffers with an inferior form of Maternal Care.
It seems that modern Western culture is losing the traditional skills of child raising .Look at more primitive cultures where the child’s grandparents have a much greater role in the daily care of children, easy because they all live in the same village .
But Western culture with the focus on the individual ,consumerism ,materialism , with cities and suburbs spread out so much ,children do not see their extended family .
The old saying “ it takes a village to raise a child “ is true , but our “car dependent” suburbs are hostile to children.
Agreed. Even the Nuclear family of the 1950s is a less than optimum organization of the family. The extended family is a far superior form of family organization with a much greater historical precedent.
It helps with social issues as well as economic ones. People who say there are no economic advantages to family building in the modern age are very misled.
The role of a Father is vital to newborns as well. The quality of maternal care is correlated with the presence of the father. Single mothers quite literally make worse mothers, probably due to increased neuroticism because of the lack of male security. Women commit ALL neonaticide. ALL of it.
When I was young the common wisdom held that kids learn empathy from their fathers and the older the kids the more important the father becomes. We know fatherless children are significantly over-represented among all negative social attributes but we seem unable to join the dots.
I never knew: common wisdom held that kids learn empathy from their fathers..
Having grown up with an alcoholic father, with whom I felt connected with when very small but then that all went away.. then later hating him and taking the side of Mummy.. I one day realised in therapy that I learned love from my father.
I'd always struggled with: mum looked after us boys, household and cooking etc., but totally overlooked that my alcoholic father managed to hold down a job for what I would say is 'most of his life'. So while we didn't live in luxury, we didn't starve either...
I think some of my own screwed-upness has come from living in this conflictual situation rather than my father not being full present!! I'll think about that one...
It had to do with the domestic sphere(feminine) versus the world at large(masculine).
"Having grown up with..."
Never good to hear. Makes me realise how privileged I've been. I've lost both my parents in the past eighteen months but at least had the chance to tell them that, as far as I'm concerned, they did everything right.
During the campaign for the Voice referendum, I often thought that there should be a referendum on men's rights. Or put another way, there should be a referendum to put gender rights in the constitution, with a view to the rights of men. The Labor Party is a vehicle for feminism and various other ideologies, but not for men as fathers and citizens with equal rights.
Advocacy for the constitutional rights of men could easily be phrased in a neutral tone, to represent equal rights for all. There could be 10 proposals. The right of children to equal time with both parents, as a principle, but with exceptions in special circumstances. The right of men to be anonymous in rape trials, until a verdict is made. Similar to laws in some other countries. A right for heterosexual men to equal representation in government committees that especially affect their welfare.
There needs to be a more aggressive stance in regard to the Labor Party, to the left and to the maniacal medusas who are employed by the state to stir up anti-patriarchy, anti-male sentiment. Ironically the commanding heights of society are controlled by those who despise men, and use public money to belittle and berate those who have sacrificed the most. But that scheme I imagine will probably not work, because men are so servile and so focused on sport and distraction that they are never organised, never conscious of their interest, until the moment when they are utterly alone, and powerless, laughed at and scorned by the harpies (in universities and govt departments) who are given taxpayer funds to scorn the patriarchy.
Nothing has changed in 30 years. I cannot see things changing in the future.
I've just contacted my local federal member for a face to face chat about the latest Family Law bill and the absolute invisibility of men's needs in any political party. It's outrageous. Sadly, most men don't give a stuff until they are personally affected. That's why they don't cater to our needs because unlike women we will never respond as a collective and threaten to vote for someone else as women do routinely.
The ALP was created by working class family men, a demographic the party now seems to hate with a vengeance. I've spent much of my sixty odd years working for the ALP including entire election campaigns on a regular basis but have reached a point where I believe no man should vote for them.
True the Labor party of the working man is gone , replaced with lefty university graduates who despise working men. This started with Gough Whitlam , a lawyer and feminist sympathiser, he started the Family Court.
But working men are waking up and asking who can they vote for , here is a big pool of voters which could make a difference and Scott Morrison saw this , the working man’s vote helped him get elected.
But he let them down badly and I notice Dutton is trying the same thing , promising to reverse the recent Family Court legislation, but the workers won’t be fooled again, Pauline Hansons One Nation is the only party for the working man now.
Correct. They are beneath contempt. If I could corner Albanese for five minutes, I would love to let him know what a disgrace he and his feminist run party are and point to the carnage in men's lives as a result of his misandrist policies.
Some 45 years ago I moved to East Melbourne in my tiny rented Flat and decided, "oh the Labor party meet down the road", in a huge old Terrace House. It wasn't my style but I pushed myself to be Active and I went to their meeting. Which was really, I assume this now, a Social get together.. Standing around drinking red wine that evening in someones kitchen.. I left feeling very disappointed. However, I continued to vote for them until , mmm , maybe the end of 2000 when I moved to Sydney.. I kick myself that I should have listened to my inner voice that was screaming, 'walk away now, walk away and never return'.
Family law is complicated, and Labor has disingenuously created the false impression the 2006 ‘shared-parenting’ reforms increase the risk of post-separation family violence. In fact, the very opposite is the case, with the 2006 reforms dramatically reducing post-separation dispute and conflict.
I expect Dutton could readily contest the 2023 ‘reforms’ on the basis of facts, and win, but at the expense of being labelled soft on family violence, or pro-fathers and anti-mothers. In reality, the now-abandoned 2006 reforms are pro-child, and parentally, gender-agnostic, but despite all the words, this counts for little. Kids dont vote !
The 2006 reforms mandated the child’s conditional entitlement to equitable post-separation shared parenting. The 2023 reforms abolished the child’s entitlement, with the Attorney General misleading the Australian public into believing this was in their best interests. It is not. There is plenty of scope for the opposition to factually challenge the 2026 ‘reforms’, but they need to have a very solid understanding of the facts, and the courage to pursue it. All they have to do is adhere to the ‘paramountcy of children’s welfare’, and the rest will fall into place.
You mentioned the key word-courage. No male politician has the courage to do what they know is right. Abbott was another I believed in and he was another who knelt at the feet of the feminist lobby. He fawned over Rosie Batty as she spewed the most vile misandric bile about men and masculinity and sat like a gormless fool when Gillard abused him in parliament with her infamous attack on his so called misogyny.
I think the hope that one day a man will actually speak up about men's issues and place them at the forefront of their policies is as fanciful as believing Lydia Thorpe will become a men's rights activist.
In comparison to men, women are a tad more complicated. They initiate the vast majority of divorces, which probably means either men are lousy partners (ie, in comparison to women), or women are more demanding of the relationship, or feel trapped in a uncomfortably dependent manner. Its a somewhat habitualised malaise . In times of yore, men were principally judged on their ability as primary breadwinners, without necessarily having to invest in the emotional needs of their other half. Times have changed. From an evolutionary perspective, the infatuation only has to last as long as it takes to procreate, but thereafter relationships are increasingly optional.
Perhaps the bonds that tie men to women is deeper because it has maternal connotations, albeit this depth does not necessarily extend to fidelity.
I doubt women concoct justifications for ending a marriage. The love/infatuation has gone, and whats left is not enough to sustain it. Bottom line, you need to be best friends, and invested in each other.
The concoctions you refer to are more a feature of custodial contests where a relatively small percentage of mothers fabricate evidence either as a means of circumventing the now defunct post-separation shared parenting provisions, or extracting a more favourable property settlement. It is these fabrications which have been overwhelming the court, not the presumption of parental equality/responsibility.
Greg, it was a ridiculous situation. Couples had to go to court to prove infidelity, and tear each other apart before getting a divorce. Children were a consideration. Indeed, the concern for children was the impetus for the 'paramountcy of children's welfare'. Great in theory, but a complete shambles in practice. Instead, the court administered a sole-custodial paradigm practicing the indivisibility of mother and child's welfare, whilst subordinating the role of fathers. In effect, 'the paramountcy of mother's welfare' This was largely resolved by the 2006 reforms, which have now been abolished by the present Labor government.
Thanks Pete for the reminder: Couples had to go to court to prove infidelity, and tear each other apart before getting a divorce.
Is it possible, do you think, that women in particular get to a point of 'not wanting to be married' and cannot bare the thought of just admitting it up front so concoct up stories - rape, violence, etc., so that they are never blamed? Aided and abetted by Government policy... it is a broad question and I'm aware that there are many complexities in relationships... maybe my question is unanswerable!!
The new Parliament House is more remote, but I suspect the bigger ‘problem’ is email. As opposed to pre-digital days, it is so easy to contact MPs, they tend to be overwhelmed by the volume.
In my childhood, the LNP was essentially the centrist party, whereas today Labor (+ Teals) are more the centrist party, with the Greens are on the extreme left. Labor’s family law policy is an aberration being pushed by an ideologically-driven zealot.
The LNP drifted to the far right under Howard, and lost its centre. The more the country changed the more he stayed the same. He needed a dash of Whitlam in him ....just as Whitlam needed a dash of Howard. The LNP centrists then made the big mistake of acquiescing to Abbot, before finally switching to a moderate, much smarter, but ill-fated Turnbull, and finally ‘Robo-debt’ Morrison. Its been a bad few decades for the LNP. But, this is also true for Gillard and Rudd governments. In regards family law, the LNP has got it dead right, and Labor has it dead wrong. Reason being, the LNP has the progressive policy (adopting a continuum between pre-separation and post-separation shared parenting), whilst Labor has adopted the conservative policy of preserving an outdated, inequitable, gender-discriminatory sole-custodial paradigm. The LNP have driven family law reform, whilst Labor has resisted it at every turn. The Gillard and Albanese governments even reversing LNP reforms. The greatest clarity and sanity in family law came in 2003 with the inquiry chaired by Kay Hull (Every picture tells a story: report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation), which government has just scrapped. Its a template which should have been preserved at all costs. The 2023 ‘reforms’ will inevitably fail and have to be reversed, but they will cause enormous damage in the meantime.
Dutton sat on the Kay Hull committee, so understands the subject matter. Will he come out and support fathers, if it creates the impression (and that’s all it is) of being anti-mother, or soft on family violence? I rather doubt it. The 2023 ‘reforms’ have been 5 years in the making, and he has been fairly silent on the issue.
Moreover, the Teals (the former moderate wing of the LNP) voted for Labor’s 2023 ‘reforms’, so its hard to imagine Dutton being highly motivated. If history is our guide, both the LNP and Teals will more likely wait until all the damage has been done, and then act to ‘fix Labor’s mess’.
Politicians believe that collectively, men don’t sway elections in the manner that women do. So, they treat us accordingly. The same applies to the media, who are terrified of losing their female readership.
For example, The SMH/Age did not touch this subject for fear of alienating women. Its a complete nonsense, because a well reasoned argument will sway women just as much as men, but editors are terrified of being dragged over the coals for losing their female readership. That is, unless the numbers demand it, or their conscience gets the better of them, they are risk averse in family law. Politicians are the same.
Dutton is a puppet of the feminists that's plain to see . just look at the media footage of recent days showing Dutton at his post in parliament , almost completely surrounded by women. To be fair they are LNP but that does not mean they are not sympathetic to the feminist cause.
There are in effect 3 major parties in Canberra, the LNP , Labor/Greens and the "women" , the sisterhood. which overlays the other 2 major parties ensuring feminist policies are successful.
This must be obvious now considering the easy path of the new family law changes.
Men should form a new party for men only, better still separate parliaments for men and women .
Ken, its difficult to imagine, but we are talking pre-digital, pre-Internet, pre-computer days. Politicians were less accessible, but more responsive. Some of my missives to them were hand-written, others typed by a secretarial service. In my mind, Qwerty was as mysterious as family law itself. I still have the signed reply letter from PM John Howard, and hundreds of others. Mostly non-committal. Gareth Evans at least considered my proposal, before knocking it back. Ruddick was the only other one who expressed interest. Obviously I was not convincing enough because it took 30 years to happen. Either I was naive or they were just too obtuse to understand. Of course, the Family Court eco-system strongly resisted reform because it threatened their 'rivers of gold'.
Gough Whitlam (and Lionel Murphy) had the right idea in 1975 in terms of divorce, but (whilst in this revolutionary state of mind) they should have also mandated the child's entitlement to equitable post-separation shared parenting - as finally occurred in 2006. Murphy took the adversarial out of divorce, but this simply encouraged hostilities to be transferred to custody and access, which remained adversarial.
For many years, the Labor Party represented the interests of working men. When they deserted the unions, the party deserted them. They now represent working women, and men are barely an afterthought. Particularly when it comes to family law. In fact, I do not believe that most mothers agree with their family law policies, but it matters little to the party. They are more interested in the impression they create. They figure men are so hopeless at representing their own interests, they can get away with it anyway.
I realise today, as I read some of the news articles and subsequent comments on the inhumane horror’s happening on the world stage, that so many of the Leaders are untouchable - communication wise and emotionally - and if I’m any gauge of my sometimes severe inner reactions then the anger will build up until there is a mighty explosion and Leaders hiding overseas or behind Parliamentarian privilege will no longer work nor keep them safe and ignorant at sometime in the future!!!
Right , the old Parliament House in Canberra was designed so that MPs had to exit through the front door and could not sneak out the back to avoid questions from the media. This forced them to be accountable to some extent. The “steps of Parliament House” a phrase often used to call out an MP to back up any claims made under privilege.
1988 and the new building ,a very different design allowed them to hide out the back and scurry away unseen , it is not easy to catch an MPs at the front door now and recently a security fence has made public access harder.
I hope the old shoe protest has some effect but a permanent presence of disgruntled men might have more success. The Aborigines did this at the old Parliament House , called it the Aboriginal tent Embassy , they stayed until they got most of what they wanted.
On the Labor Party’s betrayal of working men ,the question is who do they vote for now that their party is controlled by man hating feminists . Scott Morrison saw this opportunity and campaigned hard in working class electorates. It worked but he let them down badly and paid the price.
But can Peter Dutton repeat this , he must see the obvious swing to the right the defeat of the Voice showed, if he came out strongly on the side of men and promised to reverse the Family Court changes his party would walk in to power.
thank you for the history lesson on the Parliament House 'building'.. most interesting and the 'security fence'... mmmmmmmm maybe they wouldn't need it if they treated people decently!!!
In the late 1970's I wrote to all parliamentarians on multiple occasions requesting the Family Law Act be amended to include the concept of post-separation shared parenting. Gareth Evans advised me I appeared to be proposing 'a novel presumption of shared parenting', but declined the invitation. Whilst he redeemed himself in 2006, John Howard had no idea what I was taking about (instead rattled on about fathers responsibility to pay maintenance), Phillip Ruddick was more attentive, but also declined the invitation. It took 30 long and destructive years for sanity to finally prevail, and to think that 17 years later Labor is unraveling it all defies comprehension. To be frank, I dont expect the vast majority of 2023 mothers would support the bill if they understood what is really all about. But what really puzzles me is the deafening silence from the media (where is Nick McKenzie when you need him), and how the independents have fallen for this. In effect, parliamentarians were deceived into believing they were voting to protect children from post-separation violence, which is complete nonsense. 97% of parents mutually agree on post-separation shared parenting, 70% 'amicably'. Only 3% of parents litigate in the Family Court, 2.4% make allegations of violence, abuse or neglect, and just half of these succeed in convincing the court. That is, under 1% parents are deemed by the court to be unsuitable shared parents. Because of 1% of problematic parents, the government has abolished the mandate which conditionally entitled the other 99% of children (and thereby fathers) to more equitable post-separation shared parenting! Following the 2006 reforms the AIFS comprehensively researched outcomes. A 50% reduction in the use of lawyers (ouch!) and 60% reduction in Family Court litigation. Inevitably, the 2023 'reforms' will return conflict, dispute and litigation back to levels experienced between 1975 and 2006, .....and daresay, the risk of violence. It would have to be the worst legislation in the past 50 years. For sheer stupidity, exceeding Abbott/Turnbull's copper NBN, and similarly, and without a single redeeming feature.
How times have changed , in the 70's and later decades MPs were duty bound to reply to all correspondence, PM included. Not now , they will most likely ignore your letter until you insist on a reply .
As for the "media ", it's been feminist controlled for years , but the only winners of these "reforms" will be the lawyers , no surprise there, lawyers have been infiltrating politics for decades especially the Labor party with its left wing traditions.
Gough Whitlam was a lawyer , and he started the family Court in 1974. Is that not proof enough.
I find this non replying is soooo frustrating... it stops me in my tracks and that is one reason why I promote giving politicians feedback no matter what... they cannot just claim 'I didn't know'.. They will try it on of course...
In the media last week 50 women killed each year in Australia because of Domestic Violence situations. How many of 2500 male suicides are caused by women lying about Domestic Violence.
This statistic is a favourite of the feminists , "one woman a week on average is killed by husband/ boyfriend/partner or whatever" and feminists repeat it at any opportunity. Politicians play their part by showing the appropriate "horror" and promises of harsher laws against men.
But looked at logically and unemotionally it is a very LOW number and you could say that it does not really matter . In a population of 25 million people it is unavoidable.
The truth is that modern day Australia is the safest place for women in the whole history of the human race.
You have missed my point but you are right in that women also kill their husbands or boyfriends or as they say now “partners” .
But the stats show that more men kill their wives , but as I said it is still a very low number but feminists make a big deal about it and nobody takes them to task, politicians and journalists are too scared to question the “women” .
One woman a week killed by a husband is nothing, figures just out show Australia’s national road toll is up to over 1,200 for 2023 , half on average would be women or girls but the feminists say nothing about that.
Agreed. Although I will add that before DV shelters were a thing, Relational homicide was equal between men and women. At least in America. DV shelters were created for women but DV shelters for men were never created. People kill their spouses often when they feel it's a last resort. Less DV shelters for men means more men than women who reach that point.
I wrote this article a while ago after listening to you have a "discussion" with Merrick Watts regarding the appointment of a female as the first National Suicide Prevention Adviser.
I also included an article about workplace deaths which appeared in the Herald Sun as a perfect example of the way male suffering is either deliberately diminished or made invisible by the way in which it is reported.
The article was of a reasonable length and the word men or man was not used once . Workers, Victorians and Aussies were dying in their place of work every day.
I wrote another article regarding the appointment of Julia Gillard's as Chair of Beyond Blue. I included the transcript of her first speech about suicide in which she also failed to use the word men.
I likened such a feat to a speaker talking about the sinking of the Titanic without mentioning the iceberg of an essay on the Battle of Waterloo which doesn't mention Napoleon.
One might forgive those who prefer to speak in more gender-neutral terms when discussing societal issues if this approach was taken every time any social issue was being discussed but I was able to contrast Gillard's approach to an issue overwhelming negatively impacting men to another speech on an issue which impacts women slightly more but where the gender gap is far less pronounced than it is in suicde or workplace deaths.. She spoke exclusively about women being the victims of DV and announced the millions being poured into ending violence against women. Men were not mentioned.
It is such a stark contrast and makes it clear that it is a very deliberate tactic used to remove the idea that men are in any way disadvantaged in our society.
Gillard misogyny sledge (it wasn't a speech) to Tony Abbott, was an act of demagogy,
"the action or fact of winning support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas:"
demagogue; a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
Our mental illness approach to suicide prevention actually increases risk for men
The engagement process with men starts with me conveying this to the man or his wife/mum/sister
1/ I am not a shrink 2/I am not a wanker and 3/ If you/he does not like what I have to say he can 'piss' off. This tells the man 1/I don't think you are mentally ill 2/ I will be practical and use language you can understand 3/ You remain in charge of the process and can leave at any time. I have never had one walk out.
To assess risk in men I do not use the clip board and depression indicator tests favoured by mental health services. This approach makes the man feel you think he is mentally ill and men are often not prepared to be that open with someone they don't know or trust yet.
What I look to assess risk of suicide in men are
1/ A real or perceived injustice 2/ A failure by other services to recognise the magnitude of risk for the man 3/ An expressed desire to do something decisive and 4/ Negative contact with figures of authority.
I was at the starting point of the suicide prevention shambles prior to the drafting of the first National Action Plan in 1997. I saw the mental illness industry, the drug companies and women's health bureaucrats salivating at the prospect of 'rivers of gold.' 23 million prescriptions for antidepressants p/a in Australia provides the profit to buy a lot of influence but they are most often useless.
The women's health lobby can never allow recognition of the need to be skilled and empathic with men. I have found much of that lot not much good at engaging distressed women as well
Off your topic, but, an article in a Basel, Swiss newspaper, last week, mentioned that there should not be 'advertising' in Doctors waiting rooms, example: Sandoz drugs.
It might not stop lobbyists but I as a patient, I do not want to be subject to Pharma Companies advertising while at my doctors office.
Thank you Bettina Arndt. TRUTH needs all the help it can get. You, Alexandra Marshall, Paul Withall, Michael Jose and Senator Pauline Hanson each deserve applause and respect. Most of all, you all deserve more allies. Bettina Arndt subscribers and supporters are invited to receive free PDFs of the Unchain Australia books at www.unchainaustralia.com. A Bettina Arndt chapter promoting TRUTH in Unchain Australia 2023 will be wonderful. With admiration, Michael Darby
Another great initiative Bettina. All this confirms what I've suspected for a long time and that is we are conditioned from a very young age to not value the lives of men in the same way that we are conditioned to value the lives of women. The latest example of this has been the media coverage of the recent October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians where I struggled to find any reference to the fact that a large number of victims were innocent men (as babies, women and "the elderly" were included in the death count the clear implication was this wasn't a routine everyday massacre where only men get killed). The revelation from the ABS about the previously suppressed number and reason for the outsized suicide toll for men in Australia and its direct links to family issues demonstrates in stark terms what I suspect we have all known for a very long time: that domestic violence has taken a far higher physical toll on men than it has on women, yet we hear absolutely nothing of this anywhere.
My apologies that my comment resulted in your banning a commentator. That is an extra headache I didn't intend for you as I appreciate greatly your work. This weird hatred of men is still astonishing. A woman recently railed against 'white men' in her industry. I tried to derail her politely that I didn't agree, but she felt so emboldened she wouldn't stop. Essentially what she and others are calling for is collective punishment for the actions of a few. At one time we would have viewed this as barbaric, but now it is accepted sport.
No problem! I will ban anyone who is rude and abusive. But as other readers pointed out, her vile comments were a very good illustration of what we are up against with these nasty creatures so influential in our society.
There are rightly punishments for physical domestic violence. When will men be protected from threats to use false accusations of domestic violence and telling lies to the children to turn them against their father (non physical violence)? These methods are not only USED but also threatened if the man so much as expresses a point of view which does not suit his partner.
We should be more rigid in the use of definitions of "violence", you say "non physical violence" but surely any act which is as you say "non physical" is also NOT "violent".
Violence should be and once was, used only to refer to aggressive physical acts but feminists saw a way to twist it's meaning around to use against men.
Now we have all sorts of so called "violence" from emotional, financial, even coersive control . The same thing has been done with definitions of sexual assault , and no one protests about this desecration of the great English language, remember the law uses the same language and for that reason definitions need to be considered carefully.
Now you are being patronizing as well, you really are a joke. Maybe you should not put too much store in "published definitions" dictionaries can be wrong.
Angry wife’s wild brothel protest after husband’s sex binge
A furious wife is threatening to protest outside a Gold Coast brothel after her husband spent $6000 on a seven-hour sex-bender there.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/angry-wifes-wild-brothel-protest-after-husbands-sex-binge/news-story/9820e8af0df657222660fa1a2fcc23e3
This was on the Australian www.news.com.au under Lifestyle > Relationships > Sex
Please watch the video of the sex worker by Melrose.
Given everything about the attacking of men, I find this extremely interesting given that a wife is upset, fair enough and the other woman is a sex worker who is making money..
Please tell me if this is totally inappropriate here and I will delete it.
This is totally inappropriate and you should delete it. This has nothing to do with the post at all.
I just watched an interview with Pauline Hanson from a few months ago when she said she told Graham Perret a labor Member of Parliament fathers should have an equal role in the parenting of their children and he said "No they shouldn't. Mothers make far better parents!"
I have just written to him via his website.
I did some research and found that in the past ten years mothers have murdered 133 children and fathers 81. This debunks the feminist and government lies about this new bill being about the safety of children.
I know the stats on neglect and abuse show something like 70% of this abuse is perpetrated by mothers. The whole narrative is one big lie..
Graham Perret was showing his ignorance by that comment , but what would you expect from a Labor MP, they have all been indoctrinated by feminists man hating. The fact that he is a man makes no difference , just means he has a self loathing self effacing dark side.
In Western culture women and especially “mothers” are given a goddess status , they can do no wrong, even when they murder their own children they are usually excused on grounds of mental instability.
The role of a mother is vital to newborns that is obvious, a close bond is necessary for the best growth of the baby. Only a woman can do it and this is probably what Perret meant ,but as the child gets older it no longer applies and the father must take a lead in breaking the mother/ child bond , for the sake of the independent development of the child.
But this lost in Modern Western countries, often children grow up with no father or grandfather to “save” them from the over controlling mother , Jordan Peterson has done a lot on this subject.
More so called primitive societies have not forgotten how important the father is in the development of the child and still have rituals and processes of initiation into adulthood for both boys and girls.
Western societies in contrast allow childlike juvenile attitudes and behaviour well into adulthood and it shows, as the late Peter Ustinov said on visit to Australia “ Australia is a very juvenile country” , offensive it may have been , but truthful.
Women commit the vast majority of the neglect and child abuse.
Father's are required for newborns as well. If the Father isn't there to quell the Mothers neurotic nature, the newborn suffers with an inferior form of Maternal Care.
It seems that modern Western culture is losing the traditional skills of child raising .Look at more primitive cultures where the child’s grandparents have a much greater role in the daily care of children, easy because they all live in the same village .
But Western culture with the focus on the individual ,consumerism ,materialism , with cities and suburbs spread out so much ,children do not see their extended family .
The old saying “ it takes a village to raise a child “ is true , but our “car dependent” suburbs are hostile to children.
Agreed. Even the Nuclear family of the 1950s is a less than optimum organization of the family. The extended family is a far superior form of family organization with a much greater historical precedent.
It helps with social issues as well as economic ones. People who say there are no economic advantages to family building in the modern age are very misled.
The role of a Father is vital to newborns as well. The quality of maternal care is correlated with the presence of the father. Single mothers quite literally make worse mothers, probably due to increased neuroticism because of the lack of male security. Women commit ALL neonaticide. ALL of it.
"No they shouldn't. Mothers make far better parents!"
But.. he, as a Politician, has now decided what is best for ALL families!!!
What subconscious message is he giving to Men....
When I was young the common wisdom held that kids learn empathy from their fathers and the older the kids the more important the father becomes. We know fatherless children are significantly over-represented among all negative social attributes but we seem unable to join the dots.
I never knew: common wisdom held that kids learn empathy from their fathers..
Having grown up with an alcoholic father, with whom I felt connected with when very small but then that all went away.. then later hating him and taking the side of Mummy.. I one day realised in therapy that I learned love from my father.
I'd always struggled with: mum looked after us boys, household and cooking etc., but totally overlooked that my alcoholic father managed to hold down a job for what I would say is 'most of his life'. So while we didn't live in luxury, we didn't starve either...
I think some of my own screwed-upness has come from living in this conflictual situation rather than my father not being full present!! I'll think about that one...
"I never knew"
It had to do with the domestic sphere(feminine) versus the world at large(masculine).
"Having grown up with..."
Never good to hear. Makes me realise how privileged I've been. I've lost both my parents in the past eighteen months but at least had the chance to tell them that, as far as I'm concerned, they did everything right.
During the campaign for the Voice referendum, I often thought that there should be a referendum on men's rights. Or put another way, there should be a referendum to put gender rights in the constitution, with a view to the rights of men. The Labor Party is a vehicle for feminism and various other ideologies, but not for men as fathers and citizens with equal rights.
Advocacy for the constitutional rights of men could easily be phrased in a neutral tone, to represent equal rights for all. There could be 10 proposals. The right of children to equal time with both parents, as a principle, but with exceptions in special circumstances. The right of men to be anonymous in rape trials, until a verdict is made. Similar to laws in some other countries. A right for heterosexual men to equal representation in government committees that especially affect their welfare.
There needs to be a more aggressive stance in regard to the Labor Party, to the left and to the maniacal medusas who are employed by the state to stir up anti-patriarchy, anti-male sentiment. Ironically the commanding heights of society are controlled by those who despise men, and use public money to belittle and berate those who have sacrificed the most. But that scheme I imagine will probably not work, because men are so servile and so focused on sport and distraction that they are never organised, never conscious of their interest, until the moment when they are utterly alone, and powerless, laughed at and scorned by the harpies (in universities and govt departments) who are given taxpayer funds to scorn the patriarchy.
Nothing has changed in 30 years. I cannot see things changing in the future.
I've just contacted my local federal member for a face to face chat about the latest Family Law bill and the absolute invisibility of men's needs in any political party. It's outrageous. Sadly, most men don't give a stuff until they are personally affected. That's why they don't cater to our needs because unlike women we will never respond as a collective and threaten to vote for someone else as women do routinely.
The ALP was created by working class family men, a demographic the party now seems to hate with a vengeance. I've spent much of my sixty odd years working for the ALP including entire election campaigns on a regular basis but have reached a point where I believe no man should vote for them.
True the Labor party of the working man is gone , replaced with lefty university graduates who despise working men. This started with Gough Whitlam , a lawyer and feminist sympathiser, he started the Family Court.
But working men are waking up and asking who can they vote for , here is a big pool of voters which could make a difference and Scott Morrison saw this , the working man’s vote helped him get elected.
But he let them down badly and I notice Dutton is trying the same thing , promising to reverse the recent Family Court legislation, but the workers won’t be fooled again, Pauline Hansons One Nation is the only party for the working man now.
Correct. They are beneath contempt. If I could corner Albanese for five minutes, I would love to let him know what a disgrace he and his feminist run party are and point to the carnage in men's lives as a result of his misandrist policies.
Some 45 years ago I moved to East Melbourne in my tiny rented Flat and decided, "oh the Labor party meet down the road", in a huge old Terrace House. It wasn't my style but I pushed myself to be Active and I went to their meeting. Which was really, I assume this now, a Social get together.. Standing around drinking red wine that evening in someones kitchen.. I left feeling very disappointed. However, I continued to vote for them until , mmm , maybe the end of 2000 when I moved to Sydney.. I kick myself that I should have listened to my inner voice that was screaming, 'walk away now, walk away and never return'.
That’s not the way I would express it.
Family law is complicated, and Labor has disingenuously created the false impression the 2006 ‘shared-parenting’ reforms increase the risk of post-separation family violence. In fact, the very opposite is the case, with the 2006 reforms dramatically reducing post-separation dispute and conflict.
I expect Dutton could readily contest the 2023 ‘reforms’ on the basis of facts, and win, but at the expense of being labelled soft on family violence, or pro-fathers and anti-mothers. In reality, the now-abandoned 2006 reforms are pro-child, and parentally, gender-agnostic, but despite all the words, this counts for little. Kids dont vote !
The 2006 reforms mandated the child’s conditional entitlement to equitable post-separation shared parenting. The 2023 reforms abolished the child’s entitlement, with the Attorney General misleading the Australian public into believing this was in their best interests. It is not. There is plenty of scope for the opposition to factually challenge the 2026 ‘reforms’, but they need to have a very solid understanding of the facts, and the courage to pursue it. All they have to do is adhere to the ‘paramountcy of children’s welfare’, and the rest will fall into place.
You mentioned the key word-courage. No male politician has the courage to do what they know is right. Abbott was another I believed in and he was another who knelt at the feet of the feminist lobby. He fawned over Rosie Batty as she spewed the most vile misandric bile about men and masculinity and sat like a gormless fool when Gillard abused him in parliament with her infamous attack on his so called misogyny.
I think the hope that one day a man will actually speak up about men's issues and place them at the forefront of their policies is as fanciful as believing Lydia Thorpe will become a men's rights activist.
Jamie,
In comparison to men, women are a tad more complicated. They initiate the vast majority of divorces, which probably means either men are lousy partners (ie, in comparison to women), or women are more demanding of the relationship, or feel trapped in a uncomfortably dependent manner. Its a somewhat habitualised malaise . In times of yore, men were principally judged on their ability as primary breadwinners, without necessarily having to invest in the emotional needs of their other half. Times have changed. From an evolutionary perspective, the infatuation only has to last as long as it takes to procreate, but thereafter relationships are increasingly optional.
Perhaps the bonds that tie men to women is deeper because it has maternal connotations, albeit this depth does not necessarily extend to fidelity.
I doubt women concoct justifications for ending a marriage. The love/infatuation has gone, and whats left is not enough to sustain it. Bottom line, you need to be best friends, and invested in each other.
The concoctions you refer to are more a feature of custodial contests where a relatively small percentage of mothers fabricate evidence either as a means of circumventing the now defunct post-separation shared parenting provisions, or extracting a more favourable property settlement. It is these fabrications which have been overwhelming the court, not the presumption of parental equality/responsibility.
thank you.
Greg, it was a ridiculous situation. Couples had to go to court to prove infidelity, and tear each other apart before getting a divorce. Children were a consideration. Indeed, the concern for children was the impetus for the 'paramountcy of children's welfare'. Great in theory, but a complete shambles in practice. Instead, the court administered a sole-custodial paradigm practicing the indivisibility of mother and child's welfare, whilst subordinating the role of fathers. In effect, 'the paramountcy of mother's welfare' This was largely resolved by the 2006 reforms, which have now been abolished by the present Labor government.
Thanks Pete for the reminder: Couples had to go to court to prove infidelity, and tear each other apart before getting a divorce.
Is it possible, do you think, that women in particular get to a point of 'not wanting to be married' and cannot bare the thought of just admitting it up front so concoct up stories - rape, violence, etc., so that they are never blamed? Aided and abetted by Government policy... it is a broad question and I'm aware that there are many complexities in relationships... maybe my question is unanswerable!!
Ken,
The new Parliament House is more remote, but I suspect the bigger ‘problem’ is email. As opposed to pre-digital days, it is so easy to contact MPs, they tend to be overwhelmed by the volume.
In my childhood, the LNP was essentially the centrist party, whereas today Labor (+ Teals) are more the centrist party, with the Greens are on the extreme left. Labor’s family law policy is an aberration being pushed by an ideologically-driven zealot.
The LNP drifted to the far right under Howard, and lost its centre. The more the country changed the more he stayed the same. He needed a dash of Whitlam in him ....just as Whitlam needed a dash of Howard. The LNP centrists then made the big mistake of acquiescing to Abbot, before finally switching to a moderate, much smarter, but ill-fated Turnbull, and finally ‘Robo-debt’ Morrison. Its been a bad few decades for the LNP. But, this is also true for Gillard and Rudd governments. In regards family law, the LNP has got it dead right, and Labor has it dead wrong. Reason being, the LNP has the progressive policy (adopting a continuum between pre-separation and post-separation shared parenting), whilst Labor has adopted the conservative policy of preserving an outdated, inequitable, gender-discriminatory sole-custodial paradigm. The LNP have driven family law reform, whilst Labor has resisted it at every turn. The Gillard and Albanese governments even reversing LNP reforms. The greatest clarity and sanity in family law came in 2003 with the inquiry chaired by Kay Hull (Every picture tells a story: report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation), which government has just scrapped. Its a template which should have been preserved at all costs. The 2023 ‘reforms’ will inevitably fail and have to be reversed, but they will cause enormous damage in the meantime.
Dutton sat on the Kay Hull committee, so understands the subject matter. Will he come out and support fathers, if it creates the impression (and that’s all it is) of being anti-mother, or soft on family violence? I rather doubt it. The 2023 ‘reforms’ have been 5 years in the making, and he has been fairly silent on the issue.
Moreover, the Teals (the former moderate wing of the LNP) voted for Labor’s 2023 ‘reforms’, so its hard to imagine Dutton being highly motivated. If history is our guide, both the LNP and Teals will more likely wait until all the damage has been done, and then act to ‘fix Labor’s mess’.
Politicians believe that collectively, men don’t sway elections in the manner that women do. So, they treat us accordingly. The same applies to the media, who are terrified of losing their female readership.
For example, The SMH/Age did not touch this subject for fear of alienating women. Its a complete nonsense, because a well reasoned argument will sway women just as much as men, but editors are terrified of being dragged over the coals for losing their female readership. That is, unless the numbers demand it, or their conscience gets the better of them, they are risk averse in family law. Politicians are the same.
Dutton is a puppet of the feminists that's plain to see . just look at the media footage of recent days showing Dutton at his post in parliament , almost completely surrounded by women. To be fair they are LNP but that does not mean they are not sympathetic to the feminist cause.
There are in effect 3 major parties in Canberra, the LNP , Labor/Greens and the "women" , the sisterhood. which overlays the other 2 major parties ensuring feminist policies are successful.
This must be obvious now considering the easy path of the new family law changes.
Men should form a new party for men only, better still separate parliaments for men and women .
Ken, its difficult to imagine, but we are talking pre-digital, pre-Internet, pre-computer days. Politicians were less accessible, but more responsive. Some of my missives to them were hand-written, others typed by a secretarial service. In my mind, Qwerty was as mysterious as family law itself. I still have the signed reply letter from PM John Howard, and hundreds of others. Mostly non-committal. Gareth Evans at least considered my proposal, before knocking it back. Ruddick was the only other one who expressed interest. Obviously I was not convincing enough because it took 30 years to happen. Either I was naive or they were just too obtuse to understand. Of course, the Family Court eco-system strongly resisted reform because it threatened their 'rivers of gold'.
Gough Whitlam (and Lionel Murphy) had the right idea in 1975 in terms of divorce, but (whilst in this revolutionary state of mind) they should have also mandated the child's entitlement to equitable post-separation shared parenting - as finally occurred in 2006. Murphy took the adversarial out of divorce, but this simply encouraged hostilities to be transferred to custody and access, which remained adversarial.
For many years, the Labor Party represented the interests of working men. When they deserted the unions, the party deserted them. They now represent working women, and men are barely an afterthought. Particularly when it comes to family law. In fact, I do not believe that most mothers agree with their family law policies, but it matters little to the party. They are more interested in the impression they create. They figure men are so hopeless at representing their own interests, they can get away with it anyway.
I realise today, as I read some of the news articles and subsequent comments on the inhumane horror’s happening on the world stage, that so many of the Leaders are untouchable - communication wise and emotionally - and if I’m any gauge of my sometimes severe inner reactions then the anger will build up until there is a mighty explosion and Leaders hiding overseas or behind Parliamentarian privilege will no longer work nor keep them safe and ignorant at sometime in the future!!!
"Gough Whitlam (and Lionel Murphy) had the right idea in 1975 in terms of divorce"
It was done to benefit women. Children were never a consideration.
Right , the old Parliament House in Canberra was designed so that MPs had to exit through the front door and could not sneak out the back to avoid questions from the media. This forced them to be accountable to some extent. The “steps of Parliament House” a phrase often used to call out an MP to back up any claims made under privilege.
1988 and the new building ,a very different design allowed them to hide out the back and scurry away unseen , it is not easy to catch an MPs at the front door now and recently a security fence has made public access harder.
I hope the old shoe protest has some effect but a permanent presence of disgruntled men might have more success. The Aborigines did this at the old Parliament House , called it the Aboriginal tent Embassy , they stayed until they got most of what they wanted.
On the Labor Party’s betrayal of working men ,the question is who do they vote for now that their party is controlled by man hating feminists . Scott Morrison saw this opportunity and campaigned hard in working class electorates. It worked but he let them down badly and paid the price.
But can Peter Dutton repeat this , he must see the obvious swing to the right the defeat of the Voice showed, if he came out strongly on the side of men and promised to reverse the Family Court changes his party would walk in to power.
thank you for the history lesson on the Parliament House 'building'.. most interesting and the 'security fence'... mmmmmmmm maybe they wouldn't need it if they treated people decently!!!
In the late 1970's I wrote to all parliamentarians on multiple occasions requesting the Family Law Act be amended to include the concept of post-separation shared parenting. Gareth Evans advised me I appeared to be proposing 'a novel presumption of shared parenting', but declined the invitation. Whilst he redeemed himself in 2006, John Howard had no idea what I was taking about (instead rattled on about fathers responsibility to pay maintenance), Phillip Ruddick was more attentive, but also declined the invitation. It took 30 long and destructive years for sanity to finally prevail, and to think that 17 years later Labor is unraveling it all defies comprehension. To be frank, I dont expect the vast majority of 2023 mothers would support the bill if they understood what is really all about. But what really puzzles me is the deafening silence from the media (where is Nick McKenzie when you need him), and how the independents have fallen for this. In effect, parliamentarians were deceived into believing they were voting to protect children from post-separation violence, which is complete nonsense. 97% of parents mutually agree on post-separation shared parenting, 70% 'amicably'. Only 3% of parents litigate in the Family Court, 2.4% make allegations of violence, abuse or neglect, and just half of these succeed in convincing the court. That is, under 1% parents are deemed by the court to be unsuitable shared parents. Because of 1% of problematic parents, the government has abolished the mandate which conditionally entitled the other 99% of children (and thereby fathers) to more equitable post-separation shared parenting! Following the 2006 reforms the AIFS comprehensively researched outcomes. A 50% reduction in the use of lawyers (ouch!) and 60% reduction in Family Court litigation. Inevitably, the 2023 'reforms' will return conflict, dispute and litigation back to levels experienced between 1975 and 2006, .....and daresay, the risk of violence. It would have to be the worst legislation in the past 50 years. For sheer stupidity, exceeding Abbott/Turnbull's copper NBN, and similarly, and without a single redeeming feature.
How times have changed , in the 70's and later decades MPs were duty bound to reply to all correspondence, PM included. Not now , they will most likely ignore your letter until you insist on a reply .
As for the "media ", it's been feminist controlled for years , but the only winners of these "reforms" will be the lawyers , no surprise there, lawyers have been infiltrating politics for decades especially the Labor party with its left wing traditions.
Gough Whitlam was a lawyer , and he started the family Court in 1974. Is that not proof enough.
I find this non replying is soooo frustrating... it stops me in my tracks and that is one reason why I promote giving politicians feedback no matter what... they cannot just claim 'I didn't know'.. They will try it on of course...
In the media last week 50 women killed each year in Australia because of Domestic Violence situations. How many of 2500 male suicides are caused by women lying about Domestic Violence.
My attempt was for one. Luckily, I got caught or I wouldn't be here to reply, would I?
This statistic is a favourite of the feminists , "one woman a week on average is killed by husband/ boyfriend/partner or whatever" and feminists repeat it at any opportunity. Politicians play their part by showing the appropriate "horror" and promises of harsher laws against men.
But looked at logically and unemotionally it is a very LOW number and you could say that it does not really matter . In a population of 25 million people it is unavoidable.
The truth is that modern day Australia is the safest place for women in the whole history of the human race.
Women kill husbands every week too.
Youre being sucked hook line and sinker into a gynocentric framework. "Safe for women" give me a break.
You have missed my point but you are right in that women also kill their husbands or boyfriends or as they say now “partners” .
But the stats show that more men kill their wives , but as I said it is still a very low number but feminists make a big deal about it and nobody takes them to task, politicians and journalists are too scared to question the “women” .
One woman a week killed by a husband is nothing, figures just out show Australia’s national road toll is up to over 1,200 for 2023 , half on average would be women or girls but the feminists say nothing about that.
Agreed. Although I will add that before DV shelters were a thing, Relational homicide was equal between men and women. At least in America. DV shelters were created for women but DV shelters for men were never created. People kill their spouses often when they feel it's a last resort. Less DV shelters for men means more men than women who reach that point.
Hi Bettina,
I wrote this article a while ago after listening to you have a "discussion" with Merrick Watts regarding the appointment of a female as the first National Suicide Prevention Adviser.
I also included an article about workplace deaths which appeared in the Herald Sun as a perfect example of the way male suffering is either deliberately diminished or made invisible by the way in which it is reported.
The article was of a reasonable length and the word men or man was not used once . Workers, Victorians and Aussies were dying in their place of work every day.
https://avoiceformen.com/featured/they-really-do-hate-us/
I wrote another article regarding the appointment of Julia Gillard's as Chair of Beyond Blue. I included the transcript of her first speech about suicide in which she also failed to use the word men.
I likened such a feat to a speaker talking about the sinking of the Titanic without mentioning the iceberg of an essay on the Battle of Waterloo which doesn't mention Napoleon.
https://avoiceformen.com/featured/julia-gillard-achieves-the-impossible/
One might forgive those who prefer to speak in more gender-neutral terms when discussing societal issues if this approach was taken every time any social issue was being discussed but I was able to contrast Gillard's approach to an issue overwhelming negatively impacting men to another speech on an issue which impacts women slightly more but where the gender gap is far less pronounced than it is in suicde or workplace deaths.. She spoke exclusively about women being the victims of DV and announced the millions being poured into ending violence against women. Men were not mentioned.
It is such a stark contrast and makes it clear that it is a very deliberate tactic used to remove the idea that men are in any way disadvantaged in our society.
Thank you Mark for the comment and two articles.. very interesting.
I reckon that it is 'females' and 'males' in the lunch room chat, meetings etc.
I will call people out on this when I next encounter such situations, reports, news articles.
Thanks, Jamie.
Gillard misogyny sledge (it wasn't a speech) to Tony Abbott, was an act of demagogy,
"the action or fact of winning support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas:"
demagogue; a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
Our mental illness approach to suicide prevention actually increases risk for men
The engagement process with men starts with me conveying this to the man or his wife/mum/sister
1/ I am not a shrink 2/I am not a wanker and 3/ If you/he does not like what I have to say he can 'piss' off. This tells the man 1/I don't think you are mentally ill 2/ I will be practical and use language you can understand 3/ You remain in charge of the process and can leave at any time. I have never had one walk out.
To assess risk in men I do not use the clip board and depression indicator tests favoured by mental health services. This approach makes the man feel you think he is mentally ill and men are often not prepared to be that open with someone they don't know or trust yet.
What I look to assess risk of suicide in men are
1/ A real or perceived injustice 2/ A failure by other services to recognise the magnitude of risk for the man 3/ An expressed desire to do something decisive and 4/ Negative contact with figures of authority.
I was at the starting point of the suicide prevention shambles prior to the drafting of the first National Action Plan in 1997. I saw the mental illness industry, the drug companies and women's health bureaucrats salivating at the prospect of 'rivers of gold.' 23 million prescriptions for antidepressants p/a in Australia provides the profit to buy a lot of influence but they are most often useless.
The women's health lobby can never allow recognition of the need to be skilled and empathic with men. I have found much of that lot not much good at engaging distressed women as well
Off your topic, but, an article in a Basel, Swiss newspaper, last week, mentioned that there should not be 'advertising' in Doctors waiting rooms, example: Sandoz drugs.
It might not stop lobbyists but I as a patient, I do not want to be subject to Pharma Companies advertising while at my doctors office.
Thank you Bettina Arndt. TRUTH needs all the help it can get. You, Alexandra Marshall, Paul Withall, Michael Jose and Senator Pauline Hanson each deserve applause and respect. Most of all, you all deserve more allies. Bettina Arndt subscribers and supporters are invited to receive free PDFs of the Unchain Australia books at www.unchainaustralia.com. A Bettina Arndt chapter promoting TRUTH in Unchain Australia 2023 will be wonderful. With admiration, Michael Darby
Another great initiative Bettina. All this confirms what I've suspected for a long time and that is we are conditioned from a very young age to not value the lives of men in the same way that we are conditioned to value the lives of women. The latest example of this has been the media coverage of the recent October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians where I struggled to find any reference to the fact that a large number of victims were innocent men (as babies, women and "the elderly" were included in the death count the clear implication was this wasn't a routine everyday massacre where only men get killed). The revelation from the ABS about the previously suppressed number and reason for the outsized suicide toll for men in Australia and its direct links to family issues demonstrates in stark terms what I suspect we have all known for a very long time: that domestic violence has taken a far higher physical toll on men than it has on women, yet we hear absolutely nothing of this anywhere.
My apologies that my comment resulted in your banning a commentator. That is an extra headache I didn't intend for you as I appreciate greatly your work. This weird hatred of men is still astonishing. A woman recently railed against 'white men' in her industry. I tried to derail her politely that I didn't agree, but she felt so emboldened she wouldn't stop. Essentially what she and others are calling for is collective punishment for the actions of a few. At one time we would have viewed this as barbaric, but now it is accepted sport.
No problem! I will ban anyone who is rude and abusive. But as other readers pointed out, her vile comments were a very good illustration of what we are up against with these nasty creatures so influential in our society.
And they are influential which is frightening.
There are rightly punishments for physical domestic violence. When will men be protected from threats to use false accusations of domestic violence and telling lies to the children to turn them against their father (non physical violence)? These methods are not only USED but also threatened if the man so much as expresses a point of view which does not suit his partner.
We should be more rigid in the use of definitions of "violence", you say "non physical violence" but surely any act which is as you say "non physical" is also NOT "violent".
Violence should be and once was, used only to refer to aggressive physical acts but feminists saw a way to twist it's meaning around to use against men.
Now we have all sorts of so called "violence" from emotional, financial, even coersive control . The same thing has been done with definitions of sexual assault , and no one protests about this desecration of the great English language, remember the law uses the same language and for that reason definitions need to be considered carefully.
violence
/ˈvʌɪələns/
noun
1.
behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
"violence erupted in protest marches"
Similar:
brutality
brute force
roughness
ferocity
fierceness
savagery
cruelty
sadism
barbarity
barbarousness
brutishness
murderousness
bloodthirstiness
ruthlessness
inhumanity
heartlessness
pitilessness
mercilessness
strong-arm tactics
ferity
forcefulness
force
full force
power
powerfulness
strength
might
destructiveness
Opposite:
gentleness
kindness
weakness
2.
strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.
"I was surprised at the violence of my feelings"
Similar:
intensity
severity
strength
force
great force
vehemence
Just what do you mean by this nonsense?, if you have something to say in reply to my comment well just say it.
Sorry i thought you could read.
It is disappointing that you see a need to be sarcastic , this never achieves anything.
This is the published definition of "VIOLENCE". You should be able to see that it not only defined as a physical action.
Now you are being patronizing as well, you really are a joke. Maybe you should not put too much store in "published definitions" dictionaries can be wrong.