General discussions in here!
By ruthie
It's a cry we often see added to discussion about the deaths of children and other problems with the Family Law Act 2006. Men add it, and sometimes women agree and attempt to attend to the fact that women do it too. Is this a valid addition to discussion about the problems that face women and children facing the Family Law Act 2006? I think, as far as logical discussion goes, it is not.

I am of the opinion that the immediate cries of "women do violence too!" or "Men suffer too!" which accompany any effort to discuss issues relating to violence or indeed any aspect of life in which women in particular suffer, mischievously evades issues that underlie the problem. The use of various kinds of what seem to be reductio ad absurdum arguments (for example saying “women do it too!), pushes participants to begin discussing the women who do it too, attempting to prove their inclusiveness of men, leaving untouched the issue of women's suffering that is a result of entrenched, systemic dysfunction.

In this case the assumptions surround the problems faced by women in the face of the Family Law Act 2006, and the deaths of children that have arisen as a result of the created family law system. The fact that sometimes men are abused, or that sometimes women hurt children, does not excuse the dismissal of the fact that the family law system is failing women and children, where they face abuse. It does not prove that the system ought not to change. As far as I know, reductio ad absurdum proves nothing ... it may be added simply as a distraction, it may be something some people consider important, however it still seems to prove nothing (other than that an occasional woman does it too and some men are abused.)
By Poppit
Yes couldn't have said it better myself Ruthie!!

I was reading through the submissions chosen for tomorrows public hearing and was again reminded of the narrow sightedness of those groups who choose to continually minimise child abuse by instead making it a gender debate. It is alarming that those same people with such influence in a very specific sector of separated parents can remain so stagnant in their preconceived notions that any efforts by reasonably minded people to try to protect children is a 'feminist' and anti father propaganda.

How hard is it really to understand that the proposed amendments are about CHILD protection and have nothing at all to do with gender? I can only view lists such as those in the LFAA submission (Attachments 1 and 2) as even more reason to strengthen the laws to protect children from abusive parents...of EITHER gender!!

If both fathers and mothers agree that child abuse happens and both agree it is unacceptable...then what is the issue with the amendments??? Or is increased child protection only an issue for perpetrators of abuse???
By RagnVald
“Women’s violence to male partners certainly does exist, but it tends to be very different from that of men towards their female partners; it is far less injurious and less likely to be motivated by attempts to dominate and terrorise the partner" The Law Commission has referred to one study which was significant in its account of what women did not do (but which constituted tactics frequently employed by violent men) - “No husband was threatened with a gun, or chased with knives, axes, broken bottles or by a car. Husbands were not kicked or stamped on, with steel-capped boots or heavy work boots. Strangling or choking were not used. No wife attempted suffocation with a pillow. Husbands were not locked out, confined to particular areas of the house, or isolated from friends. No wife has ever killed her husband insuide Family Court premises or immediately following a Family Court ordered counselling session. Security is not rooutinely required to ensure wives do not behave violently inside Family Court premises”. Butterworth’s Family Law Journal Dec.2004.
By ruthie
The crime stats referred to in the article I read, seem to suggest that women are less likely to use things like guns and knives. However I do know one man who was threatened by an angry wife, with a knife. He wasn't hurt and I guess that's the point as far as the figures go.