I'm emigrating. Anybody want to join me?

Yeh, America or Israel.

These were my thoughts entirely, except I couldn't have constructed such a well thought out argument. Just as well Mels here to do just that.

Derek,
Where you gonna run to my man?

Britain has become a hopeless case, and we shall go down with it if we don't take to the boats. But the question already asked is a good one - where is the nearest safe shore?

Richard,
I have lived and worked in both of these potential havens and, sad indeed to relate, they are as bad as, and in some respects worse than, the UK.
Consider, by way of example, that in the USA retropsective genetic fingerprinting has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that a third of all men convicted of rape were innocent.

The rule of law is what has gone out of the window since the 1960s, and that because law ceased to be done from within the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
I am particularly offended by transsexuals' rights to change their birth certificates and to marry. Transsexuals actually cannot have sex, given the operations they have had, therefore also cannot have children unless they adopt their own or others'.
It needs to be pointed out that the ideology of the transsexual lobby undercuts any possible discussions of feminist/women's issues, because it basically accepts people's right to choose to live as whichever sex they want on the basis of a psychological rather than a biological evaluation of being female or male. This is ridiculous. It means men can play around at the frills of being female without the obvious unique factors of being constituted by a female physiology. It angers me no end that the cowardly feminists in the government have either been silent in the face of this wipeout of female identity or actually gone along without out of a misplaced sense of pity. I can't exactly say that the women MPs in the Labour party are representing me as a woman, that's for sure!

Somewhere where people are too busy surviving to give any valuable thought or time to this nonsense. We've had it too easy for too long and this is the result

Derek,
Been there too man. You don't want to go there. While residence in such a locale does indeed concentrate the mind on esentials and make for an interesting and stimulating life, it is rather hard on those souls who's survival skills are less well developed.

It is always interesting to ask what they did in 1968. It seems there are people who were students in 1968 who have a lot of opinions formed whilst not actually studying, but politicking.

Some turned into full-time BS merchants in media, or politics, or advertising and were money hungry, self-serving, self-important incompetents.

Others went through the moxer and skewed right across from loopy left to loony right......you can see the Blairs and the Reids and the Browns and the Mandelsons.......move from the silly CND type politics to a sort of middle-aged right-wing allegiance once Margaret Thatcher gave them permission like some school marm they all looked up to.

It is a personal odyssey for the Blunketts and the Reids and the Darlings and the Hains......but never is it not lucrative.

On the other hand there are people who remember New Society magazine and the kind of weird social ideas that espoused.......

I am involved with a charity that, among other things, tries to help people whose families are breaking up or have broken up. There will always be people who are violent and, yes, men are usually physically stronger and can therefore inflict physical injury. However, it is clear to me that, increasingly, the breakdown in family life is seen as being of no consequence and the absence of, generally, any male influence causes no long term problems in children's lives.

We are now into second and third generation families where women see men as disposable objects and where any lies told (to the police, on oath in court, to CAFCASS, etc) in order to get rid of a father is quite acceptable. Fathers wanting to retain family links with their children have found legal aid non-existent and the cost of legal representation financially ruinous (not to mention inept), courts have - illegally - refused fathers acting as litigants in person any support from 'McKenzie friends' on the grounds that those friends may acquire 'confidential' information, and - when orders made by the courts are openly flouted - fathers have been told that the courts cannot enforce them.

Now we see yet another example of the 'justice' system suddenly finding that it can do something if the 'perpetrator' of wrongdoing is male. An allegation of domestic violence is made, no evidence of it need be shown, therefore no conviction will ensue. But, the 'victim' can now obtain a restraining order. And, if a father wants to see his child(ren) and merely approaches them, he will have broken that order. Will the courts then say that they cannot enforce it? Of course not.

This bill stands our historical view of justice on its head. A person is now guilty because someone says so and the accused individual will have to prove that they are not. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult. And even if they succeed in doing this, they can then be put in a position where they will, in fact, become guilty of an offence and can be imprisoned at will.

This process may be applied to domestic violence today but, once the principle of innocence until proven guilty has gone, it could be public demonstration against government policies tomorrow. And then none of us will be safe.

Welcome to the Brutish
Isles!!

I think Melanie has hit the nail on the head in several ways this time. Firstly, she rightly identifies the further undermining of the presumption of innocence and respect for the law that these proposals signify.

Secondly, she identifies the social shifts towards female-dominated power which underlie this.

However, where I do not think she follows her own logic to the end, is that this is best rejected by policies which give people an equal playing field in law. She still insists upon comparing one "system of customary preferences with another, rather than allowing the law to judge the material facts, without distinction as to sex, race, creed, etc.

This is an email post of the most bizarre kind. Just when I thought things could not get more whacked. The Brits especially and the EU have actually outdone California. As to the designated victim concept, this is precisely the good reason why the advice to young men is do not get married and do not have children. Which is a sad commentary because I do believe in marriage. Karl

Many of us in the MEN'S MOVEMENT look forward to the day that Ms Harman is finally prosecuted and sent to PRISON for the serious harm that she will have inflicted upon thousands of men and for the hurt and damage that she will have caused to many more thousands of children.

There is no reason why this apology for a woman should not be punished severely.

AH

Carry on Harman - it is IDIOT feminists like you that will bring about your own downfall along with the hatefull ideology that has rotted your 'reason'. Many of us 'internet savvy' anti-feminists have been boring our brothers,sisters,colleagues, taxi drivers,barbers etc. with 'tales from the crypt' about the evils perpetrated by feminism abroad - particularly in the US and Canada. Many scoffed at the time even when it was pointed out that what happens over the pond has a way of 'importing'itself over here in one way or another. Few will scoff now. Well done 'Harmfull' Harman for making people listen and believe what they couldn't before!!!!

"Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as 'Marxism without economics,' since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step further. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such."
— F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff in
The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p. 75)
http://www.fathersforlife.org/sex_pol7.htm#Charter

It won't help to emigrate. At best, that will just postpone the inevitable. The problem is endemic in all developed nations -- most definitely in all English-speaking ones, besides the EU.

If you are serious about trying to escape, you may wish to consider places such as Mexico. They still have respect for common sense there.

The unfortunate thing is that the UN and the World Bank are putting pressure on such nations, removing their funding and doing other things, so as to force them to toe the party line of the global gynarchia and the homosexual rights lobby.

I would like to congratulate you on your article on victim culture in
yesterdays Mail.
This was indeed a masterpeice of incisive writing. I cannot remember the
last time I read such an astute observation.
Many many congratulations, and thank you.
With best wishes,

What I'm most annoyed about all of this is the deafening silence from the press in general with regard to the fact that there might be something rotten in the new DV Bill.

Has anyone noticed how much even the Sun has changed since Rebekah Wade took over - articles about the CSA not doing enough for women; emotionally charged pieces about victims of DV, etc etc etc?? I'm sick to death of it.......

It does not matter that the DV lobby are starting to pay lip service to the idea that DV is also perpetrated by women on men.

The legislation disallowing an alleged perpetrator from all contact with their children is not gender specific.

Just like the Children's Act is not gender specific and allows the legal profession to claim there is no technical bias in the way fathers or mothers are to be treated.

It all happens at the discretion of the Judge in the Best Interest of The Child.

AND YET we know that in practice it is institutionally biased against fathers, because mothers are better equipped and more inclined to use the system to their advantage.

The same is true of the proposed DV laws.

It all happens at the discretion of the Judge in the Best Interest of The Victim and Child.

We must not be fooled into allowing these draconian laws to be passed just because they promise that they will also impose them on women who inflict DV.

Can you imagine a Judge giving a 'Yellow Card' Exclusion Order to a woman who slapped her husband in public, thereby denying her any contact with her own children.

There would be uproar, from our feminist enemy

Can you imagine a Judge giving a 'Yellow Card' Exclusion Order to a man who slapped his wife in public, thereby denying him any contact with his own children.

"Well he deserves it the slimy bastard". Would be the call from the feminists.

The fact is men and women often fight, and they will fight especially hard over their children.

Who will win in the Victimhood stakes?

There will be a few publicised severe and deserved cases that will be won on both sides. (<2% of total cases)

Case One: Man is real violent thug and wife batterer.

Case Two: Woman is psychopathic headcase who stabs husband who is proved to be paragon of docility.

The feminists Women's Aid/ Refuge lobby will justify the gender neutrality of the new laws with these two cases.

But in practice:

The vast majority of cases will be normal couples with normal sometimes volatile arguments who happen to be splitting up.
The woman will use the new DV laws to make accusations against partner to insure herself against losing total control of her children.

When the Harassment Act 1997 was debated in Parliament it was projected that it would deal with 800 cases of serious stalking each year.
In practice within two years it was being used against nearly 5000 people (mostly fathers) each year.

These new laws to remove people from their childrens lives must be stopped by us fathers,

even if they (very occasionally) remove mothers from their children.

Just because parents can be violent to each other (under the new wide definitions of DV) does not mean they will be violent to their children after they split up.

Best Regards

Paul Midgley

Dear Melanie, I read your article with interest. You are indeed right to fear the consequences of the new law on restraining orders. We here in Australia have lived with such a situation for many years, I myself was subjected to such treatment , in my case I actually suceeded in forcing a withdrawal of the application and a small payment of costs, when I advised others {mostly men} of how to do this, there was a change made to regulations that effectivly precluded subsequent victims of this legal farce ,from claiming costs on even those rare occasions when even blatant legal prejudice could not sustain a fraudulent application.I have had the cheque stub of my costs payment framed , as it well may be the only such payment issued. I am a member of the Richard Hillman Foundation who activly campaign against such abuses and can assure you all, that you must challenge this law with all vigour, if you doubt that this is so, I say look to Australia on this and you will see your own terrible future. All credit it to you for publicising this issue.

As the editor of a website devoted to justice reform by exposing the judicial corruption which uses statistics "as a drunk uses lampposts for support rather than illumination" (L. Cameron Murray, C.A., Edmonton , Alberta , October, 1992, for the record during the public consultations to the Canadian Child Support Guidelines), I receive letters from across the world. Irrespective of the country or province of origin, the message is always the same: I was framed. Many times the separating partners had initially little or no difficulty in communicating with each other and sharing the children, but it did not take long until the allegations of abuse and violence surfaced, with the resulting restraining order. Even when these orders were withdrawn, having found to be obtained without any basis, the person who obtained it was not charged with perjury or obstruction of justice, which both are criminal offences.

A false allegation is on par with the crime, or maybe worse, that is alleged and thus must receive the same punishment. False allegations which remain unpunished by the judiciary leave the victims of these allegations only one way out: to take justice into their own hands, thus creating real data on which the advocates can lean on. The ultimate tragedy is that so many men find that the only way out is to end their own lives. These men are vilified even in death while the world rushes to the aid of their tormentors. The only thing that these statistics illuminate is how systemic injustice creates the very violence that it professes to hinder and how perpetrators are elevated to exalted victims.

Don't agonise - organise!

Don't bother emigrating to the U.S.A., it is just as bad and in many ways worse here than the U.K., although not quite as bad as Canada. You have to think in terms of non-English speaking countries to find a place where being male is still legal, but many countries have English as a prominent language, although it may not be the native tongue.

Melanie has once again created and excellent article, but one place it falls short is in fully defining the domestic violence victimhood culture as the sham that it is. If any of the western victim cultures would actually do a careful and controlled study, digging into facts far more than any court of feminist jurisprudence ever would, I believe they would discover that something along the order of 90% of domestic violence claims are false, often coached by lawyers and social workers, strictly to give the feminist judges some reason to give mothers custody and gobs of money, and evict the father from the lives of his children.

This is undoubtedly true at least where the female claims victimhood as a matter of course during divorce proceedings. Essentially, domestic violence is nothing more than a fraud used to advantage mothers in custody cases, and to enrich sleazy lawyers and judges who destroy children and families for money whilst appeasing Marxist feminists. If mothers were ever to lose the guarantee of custody and the financial windfall bonanza from divorce, most of these corrupt judicial officials would have to do something constructive to earn a living, as women would petition for divorce nary as often as men.

While in the U.S.A. we have the problem of the judiciary subverting the intentions of the legislatures, and therefore of the people, the real question is why the sane members of Parliament, Congress, and State Legislatures play right into the hands of the Marxist-feminists out to destroy the last vestiges of liberty. I find it hard to believe they are as dumb or as ignorant as they appear, and think the answer to this question lies in a fear of speaking the truth lest the PC Thought Police crush their political ambitions.

If western nations are ever able to properly resolve the issues surrounding domestic violence, the terms "sham", "fraud", and "The Big Lie" will accompany the domestic violence moniker as a matter of routine, including by MPs, legislators, Prime Ministers, and Presidents. Meanwhile, for men, I suggest Asia, South America, or Central America as worthwhile places to pursue relationships, marriage, children, and family. Once there, it is a good idea to work to prevent western anti-male feminist culture from polluting your new environment.

Well, well, here it is. . .the end of the marriage strike! Unfortunatly and completely unnatural as it is, it is in fact, tooo dangerous to even date a women. . .period. Men now have to acknowledge absolute caution to speak to or be in a room with women or face the consequences of their "choice". I am saddened that my daughters will have such a hard time to get or have a relationship with a man yet alone marriage or children. I am very fearful (in tooo many ways) for my sons future/life.

So what to do about this tyranny? That is a no brainer guys. Suck it up and say no. No dating, relationships or sex (tough and unnatural as it may seem). You see there is already a major concern in government as to the already low birth rates. That means soon there will not be enough taxable people to sustain the aging folks or other essential programs. Fewer and fewer tax dollers. . .oh my! Already in the US, local governments are inticing and paying young (nieve) couples to move to there communities if they are married and have children, I understand other countries are trying similar incentives too.

So what would absolute rejection of women do to help the achieve equality and justice? Understanding that men have been fighting for decades now with more and more anti male laws and persecutions. . .we need to understand it is not working. Rejection would certainly stop birthing rates (instant gov concern). It will certainly stop the DV industry in its tracks. It will certainly end the Divorce industry (will take a few years). It will certainly end the child support industry (a few years also). It will put funds back in the pockets of men. It will FORCE governments accept men as citizens who demand fairness. It will certainly hurt good women (sad) but I think they would understand and join in the "fix" (not only for themselves but their sons, dads, brothers etc). The list of postive effects for men would be phenomenal! There would be an overnight response and change worldwide!

If all good and caring men do this then the only ones left for women would be exposed and rejected (or jailed). Good men do, have, and will fight and die for their women and children, however. . .no children. . .no women to fight for equals no military!

Could this sort of action cause great economic harm to a country. . .yes. . .could it jeopardize safty. . .yes could it cause governments to fall. . .you betcha. How long would it take for all women and all governments to respond? About as long as it takes to spread the message! Spread the message, else spend however many more decades it will take being persecuted, watching your sons your brothers, neighbors, fathers and male friends fall.

If all good men (and women) will just say no to all sex (including prostitution), relationships, marriage, children and within a couple months (not years or decades). . .healing will begin. . .for real!!!

Personally I would really like to meet/date a woman, grow old with her as a partner with mutual love, caring, trust, respect, for one another but as things are (laws, incentives, attitudes of women) it just isn't realistic anymore. I don't want my son to live what soooo many men have already, and I don't want my daughters to pay the price either (none of them had anything to do with this). Unfortunatly they will unless something is drastically and quickly done. I'd prefer a swift end to these growing problems rather then more and more decades of hell before we, as a society, realize what needs to be done.

Good men and good women need to stand up to the plate and say NO. . .NO. . .NO. . .period

Latin countries are the better ones.....try Italy or Brasil...and the women are racier and very very very attractive in so many ways.......

Fast forward, to the year 2020...

Reliable Male Birth Control is available in pill form. CONSEQUENCE - Men have children exactly when they, and their spouses, want to (better yet, never with women they might have to share custody with).

Men, in large numbers, adopt children on their own, as single fathers. Men will find willing women for surrogate parenthood, or simply adopt the old fashioned way from 3rd world countries. CONSEQUENCE - Men will not "share" parenthood with women or anyone else. Their girlfriends may participate, but will always be relegated to "step-parent" role. Men will, by definition, retain custody.

Men of lesser and lesser incomes start demanding pre-nuptual agreements as a condition of marriage. CONSEQUENCE - Men will formulate their own "family law" that trups what the female-supremacists dream up.

The solution to the current problem is to do everything possible to assure the above 3 events can occur in our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our sons. We have to take matters into our own hands as men.

What we need is the right to make the police prosecute accusors when men are found not guilty -obviously that means she was lying, but I don't know about 2020 more like 2520! Dan

An alternate scenario:

Fast forward to 2030.

Free reproductive technology, sperm banks and abortion on demand have led to a huge imbalance in births. Virtually no males are being born. Same sex marriage is now the most prevalent type of union. The remaining males are stripped of their civil rights by Supreme Court decisions in a series of "male violence" cases. Voluntary euthanasia is promoted widely for elderly males.

By 2050 there are only a few males remaining, chosen for their pure genetic bloodlines, and kept in secure, but comfortable conditions.

By 2060 most Western nations have ceased to exist, replaced by a "United Women of the World" body with trans-national economic and taxing powers, trans-national high-tech armed forces, and a World Tribunal that not only tries cases, but writes all social legislation.

By 2070 the world is divided into the Women's World, and Asia, and a final great confrontation is looming.

nice to see so many men supporting. after you've seen a women beaten senseless by her partner / husband for no reason I'll take your theories more seriously.

nice to see so many men and women supporting. after you've see a boy/man beaten to death or repeatedly raped (for real)by multiple inmates for no reason other then a false accusation (or executed). then I'll take your theory more seriously. Two sides to every story however for men/boys the injustises that can be forced upon them are far more and the penalties far greater. Oh, what are the penalties for a false accusation. . .or are there any?

Law of unintended consequences will no doubt run riot as usual.

The one about instant dismissal for policemen is fun, certainly helps the wife get her husband out of the police force quickly......still we have so many.

Will we have MPs automatically fired for being sh@ts like Paul Marsden who tells us that MPs are all adulterous twerps like himself ?

Well, good for the Brits!

We all know that all sex is rape and all men are rapists.
Al women are victims.

What the hell is the world coming to?

Melanie,

This is another case of pendulum swinging too far in order to redress discrimination on grounfs of sexual orientation and religious beliefs.

As you say:

"real prejudice or discrimination is wrong"

When I first started working in the City of London 20 years ago, I had to actively hide my sexual orientation for fear of ruining my career prospects or even losing my job.

I now work in Brussels - there is no problem here: I work with professionals who seem to base their views on how well one does one's job and seem very relaxed about people's sexual orientation and religious views.

I honestly thought that the UK (particularly London) was similar in this respect.

However, rather than leave it for individuals to sort out differences in a more enlightened society in a pragmatic way, this government cannot seem to help itself from trying to push the pendulum away from bigotry towards greater tolerance - even though the push is not so hard and so late that it is likely to be a law of 'unintended consequences' that will back fire and indeed be counter-productive to the interests of those it is intended to protect.

However, daft as these things are, it IS sensible to keep matters in proportion. It's a little like certain crazy aspects of EU consumer law which, for example, give consumers who buy something from a web site in one Member State to make a claim in the event of damaged goods, in their own Member State. This means that a small company running a web based business in say Bristol needs in theory to understand the laws of consumer contracts in ALL other 15 Member States. This is clearly virtually impossible. However, in reality, very few people ever bother to pursue a grievance with a foreign-based company through their own courts in order to claim damages.

In much the same way, life will go on as normal for most people working in businessess throughout the UK. A stupid law has been introduced, most people will never take advantage of it and will be pragmatic in terms of resolving difficulties at work. It will probably produce a few notable exceptions that will be highlighted by the tabloids who will want some sensational headlines.

In other words, it won't make much difference and it is a huge over-reaction for people to assume the mantles of a new class of victim and to talk about leaving the country!

correction: my sentences that reads:
"the push is not so hard and so late that it is likely to be a law of 'unintended consequences' that will back fire and indeed be counter-productive to the interests of those it is intended to protect."

should read:

"the push is NOW so hard and so late that it is likely to be a law of 'unintended consequences' that will back fire and indeed be counter-productive to the interests of those it is intended to protect."

It's a little like certain crazy aspects of EU consumer law which, for example, give consumers who buy something from a web site in one Member State to make a claim in the event of damaged goods, in their own Member State."

Well David read up on the EU Directive which entered UK Law as Distance Selling Regulation 2000.....that is an EU wide regulation which goes straight into UK law unlike a directive.

Surely Brussels is an unwise location in view of the VAT requirements, surely Luxembourg is far wiser .

Didact,

The distinctions between Directive, regulation etc etc are not relevant to the point I was making which was as follows:

- under EU consumer law now in place, in the case of consumer contracts entered into on web sites, the consumer is protected by the consumer law in his own country when buying from web sites in another country;

- this means that in terms of jurisdiction, he/she can take the company to court in his/her own country in the case of an unresolved dispute relating to a purchase and resulting in a claim;

- this means that the onus is on companies which provide products and services via web sites to aquaint themselves in detail with consumer law (which varies greatly from country to country) in all 15 Member States;

- this is particularly onerous for small businesses;

However, it is extremely rare for a consumer to actually take a company to court in such circumstances.

The point I was making was that it is rather like the new law on sexual orientation and religious views in the work place: the new law is frankly absurd, however, it is most unlikely that there will be any more than a very small number of cases.

Probably was not a good parralel for me to make in the first place - but just thought I'd try to explain the analogy and why I'd made it!

Not sure about your point re VAT.....??

regards,

Another excellent, incisive article from Melanie as usual. I am interested in Ann's response. Her comments reek of the usual feminist bigotry - only men commit domestic violence, all men are bastards, all women are victims. Men apparently beat their partners 'for no reason'. This shows a complete failure to engage with the subject. Does she think it is acceptable for people to beat their partners as long as they have a reason?
Her answer consists of a one-sentence dig at the male sex. Classic feminist carping from the sidelines, rather than actually having anything useful to say. She also makes the classic feminist mistake of characterising the domestic violence debate as 'us' versus 'them', as if we are somehow engaged in a war between men and women. She uses the classic feminist tactic of emotional shaming - wagging her finger at 'men' for not 'supporting', as if men's interest in all this consists of nothing beyond an obligation to do what feminists tell them.
Even if domestic violence happened the way feminists say it does, which it doesn't, this would not justify the Domestic Violence Act. One of the problems with feminism is its tendency to react to every situation with screaming moral panic. As if the mere fact that domestic violence happens at all over-rides all other considerations; all other bets are off; we can immediately suspend all legal principles indefinitely; anything that we can think of to do will automatically be justified, and nothing that we do will ever be enough. Domestic violence is a genuine social problem, and feminists have enjoyed monopoly control of the issue ever since they siezed control of Erin Pizzey's first women's shelter in Chiswick in the early seventies. However, after 30 years, the problem doesn't seem to be getting any better. If they were working in the private sector they'd be sacked. Hmm. Maybe hatred, lies and blind moral panic are not the answer after all...

As an emplyment lawyer I must correct Melanie's usual sloppy and tendentious gloss on the new regulations in relation to harassment. They read, 'For the purposes of these Regulations, a person ("A") subjects another person ("B") to harassment where, on grounds of sexual orientation, A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of -

(a) violating B's dignity; or

(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
(2) Conduct shall be regarded as having the effect specified in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) only if, having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the perception of B, it should reasonably be considered as having that effect.'
So while there is a requirement to look at the percipient's subjective perceptions as to whether s/he has been harassed, tribunals will draw on existing case law from older discrimination statutes. It is simply not true that 'If a Muslim employee, let’s say, expresses a mild opinion that women should stay at home rather than go out to work, this will now constitute harassment if his female colleagues decide this remark was an offensive attack upon them. And their employer also faces potential legal action unless he disciplines this Muslim employee. ' I cannot conceive of a tribunal making a finding of harassment based on those circumstances. Melanie is scare-mongering again.

Melanie's article is again right on, and needs as many supporters as possible to post their views here. I have a couple of responses to two of the shortest comments. Graeme is right: don't dissipate your energy moaning, get up and do something. You have a voice, a vote and you can take action. At the very least ensure you spread the word.

Ann: nobody here is supporting men who beat their partners - or anyone else - senseless, with or without reason. But I hope you note the volume of responses from men who are fed up being treated as if they did, and from others who see a miserable future for all if such assumptions are allowed to continue. Surely you don't think we are all clandestine wife-beaters? All I see here is anger and frustration (mixed with some good humour) at the injustices being perpetrated and the dangerous stupidity of our lawmakers. That is the issue that we should all pay attention to.

If we stopped trying to find new ways of punishing the innocent we could clear away these smokescreens and focus more clearly on the real crimes and the real guilty ones - of whatever sex.

This was an excellent article. It is sad that the governments of the United States, Great Britain, and Canada have enacted such criminal laws that violate all basic principles of a civilized society. I have a teenage daughter and I am concerned about her having to grow up in this environment, which can only breed a hatred of women in general. There are many women who disagree with this man-hating philosophy, but they will be painted with the same brush. Something must be done!

So I gather that the lovely Ann (the bigot) would not give a sniff if she had seen a man repeatedly hit by his wife for no good reason. Well you wouldn't be the only one Ann. I just didn't report it -like all the other men, we are expected to take it like men!

'matthew the lawyer' has obviously missed the point, the rules that were being quoted show how oh so nice they are in theory, in practice they will be something else. Didn't you read the article and any of the other comments on how things really are? And 'anne' you need to get out more. I've seen plenty of men with their spines removed by the decalcifying affect of their wives insane screeches and many of these men also get hit for no reason. That's not abuse? You're probably more worried too on how the toilet seat is left.

David your point fails to note a fundamental difference. Only the United Kingdom uses Common Law in addition to Statute Law.

This means that any Act of Parliament or Regulation from Brussels becomes subject to interpretation in the English Court system; hence any ruling made by a judge becomes a precedent.....so it does not need many cases to be brought to court financed by a trades union or quango, to make case law and cause all future defendants to agree to out of court settlements.

Currently, 3 trainee midwives are preparing a case for maternity pay during their training; which will lead to vocational training; ie apprenticeships gaining a fuller range of employment rights as if already a fully-trained worker......these midwives are given a training bursary, from which they want maternity pay.......this is another test case to set precedent

b) only if, having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the perception of B, it should reasonably be considered as having that effect.'

I don't know what "in particular" means in legalese but I know what it means in English.It won't take long for this particular section to become "principle" once our activist judges get hold of it.
Transracial Discrimination anyone?

Ericksoa,

Have you failed to forsee the feminist rhetoric from 2019:

"Talk of a man's right to control his own fertility is pure humbug. What is really being discussed is the restoration of the unjust privilege historically enjoyed by men to control a woman's fertility."?

With a sufficiently deadpan delivery you may find some takers.

hmmm Fertility control

Well Alan Peakall, you seem to have missed something. . . that rhtoric is has been here since 2003, I mean 1993, oooops 1983, sorry I meant 1973 umm can't seem to recall to much prior to that! Ever wonder as to why there has been so much "rhetoric" about that one?

My theory. Since the beginning of time man has sought the love of women. . .women know this. Men live and die for their wives and children. . .women know this. For the most part, men are extremely weak when it comes to saying "no" to a woman. . .women know this. Children since the beginning of time have been used as a "tool" to catch who she desires (for different reasons throughout), it has been a very successful tactic forever. . .women know this. (on, and on, and on) If all else fails. . .get pregnate and now even if it still doesn't work, at least there will be a paycheck for ya for the next 18+ years. . .and women know this. Again I'd like to state, men DO live and DIE for women and children, and I might add sacrifice everything along the way. . . women know this.

Fertility control for men. . .it won't happen!!! I know of all the recent "male birth control" stuff, been hearing it for over 20 years. Women have a vested interest in blocking that one to men, a huge interest. . .its been theirs, exclusively and historically. The government has a huge interest in that one also, fewer births = fewer children = fewer tax dollars. Men having children ONLY when they want them, control there own lives/futures, the effects would be devistating. Look what happened after women were afforded that luxury/privilage (not that birth control was the only factor. . . feminism too). Divorce rates are out of control (last I heard was 60%), birth rates tumbling, incarceration (crime) rates are way out of control, poverty, homelessness, fatherless children, std's booming and the basic institution of marriage/family is nearly extict (the foundation of all societies (sounds like the collapse of Rome and many other great ones)).

Just a thought on why I don't believe that birth control or paternity rights will ever come to pass. . .else why haven't they by now?

I believe the gov and fems are wrong. I think it would give men some sort of security not to mention desire to marry, father/family again . . . men would have a choice rather then chance (other then abstienance). . . men would have a reason to work hard, live and die for women, their children and country.

Fertility choice and or paternity rights. . .wouldn't that be something?

Who's had the real power and control over who since the beginning of humanity???

I find the whole thing so sad.

It's so skitziod isn't it, on the one hand we have homosexuals telling us "we were made this way, it's in the genes" and on the other hand we have others saying "it's not in the genes it's how I feel/my choice".

Lets get real.

What does your DNA say?

As for the DV and stuff, why not complain to the UN world court I'm sure they'll be happy to rule on it.

Oh by the way don't come to New Zealand, Prime Minister Helen Clark and Solicitor General Margaret Wilson are just the same as your lot.
and let's not talk about the rest of the labour caucus Transgendered MP's who call themself Georgina and all.

Maybe they know each other and correspond, now that would be something, a conspiracy wow!
why didn't someone think of that before now?

However if you act totally irresponsibly and completely selfishly......you will be okay.

If you ignore all the rules and behave in a borderline psychotic manner you will suffer few worries.....these measures only affect the normal law-abiding and have little effect on the chronic misfits in society

What on earth do you mean by 'politically correct 'victims''. Are you suggesting that their status as 'victim' is motivated by political correctness? We are talking about women who are subjected to long-term emotional and physical abuse here - what is politically correct about their victimhood?

Your paranoid, overblown fear of this so-called anti-man agenda seems almost pathological. What are you so frightened of? The fact that the whole history of our society has embodied an anti-woman agenda seems not to impact on your stance at all. Are you worried that men will be diminished or mistreated by legislation that is designed to protect the women who have been so woefully abused and neglected by legislation in the past? Why on earth don't you just let them defend themselves - plenty of men are perfectly capable of coming up with the kind of misogynistic, blinkered views that you espouse here - why do you feel its so vital that you lend them your support?

You are so tied up in your theories and in intellectualising certain issues that you appear to have forgotten about the reality of those issues. Remember the women who have been beaten, repeatedly raped, killed by their husbands or partners. They are real people - not politically correct victims. Go and visit a refuge for broken, beaten, scarred women and tell them to stop defining themselves as victims. Get back to some kind of reality, for God's sake!

Time to let it go, Melanie. You clearly have the male adulation that you so clearly need - your acolytes can't get enough of your anti-feminist, thinly veiled self-hatred. You bring shame to all decent-thinking, caring women. Shame on you!

One of the most consistent features of feminist discourse is its preference for emotional manipulation over rational argument. An ‘ad hominem’ attack is an attack against the person rather than the evidence, and it is the feminists’ favourite.

Alison, like Anne, launches personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with her in an attempt to publicly shame them into silence, rather than actually saying anything substantial. She repeatedly accuses Melanie Phillips of treachery. “You bring shame on decent-thinking women”. “Why don’t you just let them defend themselves”, “Why do you lend them your support?” Us. Them. Us. Them. You have to feel quite sorry for these people really.

Another common ‘ad hominem’ tactic is to impute tawdry motivations to your opponent, and Alison isn’t too proud to go there. Melanie Phillips only writes her articles because she seeks the adulation of males, which to a feminist, is like seeking the adulation of cockroaches.

So there you are – we should all be ashamed of ourselves. We have committed ideological thought-crimes against Big Sister.

Just because you have thought of a possible solution to a problem, it doesn’t mean it is a good solution. Opposition to the Domestic Violence Bill is not necessarily based upon ignorance of the fact that domestic violence causes suffering.

“Our society has embodied an anti-woman agenda for the whole of our history”. This is an interesting summary of feminist theory. It is also a grand sweeping claim about history that can never be proved. My own view is that it is a fiction dreamed up for reasons of political convenience some time after 1965. At the very least, it is not obviously true. Feminism conveniently ignores (1) women’s involvement in the creation of social evils, and (2) the consequences suffered by men. Just a couple of quick examples:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWfeather.htm
http://www.mens-network.org/klanwomen.html

I have some news for Alison about domestic violence as well. The scientific evidence shows that women initiate DV more often than men do, and that DV correlates very strongly with alcohol and drug use.

The more feminism I come across, the more convinced I become that it is the Western world’s last surviving bastion of totalitarianism. It also bears a striking resemblance to a cult religion, don’t you think?

Colin
I hadn't read this before, Can you please quantify this for me?
URL's and sources if possible.

"I have some news for Alison about domestic violence as well. The scientific evidence shows that women initiate DV more often than men do, and that DV correlates very strongly with alcohol and drug use."

Thanks
Mike

If Melanie actually read the very boring proposed legislation not just the news reports

Section 5A(2) provides that when the court is considering making a restraining order after acquittal, the defence and the prosecution may bring any evidence before the court that would be admissible in civil proceedings under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Section 3 of the Act sets out the procedure for obtaining a restraining order to prevent harassment in the civil courts.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldbills/006/en/04006x--.htm

If the case does not have enough evidence to be convicted under criminal law the case can be considered (and only considered it is not a forgon conclusion) under civil law under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/1997040.htm

"The driving force behind it is not a concern for victims at all. It is a rabid anti-man agenda"

Why? the legislation covers in Clause 1 21. States:
Parties to the proceeding may be "associated" by virtue of:

* marriage or former marriage;
* cohabitation or former cohabitation;
* living together or having lived together in the same household other than as employees, tenants, lodgers or boarders;
* being related;
* an agreement to marry;
* being parents or having parental responsibility for a child;
* being connected by adoption; or
* being parties to the same family proceedings.

Clause 2 actually stated the inclusion of same sex couples The most important part as far as I'm conserned is the protection of children (clause 4) who have no choice in their situation.

It links it in with the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act, and makes common assult an arrestable offence and extends the 1996 Family Law Act to non-cohabiting couples. It also buts the welfare of children first.

The only real change is the polices ability to now take evidence and prosicute the abuser even with out the co-operation of victim. Victims oten call out police then refuse to press charges, as a nurse who see's and cares for victims and a friend of someone who has an abusive partner it is really frustrating. I dread the day when I have to explain to her kids or her Mum why she is in intensive care or dead.

As I read it the new points involve the police being able to collect evidence and take a case forward with out the cooporation of the victim (Male, female, child, and including those in homosexual relationships). The reason we need that is so many victims for what ever reason do not persure the case. This not only wastes police time (I'm going through this with a friend I dread the day then I'm going to have to ring her Mum in Oz to tell her that her daughter is either dead or in intensive care) also a large proportion of these victims have kids the victims may or maynot have a chioce the kids do not and need the protection they do not get from the law as it stands.

The rest of the bill pulls all the rights from previous sources together.

Ok, Ok, Ok C.S makes a valid point (with an example). . .what to do to protect the extreme minority and they should in fact be be protected. Maybe a simple clause stating something to the effect of: under extreme documented circumstance and proven then and only then will the governing body impose recoarsive action. Simple. Unfortunatly that is not the case. Let me tell ya what happens in real life.

Here in the US, a women merely has to dial 911 (police) ask for a ppo (personal protection order)and claim "I am in fear" and thats it. No proof of any abuse required. There need not be any abuse. . . ever. What happens next? Husband comes home from work. Police arrest him for violating an order which he didn't have a clue of. Post bond gets out but all of a sudden after 15 years of marriage 3 kids career etc., its over. . .all of it. No place to come home to. His place he had before the marriage! Wife has garage sale and sells his personal stuff (handed down from generations) and there is absolutly nothing he can do about it (outside of jail). Now remember there has never been abuse at all, but the law is the law. Now she has the kids, the house and he is handed the bills (and must pay else jail). Then comes the divorce and custody. . .and what chances does he have? Of course then comes child support not to mention supporting your children. Entrapped for bookoo years else jail. Well thats another issue that I would gladly enguage in at another time but we ALL know the outcome of that one. Why would any women take advantage of a good law . . .because they can. . .and do so reguarly. It is in fact too bad that "good thinking women" are constantly trumped by the bad thinking ones. Just seems like there are more bad ones then good ones these days. . .what a shame but it is the truth.

I guess my point is yes there needs to be protection of the vunerable but not a sweeping protection that opens the door for extreme penalties against inocent, hard working, moral men. Men need protection too. If you want to get upset over something like this then maybe you should consider getting upset at the people who take advantage of the many laws designed to protect them instead of men trying to defend themselves. Who will be the (although I hate to admit it) victims with sweeping laws like this??? Again males. Your sons, your fathers, your brothers, your uncles and your male friends. It is a proven and obvious FACT! Over and over and over again! There must be a better way! To victimize hundreds/thousands/millions of men to protect a handful of victims is not only not going to work but will cause so much resentment that it will provoke more. . .

Wars begin for less than that and as men are realizing that there has been an awfull lot of "that", just how much more do ya think men will take??? Think about it. . .heck would you take it??? That much of it??? For that long??? (3 decades so far)

So what are mens choices when they are at the whim of the hands of a womens choice (especially when men have no choice). . .men will simply say "thanks but no thanks. . .goodbye" and that is what is happening from the US to Canada to the UK to New Zealand, Austrailia and every other country touched by feminist one sided entrenchment. . .just check out the marriage, dating, child birth rate, incarceration rate, education etc, etc, etc,. . .look for yourself in any/all of those countries! Seems to be our only "choice" else potential jail.

I feel sorrow and pity for my girls . . . I fear for my son!

Keep your daughters away from my son (else I WILL reguardless of jail)! Understand that???????

Enough is enough

Steve Barr

Mike,
Go to http://www.ukmm.org.uk/ and do a search on ‘Lyndon’.
Start of quotation:
In the mid-1990s, I co-wrote an article…with the statistician and social analyst Paul Ashton. Drawing upon published and reliable research, we showed that only 5% of women claimed to have been attacked by the men they live with. This compared with 11% of men who claimed to have been attacked by the women they live with. Violence seems to be at least as common between gay couples as between men and women and, whether between homosexuals or heterosexuals, violence in the home usually follows the consumption of drink and drugs. In some measure, domestic violence, like much other violence, can most usefully be seen as a correlate of excess drinking and drug-taking.
BBC Here and Now MORI Poll
All serious studies into domestic violence show a roughly equal balance between the genders. Some studies have shown that there is a higher rate of domestic violence amongst lesbian than heterosexual couples. A poll undertaken by MORI and commissioned by Here and Now had these main findings:
• One in five (18 percent) of men have been victims of domestic violence by a wife or female partner as opposed to 13 percent of women by a man.
• One in nine women admit to having used physical aggression against a husband or male partner (compared to one in ten men)
• 14 percent of men say that they have been slapped by a partner (compared to 9 percent of women)
• 11 percent of men have had a partner threaten to throw something heavy at them (compared to 8 percent of women)
• Only 4 percent of women explained that their behavior (either verbal or physical) was because of drink or drugs (compared to ten percent of men)
• Nearly half (47 percent) of women say that their behaviour (physical or verbal aggression or verbal reasoning) was because "it was the only way I could get through to him"
• Working class men (20 percent) are more likely to have been subjected to physical agression by a wife or female partner than upper or middle class men (15 percent)
• Here and Now's survey reveals that fifteen percent (6.3 million people) of the population say that they have been subjected to physical agression by a husband/wife or hetrosexual partner.
• MORI interviewed a representitive quota sample of 1,978 adults in Great Britain. 1,865 of whom had ever been in a personal relationship with the opposite sex.
• Field work was conducted from 17-21 November 1994 in 150 constituencies. All interviews were conducted face to face in home employing a self completion technique. Data have been weighted to the known profile of the British population.

Erin Pitzey
Following is a quote from Erin Pitzey (received in a personal email) who as the founder of the world's first women refuge should be qualified to comment. She said:
"...it saddens me that we even have to have a women's movement and a men's movement but really there was no choice. I couldn't stop the feminist movement from hi-jacking my work in London at my refuge in Chiswick. They wanted funding and my work, twenty-five years ago - as the first refuge in the world seemed heaven sent for them. No matter that I told them that out of the first hundred women that came into Chiswick sixty-two were as violent as the men they left. I couldn't get any coverage for the truth. 'All men are bastards and rapists' is the only truth that the women's movement were prepared to hear....Now, with the help of this evil movement father's role in family life seems to be irrelevant....."
These seem to be very wise words but Erin received death threats from women just for standing up and speaking out against anti-male hatred propaganda.
Social Work 1987
This work from The truth about Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue by R.L. McNeely and G. Robinson-Simpson, Social Work 32(6)485-490 1987
"Yet, while studies consistently show that men are victims of domestic violence as often as are women, both the lay public and many professionals regard a finding of no sex difference in rates of physical aggression among intimates as 'suprising, if not unreliable, the sterotype being that men are agressive and women are exclusively victims.'"
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
This work from Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: a longtitudinal analysis by K. O'Leary, J. Barling, Arias, Ilena, A. Rosenbaum, J. Malone and A. Tyree, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 57(2):263-268, 1989.
This report notes that 31% of men and 44% of women in a study reported that they aggressed against their partner in the year before marriage. Eighteen months after marriage, 27% of the men and 36% of the women reported being violent towards their partner.

End of quotation

Also see http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm for an annotated bibliography of 300 or so studies. This is an excellent resource.

Erin Pizzey’s books available at :
http://www.civil-society.org.uk/acatalog/Equality.html
http://www.bennett.com/ptv/index.shtml

There is overwhelming evidence to support the following:
1 Women initiate DV at least as often as men, if not more often.
2 DV is just as common among homosexuals as heterosexuals.
3 DV correlates very strongly with drug and alcohol consumption.

However it is not politically correct to mention any of that. In fact we should all be ashamed of ourselves for even thinking it.

Yet feminists continue to shriekingly insist that we all accept this simple-minded Victorian melodrama about a swooning heroine being chained to the railway tracks by an evil black-cloaked villain. Why do they do that? Firstly, I believe that it is a common tendency of cult ideologies to over-simplify complex issues. Secondly, and more importantly, they do it because it is the best way of attracting the two things that the feminist movement seeks – moral authority and money.

Very well said guys, and thanks to Alison Martin for her wisdom that as a man I'm not as important as a woman. (sexist bigot)Yes DV is a terrible thing, but it is no man thing! I am proud to be a man. I am as good as a woman and do not deserve to be a victim of DV anymore than she does no matter what she says (sexist bigot). I however would not mind the law saying that police can prosecute without complainant's conscent as I have also been on the other side, where my ex wife made up allegations to get rid of me while she had an affair and kept me away from my child. She made up an excuse to drop the charges about the children(a pattern emerging?) and ( the government paid all my solicitors fees because of the weightlessness of the accusation) but I wanted to prove I was telling the truth and show her for the sham she was. The problem being if the police remain as anti men as the feminists I would have been convicted. In a perfect world however, this would end up in a safer world for real allegations to win over. And all the men's movement want this, we don't want the shameful excuse for men that this is pretending to try to get rid of! But we don't want the innocent going down with them! And this is the way to ensure that happens, so shut up Alison Martin and the like, you are already getting your own sexist biggotted way so leave good people like Melanie alone and look long and hard in the mirror and find out why you are not a decent balanced human being!

Thanks guys for the sites, i've got some reading to do.
Have another great day in paradise
Mike

Following Steve Barr's comment:
"So what are mens choices when they are at the whim of the hands of a womens choice (especially when men have no choice). . .men will simply say "thanks but no thanks. . .goodbye"

If you read the book 'Heterophobia' by Daphne Patai, she claims that one of the aims of the feminist movement is actually to deliberately undermine heterosexual relations by creating a climate of fear and suspicion. She may have a point.

Holy sheepshank!!!

Just re-read Alison Martins post. She is in fact a true victim of feminist (man hate) indoctrination. Must be mens fault. . .all mens fault. "A decent thinking woman" indeed!

Nobody here including Melanie is denying that it happens or that they are REAL VICIMS. Everybody here just factually (massive, obvious proof) knows what will truly happen. . .the "law of unintended consequence". Makes me wonder with the abound of it. . .is it unintended?. Seems like it all could easily be avoided rather then sweeping laws.

Maybe she should look at the number of charges vs conviction and sha-zamm the otrocities revield! I now am hearing that fems want more convictions. . .not based on evidence. . .on the word of these hateful, selfish, irresponsable, self pity filled, gold digging victim status seekers who undermine REAL victims. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf (rape, abuse, fear and all the definations of them)? Eventually nobody believed him anymore. Then the wolf ate him.

Alison, not only do YOU undermine and SHAME ALL THE DECENT THINKING WOMEN, you do the same to REAL VICTIMS (of both genders)!

Personally I am glad that not only are men understanding and begining (in mass) to fight the ilk of feminism. I am also suprised and relieved to see the large number of decent thinking women fighting too!

Feminism is doomed by its own greed, long overdue but. . .thank God. Seems like the "sleeping giant is finally wakening". Lets just make sure that we are responsable enough to insure the pendulum doesn't swing back too far (unlike the feminist agenda). It needs to be fair for all else it will be perpetual (as real history shows us).

Our sons and daughters may one day re-unite in harmony, love and admiration for each other. Wouldn't that be weird? Certainly has not been like that in my lifetime. . .lets try to insure that for our children. AY

What a fascinating group of freaks on this website, including the terrifying fascist Melanie Phillips! Great entertainment value, guys - haven't laughed so much in ages as I have at the idiotic, paranoid, blinkered views expressed here. You should all be sectioned (apart from the one brave woman who dared to disagree - she deserves a medal - well done Alison Martin!) Merry Christmas, you freaks!

All- Right:

We've got us another feminist/troll (gotta love em) who has absolutly nothing to say that refutes anything. The truth hurts does'nt it? The truth is finally winning and they (fembots) don't like it . . . tough. Get over it!
Fewer and fewer people are fooled these days. We WILL NOT STAND DOWN! Name calling (shame and blame tactic (common)) holds NO MERIT! This tactic is way old and is simply becoming a joke. . .to me it is a joke (knowing it is a tactic). Seems like more and more countries are realizing the realities and consequences of affermitive action and feminism (victimology in a word)not to mention PC. It hasn't worked and there is more hatred/anger and mistrust now then there was say 10 or 20 years ago.

Seems like (according to my son) our high school boys have "where they truely stand" at the forefront of conversations these days. Young males are certainly more cautious and educated on "where they truely stand". Middle aged men ever increasingly understand "where they truely stand" and older men for the most part still tend to believe that it just couldn't be, spouting scorn in there ignorance. Often these men's careers depend on there political corrective views (whether they believe them or not).

We need to become FC (factually correct) else more of the same. Or we could stand back and watch the downfall of societies. . .may not be a bad idea however. . .could rebuild possibly quicker! To be politically correct is to be factually incorrect. . .it is a politically motivated lie.

Hey Thomas. . .how about a non-refutable fact? What don't have one? Not even one?

Lay it on me. . .I'll give you so much provable facts that you you'll walk away tail-tucked and shamed. . .thats a promise.

There is nothing wrong with a a victim culture. I am fed up with this facist drivel about a "victim culture". As if all victims are just to supposed to shut up and let abuse continue as if we can just wipe our brains of any abuse.
If Melanie Philips got attacked on the street would she go to the police or would she not do anyhting. Would she feel anger and bitterness at being attacked, or would she supress all her emotions, anger at being attacked.
The same "myth of the victim culture" argument is put forward about Israel and Paelstine. Both sides are attacked for having a "victim culture". There is never a view that it might be an abusers culture that is the problem.

You can either have an abusers culture or a victim culture.

In the abusers culture:
Victims are supressed.
Abusers can complain all they like.
Bullies are seen as deep, powerful and real people. Victims of bullying are seen as emotioless pathetic scum. Victims of wife beating are locked up for being "hysterical". Men who bully are seen as real men. All victims views are seen as rants.

In a a victim culture.
PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ABUSE.
People who abuse are told it is wrong to abuse.
Wife beaters are locked up.

Why on earth can't people like Melanie Philips realise it is not anti man or man hating to hate wife beaters.
It is NOT ANTI MAN to hate rapists. It is not anti man to hate men who abuse people.
Does it make me anti woman if i hate a women who beates me up. Does it make me anti all women women if i decide to hate someone who smashes my head in.

For those who say wife beating, or rape , bullying are trivial. Why is all of a sudden you decide being locked up is not trivial. Is it just stuff that happens to your victims that you regard as trivial and stuff that happens to you is important.

All decent men HATE wife beaters, and rapists. Why can't rapists and wife beaters they get it into sick evil minds they are not all men.
Is it antio man to hate Sadamn Hussian. Is it Anti man to hate Ina Huntley. Is it anti Englsih to hate Ian Huntley.
I don't know where on earth you lot get this idea from that men support rapists and wife beaters. There are some very evil men who do these abuses. There are some good men and good women who are against these abuses. While there are also some very evil women who support the abuses. The people who support the abuses are the sickest most evil people on the face of the earth.

Is it anti amn to hate Sadamn Hussian.
Is it anti amn to hate Ian Huntely.
Is it anto man to hate Adolf Hitler.
Is it anto man to hate a man who beats you.
There is nothing wrong with a a victim culture. I am fed up with this facist drivel about a "victim culture". As if all victims are just to supposed to shut up and let abuse continue as if we can just wipe our brains of any abuse.
Why on earth can't people like Melanie Philips realise it is not anti man or man hating to hate wife beaters.

You can either have an abusers culture or a victim culture.

In the abusers culture:
Victims are supressed.
Abusers can complain all they like.
Bullies are seen as deep, powerful and real people. Victims of bullying are seen as emotioless pathetic scum. Victims of wife beating are locked up for being "hysterical". Men who bully are seen as real men. All victims views are seen as rants.

In a a victim culture.
PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ABUSE.
People who abuse are told it is wrong to abuse.
Wife beaters are locked up.

Is it anti man to hate Sadamn Hussian.
Is it anti man to hate Ian Huntely.
Is it anti man to hate Adolf Hitler.
Is it anti man to hate a man who beats you.
It it anti man to hate rapists and wife beaters.
Why can't wife beaters, bullies and rpaists please please recongnise they are niot all men. They are not even a large minority. So why do they give this "man hater line"
There is nothing wrong with a a victim culture. I am fed up with this facist drivel about a "victim culture". As if all victims are just to supposed to shut up and let abuse continue as if we can just wipe our brains of any abuse.
Why on earth can't people like Melanie Philips realise it is not anti man or man hating to hate wife beaters.

You can either have an abusers culture or a victim culture.

In the abusers culture:
Victims are supressed.
Abusers can complain all they like.
Bullies are seen as deep, powerful and real people. Victims of bullying are seen as emotioless pathetic scum. Victims of wife beating are locked up for being "hysterical". Men who bully are seen as real men. All victims views are seen as rants.

In a a victim culture.
PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ABUSE.
People who abuse are told it is wrong to abuse.
Wife beaters are locked up.

The columnist feels it is ok to complain about Ian Huntley, but wrong to complain about other forms of abuse. Why is this?
Isn't she part of the victim culture in complaning about Ian Huntley.

Is it anti man to hate Sadamn Hussian.
Is it anti man to hate Ian Huntely.
Is it anti man to hate Adolf Hitler.
Is it anti man to hate a man who beats you.
It it anti man to hate rapists and wife beaters.
Why can't wife beaters, bullies and rpaists please please recongnise they are niot all men. They are not even a large minority. So why do they give this "man hater line"
There is nothing wrong with a a victim culture. I am fed up with this facist drivel about a "victim culture". As if all victims are just to supposed to shut up and let abuse continue as if we can just wipe our brains of any abuse.
Why on earth can't people like Melanie Philips realise it is not anti man or man hating to hate wife beaters.

You can either have an abusers culture or a victim culture.

In the abusers culture:
Victims are supressed.
Abusers can complain all they like.
Bullies are seen as deep, powerful and real people. Victims of bullying are seen as emotioless pathetic scum. Victims of wife beating are locked up for being "hysterical". Men who bully are seen as real men. All victims views are seen as rants.

In a a victim culture:
PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ABUSE.
People who abuse are told it is wrong to abuse.
Wife beaters are locked up.

IS IT ANTI MAN TO HATE IAN HUNTLEY?
IS IT ANTI MAN TO HATE A WIFE BEATER AND A RAPIST OR A BULLY?
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

I have a question for supporters of wife beating and bullying
Doy ou regard it as ranting nonsense to hate wife beaters, but considerd and reasoned to smash a women's brains in. If so you should get locked up for life psycho thug. Evil scum.

The columnist feels it is ok to complain about Ian Huntley, but wrong to complain about other forms of abuse. Why is this?
Isn't she part of the victim culture in complaning about Ian Huntley.

Is it anti man to hate Sadamn Hussian.
Is it anti man to hate Ian Huntely.
Is it anti man to hate Adolf Hitler.
Is it anti man to hate a man who beats you.
It it anti man to hate rapists and wife beaters.
Why can't wife beaters, bullies and rpaists please please recongnise they are niot all men. They are not even a large minority. So why do they give this "man hater line"
There is nothing wrong with a a victim culture. I am fed up with this facist drivel about a "victim culture". As if all victims are just to supposed to shut up and let abuse continue as if we can just wipe our brains of any abuse.
Why on earth can't people like Melanie Philips realise it is not anti man or man hating to hate wife beaters.

You can either have an abusers culture or a victim culture.

In the abusers culture:
Victims are supressed.
Abusers can complain all they like.
Bullies are seen as deep, powerful and real people. Victims of bullying are seen as emotioless pathetic scum. Victims of wife beating are locked up for being "hysterical". Men who bully are seen as real men. All victims views are seen as rants.

In a a victim culture:
PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ABUSE.
People who abuse are told it is wrong to abuse.
Wife beaters are locked up.

IS IT ANTI MAN TO HATE IAN HUNTLEY?
IS IT ANTI MAN TO HATE A WIFE BEATER AND A RAPIST OR A BULLY?
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Here is an interesting article you may like to read:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/baskerville/03/baskerville122303.htm

Please Please Please get it into your heads it is not anti man to hate wife beater4s or men who bully. Why the hell have some psycho thugs decdied they represent all men. Who on earth wants men to beat up women. Who Who?

I don't think hate is a particularly positive or helpful response to social problems in general.

No-one wants men to beat up women.

The point that Melanie Phillips, myself and others are trying to make is that the issue of domestic violence is a lot more complex than we have been led to believe.

I'll repeat what I said above. The scientific evidence shows that women initiate spousal abuse as often, or more often, than men do.

As for bullying, it has been found that it is more difficult to tackle bullying by females, as they tend to use psychological methods. See this article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1247843.stm
Females who bully are often good at leaving themselves in the clear, as they leave less evidence behind, and they often get others to do their dirty work for them - and people like yourself simply refuse to believe that girls do things like that, which helps.

I for one do not claim to represent all men, but I could ask you the same question - why have some psycho thugs decided that they represent all women?

We need to get away from this simple-minded - and sexist -"man bad / woman good" model. Life is a lot more complex than that.

Lots of outstanding people here. Oh and Colin, I have not read the book but have heard much about it. Great posts Colin. Good to hear there are some honest people out there who can put on other peoples shoes and understand reality. Thanks to all the posters here for the knowledge, opinions, and expieriences that I/we have gained. Knowledge is power!!!
Fight the good fight and maybe read ya's at the next. . .happy holiday

To leave DV to one side, I would like to take up another of Melanie Phillips' points:

"The Gender Recognition Bill, announced the day after the Queen’s Speech, will allow transsexuals to register for a new birth certificate in their adopted sex, and to marry in that sex. Now of course, people who feel the need to take the drastic step of changing their sex deserve every sympathy and consideration. But apart from the fact that surgery is not always a solution to their problems, the proposal would establish personal identity on the basis of a lie. For their new birth certificate would say falsely that they were born into the sex which they now profess. But this would not be true. And if they marry, there are grounds for saying that they would be marrying someone of their same ‘real’ sex. For despite their ‘gender reassignment’, it does not follow that just because they feel themselves to be, and desperately want to be considered as, a member of their chosen sex, that they are indeed so"

I'm not especially concerned about people getting married, but I find the birth certificate issue a cause for concern. I was aware that transsexuals had been campaigning for the right to change their birth certificates for some time. I have to say I'm against them doing so. That's not because they are transsexuals, but because I am against anyone doing so, and largely for the reasons that Melanie Phillips identifies. Due to the fact that a birth certificate is sometimes used as a form of identification in adult life, people make the mistake of thinking that it exists for that purpose, somewhat like a passport, or the kind of ID card currently being proposed and in use elsewhere. However, this is not the case. A birth certificate is a historical record of the fact that a birth took place. To change a birth certificate is to falsify history. You are manufacturing documentary evidence saying that "A female baby was born on such-and-such date", when in fact, no such birth took place.

I have no quarrel with the idea of a transsexual altering other documents such as their driving license and passport, as these are designed to reflect current identity; they are not historical records of events in the way that a birth certificate is.

My objections are two-fold: Firstly, that the negative consequences are potentially very great. Secondly, that the positive benefits are so small as to be negligible. To take each of these in turn.

Firstly, I believe that allowing transsexuals to falsify historical records would set a dangerous precedent. If we are allowed to retroactively modify public records over this issue, then we can do it over some other issue, and some other issue. We would be in danger of ending up with a Soviet style situation in which one of the the civil service's specific tasks is to alter and falsify public records. As Orwell and history showed, routine falsification of records is one of the major ingredients in a very good recipe for tyranny. Consider also that this very practice was employed by the Serbs in the 1990s as part of a general ethnic cleansing program. They systematically destroy property deeds, student records and identity cards. It is more difficult to complain that someone seized your property if you cannot prove in court that it was yours. It is more difficult to prove that you are a qualified lawyer if your university records have been burned, or that you are a citizen of Bosnia if you have no form of identification. Israel has used similar tactics against the Palestinian population. In short, the potential costs of going down this road are vast.

Secondly, the purpose of granting transsexuals the right to change their birth certificates is presumably to spare their embarrassment if someone should notice that the sex stated on the document does not appear to match that of the person standing before them. We must ask ourselves, how often is this likely to happen? And exactly how much distress is going to be caused? When is the last time that you were asked to produce your birth certificate? I think I enclosed mine with my passport application, but apart from that, I don't believe I have ever had to produce it. The number of people affected by this legislation will be tiny, and the benefit that it will bring to them is questionable.

A simpler solution would be to issue another official document to someone who has undergone a sex change, which they can then present to the passport office along with their original birth certificate. I believe that everyone's confidentiality should be respected by the officials handling the case, and transsexuals would be no exception. Once a passport or driving license has been obtained, it can be used as the standard method of identification in other aspects of daily life. Problem solved.

This legislation is another good example of the dangers of redistribution by panic. Melanie Phillips is right to draw parallels between this issue and the Domestic Violence Bill, as they are culturally very similar. A self-defined minority group is characterised as being disadvantaged, and so everyone is morally obliged to collapse into screaming panic, to give the group anything and everything it asks for, and anyone who even stops to ask questions is denounced as a fascist. This is the current methodology of the feminist-dominated Left, and it is a recipe for disaster. Fundamental principles of justice, evolved over centuries, are summarily thrown out the window in a screaming panic, and dangerous, ill-designed, draconian legislation is shoe-horned into its place, and all in the name of helping the needy. And after all, who in their right mind could possibly oppose helping the needy? The tyranny which could result would indeed be 'The Tyranny of Victim Culture'.

The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.