These are old references (1999) but they are a valuable critique of some of the excesses and dangers of radical feminism.
Quote: "The goal of these authors remained the redistribution of labour and wealth within the family, from men to women. Yet they conceded they had to do so without alienating the majority of people by attitudes that appeared to be hostile to men. The way they would do this would be to emphasise the interests of the children." - Melanie Phillips, "The Sex-Change Society", Melanie Phillips, 1999, Page123
http://www.melaniephillips.com/http://www.melaniephillips.com/books/
The Sex-Change Society- Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male
Melanie Phillips Paperback, 370 pages (1999)
Social Market Foundation. ISBN: 1-874097-64-X
The Sex-Change Society issues a devastating attack on androgynous public policy, arguing that feminism has distorted its own agenda of equality by replacing it with sameness. The results are startling. Men have been demonised through a distorted view that they are intrinsically violent and feckless while all women are essentially 'saint-like'. At the same time, women are being encouraged to work at all times, whether they want to or not. In this timely critique Melanie Phillips tells the disturbing story of the attempt to feminise the state, to reverse the roles of men and women and to run masculinity out of town altogether. The result has been an anti-family policy in which everyone has become a potential loser.-----------------------------------
-----------------------Unrelated article by Melanie Phillips re DV
http://www.travel-net.com/~retap/DV-1.htm
The Sunday Times (Britain)
24 October 1999
Women are at least as violent as men but the evidence is being dismissed or ignored
By Melanie Phillips
Mention feminism to most people and the reaction will probably be one of faintly amused indifference. Some men may be irritated by feminist rhetoric; some women might feel their agenda is a little extreme. But the extent to which feminism in its most extreme form has embedded itself within the institutions and thinking of Britain has simply not been grasped.
Feminism has become the unchallengeable orthodoxy in even the most apparently conservative institutions, and drives forward the whole programme of domestic social policy. Yet this orthodoxy is not based on concepts of fairness or justice or social solidarity. It is based on hostility towards men.
The idea that men oppress women, who therefore have every interest in avoiding the marriage trap and must achieve independence from men at all costs, may strike many as having little to do with everyday life. Yet it is now the galvanic principle behind social, economic and legal policy-making.
Buried within this doctrine, though, is an even deeper assumption. Male oppression of women is only made possible by the fact that men are intrinsically predatory and violent, threatening both women and children with rape or assault. Men are therefore the enemy - not just of women but of humanity, the proper objects of fear and scorn.
This assumption runs through feminist thinking as a given. "Most violence, most crime ... is not committed by human beings in general. It is committed by men," wrote Jill Tweedie.
According to Marilyn French, men used violence both to threaten and control, as well as actually harm: "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women."
Moreover, it is marriage and family life that expose women most to male violence. According to Gloria Steinem, "patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself... The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home".
All this has been enough to turn the stomachs of some feminists, particularly those who love husbands or sons. Novelist Maggie Gee said she once thought the sex war was exciting, but had now concluded it went too far. "Women are giving up on their relationships too quickly. Living with a man I love very much, I keep thinking that all the generalisations about men just aren't true."
These generalisations, however, are now the stuff of public policy. Male violence against women, said the government in June 1999, was no longer going to be "swept under the carpet". Virtually nobody questioned the premise that men were invariably victimisers and women always their victims.
There is no doubt that some men are violent towards women; the evidence of women's injuries is real enough. However, this is one side of the story only. There is another side: the extent of women's violence against men and children. That, though, is a story that almost every official body in Britain and America has successfully suppressed.
There are now dozens of studies which show that women are as violent towards their partners, if not more so, than men. Unlike most feminist research, these studies ask men as well as women whether they have ever been on the receiving end of violence from their partners. They are therefore not only more balanced than studies which only ask about violence against women, but are more reliable indicators than official statistics which can be distorted by factors affecting the reporting rate - women using claims of violence as a weapon in custody cases, for example, or men who are too ashamed or embarrassed to reveal they have been abused.
Many people are likely to be astonished and sceptical about the conclusion drawn by these reports. The idea that women are as violent as men is counter-intuitive and simply disbelieved. So it is important to provide a flavour of the scope and significance of their findings.
A 1994 British study by Michelle Carrado and others, for example, interviewed 1,800 men and women with heterosexual partners. Some 11% of the men but only 5% of the women said their current partner had committed acts of violence towards them, ranging from pushing, through hitting, to stabbing. Five per cent of married or cohabiting men reported two or more acts of violence against them in a current relationship, compared with only 1% of women. A further 10% of men but 11% of women said they had committed one of these violent acts.
Study after study shows women are not merely violent in self-defence but strike the first blow in about half of all disputes. The American social scientists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles reported from two large national surveys that husbands and wives had assaulted each other at approximately equal rates, with women engaging in minor acts of violence more frequently. Elsewhere, they found more wives than husbands were severely violent towards their spouses.
Moreover, there is now considerable evidence that women initiate severe violence more frequently than men. A survey of 1,037 young adults born between 1972 and 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, found that 18.6% of young women said they had perpetrated severe physical violence against their partners, compared with 5.7% of young men. Three times more women than men said they had kicked or bitten their partners, or hit them with their fists or with an object.
In any event, the idea that women are never the instigators of violence is demolished by the evidence about lesbians.
According to Claire Renzetti, violence in lesbian relationships occurs with about the same frequency as in heterosexual relationships. Lesbian batterers "display a terrifying ingenuity in their selection of abusive tactics, frequently tailoring the abuse to the specific vulnerabilities of their partners". Such abuse can be extremely violent, with women bitten, kicked, punched, thrown down stairs, and assaulted with weapons including guns, knives, whips and broken bottles.
It is true that most women who are the victims of violence suffer domestic assaults. Yet the 1996 British Crime Survey reported that nearly one third of the victims of domestic violence were men, and that nearly half of these male victims were attacked by women. Moreover, if a woman starts a physical fight with a man, even a mild slap might provoke him into retaliating, with far worse consequences. Women who murder violent husbands may be treated leniently because they were provoked; yet men who are violent against women are never granted the same understanding. Provocation, it appears, is a feminist issue.
Moreover, given the greater strength of men, it is particularly noteworthy that so many women initiate violence against them. The fact is that men hold back. The psychologist John Archer has noted that, among female college students, 29% admitted initiating an assault on a male partner. Of those women, half said they had no fear of retaliation or, since men could easily defend themselves, they did not see their own physical aggression as a problem. In other words, far from assuming that men are violent, women take men's non-aggression for granted.
Archer went on to remark on the apparent restraint shown by many men in western cultures. "We might speculate that to some extent a strong norm of men not hitting women enables women to engage in physical aggression which might otherwise not have occurred," he wrote. Male aggression, he suggested, was a kind of default value associated with patriarchal structures.
When these are overridden, as they have been by modern secular liberal values and by the emancipation of women, female aggression increases. "These values will have greatest impact in a relationship that can be ended by the woman at little cost, and where the rate of male aggression is low. "We can speculate that these represent specific instances of a more general set of circumstances entailing a relative change in the balance of power between men and women."
In other words, as women have become independent of men, they have also become more violent towards them - because men have become dispensable. This unpalatable conclusion, however, has been completely overlooked in a culture that believes infamy is the prerogative of the male.
Much to everyone's astonishment, the Home Office recently produced its own evidence that domestic violence was not a male disease. In January 1999, it reported that 4.2% of women and 4.2% of men aged 16 to 59 said they had been physically assaulted by a current or former partner in the past year. Women separated from their partners were most likely to be victims, with 22% assaulted at least once in 1995.
The public reaction to the Home Office research was almost complete silence. The government, too, appeared impervious to its implications. Shortly after it was published, the Home Secretary opened a domestic violence court in Leeds that was founded on the explicit assumption that only men were violent.
In June this year, the Cabinet Office women's unit launched a campaign to "change the culture" that presented domestic violence as almost exclusively a problem of male crime. It managed to omit another under-reported fact: that most violence against children is committed by their mothers, not their fathers. A study by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children revealed a few years ago that natural mothers, not fathers, are most frequently the perpetrators of physical injury, emotional abuse and neglect. This is not particularly surprising, since mothers generally have much more daily contact than fathers with their children. There was yet another notable omission: the women's unit material did not differentiate between couples who were married and people who were living together or had irregular lovers.
It therefore omitted a key fact: that the risk of violence increases significantly for unmarried couples. The Home Office study itself observed that marital separation was a "key risk factor". Only 12.6 in every 1,000 married women are victims of violence, compared with 43.9 in every 1,000 never-married women and 66.5 in every 1,000 divorced or separated women. As husbands are replaced by partners and lovers, therefore, violence against women increases. Marriage is a strong safety factor for women.
Yet this is not said. Instead, the opposite idea is fostered, that violence against women typically takes place within marriage. In November 1998, the women's unit announced a new initiative. Children were urged to report violence against mothers and sisters. There was no mention of abuse against fathers. Instead, a television advertisement showed a husband berating his wife when she told him dinner would be late. That was the violence. It was followed by a helpline number for children to call if a woman in their house had been abused.
This fictional scenario illuminated some remarkable thinking by civil servants and ministers. It had become acceptable, it thus appeared, for children to inform on their fathers to teachers or "helplines" simply for shouting at their mothers. Shouting was now to be classified as domestic violence. If that is the case, then violence happens with enormous frequency in families. Don't women sometimes shout at men?
There was another telling aspect of this advertisement. It featured an "Oxo" middle-class nuclear family. The thinking behind this, according to the then Scottish Office minister Helen Liddell, was that "domestic abuse knows no boundaries of social class or social group". However, not only was this scenario not violence, but the nuclear family is the least likely setting for abuse of women or children. It was no accident, however, that it was chosen. The married nuclear family has to be demonised because it is said to be the vehicle for the oppression of women.
The outcome of all this is that it is now generally accepted that violence is intrinsically male. This is a gravely distorted picture. It is true that most recorded crime is committed by men. It does not follow, however, that most men commit crime. Yet this is the false conclusion that has been drawn, as the result of the suppression or distortion of the facts about violence as well as the message that is constantly promulgated that violence is a problem of masculinity. The evidence suggests that a quite different conclusion should be drawn. This is surely that both women and men are capable of aggression and violence, but that violent men, like violent women, are not typical of their sex.
---Extracted from The Sex Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male, by Melanie Phillips.
Showing posts with label radical feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radical feminism. Show all posts
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Monday, May 7, 2007
Debate with a male feminist sociologist on DV
Hi all,
I wrote to sociologist Dr Shane Hopkinson following what I thought was an unfair article by him on Domestic Violence.
He responded to me and I have since responded to him. The text follows. I didn't include the two attachments I sent him (The Trinity College Study on Domestic Violence and the Dads'Data document) but I can supply to anyone who wants a copy (previously posted on the forum).
Your comments and views can be added to what might be an ongoing debate, so send them in ! (I'm going to post it on my website www.equalparentingtime@blogspot.com at least).
Cheers,
Geoff
____________________________________________
Hi Shane,
Thanks for responding. Appreciate we need to fit in any sort of dialogue in amongst a busy work schedule for both of us.
Of course false allegations of sexual abuse are hard to disprove (and likewise hard to prove) but they are fairly rare (I'll see what stats I can find).
A study on the total number of allegations of abuse (physical and sexual) of men toward women, and women toward men, as well as allegations of abuse (physical and sexual) of fathers to their children and mothers to their children in the context of a case in the Family Court system would be very useful. Then we could look at what proportion were able to be confidently proven or disproven, and what proportion could not be either proven or disproven.
The trick is now to penalise people from making false or grossly exaggerated claims without deterring people from making genuine claims.
I suggest that if someone makes a claim that cannot be disproven, they would not be penalised. Only in cases where it can be reasonably disproven, then that claimant should be penalised - say in the form of Community Service. It is in the interests of everyone to penalise people who make false allegations because they devalue legitimate claims.
I am a bit puzzled by your claims of a 'feminist movement'. Outside a small academic circle where I work very few women I know called themselves 'feminists' these days.
I am equally puzzled. You suggest that women in your small academic circle might identify themselves as feminists. In the national academic circle there are, I suggest, a significant number of men and women who would identify themselves as feminists (I once applied to do a post-grad in Communications at UTS, and was told I could choose any area as long as I located my research and thesis within a feminist framework and argued from a feminist perspective. That was an entire faculty !)
Here are some organisations that could define the locus of the feminist movement. (Not that all members of these organisations would identify themselves as feminists, but I suggest the vast majority would).
Abortion Rights Network of Australia
Association of Women Educators
Australian Breastfeeding Association
Australian Capital Territory Office for Women, ACT Govt
Australian Council of Businesswomen
Australasian Council of Women and Policing
Australian Federation of Medical Women
Australian Federation of University Women
Australian Feminist Law Foundation
Australian Federation of Women's International Zionist Organisations
Australian Local Government Women's Association
Australian National Committee on Refugee Women
Australian Nursing Federation
Australian Office for the Status of Women
Australian Women's Coaltion
Australian Women's Health Network
Australian Women Lawyers
Australian Women's Party Australian Women's Studies Association
Breast Cancer Network of Australia
Business and Professional Women Australia
Catholic Women's League of Australia
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women
Coalition of Activist Lesbians- Australia
Coalition of Australian Participating Organisations of Women
Homebirth Australia Inc
International Women's Development Agency
Maternity Alliance
Mothers Opposing Pollution
Mothers' Union In Australia
National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence
National Association of Women in Construction
National Council of Jewish Women of Australia
National Council for the Single Mother and Her Child
National Council of Women of Australia
National Foundation for Australian Women
National Indigenous Women's Coalition
National Network of Indigenous Women's Legal Services
National Network of Women's Legal Services
National Union of Students Women's Department
National Women's Justice Coalition
National Women's Media Centre
Network of Women in Further Education
NSW Office for Women, NSW Govt
Northern Territory Office of Women's Policy, NT Govt.
Nursing Mothers Association of Australia
Office of Women's Affairs, Brisbane City Council
Pan-Pacific and South East Asian Women's Association of Australia Inc.
Public Health Association of Australia's Women's Health Special Interest Group
Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt
Radical Women
Society of Women Writers of Australia
Sole Parent's Union
Soroptimists International of the South West Pacific
South Australia Office for Women, SA Govt
Tasmania Women, Tas Govt
UNIFEM Australia Inc.
Union of Australian Women
United Nations Association (Australia) Status of Women Network
Victoria Office of Women's Policy, Vic Govt
Western Australia Office for Women's Policy, WA Govt
Women's Action Alliance
Women and Aids National Working Party
Women in Engineering
Women in Film and Television (Australia)
Women in Management
Women in Science Inquiry Network
Women in Super
Women into Politics
Women on Boards
Women with Disabilities
Women's Economic Think Tank
Women's Electoral Lobby
Women's Services Network
Women's Financial Network
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Women's Network for Technical and Vocational Education and Training
Women's Rights Action Network Australia
Zonta International Australia
Are you able to produce a similar list of men's groups in Australia ?
Most women in the Australian Labor Party and in the Union Movement are likely to consider themselves feminists. And as you suggest, there are a considerable number of women in DV related services etc.
Many people, including the contemporary ("reconstructed") male, may not explicitly identify themselves as a feminist (as I once did) but have internalised feminist myths and ideology, and hence take a feminist-compatible position (of course, like anyone, they would say their position is independent and objective).
The point is that women who identify themselves as feminists are more likely to hold influential positions, eg in academia, politics and government, senior positions in the public service, in professional organisations, activist NGOs and community organisations etc.
I am merely responding to your comment that few women would call themselves feminists these days.
I speculate that many women may no longer identify themselves as a feminist due to what you may term a 'backlash' but what I may term an acknowledgement that the feminist movement is guilty of the same kinds of chauvanism, aggression and misandry that they blamed men for (misogyny).
From opinion polls I have seen, and my own experience in petitioning, most women support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. I would also say that most women who regard themselves as feminists also support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. But it is the more radical core of the feminist movement that opposes it. (This is how I define 'mainstream feminists' from 'radical feminists').
Some people, including myself, feel that the feminist movement is no longer about gender equity, but is simply a women's lobby, which now is becoming excessive - eg in terms of opposing a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, arguing against affirmative action eg scholarships to attract more male teachers to improve academic performance of boys, of portraying domestic violence as 100% perpetrated by men, and women as 100% of the victims (and only men exhibiting controlling behaviour etc), of arguing against male-only clubs but allowing female-only clubs etc, opposing the funding of Men's Centres etc etc.
The fact is, women would benefit by supporting the funding of Men's Centres. The best way to change male behaviour is to fund supportive services and organisations for men.
Women also need to look at their own behaviour ! Women are understandably becoming more assertive. But when does assertive behaviour become controlling and aggressive behaviour ?
I'm not sure how this small group promotes the fear of 'men'
By portraying men as violent. Most men are not violent. Myth-making by the feminist movement has been running for 40 years now. There has been no strong source of counter-myths until the last decade with the Feminazi myth-making by a part of the Men's Movement. But few people have heard the term "Feminazi" while nearly all have heard of "Male chauvanist pig". True, the latter term has lost currency (but the internalised myth will take much longer to dissipate). But the DV campaigns are more insidious as the myths are visual but non-textual. The myth is that men are 100% perpetrators of domestic violence and women and children are 100% victims of male violence. The truth is more like 70% male perpetrated to 30% female perpetrated.
The difference is extremely important. If it is 70% male perpetrated you have 70:30 ratio. If it is 99% male perpetrated you have 99:1 ratio. If it is 100% male perpetrated you have an infinity ratio, which is no ratio, which is a powerful myth. Men do it, women don't.
Mothers are more responsible for physical abuse toward children than fathers, but this form of domestic violence is not widely recognised. Why not include it in DV campaigns ? (I know why). It is argued that violence toward children breeds violence when they are adults. (I wonder how the data would shape up if you factored in time mothers spent with children as opposed fathers).
Of course mythologising women as eternal victims is hardly empowering for women either...
http://www.noviolence.com.au/public/newsletters/news18.pdf
Aside: the site won't let me copy. Can you send me a copy of your article so I can more readily quote from it ?
I used the ABS data because it was the most neutral data set.
Correct.
Why then does the Australian Office for the Status of Women and the Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt use the Access Economics Report (Cost of DV)
http://www.accesseconomics.com.au/publicationsreports/showreport.php?id=23&searchfor=2004&searchby=year
which I believe is based on an obscure study commissioned by the Office of Women's Affairs, Brisbane City Council, that suggested at one point that 98% of domestic violence was perpetrated by men. The Advertising Standards Board has quoted this statistic from their client (Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt), stating that 98% was close enough to 100% etc.
Access Economics was forced to publish a Corrigendum (see same URL), but the DV campaign feminists insist on using the erroneous data !
Do you agree that the ratio of domestic violence according to the ABS PSS data is about 70:30 men-perpetrated to women-perpetrated ?
As a sociologist trained in objectivity and neutrality, who is involved with research into Domestic Violence, and thus interested in the methodology and impact of Domestic Violence campaigns, would you please investigate the above, in what I would consider an important academic exercise ?
Can you also explain why it is important to show all perpetrators of domestic violence as men, and all victims as women and children (but not men) ?
A recent study (Trinity College, Dublin) of people attending doctor's surgeries (for any reason) reports that 43% of women reported one or more incidents of violence by their partner, and 54% of men reported one or more incidents by their partner. I attach a copy for your interest. I am not pushing the "equally violent" line. I just want more investigation in the light of blatant feminist bias in this area.
It shows that men are twice as likely to be victims of violence as women overall - and that overwhelmingly at the hands of other men....
I think it would be good if the 'men's right's' movement (or whatever you want to call it) stopped suggesting that men are the victims of women's violence (tho of course that happens) and look at the big picture. Men are the even bigger victims of male violence than women are but I rarely hear those men who are critical of 'feminism' point that out because it doesn't serve their agenda.
Sure, I acknowledge this. I have seen this figure in Men's Movement discourse. I don't think there is denial about this. What does it prove ? We focus on debunking the 100% male perpetration myth because we believe it is used to block a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Women's groups have argued that a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will expose children to greater levels of violence (because men are violent). This is an indefensible argument in my view.
Some men argue that children in the care of single mothers with boyfriends and new male partners - ie when the Family Court awards majority residency to the mother - are at greater risk of abuse from the non-biological step-father. The data backs up this argument. I do not use this argument because it penalises the majority of men who are not abusive and we have to find better ways to prevent abuse other than restricting access (except of course in proven cases).
And the implication of this argument is to give majority residency to fathers, which in my view is as equally absurd (against the best interests of children) as the status quo.
We do not focus on men being the victim of women's violence as you suggest. On the contrary, it is the women's movement which is focussing on women being the victim of men's violence. We are merely responding to this to put it in perspective, and prevent the exaggerated myth-making and political manipulation of the myth to prevent a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
The DV campaigns not only pretend 100% of perpetrators are male, but they never give the data on how many families suffer from chronic domestic violence. This omission generates a myth that chronic domestic violence is prevalent in most homes. (Myths can be generated not just by information presented, but also information omitted).
I'm not sure what 'anti-masculinism' is but on many men's interpretation any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives and so is 'anti-masculine' in that sense. Perhaps you could spell out for me more clearly what you mean.
I use the neologistic term "anti-masculinism" to demonstrate bias of the feminist movement. Everyone knows what anti-feminism is. Anti-masculinism is simply the opposite - opposition to the Men's Movement.
Your interpretation is that:
"any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives"
My interpretation is that the Men's Movement is principally about gender equity. Surprised ?
And I regard your interpretation as "anti-masculinist" and a product of myths about the Men's Movement. (Prior to becoming involved myself, my view was that the Men's Movement comprised of angry psychopaths on the one hand, and firecamp co-counselling wooses on the other. I found neither). It suggests that you are not very familiar with the Men's Movement in Australia. Yes, there are people who occasionally espouse sexist rhetoric. But if you look at most of the discussion, as well as the policy and actions of the organisations, I don't believe you can conclude as you do.
The conservative end of the spectrum focuses on defending the family, opposes the recognition of same-sex marriage and their adoption of children. Some argue for a return to fault-based divorce. But none of this is sexist. And I would say this is not the concern for the majority of people in the Men's Movement.
Its hard to get into specifics - if we were to survey men - how many would ask to 'equal time' with their children...
Let's survey men and ask them if they would like the right to equal parenting. I am sure you would get an overwhelming response supporting this right. I believe the majority of fathers would take on the responsibility of equal parenting given the opportunity and support in the community.
But most men have to work and so are restricted in how much time they can have with the children.
Don't most women have to work ? If not, why not ? We have maternity leave in some areas of business and public service. Why aren't feminists also fighting for paternity leave ?
I regard this as a key issue for men. What would you regard as the "biggest issue" for men ?
If it was equal then that would be reflected in child support formula - even as it stands having them 2 nights a week (I think it is) gets you a reduction as 'significant care' when that involves you in very little care of the child.
Dads resent having to pay for the privilege of not having fair access to their children. The single parents' pension can only be paid to one parent. This is a dilemma for the Family Court system / CSA / Govt which they don't want to deal with. Yes, equal parenting should mean equal benefits. Yes we support the women's movement in their drive for more flexible work arrangements, more job-sharing, more affordable childcare facilities. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would no doubt have a major positive impact on men's culture and society in general.
I think male suicide is an issue
Yes it is. And Dads-in-Distress in particular has promoted the link between male suicide and the blatant discrimination and alienation fathers from their children in the Family Court system.
The Men's Movement remembers the anniversary of the suicide of ALP MP Greg Wilton following an unfair Family Court ruling. We know there are many hundreds of others like him, not to mention victims of murder-suicide (mums and children).
DiDs generally likes to refer to the total male suicide rate, about five per day, four times that of women. The total number directly attributable to the Family Court system could be as high as 10%. That is a lot of blood on the hands of the Family Court. Unfortunately only a few Coroners test for this link. Some do, and others could retrospectively. In any case, you could measure the difference after an implementation of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Why not? Do you seriously think that men and women are equally violent? Does this tally with your everyday experience? And the main victims of this violence will be MEN - overall at twice the rate that women are.
I am not trying to promote the notion that men and women are equally violent, but rather to counter the notion that men are violent and women are not. Also, I would like emotional and psychological violence to be more fully researched - not to prove one gender is more violent in this area than the other, but to establish the link - the myth that a woman after many years of psychological abuse, stabbed her husband - but here I am not trying to discredit this myth. Men often explode after being presented by unfair or manipulative behaviour by women - yes, equally a myth. Let's explore them and test them. Violence by the male is not justified. But if we are going to resolve violence, we need to become aware of the broader patterns of behaviour, including the triggers. I think feminist research into DV is unwilling to look at manipulative behaviours by women.
When men are victims of DV then they should get the same sorts of responses as women do
Yes but they don't ! Can you show me a text from a Women's DV organisation that highlights this problem and recommends remedial action ?
of course theres still a large section of the community that thinks DV is not a issue and reject women's claims
of course there's still a large section of the community, especially the feminist community, that thinks that female DV against their male partner is not an issue and reject men's claims...
Violence is a gendered issue and unless men are prepared to address the fact that most of the violence in our society (not just at home) is committed by men then we don't have the right place to address the issue overall.
Why call it a "gendered issue" ? This term implies that men are to blame for violence. Does it really help solve the problem to call it "gendered" ?
Physical assaults in 12 months prior to the 2005 PSS ABS study.
By men By women Total (By both men and women)
Women victims 195,300 66,579 242,000 19,879
Men victims 425,429 79,500 485,400 19,529
By this data, there is violence happening in all directions. By calling it "gendered" are you going to reduce the number of women assaulting women, or women assaulting men ?
by male stranger by fem. stranger by partner or ex-p other
men 65% 4.4% (21,200)
women 15% 31% (73,800)
Indicates partner or ex-partner violence (a key form of domestic violence) is perpetrated 22.3% by women and 77.7% by men.
125,100 women experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator at home while 60,900 men experienced physical assault by a female perpetrator at home. This suggests partner or ex-partner violence at home (a key form of domestic violence) is perpetrated 33% by women and 67% by men.
Physical assaults in 12 months prior to the 2005 PSS ABS study.
By men By women Total (By both men and women)
Women victims 195,300 66,579 242,000 19,879
Men victims 425,429 79,500 485,400 19,529
The reason that the total number of victims is less than the number of victims by men plus the number by women is that some people have been a victim of both men and women.
The ratio of male assaulting female compared to female assaulting male (but not only in the home) appears to be 29:71
> Ok its getting late here and so I won't continue right now but let me sign off with asking you about the 4 "myths" the feminist movement has created that you cite at the end of your email - can you provide me with references to feminists who make these specific claims?
1. that men are intrinsically flawed
2. that men are not as worthy parents as women
3. that equal parenting is destabilising for children
4. that Equal Parenting Time will put children at a greater risk of abuse
It is unlikely that a feminist would say outright that men are instrinsically flawed (and women are not) - but there may even be examples. However, it is the implication of much feminist discourse.
If you
1. say violence is "gendered" (ie perpetrated by men)
2. portray 100% of domestic violence as perpetrated by men, and
3. say we cannot increase children's access to fathers following divorce as this would expose children to greater levels of violence and abuse
...you are suggesting that men are instrinsically flawed. Myths do not work on the conscious level, on the level of reason and intellectual debate. They work on the sub-conscious level. Sometimes myths can be sown unintentionally. If separated parents argue, the child often comes to believe they are to blame for the conflict and the separation of the parents.
The other three myths I can demonstrate more explicitly, eg by going through media archives and submissions to the 2004 Inquiry Into Child Custody http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/subs.htm
But that would take time. If you press me for evidence, I will follow it up.
Regards,
Geoff Holland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane Hopkinson"
To: "Geoff Holland"
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:06 PM
Subject: RE: Your article 'Are Women as Violent as Men'
Dear Geoff
Work has been pretty busy so forgive me if this is a bit cursory but I wanted to respond and I hope that we might get some useful dialogue out of the exchange.
I was subject to a false allegations of violence and received a DVO. I don't expect you to necessarily believe me. You probably think there were justifying actions or circumstances. There were not. My ex-partner and her mother also made - not specific accusations of sexual abuse to my young son - but strong direct insinuations in their affidavits. I was among the lucky few who was able to prove these insinuations were ingenuous. Usually false allegations of sexual abuse are very difficult to disprove. I do not know the frequency, as you may do, but yes Shane, it happens.
I have no reason to disbelieve you there are certainly cases of women using DVO's in a punitive fashion. I, too, have been a victim of false allegations (not from my ex-wife tho) but I don't think that that means the vast majority of cases are like that. Of course false allegations of sexual abuse are hard to disprove (and likewise hard to prove) but they are fairly rare (I'll see what stats I can find).
Your link between the Domestic Violence arena and reforms of the Family Law Act is interesting, because I also make such a link but in a different way. I see the feminist movement as using the Domestic Violence campaigns, partly to reduce domestic violence (in a misconceived and misleading way I believe), but also to heighten fear of 'men' and thus scare people about reforms in the Family Law Act and the move to allow children greater access to their dads following separation.
I am a bit puzzled by your claims of a 'feminist movement'. Outside a small academic circle where I work very few women I know called themselves 'feminists' these days. I'm not sure how how this small group promotes the fear of 'men' except in the relation to the kinds of statistics that I quote in my article - as far as I can see you don't address this data at all. Women in DV services of course tend to see the worst of the violence that exists between men and women - and most of that is committed by men - so in that sense they have a bias since most often there work involves protecting women from male violence.
I would like to say that it is important to recognise that two people can be looking at the same set of facts or data and read them in very different ways - and both have valid arguments for their own interpretation.
I am sociologist by training and so adopting different perspectives and interpretations is pretty normal. I used the ABS data because it was the most neutral data set. It shows that men are twice as likely to be victims of violence as women overall - and that overwhelmingly at the hands of other men. For men tho most of that violence happens at the pub whereas women experience violence much more often at home. I think it would be good if the 'men's right's' movement (or whatever you want to call it) stopped suggesting that men are the victims of women's violence (tho of course that happens) and look at the big picture. Men are the even bigger victims of male violence than women are but I rarely hear those men who are critical of 'feminism' point that out because it doesn't serve their agenda.
Many men would argue that the Women's Rights movement receives millions of dollars in funding from the government, and that the Women's Rights movement promotes 'anti-masculinism'.
Of course this is their interpretation. I'm not sure which 'women's rights' groups recieve millions in funding. If you mean DV services or services for women's health then certainly the government sponsors specific services. These groups tho are government controlled and subject to rules and regulations. I'm not sure what 'anti-masculinism' is but on many men's interpretation any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives and so is 'anti-masculine' in that sense. Perhaps you could spell out for me more clearly what you mean.
I don't know which groups you refer to, but on my radar the principle groups are Lone Fathers, Men's Rights Agency, Dads-in-Distress, Shared Parenting Council of Australia (umbrella group), Fatherhood Foundation, and the less active Fathers-4-Equality and the Men's Confraternity. Only one of these, MRA, talks about 'rights'. The others do not. They give exclusive priority to the notion of the 'best interests of the child'. (This is a whole other area I won't go into here). So it is really a Men's Movement or a Dad's Movement rather than a Men's Rights movement. Although I see the issues as involving rights, most do not.
I was using Men's Rights' as shorthand - the groups you mention seek to increase the rights of men - in relation to the custody of their children after separation. So I would say that 'Father's rights' is fair shorthand. The issues you raise here are important ones but they weren't what I was addressing in my article. So its interesting that this is the direction the argument has taken.
As I see it, Equal Parenting is the single biggest issue for men. Following this is Child Support formulae.
Its hard to get into specifics - if we were to survey men - how many would ask to 'equal time' with their children. I have been an active parent to my 2 daughters (every second weekend and every wednesday night was the common pattern - and I must in fairness add that my relationship with their mum is a very good one so I am lucky in that sense) and more recently the eldest has come to live with me. But most men have to work and so are restricted in how much time they can have with the children. If you wanted 'equal time' with the children - say taking week about then this would be great but would hardly be the 'biggest issue' for most men. Is that what you mean by equal parenting? If it was equal then that would be reflected in child support formula - even as it stands having them 2 nights a week (I think it is) gets you a reduction as 'significant care' when that involves you in very little care of the child.
Other issues such as addressing lower life expectancy higher suicide rates, and lower academic performance in males, smaller funding for Men's Centres, smaller funding for prostate cancer as opposed to breast and cervical cancer, pertain more to a Men's Movement, but are far less significant (perhaps I see it this way because of the type of forums I follow).
Many of these are important issues for men - but you ahve to compare apples with applies. I think male suicide is an issue (of course women attempt it more than men) but I don't think the funding is based on gender - theres quite a lot about male suicide especially in rural areas. Boys are falling behind in some areas but there's a huge variation based on other factors - and no one called it a 'crisis' in the last 50 years when boys outperformed girls. I'm not sure what the funding on different health issues looks like - about equal numbers dies from prostate and breast cancer - and both seems well promoted in the community. A bit complaint of those in health promotion is that men won't go to doctors till its too late.
The term 'gendered violence' is a feminist one. No one in the Men's Movement to my knowledge talks about 'gendered violence' or 'non-gendered' violence.
Why not? Do you seriously think that men and women are equally violent? Does this tally with your everyday experience? I'm not sure if you have more than the one son (I have 2 girls) and in my life and theirs everything tells me it is boys/men who are much more likely to solve their problems physically. And the main victims of this violence will be MEN - overall at twice the rate that women are.
True, most of us think that most reporting of domestic violence is skewed. However, most of us are happy to go along with the ABS PSS study stats. But we have it in writing that Federal and Qld State domestic violence campaigns showing all men as perpetrators and all women as victims were based on the Access Economics study which they claim stated that 98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men. I'm not even going to bother pulling this one apart...
I used the ABS study as the least contentious. I haven't read the Access Economics study but I am guessing that its the one that costed DV at billions of dollars. If they suggested that 98% of DV is carried out by men I'd like to see how they reached that number but surely you are not suggesting that Access Economics is a feminist organisation - they are mostly right-wing economists.
It is true that sometimes people in the Men's Movement will argue that violence is equal between men and women, or even that women are more violent, but most accept a rough conceptual 1:2 ratio. Some, however, do want emotional and psychological violence recognised and researched more thoroughly. I assume many feminists would also !
Well it was feminists who first argued that DV was more than physical abuse so its interesting that the men's movement now wants to claim this too. When men are victims of DV then they should get the same sorts of responses as women do [of course theres still a large section of the community that thinks DV is not a issue and reject women's claims so not the same response in that sense]. But if we are concerned about violence against men then we need to focus on ALL the violence men suffer - most of which as the stats show is at the hands of other men - not at the hands of women. Violence is a gendered issue and unless men are prepared to address the fact that most of the violence in our society (not just at home) is committed by men then we don't have the right place to address the issue overall.
Ok its getting late here and so I won't continue right now but let me sign off with asking you about the 4 "myths" the feminist movement has created that you cite at the end of your email - can you provide me with references to feminists who make these specific claims?
I am pleased to have received a response from someone in your position and look forward to some further dialogue.
Regards, Shane
__________________________________________________
To :
Shane Hopkinson
Sociology, CQU
From: Geoff Holland
Hi Shane,
I acquired your e-mail address from the CQU website - I hope you don't mind. I recently read an article of yours from Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006
I am a dad who went all the way through the Family Court system, and who has since become an activist for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
I was subject to a false allegations of violence and received a DVO. I don't expect you to necessarily believe me. You probably think there were justifying actions or circumstances. There were not. My ex-partner and her mother also made - not specific accusations of sexual abuse to my young son - but strong direct insinuations in their affidavits. I was among the lucky few who was able to prove these insinuations were ingenuous. Usually false allegations of sexual abuse are very difficult to disprove. I do not know the frequency, as you may do, but yes Shane, it happens.
Recent politicking from Men's Rights groups and amendments to Family Law legislation are two examples of an apparent backlash against feminism".
Your link between the Domestic Violence arena and reforms of the Family Law Act is interesting, because I also make such a link but in a different way. I see the feminist movement as using the Domestic Violence campaigns, partly to reduce domestic violence (in a misconceived and misleading way I believe), but also to heighten fear of 'men' and thus scare people about reforms in the Family Law Act and the move to allow children greater access to their dads following separation.
I would like to say that it is important to recognise that two people can be looking at the same set of facts or data and read them in very different ways - and both have valid arguments for their own interpretation.
I would like to offer a few quick comments - ie feedback from someone in the Men's Movement - on a section of your article, for your interest.
"The Fathers Rights Agenda in many respects there is a false controversy being created in the media and, it would seem, in the minds of my students, which I think is an important marker of the extent to which the backlash politics is gaining ground. It is driven by a Fathers' Rights anti-feminism which has seen the government sponsor such groups as Lone Fathers Association to the tune of $100,000 over 2 years (Summers 2003:98), and who have thus been able to promote the idea that violence is not gendered and/or that the 'issue' of domestic violence is really the product of a 'feminist industry' that exaggerates the extent of family violence and unfairly blames it all on men".
Many men would argue that the Women's Rights movement receives millions of dollars in funding from the government, and that the Women's Rights movement promotes 'anti-masculinism'.
I don't know which groups you refer to, but on my radar the principle groups are Lone Fathers, Men's Rights Agency, Dads-in-Distress, Shared Parenting Council of Australia (umbrella group), Fatherhood Foundation, and the less active Fathers-4-Equality and the Men's Confraternity. Only one of these, MRA, talks about 'rights'. The others do not. They give exclusive priority to the notion of the 'best interests of the child'. (This is a whole other area I won't go into here). So it is really a Men's Movement or a Dad's Movement rather than a Men's Rights movement. Although I see the issues as involving rights, most do not.
As I see it, Equal Parenting is the single biggest issue for men. Following this is Child Support formulae. In this sense the Men's Movement is a Dad's Movement. Other issues such as addressing lower life expectancy, higher suicide rates, and lower academic performance in males, smaller funding for Men's Centres, smaller funding for prostate cancer as opposed to breast and cervical cancer, pertain more to a Men's Movement, but are far less significant (perhaps I see it this way because of the type of forums I folllow).
In my view, the Men's Movement is a weak, voluntary, relatively ad hoc and disorganized movement. The 'Black Shirts' are often misleadingly quoted in the media as representing the Men's Movement, but anyone who knows anything about the subject would know that while the half dozen people involved are probably still alive, there is no such organisation now, and even when it existed, it was just that - about six people who used a megaphone outside some homes on about three occasions - correct me if I am wrong. And all the above groups explicitly denounce this misconceived group. I am glad you didn't also quote them.
The term 'gendered violence' is a feminist one. No one in the Men's Movement to my knowledge talks about 'gendered violence' or 'non-gendered' violence. True, most of us think that most reporting of domestic violence is skewed. However, most of us are happy to go along with the ABS PSS study stats. But we have it in writing that Federal and Qld State domestic violence campaigns showing all men as perpetrators and all women as victims were based on the Access Economics study which they claim stated that 98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men. I'm not even going to bother pulling this one apart...
It is true that sometimes people in the Men's Movement will argue that violence is equal between men and women, or even that women are more violent, but most accept a rough conceptual 1:2 ratio. Some, however, do want emotional and psychological violence recognised and researched more thoroughly. I assume many feminists would also !
As I see it, the labelling of domestic violence as 'gendered' serves the feminist cause - you can't have a Presumption of Equal Parenting because it will expose more children to more gendered (male) violence and abuse.
"While professing a concern for male victims of violence and showing a willingness to exploit men's pain and suffering at the end of relationships, Fathers' Rights groups have been able to generate considerable sympathy and have been able to get the ear of government. Unfortunately their real agenda is a re-assertion of traditional male prerogatives over women and children. Aside from the idea of gender symmetry in family violence they have promoted the idea that children need fathers above all else and this is gradually displacing the issue of child safety as the key issue in court determinations of custody and access. Further they seek to discredit female victims by alleging that women:1. fabricate false allegations of child abuse to deny men access to their children (in fact, cases of abuse only appear in a small number of hearings); and2. stategically and punitively use Apprehended Violence Orders or Domestic Violence Orders as a bargaining tool in Court rather than out of any genuine fear of violence."Shane Hopkinson, (male) Sociology, Central Queensland UniversityQueensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006
Yes, there is a percentage of the Men's movement that might like to reinstate the status quo of gender power relations pre 1950. Could I give a wild guess and say about 25%? For example some refer to fault-based divorce and criticise no-fault divorce policy, and describe how it is too easy for a women to leave a relationship. But the sentiment rarely surfaces in discussion. Most people in the Men's Movement seek gender equity, support no fault divorce and don't seek to force couples together. So I would say you are wrong on this point.
When you say "children need fathers above all else" I presume you don't mean we are saying fathers are more important than mothers.. I presume it is above the issue of child safety. If it is the former I would say you are wrong, if the second, yes I would agree with you because we do not feel that equal parenting, or even greater access leads to greater child abuse.
Some point to stats which indicate children are more at risk from the mother's new (male) partner (so yes, safer with the dad), and that mothers tend to inflict more physical abuse on children than fathers (whether they have taken into account mothers in general spend more time with their children, I can't say). These issues need to be looked at more closely and professionally.
My own view is that we need to resolve domestic violence and child abuse, child sexual abuse in other ways other than broad discrimination against men in terms of access to their children.
There are four myths that I believe are constructed and peddled by the Feminist Movement that I disagree with:
1. that men are intrinsically flawed
2. that men are not as worthy parents as women
3. that equal parenting is destabilising for children
4. that Equal Parenting Time will put children at a greater risk of abuse
I hope you find this e-mail in the spirit of healthy discussion and bridging the divide of mutual suspicion and non-communication. We are probably all guilty of stereotyping, and communication can be a good way of breaking down stereotyping and myth-making.
Best wishes,
Geoff Holland
I wrote to sociologist Dr Shane Hopkinson following what I thought was an unfair article by him on Domestic Violence.
He responded to me and I have since responded to him. The text follows. I didn't include the two attachments I sent him (The Trinity College Study on Domestic Violence and the Dads'Data document) but I can supply to anyone who wants a copy (previously posted on the forum).
Your comments and views can be added to what might be an ongoing debate, so send them in ! (I'm going to post it on my website www.equalparentingtime@blogspot.com at least).
Cheers,
Geoff
____________________________________________
Hi Shane,
Thanks for responding. Appreciate we need to fit in any sort of dialogue in amongst a busy work schedule for both of us.
Of course false allegations of sexual abuse are hard to disprove (and likewise hard to prove) but they are fairly rare (I'll see what stats I can find).
A study on the total number of allegations of abuse (physical and sexual) of men toward women, and women toward men, as well as allegations of abuse (physical and sexual) of fathers to their children and mothers to their children in the context of a case in the Family Court system would be very useful. Then we could look at what proportion were able to be confidently proven or disproven, and what proportion could not be either proven or disproven.
The trick is now to penalise people from making false or grossly exaggerated claims without deterring people from making genuine claims.
I suggest that if someone makes a claim that cannot be disproven, they would not be penalised. Only in cases where it can be reasonably disproven, then that claimant should be penalised - say in the form of Community Service. It is in the interests of everyone to penalise people who make false allegations because they devalue legitimate claims.
I am a bit puzzled by your claims of a 'feminist movement'. Outside a small academic circle where I work very few women I know called themselves 'feminists' these days.
I am equally puzzled. You suggest that women in your small academic circle might identify themselves as feminists. In the national academic circle there are, I suggest, a significant number of men and women who would identify themselves as feminists (I once applied to do a post-grad in Communications at UTS, and was told I could choose any area as long as I located my research and thesis within a feminist framework and argued from a feminist perspective. That was an entire faculty !)
Here are some organisations that could define the locus of the feminist movement. (Not that all members of these organisations would identify themselves as feminists, but I suggest the vast majority would).
Abortion Rights Network of Australia
Association of Women Educators
Australian Breastfeeding Association
Australian Capital Territory Office for Women, ACT Govt
Australian Council of Businesswomen
Australasian Council of Women and Policing
Australian Federation of Medical Women
Australian Federation of University Women
Australian Feminist Law Foundation
Australian Federation of Women's International Zionist Organisations
Australian Local Government Women's Association
Australian National Committee on Refugee Women
Australian Nursing Federation
Australian Office for the Status of Women
Australian Women's Coaltion
Australian Women's Health Network
Australian Women Lawyers
Australian Women's Party Australian Women's Studies Association
Breast Cancer Network of Australia
Business and Professional Women Australia
Catholic Women's League of Australia
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women
Coalition of Activist Lesbians- Australia
Coalition of Australian Participating Organisations of Women
Homebirth Australia Inc
International Women's Development Agency
Maternity Alliance
Mothers Opposing Pollution
Mothers' Union In Australia
National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence
National Association of Women in Construction
National Council of Jewish Women of Australia
National Council for the Single Mother and Her Child
National Council of Women of Australia
National Foundation for Australian Women
National Indigenous Women's Coalition
National Network of Indigenous Women's Legal Services
National Network of Women's Legal Services
National Union of Students Women's Department
National Women's Justice Coalition
National Women's Media Centre
Network of Women in Further Education
NSW Office for Women, NSW Govt
Northern Territory Office of Women's Policy, NT Govt.
Nursing Mothers Association of Australia
Office of Women's Affairs, Brisbane City Council
Pan-Pacific and South East Asian Women's Association of Australia Inc.
Public Health Association of Australia's Women's Health Special Interest Group
Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt
Radical Women
Society of Women Writers of Australia
Sole Parent's Union
Soroptimists International of the South West Pacific
South Australia Office for Women, SA Govt
Tasmania Women, Tas Govt
UNIFEM Australia Inc.
Union of Australian Women
United Nations Association (Australia) Status of Women Network
Victoria Office of Women's Policy, Vic Govt
Western Australia Office for Women's Policy, WA Govt
Women's Action Alliance
Women and Aids National Working Party
Women in Engineering
Women in Film and Television (Australia)
Women in Management
Women in Science Inquiry Network
Women in Super
Women into Politics
Women on Boards
Women with Disabilities
Women's Economic Think Tank
Women's Electoral Lobby
Women's Services Network
Women's Financial Network
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Women's Network for Technical and Vocational Education and Training
Women's Rights Action Network Australia
Zonta International Australia
Are you able to produce a similar list of men's groups in Australia ?
Most women in the Australian Labor Party and in the Union Movement are likely to consider themselves feminists. And as you suggest, there are a considerable number of women in DV related services etc.
Many people, including the contemporary ("reconstructed") male, may not explicitly identify themselves as a feminist (as I once did) but have internalised feminist myths and ideology, and hence take a feminist-compatible position (of course, like anyone, they would say their position is independent and objective).
The point is that women who identify themselves as feminists are more likely to hold influential positions, eg in academia, politics and government, senior positions in the public service, in professional organisations, activist NGOs and community organisations etc.
I am merely responding to your comment that few women would call themselves feminists these days.
I speculate that many women may no longer identify themselves as a feminist due to what you may term a 'backlash' but what I may term an acknowledgement that the feminist movement is guilty of the same kinds of chauvanism, aggression and misandry that they blamed men for (misogyny).
From opinion polls I have seen, and my own experience in petitioning, most women support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. I would also say that most women who regard themselves as feminists also support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. But it is the more radical core of the feminist movement that opposes it. (This is how I define 'mainstream feminists' from 'radical feminists').
Some people, including myself, feel that the feminist movement is no longer about gender equity, but is simply a women's lobby, which now is becoming excessive - eg in terms of opposing a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, arguing against affirmative action eg scholarships to attract more male teachers to improve academic performance of boys, of portraying domestic violence as 100% perpetrated by men, and women as 100% of the victims (and only men exhibiting controlling behaviour etc), of arguing against male-only clubs but allowing female-only clubs etc, opposing the funding of Men's Centres etc etc.
The fact is, women would benefit by supporting the funding of Men's Centres. The best way to change male behaviour is to fund supportive services and organisations for men.
Women also need to look at their own behaviour ! Women are understandably becoming more assertive. But when does assertive behaviour become controlling and aggressive behaviour ?
I'm not sure how this small group promotes the fear of 'men'
By portraying men as violent. Most men are not violent. Myth-making by the feminist movement has been running for 40 years now. There has been no strong source of counter-myths until the last decade with the Feminazi myth-making by a part of the Men's Movement. But few people have heard the term "Feminazi" while nearly all have heard of "Male chauvanist pig". True, the latter term has lost currency (but the internalised myth will take much longer to dissipate). But the DV campaigns are more insidious as the myths are visual but non-textual. The myth is that men are 100% perpetrators of domestic violence and women and children are 100% victims of male violence. The truth is more like 70% male perpetrated to 30% female perpetrated.
The difference is extremely important. If it is 70% male perpetrated you have 70:30 ratio. If it is 99% male perpetrated you have 99:1 ratio. If it is 100% male perpetrated you have an infinity ratio, which is no ratio, which is a powerful myth. Men do it, women don't.
Mothers are more responsible for physical abuse toward children than fathers, but this form of domestic violence is not widely recognised. Why not include it in DV campaigns ? (I know why). It is argued that violence toward children breeds violence when they are adults. (I wonder how the data would shape up if you factored in time mothers spent with children as opposed fathers).
Of course mythologising women as eternal victims is hardly empowering for women either...
http://www.noviolence.com.au/public/newsletters/news18.pdf
Aside: the site won't let me copy. Can you send me a copy of your article so I can more readily quote from it ?
I used the ABS data because it was the most neutral data set.
Correct.
Why then does the Australian Office for the Status of Women and the Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt use the Access Economics Report (Cost of DV)
http://www.accesseconomics.com.au/publicationsreports/showreport.php?id=23&searchfor=2004&searchby=year
which I believe is based on an obscure study commissioned by the Office of Women's Affairs, Brisbane City Council, that suggested at one point that 98% of domestic violence was perpetrated by men. The Advertising Standards Board has quoted this statistic from their client (Queensland Office for Women. Qld Govt), stating that 98% was close enough to 100% etc.
Access Economics was forced to publish a Corrigendum (see same URL), but the DV campaign feminists insist on using the erroneous data !
Do you agree that the ratio of domestic violence according to the ABS PSS data is about 70:30 men-perpetrated to women-perpetrated ?
As a sociologist trained in objectivity and neutrality, who is involved with research into Domestic Violence, and thus interested in the methodology and impact of Domestic Violence campaigns, would you please investigate the above, in what I would consider an important academic exercise ?
Can you also explain why it is important to show all perpetrators of domestic violence as men, and all victims as women and children (but not men) ?
A recent study (Trinity College, Dublin) of people attending doctor's surgeries (for any reason) reports that 43% of women reported one or more incidents of violence by their partner, and 54% of men reported one or more incidents by their partner. I attach a copy for your interest. I am not pushing the "equally violent" line. I just want more investigation in the light of blatant feminist bias in this area.
It shows that men are twice as likely to be victims of violence as women overall - and that overwhelmingly at the hands of other men....
I think it would be good if the 'men's right's' movement (or whatever you want to call it) stopped suggesting that men are the victims of women's violence (tho of course that happens) and look at the big picture. Men are the even bigger victims of male violence than women are but I rarely hear those men who are critical of 'feminism' point that out because it doesn't serve their agenda.
Sure, I acknowledge this. I have seen this figure in Men's Movement discourse. I don't think there is denial about this. What does it prove ? We focus on debunking the 100% male perpetration myth because we believe it is used to block a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Women's groups have argued that a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will expose children to greater levels of violence (because men are violent). This is an indefensible argument in my view.
Some men argue that children in the care of single mothers with boyfriends and new male partners - ie when the Family Court awards majority residency to the mother - are at greater risk of abuse from the non-biological step-father. The data backs up this argument. I do not use this argument because it penalises the majority of men who are not abusive and we have to find better ways to prevent abuse other than restricting access (except of course in proven cases).
And the implication of this argument is to give majority residency to fathers, which in my view is as equally absurd (against the best interests of children) as the status quo.
We do not focus on men being the victim of women's violence as you suggest. On the contrary, it is the women's movement which is focussing on women being the victim of men's violence. We are merely responding to this to put it in perspective, and prevent the exaggerated myth-making and political manipulation of the myth to prevent a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
The DV campaigns not only pretend 100% of perpetrators are male, but they never give the data on how many families suffer from chronic domestic violence. This omission generates a myth that chronic domestic violence is prevalent in most homes. (Myths can be generated not just by information presented, but also information omitted).
I'm not sure what 'anti-masculinism' is but on many men's interpretation any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives and so is 'anti-masculine' in that sense. Perhaps you could spell out for me more clearly what you mean.
I use the neologistic term "anti-masculinism" to demonstrate bias of the feminist movement. Everyone knows what anti-feminism is. Anti-masculinism is simply the opposite - opposition to the Men's Movement.
Your interpretation is that:
"any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives"
My interpretation is that the Men's Movement is principally about gender equity. Surprised ?
And I regard your interpretation as "anti-masculinist" and a product of myths about the Men's Movement. (Prior to becoming involved myself, my view was that the Men's Movement comprised of angry psychopaths on the one hand, and firecamp co-counselling wooses on the other. I found neither). It suggests that you are not very familiar with the Men's Movement in Australia. Yes, there are people who occasionally espouse sexist rhetoric. But if you look at most of the discussion, as well as the policy and actions of the organisations, I don't believe you can conclude as you do.
The conservative end of the spectrum focuses on defending the family, opposes the recognition of same-sex marriage and their adoption of children. Some argue for a return to fault-based divorce. But none of this is sexist. And I would say this is not the concern for the majority of people in the Men's Movement.
Its hard to get into specifics - if we were to survey men - how many would ask to 'equal time' with their children...
Let's survey men and ask them if they would like the right to equal parenting. I am sure you would get an overwhelming response supporting this right. I believe the majority of fathers would take on the responsibility of equal parenting given the opportunity and support in the community.
But most men have to work and so are restricted in how much time they can have with the children.
Don't most women have to work ? If not, why not ? We have maternity leave in some areas of business and public service. Why aren't feminists also fighting for paternity leave ?
I regard this as a key issue for men. What would you regard as the "biggest issue" for men ?
If it was equal then that would be reflected in child support formula - even as it stands having them 2 nights a week (I think it is) gets you a reduction as 'significant care' when that involves you in very little care of the child.
Dads resent having to pay for the privilege of not having fair access to their children. The single parents' pension can only be paid to one parent. This is a dilemma for the Family Court system / CSA / Govt which they don't want to deal with. Yes, equal parenting should mean equal benefits. Yes we support the women's movement in their drive for more flexible work arrangements, more job-sharing, more affordable childcare facilities. A Presumption of Equal Parenting Time would no doubt have a major positive impact on men's culture and society in general.
I think male suicide is an issue
Yes it is. And Dads-in-Distress in particular has promoted the link between male suicide and the blatant discrimination and alienation fathers from their children in the Family Court system.
The Men's Movement remembers the anniversary of the suicide of ALP MP Greg Wilton following an unfair Family Court ruling. We know there are many hundreds of others like him, not to mention victims of murder-suicide (mums and children).
DiDs generally likes to refer to the total male suicide rate, about five per day, four times that of women. The total number directly attributable to the Family Court system could be as high as 10%. That is a lot of blood on the hands of the Family Court. Unfortunately only a few Coroners test for this link. Some do, and others could retrospectively. In any case, you could measure the difference after an implementation of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
Why not? Do you seriously think that men and women are equally violent? Does this tally with your everyday experience? And the main victims of this violence will be MEN - overall at twice the rate that women are.
I am not trying to promote the notion that men and women are equally violent, but rather to counter the notion that men are violent and women are not. Also, I would like emotional and psychological violence to be more fully researched - not to prove one gender is more violent in this area than the other, but to establish the link - the myth that a woman after many years of psychological abuse, stabbed her husband - but here I am not trying to discredit this myth. Men often explode after being presented by unfair or manipulative behaviour by women - yes, equally a myth. Let's explore them and test them. Violence by the male is not justified. But if we are going to resolve violence, we need to become aware of the broader patterns of behaviour, including the triggers. I think feminist research into DV is unwilling to look at manipulative behaviours by women.
When men are victims of DV then they should get the same sorts of responses as women do
Yes but they don't ! Can you show me a text from a Women's DV organisation that highlights this problem and recommends remedial action ?
of course theres still a large section of the community that thinks DV is not a issue and reject women's claims
of course there's still a large section of the community, especially the feminist community, that thinks that female DV against their male partner is not an issue and reject men's claims...
Violence is a gendered issue and unless men are prepared to address the fact that most of the violence in our society (not just at home) is committed by men then we don't have the right place to address the issue overall.
Why call it a "gendered issue" ? This term implies that men are to blame for violence. Does it really help solve the problem to call it "gendered" ?
Physical assaults in 12 months prior to the 2005 PSS ABS study.
By men By women Total (By both men and women)
Women victims 195,300 66,579 242,000 19,879
Men victims 425,429 79,500 485,400 19,529
By this data, there is violence happening in all directions. By calling it "gendered" are you going to reduce the number of women assaulting women, or women assaulting men ?
by male stranger by fem. stranger by partner or ex-p other
men 65% 4.4% (21,200)
women 15% 31% (73,800)
Indicates partner or ex-partner violence (a key form of domestic violence) is perpetrated 22.3% by women and 77.7% by men.
125,100 women experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator at home while 60,900 men experienced physical assault by a female perpetrator at home. This suggests partner or ex-partner violence at home (a key form of domestic violence) is perpetrated 33% by women and 67% by men.
Physical assaults in 12 months prior to the 2005 PSS ABS study.
By men By women Total (By both men and women)
Women victims 195,300 66,579 242,000 19,879
Men victims 425,429 79,500 485,400 19,529
The reason that the total number of victims is less than the number of victims by men plus the number by women is that some people have been a victim of both men and women.
The ratio of male assaulting female compared to female assaulting male (but not only in the home) appears to be 29:71
> Ok its getting late here and so I won't continue right now but let me sign off with asking you about the 4 "myths" the feminist movement has created that you cite at the end of your email - can you provide me with references to feminists who make these specific claims?
1. that men are intrinsically flawed
2. that men are not as worthy parents as women
3. that equal parenting is destabilising for children
4. that Equal Parenting Time will put children at a greater risk of abuse
It is unlikely that a feminist would say outright that men are instrinsically flawed (and women are not) - but there may even be examples. However, it is the implication of much feminist discourse.
If you
1. say violence is "gendered" (ie perpetrated by men)
2. portray 100% of domestic violence as perpetrated by men, and
3. say we cannot increase children's access to fathers following divorce as this would expose children to greater levels of violence and abuse
...you are suggesting that men are instrinsically flawed. Myths do not work on the conscious level, on the level of reason and intellectual debate. They work on the sub-conscious level. Sometimes myths can be sown unintentionally. If separated parents argue, the child often comes to believe they are to blame for the conflict and the separation of the parents.
The other three myths I can demonstrate more explicitly, eg by going through media archives and submissions to the 2004 Inquiry Into Child Custody http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/subs.htm
But that would take time. If you press me for evidence, I will follow it up.
Regards,
Geoff Holland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane Hopkinson"
To: "Geoff Holland"
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:06 PM
Subject: RE: Your article 'Are Women as Violent as Men'
Dear Geoff
Work has been pretty busy so forgive me if this is a bit cursory but I wanted to respond and I hope that we might get some useful dialogue out of the exchange.
I was subject to a false allegations of violence and received a DVO. I don't expect you to necessarily believe me. You probably think there were justifying actions or circumstances. There were not. My ex-partner and her mother also made - not specific accusations of sexual abuse to my young son - but strong direct insinuations in their affidavits. I was among the lucky few who was able to prove these insinuations were ingenuous. Usually false allegations of sexual abuse are very difficult to disprove. I do not know the frequency, as you may do, but yes Shane, it happens.
I have no reason to disbelieve you there are certainly cases of women using DVO's in a punitive fashion. I, too, have been a victim of false allegations (not from my ex-wife tho) but I don't think that that means the vast majority of cases are like that. Of course false allegations of sexual abuse are hard to disprove (and likewise hard to prove) but they are fairly rare (I'll see what stats I can find).
Your link between the Domestic Violence arena and reforms of the Family Law Act is interesting, because I also make such a link but in a different way. I see the feminist movement as using the Domestic Violence campaigns, partly to reduce domestic violence (in a misconceived and misleading way I believe), but also to heighten fear of 'men' and thus scare people about reforms in the Family Law Act and the move to allow children greater access to their dads following separation.
I am a bit puzzled by your claims of a 'feminist movement'. Outside a small academic circle where I work very few women I know called themselves 'feminists' these days. I'm not sure how how this small group promotes the fear of 'men' except in the relation to the kinds of statistics that I quote in my article - as far as I can see you don't address this data at all. Women in DV services of course tend to see the worst of the violence that exists between men and women - and most of that is committed by men - so in that sense they have a bias since most often there work involves protecting women from male violence.
I would like to say that it is important to recognise that two people can be looking at the same set of facts or data and read them in very different ways - and both have valid arguments for their own interpretation.
I am sociologist by training and so adopting different perspectives and interpretations is pretty normal. I used the ABS data because it was the most neutral data set. It shows that men are twice as likely to be victims of violence as women overall - and that overwhelmingly at the hands of other men. For men tho most of that violence happens at the pub whereas women experience violence much more often at home. I think it would be good if the 'men's right's' movement (or whatever you want to call it) stopped suggesting that men are the victims of women's violence (tho of course that happens) and look at the big picture. Men are the even bigger victims of male violence than women are but I rarely hear those men who are critical of 'feminism' point that out because it doesn't serve their agenda.
Many men would argue that the Women's Rights movement receives millions of dollars in funding from the government, and that the Women's Rights movement promotes 'anti-masculinism'.
Of course this is their interpretation. I'm not sure which 'women's rights' groups recieve millions in funding. If you mean DV services or services for women's health then certainly the government sponsors specific services. These groups tho are government controlled and subject to rules and regulations. I'm not sure what 'anti-masculinism' is but on many men's interpretation any attempt to equalise power between the sexes is a threat to male prerogatives and so is 'anti-masculine' in that sense. Perhaps you could spell out for me more clearly what you mean.
I don't know which groups you refer to, but on my radar the principle groups are Lone Fathers, Men's Rights Agency, Dads-in-Distress, Shared Parenting Council of Australia (umbrella group), Fatherhood Foundation, and the less active Fathers-4-Equality and the Men's Confraternity. Only one of these, MRA, talks about 'rights'. The others do not. They give exclusive priority to the notion of the 'best interests of the child'. (This is a whole other area I won't go into here). So it is really a Men's Movement or a Dad's Movement rather than a Men's Rights movement. Although I see the issues as involving rights, most do not.
I was using Men's Rights' as shorthand - the groups you mention seek to increase the rights of men - in relation to the custody of their children after separation. So I would say that 'Father's rights' is fair shorthand. The issues you raise here are important ones but they weren't what I was addressing in my article. So its interesting that this is the direction the argument has taken.
As I see it, Equal Parenting is the single biggest issue for men. Following this is Child Support formulae.
Its hard to get into specifics - if we were to survey men - how many would ask to 'equal time' with their children. I have been an active parent to my 2 daughters (every second weekend and every wednesday night was the common pattern - and I must in fairness add that my relationship with their mum is a very good one so I am lucky in that sense) and more recently the eldest has come to live with me. But most men have to work and so are restricted in how much time they can have with the children. If you wanted 'equal time' with the children - say taking week about then this would be great but would hardly be the 'biggest issue' for most men. Is that what you mean by equal parenting? If it was equal then that would be reflected in child support formula - even as it stands having them 2 nights a week (I think it is) gets you a reduction as 'significant care' when that involves you in very little care of the child.
Other issues such as addressing lower life expectancy higher suicide rates, and lower academic performance in males, smaller funding for Men's Centres, smaller funding for prostate cancer as opposed to breast and cervical cancer, pertain more to a Men's Movement, but are far less significant (perhaps I see it this way because of the type of forums I follow).
Many of these are important issues for men - but you ahve to compare apples with applies. I think male suicide is an issue (of course women attempt it more than men) but I don't think the funding is based on gender - theres quite a lot about male suicide especially in rural areas. Boys are falling behind in some areas but there's a huge variation based on other factors - and no one called it a 'crisis' in the last 50 years when boys outperformed girls. I'm not sure what the funding on different health issues looks like - about equal numbers dies from prostate and breast cancer - and both seems well promoted in the community. A bit complaint of those in health promotion is that men won't go to doctors till its too late.
The term 'gendered violence' is a feminist one. No one in the Men's Movement to my knowledge talks about 'gendered violence' or 'non-gendered' violence.
Why not? Do you seriously think that men and women are equally violent? Does this tally with your everyday experience? I'm not sure if you have more than the one son (I have 2 girls) and in my life and theirs everything tells me it is boys/men who are much more likely to solve their problems physically. And the main victims of this violence will be MEN - overall at twice the rate that women are.
True, most of us think that most reporting of domestic violence is skewed. However, most of us are happy to go along with the ABS PSS study stats. But we have it in writing that Federal and Qld State domestic violence campaigns showing all men as perpetrators and all women as victims were based on the Access Economics study which they claim stated that 98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men. I'm not even going to bother pulling this one apart...
I used the ABS study as the least contentious. I haven't read the Access Economics study but I am guessing that its the one that costed DV at billions of dollars. If they suggested that 98% of DV is carried out by men I'd like to see how they reached that number but surely you are not suggesting that Access Economics is a feminist organisation - they are mostly right-wing economists.
It is true that sometimes people in the Men's Movement will argue that violence is equal between men and women, or even that women are more violent, but most accept a rough conceptual 1:2 ratio. Some, however, do want emotional and psychological violence recognised and researched more thoroughly. I assume many feminists would also !
Well it was feminists who first argued that DV was more than physical abuse so its interesting that the men's movement now wants to claim this too. When men are victims of DV then they should get the same sorts of responses as women do [of course theres still a large section of the community that thinks DV is not a issue and reject women's claims so not the same response in that sense]. But if we are concerned about violence against men then we need to focus on ALL the violence men suffer - most of which as the stats show is at the hands of other men - not at the hands of women. Violence is a gendered issue and unless men are prepared to address the fact that most of the violence in our society (not just at home) is committed by men then we don't have the right place to address the issue overall.
Ok its getting late here and so I won't continue right now but let me sign off with asking you about the 4 "myths" the feminist movement has created that you cite at the end of your email - can you provide me with references to feminists who make these specific claims?
I am pleased to have received a response from someone in your position and look forward to some further dialogue.
Regards, Shane
__________________________________________________
To :
Shane Hopkinson
Sociology, CQU
From: Geoff Holland
Hi Shane,
I acquired your e-mail address from the CQU website - I hope you don't mind. I recently read an article of yours from Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006
I am a dad who went all the way through the Family Court system, and who has since become an activist for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
I was subject to a false allegations of violence and received a DVO. I don't expect you to necessarily believe me. You probably think there were justifying actions or circumstances. There were not. My ex-partner and her mother also made - not specific accusations of sexual abuse to my young son - but strong direct insinuations in their affidavits. I was among the lucky few who was able to prove these insinuations were ingenuous. Usually false allegations of sexual abuse are very difficult to disprove. I do not know the frequency, as you may do, but yes Shane, it happens.
Recent politicking from Men's Rights groups and amendments to Family Law legislation are two examples of an apparent backlash against feminism".
Your link between the Domestic Violence arena and reforms of the Family Law Act is interesting, because I also make such a link but in a different way. I see the feminist movement as using the Domestic Violence campaigns, partly to reduce domestic violence (in a misconceived and misleading way I believe), but also to heighten fear of 'men' and thus scare people about reforms in the Family Law Act and the move to allow children greater access to their dads following separation.
I would like to say that it is important to recognise that two people can be looking at the same set of facts or data and read them in very different ways - and both have valid arguments for their own interpretation.
I would like to offer a few quick comments - ie feedback from someone in the Men's Movement - on a section of your article, for your interest.
"The Fathers Rights Agenda in many respects there is a false controversy being created in the media and, it would seem, in the minds of my students, which I think is an important marker of the extent to which the backlash politics is gaining ground. It is driven by a Fathers' Rights anti-feminism which has seen the government sponsor such groups as Lone Fathers Association to the tune of $100,000 over 2 years (Summers 2003:98), and who have thus been able to promote the idea that violence is not gendered and/or that the 'issue' of domestic violence is really the product of a 'feminist industry' that exaggerates the extent of family violence and unfairly blames it all on men".
Many men would argue that the Women's Rights movement receives millions of dollars in funding from the government, and that the Women's Rights movement promotes 'anti-masculinism'.
I don't know which groups you refer to, but on my radar the principle groups are Lone Fathers, Men's Rights Agency, Dads-in-Distress, Shared Parenting Council of Australia (umbrella group), Fatherhood Foundation, and the less active Fathers-4-Equality and the Men's Confraternity. Only one of these, MRA, talks about 'rights'. The others do not. They give exclusive priority to the notion of the 'best interests of the child'. (This is a whole other area I won't go into here). So it is really a Men's Movement or a Dad's Movement rather than a Men's Rights movement. Although I see the issues as involving rights, most do not.
As I see it, Equal Parenting is the single biggest issue for men. Following this is Child Support formulae. In this sense the Men's Movement is a Dad's Movement. Other issues such as addressing lower life expectancy, higher suicide rates, and lower academic performance in males, smaller funding for Men's Centres, smaller funding for prostate cancer as opposed to breast and cervical cancer, pertain more to a Men's Movement, but are far less significant (perhaps I see it this way because of the type of forums I folllow).
In my view, the Men's Movement is a weak, voluntary, relatively ad hoc and disorganized movement. The 'Black Shirts' are often misleadingly quoted in the media as representing the Men's Movement, but anyone who knows anything about the subject would know that while the half dozen people involved are probably still alive, there is no such organisation now, and even when it existed, it was just that - about six people who used a megaphone outside some homes on about three occasions - correct me if I am wrong. And all the above groups explicitly denounce this misconceived group. I am glad you didn't also quote them.
The term 'gendered violence' is a feminist one. No one in the Men's Movement to my knowledge talks about 'gendered violence' or 'non-gendered' violence. True, most of us think that most reporting of domestic violence is skewed. However, most of us are happy to go along with the ABS PSS study stats. But we have it in writing that Federal and Qld State domestic violence campaigns showing all men as perpetrators and all women as victims were based on the Access Economics study which they claim stated that 98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men. I'm not even going to bother pulling this one apart...
It is true that sometimes people in the Men's Movement will argue that violence is equal between men and women, or even that women are more violent, but most accept a rough conceptual 1:2 ratio. Some, however, do want emotional and psychological violence recognised and researched more thoroughly. I assume many feminists would also !
As I see it, the labelling of domestic violence as 'gendered' serves the feminist cause - you can't have a Presumption of Equal Parenting because it will expose more children to more gendered (male) violence and abuse.
"While professing a concern for male victims of violence and showing a willingness to exploit men's pain and suffering at the end of relationships, Fathers' Rights groups have been able to generate considerable sympathy and have been able to get the ear of government. Unfortunately their real agenda is a re-assertion of traditional male prerogatives over women and children. Aside from the idea of gender symmetry in family violence they have promoted the idea that children need fathers above all else and this is gradually displacing the issue of child safety as the key issue in court determinations of custody and access. Further they seek to discredit female victims by alleging that women:1. fabricate false allegations of child abuse to deny men access to their children (in fact, cases of abuse only appear in a small number of hearings); and2. stategically and punitively use Apprehended Violence Orders or Domestic Violence Orders as a bargaining tool in Court rather than out of any genuine fear of violence."Shane Hopkinson, (male) Sociology, Central Queensland UniversityQueensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006
Yes, there is a percentage of the Men's movement that might like to reinstate the status quo of gender power relations pre 1950. Could I give a wild guess and say about 25%? For example some refer to fault-based divorce and criticise no-fault divorce policy, and describe how it is too easy for a women to leave a relationship. But the sentiment rarely surfaces in discussion. Most people in the Men's Movement seek gender equity, support no fault divorce and don't seek to force couples together. So I would say you are wrong on this point.
When you say "children need fathers above all else" I presume you don't mean we are saying fathers are more important than mothers.. I presume it is above the issue of child safety. If it is the former I would say you are wrong, if the second, yes I would agree with you because we do not feel that equal parenting, or even greater access leads to greater child abuse.
Some point to stats which indicate children are more at risk from the mother's new (male) partner (so yes, safer with the dad), and that mothers tend to inflict more physical abuse on children than fathers (whether they have taken into account mothers in general spend more time with their children, I can't say). These issues need to be looked at more closely and professionally.
My own view is that we need to resolve domestic violence and child abuse, child sexual abuse in other ways other than broad discrimination against men in terms of access to their children.
There are four myths that I believe are constructed and peddled by the Feminist Movement that I disagree with:
1. that men are intrinsically flawed
2. that men are not as worthy parents as women
3. that equal parenting is destabilising for children
4. that Equal Parenting Time will put children at a greater risk of abuse
I hope you find this e-mail in the spirit of healthy discussion and bridging the divide of mutual suspicion and non-communication. We are probably all guilty of stereotyping, and communication can be a good way of breaking down stereotyping and myth-making.
Best wishes,
Geoff Holland
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
The "r" word
The 'r' word
There was some point in the 20th Century when custody of Children following divorce switched from the Father to the Mother. We should revisit that history and understand how it happened.
In Japan only recently did the law switch from favouring the Father to favouring the Mother.
In many countries including Lebanon, the Father is still favoured for child custody.
There was no catastrophe when Fathers had custody of the Children. Still, I believe allowing both Parents to participate fully in a Child's life is preferable to marginalising either of them.
I am, of course, an advocate for the Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
I believe that this is a natural right - to have full access to one's own child ('full access' means 'half access' in the case of separated parents). This natural right can only be taken away in circumstances of abuse (or negotiated where there are obvious practical problems such as living in different cities).
If there are problems with parenting in society, focus on resolving the problems ! Don't sweep the problems under the carpet by reducing access ! This achieves nothing.
To me the situation is prima facie - I shouldn't even have to argue it. We live in a society based on civil rights and this is one of them. Parenting is a civil right which has been taken away from Dads (and sometimes Mums). Dads have been hoodwinked.
It is akin to people being against, or being indecisive about, poorly educated black people having a right to vote. Or simply - universal suffrage (eg women getting the vote). In my view there is no difference.
We should be indignant. We should be outraged.
But it is politically incorrect to talk about 'rights'. We must only talk about 'the best interests of the Child'. A recent article in The Age finishes by saying "Someone has to keep an eye out for the interests of the child." Of course we should. But this sentiment has become gratuitous. It has been used for decades by the Family Court system and the Radical Feminists to keep Children and Dads apart. The sentiment is being facetiously and politically manipulated.
There is only one men's group I know which will openly talk about men's rights. All the others keep well away from this explosive word 'rights'.
Here are a couple of recent quotes by a (male) feminist which indicates how the Domestic Violence campaigns are a feminist strategy (the fear factor) being used to block the movement for increased involvement of Dads in their Children's lives following family separation:
"Recent politicking from Men's Rights groups and amendments to Family Law legislation are two examples of an apparent backlash against feminism".
Shane Hopkinson, (male) Sociology, Central Queensland University
Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006 p4
The Fathers Rights Agenda
In many respoects there is a false controversy being created in the media and, it would seem, in the minds of my students, which I think is an important marker of the extent to which the backlash politics is gaining ground. It is driven by a Fathers' Rights anti-feminism which has seen the government sponsor such groups as Lone Fathers Association to the tune of $100,000 over 2 years (Summers 2003:98), and who have thus been able to promote the idea that violence is not gendered and/or that the 'issue' of domestic violence is really the product of a 'feminist industry' that exaggerates the extent of family violence and unfairly blames it all on men.
While professing a concern for male victims of violence and showing a willingness to exploit men's pain and suffering at the end of relationships, Fathers' Rights groups have been able to generate considerable sympathy and have been able to get the ear of government. Unfortunately their real agenda is a re-assertion of traditional male prerogatives over women and children. Aside from the idea of gender symmetry in family violence they have promoted the idea that children need fathers above all else and this is gradually displacing the issue of child safety as the key issue in court determinations of custody and access. Further they seek to discredit female victims by alleging that women:
1. fabricate false allegations of child abuse to deny men access to their children (in fact, cases of abuse only appear in a small number of hearings); and
2. stategically and punitively use Apprehended Violence Orders or Domestic Violence Orders as a bargaining tool in Court rather than out of any genuine fear of violence."
Shane Hopkinson, (male) Sociology, Central Queensland University
Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006
Yes - only one men's organisation that I know of that dares to speak about 'men's rights' (funny how 'men's rights' has an ominous resonance, and 'women's rights' conjures up images of morality and justice. How did 'men's rights' become a dirty word ?)
However, this organisation is run by a woman (who censors my postings and has removed me from the list though I have done nothing provocative - until this e-mail at least. I am simply speaking up). Another men's group has warned me not to represent them otherwise I will face police prosecution. Bizarre as I have never attempted to represent them ! How can the movement be so immature ?
Two prominent men's groups who receive government funding are not working for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time in my view. One says we have missed the boat, the other says we already got a good deal. (They nominally agree with the policy of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time but they do not appear to be actively lobbying for it).
I don't want to fragment the Dad's Movement, but rather to argue that Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is not a radical extreme position, but the obvious and central goal.
Yes, Dad's have been hoodwinked. We have been led to believe that:
1. men are less worthy Parents than women,
2. equal parenting is too destabilising for Children,
3. a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will put Children at greater risk of abuse.
All three of these myths are false.
The authorities know it. They are attempting to appease us by modifying the Family Court system culture somewhat. But we do not want appeasement. We wish our natural rights as fathers to be recognised and acted upon.
One prominent feminist has stated that if Dads want equal parenting we have to earn it. I suppose she would nominate herself to be on the judging panel for each and every Dad.
The Feminist Movement is a formidable opposition. Worse, the Labor Party will probably win the next election (we must vote for supportive Independents, and Family First - as long as Family First can make their support for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time a little more explicit). This will not be an easy or short term campaign, but we will win in the end.
This e-mail is provocative - it is intended to be. Some Dads groups may recommend we walk softly and come in from the back door. I say we enter from the front door. But we must be well-dressed, well presented, calm, happy, and well-reasoned. Yes, it is a Public Relations competition.
Some people will label me an extremist - perhaps a 'radical masculinist'. But I promote:
1. peace, non-violence, conflict resolution, mediation, reconciliation, and respect
2. discussion and debate
3. equal rights, equity and reciprocation.
The feminist position is a radical one founded on deceit (98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men). My experience is that Radical Feminists are generally not willing to engage in debate.
The position of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is a reasonable and moderate one.
But we won't make much further progress until Dads start waking up to the situation. We need to organise, and we need to be independent of government funding.
Of course I welcome women to be a part of the movement for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, and a number of women have already made fantastic contributions.
Also, I believe the majority of feminists, judging by opinion polls and my own experience with petition tables in the street, is that most feminists support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. Unfortunately the Executive is not listening to their Constituency. In fact you could probably define Radical Feminism, as distinct from mainstream Feminism, by their view on a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. You are either for it, against, or undecided. There is no compromise position.
Each of us needs to be active on a regular basis. Integrate it into your weekly schedule.
And we need to be actively waking up other Dads to the ongoing injustice of the Family Court system, as well as the benefits of Children spending more time with their Dads.
Cheers, Geoff
(PS with no intentions of running for office or seeking government funding. So please pardon the grandstanding, but some of us have to do it).
There was some point in the 20th Century when custody of Children following divorce switched from the Father to the Mother. We should revisit that history and understand how it happened.
In Japan only recently did the law switch from favouring the Father to favouring the Mother.
In many countries including Lebanon, the Father is still favoured for child custody.
There was no catastrophe when Fathers had custody of the Children. Still, I believe allowing both Parents to participate fully in a Child's life is preferable to marginalising either of them.
I am, of course, an advocate for the Presumption of Equal Parenting Time.
I believe that this is a natural right - to have full access to one's own child ('full access' means 'half access' in the case of separated parents). This natural right can only be taken away in circumstances of abuse (or negotiated where there are obvious practical problems such as living in different cities).
If there are problems with parenting in society, focus on resolving the problems ! Don't sweep the problems under the carpet by reducing access ! This achieves nothing.
To me the situation is prima facie - I shouldn't even have to argue it. We live in a society based on civil rights and this is one of them. Parenting is a civil right which has been taken away from Dads (and sometimes Mums). Dads have been hoodwinked.
It is akin to people being against, or being indecisive about, poorly educated black people having a right to vote. Or simply - universal suffrage (eg women getting the vote). In my view there is no difference.
We should be indignant. We should be outraged.
But it is politically incorrect to talk about 'rights'. We must only talk about 'the best interests of the Child'. A recent article in The Age finishes by saying "Someone has to keep an eye out for the interests of the child." Of course we should. But this sentiment has become gratuitous. It has been used for decades by the Family Court system and the Radical Feminists to keep Children and Dads apart. The sentiment is being facetiously and politically manipulated.
There is only one men's group I know which will openly talk about men's rights. All the others keep well away from this explosive word 'rights'.
Here are a couple of recent quotes by a (male) feminist which indicates how the Domestic Violence campaigns are a feminist strategy (the fear factor) being used to block the movement for increased involvement of Dads in their Children's lives following family separation:
"Recent politicking from Men's Rights groups and amendments to Family Law legislation are two examples of an apparent backlash against feminism".
Shane Hopkinson, (male) Sociology, Central Queensland University
Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006 p4
The Fathers Rights Agenda
In many respoects there is a false controversy being created in the media and, it would seem, in the minds of my students, which I think is an important marker of the extent to which the backlash politics is gaining ground. It is driven by a Fathers' Rights anti-feminism which has seen the government sponsor such groups as Lone Fathers Association to the tune of $100,000 over 2 years (Summers 2003:98), and who have thus been able to promote the idea that violence is not gendered and/or that the 'issue' of domestic violence is really the product of a 'feminist industry' that exaggerates the extent of family violence and unfairly blames it all on men.
While professing a concern for male victims of violence and showing a willingness to exploit men's pain and suffering at the end of relationships, Fathers' Rights groups have been able to generate considerable sympathy and have been able to get the ear of government. Unfortunately their real agenda is a re-assertion of traditional male prerogatives over women and children. Aside from the idea of gender symmetry in family violence they have promoted the idea that children need fathers above all else and this is gradually displacing the issue of child safety as the key issue in court determinations of custody and access. Further they seek to discredit female victims by alleging that women:
1. fabricate false allegations of child abuse to deny men access to their children (in fact, cases of abuse only appear in a small number of hearings); and
2. stategically and punitively use Apprehended Violence Orders or Domestic Violence Orders as a bargaining tool in Court rather than out of any genuine fear of violence."
Shane Hopkinson, (male) Sociology, Central Queensland University
Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research Vol 5 No2 Dec 2006
Yes - only one men's organisation that I know of that dares to speak about 'men's rights' (funny how 'men's rights' has an ominous resonance, and 'women's rights' conjures up images of morality and justice. How did 'men's rights' become a dirty word ?)
However, this organisation is run by a woman (who censors my postings and has removed me from the list though I have done nothing provocative - until this e-mail at least. I am simply speaking up). Another men's group has warned me not to represent them otherwise I will face police prosecution. Bizarre as I have never attempted to represent them ! How can the movement be so immature ?
Two prominent men's groups who receive government funding are not working for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time in my view. One says we have missed the boat, the other says we already got a good deal. (They nominally agree with the policy of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time but they do not appear to be actively lobbying for it).
I don't want to fragment the Dad's Movement, but rather to argue that Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is not a radical extreme position, but the obvious and central goal.
Yes, Dad's have been hoodwinked. We have been led to believe that:
1. men are less worthy Parents than women,
2. equal parenting is too destabilising for Children,
3. a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time will put Children at greater risk of abuse.
All three of these myths are false.
The authorities know it. They are attempting to appease us by modifying the Family Court system culture somewhat. But we do not want appeasement. We wish our natural rights as fathers to be recognised and acted upon.
One prominent feminist has stated that if Dads want equal parenting we have to earn it. I suppose she would nominate herself to be on the judging panel for each and every Dad.
The Feminist Movement is a formidable opposition. Worse, the Labor Party will probably win the next election (we must vote for supportive Independents, and Family First - as long as Family First can make their support for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time a little more explicit). This will not be an easy or short term campaign, but we will win in the end.
This e-mail is provocative - it is intended to be. Some Dads groups may recommend we walk softly and come in from the back door. I say we enter from the front door. But we must be well-dressed, well presented, calm, happy, and well-reasoned. Yes, it is a Public Relations competition.
Some people will label me an extremist - perhaps a 'radical masculinist'. But I promote:
1. peace, non-violence, conflict resolution, mediation, reconciliation, and respect
2. discussion and debate
3. equal rights, equity and reciprocation.
The feminist position is a radical one founded on deceit (98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men). My experience is that Radical Feminists are generally not willing to engage in debate.
The position of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time is a reasonable and moderate one.
But we won't make much further progress until Dads start waking up to the situation. We need to organise, and we need to be independent of government funding.
Of course I welcome women to be a part of the movement for a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, and a number of women have already made fantastic contributions.
Also, I believe the majority of feminists, judging by opinion polls and my own experience with petition tables in the street, is that most feminists support a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. Unfortunately the Executive is not listening to their Constituency. In fact you could probably define Radical Feminism, as distinct from mainstream Feminism, by their view on a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time. You are either for it, against, or undecided. There is no compromise position.
Each of us needs to be active on a regular basis. Integrate it into your weekly schedule.
And we need to be actively waking up other Dads to the ongoing injustice of the Family Court system, as well as the benefits of Children spending more time with their Dads.
Cheers, Geoff
(PS with no intentions of running for office or seeking government funding. So please pardon the grandstanding, but some of us have to do it).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
