Julian Assange and Albanese’s Intervention

The unflinching US effort to extradite and prosecute Julian Assange for 18…

Virtual tourists can now teleport back 600 million…

University of South Australia Media Release Fancy donning a VR headset and taking…

The Right is toxic: what next for conservatives?

The international right is cynical and dangerous. It is crucial we look…

To be truthful, "sorry" is a word so…

When you think there isn't much to write about in politics, the…

Mangroves: environmental guardians of our coastline

University of South Australia Media Release They are the salt-tolerant shrubs that thrive…

Tuvalu, Climate Change and the Metaverse

When lost to climatic disaster and environmental turbulence, where does a whole…

Nats Vote No OR When You're Standing At…

It's sort of interesting that just a few days ago we had…

Was Amtrak Joe derailed?

By 2353NM Prior to becoming President, Joe Biden was a US Senator for…

«
»
Facebook

Pauline just attacked women and I don’t like it!

In her latest sick attempt to grab votes so she can secure a seat in the Senate and claim her holy grail – a bigger pay cheque for herself; Pauline Hanson has stooped to yet another low – attacking female victims of domestic violence.

If you can stomach it – her outlandish claims that women make frivolous claims about domestic violence and women, wasting police resources and tying up the court system can be seen here

To those who think that Pauline Hanson “speaks for me” she “speaks her mind” and “she says things people are not game to say.” No. Just no.

She isn’t trendy or cool or ‘speaks her mind’, she doesn’t represent the ‘views of the people’. She is a puerile, inane, mendaciously lying, antagonistic, self-aggrandizer who flies on the coat-tails of creating hatred and division where-ever she can sniff it out.

In short – she wants to drive you to hate others, just so she gets a bigger pay cheque and give herself an ego boost.

Her entire history is about creating division and hatred for personal gain, not to make this country a better place. She never talks about inclusiveness or harmony, just divisive rhetoric about us and them – the ‘normals’ and the ‘abnormals.’

Ms. Hanson has ridden on the back of negativity and fear mongering of Asians and Indigenous Australians to create groups who can be bracketed as, not fitting in, not like the rest of us, different – ‘abnormal’.

Ms. Hanson’s 1996 Maiden speech to Parliament warned Australians of the damage that Aboriginal people and Asians do to our society. Now the fear and hatred in the 2016 campaign has turned to Muslims and she is milking that cow until it is dry. She is the Jimmy Swaggart of the Nationalist set.

If you are still thinking of voting for her then why is her platform in 2016 not about stigmatising and creating division between white Australians and Indigenous People or Asians? It was so important last time she put her hand up that ‘Australia is being swamped by Asians, or Aborigines get too many privileges.” Why not now?

Answer: Because Pauline Hanson knows there are no votes in it. She knows people will be outraged in these days of reconciliation and people know that Asians have not swamped Australia.

However, there are still many people who are fearful of Muslims, do not understand their culture, are not ready to accept them as Australians and underneath that is fear and that fear equals votes where she can get them.

Indeed, there are always pockets of men who feed off ensuring women are kept weak, meek and not heard. There are always pockets of men who think they deserve a bigger space than women in the world; even if an epidemic is so severe that women are the focus first; these types of men simply must insist that the experiences of men must be the primary focus, regardless of the implications for women or the burdens or consequences women suffer.

Pauline has pricked her ears up and she is listening to these men. Even where the system does recognise men are victims and there are men specific programs (many created BY women), and the language is changing to intimate partner violence to be more inclusive.She simply does not like it.

Pauline won’t speak to any of this because she wants people to believe this is a gender issue. She wants people to believe that men are the most hard done by and women are ‘winning’ tax payer funded supports over more deserving men like it is some sick contest.

If the welfare bludger who gets it all versus the hard working tax payer who gets nothing could be an uglier colour – this is what it looks like.

So apparently there must votes in appealing to this group. To get these votes, today’s latest target (bullies have targets) are victims of domestic violence.

Hanson’s allegations that women victims of domestic violence make frivolous claims, is the same divisive, attack dog, them and us mentality of those who seek to stigmatise those on welfare as dole bludgers, cheats, lazy and frauds. Or those who seek to label people of different ethnicities as ‘bludgers and job stealers, murderers and rapists.’

The main aim of Hanson’s breed of politician is to stigmatise a particular group. Today that group comprises of women who are emotionally tortured to the point of self-worthlessness, beaten, threatened, stalked and killed.

Stigma aims to socially discredit a group of people. Stigma seeks to bracket people so they are not ‘normal’ and when people are seen as ‘not normal’ people who think they are ‘normal’ are afraid of the ‘abnormals’.

When people are afraid, opportunistic, egocentric politicians put themselves forth as ‘the protector’ of the ‘normals from the ‘abnormals.’ No one needs protecting from women victims of domestic violence.

No Pauline, you do not need to protect anyone from women victims of domestic violence.

No Pauline, you do not need to plead a case for less tax-payers money going on women’s services.

No Pauline, women victims of domestic violence will not be threatened by your ignorant rhetoric and be bracketed as ‘abnormal.’

No Pauline, just because men experience domestic violence, it does not invalidate the experiences of women and make their claims frivolous.

No Pauline, women victims of domestic violence will not be shamed into thinking they are ‘wasting the big strong policeman’s time and not speak up.’

No Pauline, women victims of domestic violence will not sink to the depths of silence when so many people around them are trying to lift them up to speak up.

Instead of giving examples of why or when men are not believed, or what services we need for men; Hanson’s ignorant allegation is that women are frivolous in their claims.

This is to give the impression that women are creating a false epidemic with their mendacious lies and this gives no real space for male victims. (Just read the comments following the original article linked above.)

We do not need to shame or silence women, or make them think that they are a burden on the system, so women shrink even more and create a bigger space for men who are victims of domestic violence.

If Pauline Hanson is unable to argue a bigger space for men in domestic violence services, without putting women down, then why does she deserve anyone’s vote?

If you are still thinking of voting for Pauline Hanson up to this point, ask yourself, “How does it benefit our country to start a narrative which is only meant to stigmatise and shame women who are victims of domestic violence and make it harder for them to speak up?”

To appeal to enough people to win votes with this latest outlandish claim; Pauline Hanson will want this message of ‘women victims of domestic violence making frivolous claims’ to get louder and louder and the following to grow bigger and bigger. Just like she did back in the 90’s with Indigenous people and Asians.

Imagine the same aggressive, hateful, divisive rhetoric raising its ugly head as Hanson has done to Asians, Indigenous people, those on welfare and now Muslims; towards victims of domestic violence. Imagine that kind of Australia.

The more aggressive, the more hateful, the more divisive the rhetoric, the more doubts that are created in people’s minds, the more women remain silent because of this narrative and the more perpetrators believe women will not speak up, then the more women will die. Is this what you really want to vote for?

When Pauline Hanson attacks diversity, she doesn’t recognise how other cultures enrich us and teach us and how we can learn respect for customs and traditions. Multiculturalism helps us to stop being insular and selfish and gives us the gift of inclusiveness. Now she wants to widen the gap between women and men. She wants to give the impression that women are getting more in this space than men are. She wants us to position men and women victims to compete. She wants us to think about how unfair that is and how she can help correct that ‘unfairness.’

It would be a safe bet that if people started to be doubtful of cute kitten owners or didn’t understand them, Ms. Hanson would jump on that bandwagon as well to serve her own ego. I don’t believe any nationality, sexuality, gender or religion or anyone who is slightly different than in Pauline Hanson’s world of what is ‘normal’ is safe from being a target, if she thought it meant more votes.

The growth of this type of Nationalist, divisive and hateful politician, can be summed up in the words of Aboriginal Elder and former Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Senator Patrick Dodson:

“In a climate of uncertainty and fear, without strong and visionary leadership, people panic.”

On July 2, we will decide the Prime Minister and his Government. This Prime Minister and his MPs and Senators must listen to Mr. Dodson’s words and work hard to build a future where Australians live with certainty, hope and inclusiveness of all Australians and put an end to politicians pitting us against each other.

That future Australia will not be built with any contributions from Pauline Hanson.

…and if you are still thinking of voting for Pauline Hanson: Hang your head in shame.

stigma goffman

Originally published on Polyfeministix

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 2,173 total views,  1 views today

374 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Arthur Plottier

    How low this individual can go?
    It is ignorance, greed or some kind of mental condition?
    Please explain…..

  2. mark delmege

    Some women do make false claims and they use their children as tools in the wars of the babies. Some men are even so exasperated and feel so helpless they try or commit suicide. Its true. Some men are also violent in the worst ways possible. All this is true and laws must reflect this reality.

  3. silkworm

    A self-hating woman, a traitor to her own gender.

  4. Matters Not

    people who are fearful of Muslims, do not understand their culture

    Not sure that ‘religion’ and ‘culture ought to be conflated.

  5. Bighead1883

    Wow Trish Corry,this piece is excellent as it uncovers so much and shows just what Hanson is on about
    Where you wrote of her maiden speech>
    “Ms. Hanson’s 1996 Maiden speech to Parliament warned Australians of the damage that Aboriginal people and Asians do to our society”

    I remember it well and was alarmed because I could quickly see Howard and his goons lapping it all up

  6. paul walter

    The conclusion is correct.. Henny Penny with attitude, a sort of Yosemite Sam, mistrustful and hostile toward anyone or anything that moves or is stationary and it is true Hobbesian Conservatism.

    Too much Clint Eastwood, too much chip on shoulder and misinformed fear and loathing, not enough reflexivity, “give” and common sense.

  7. Victoria Pike

    Trish Corry, you are an ignoramus, who tries to assure oneself of one’s value through such posts. Do think again before posting statements such as , “She isn’t trendy or cool or ‘speaks her mind’, she doesn’t represent the ‘views of the people’. She is a puerile, inane, mendaciously lying, antagonistic, self-aggrandizer who flies on the coat-tails of creating hatred and division where-ever she can sniff it out.” Trish Corry, you display all of the characteristics of which you accuse Pauline Hanson. It is the likes of you that averts one from this website. Although I am not aligned with the political thinkings of Pauline Hanson, I am considerably more aligned with her empathies than yours.

    In fact, further postings from you will ensure the loss of many an AIM Network recipient.

  8. Michael Taylor

    I would prefer to see more Trish Corrys in this country than Pauline Hansons.

  9. wam

    wow what an attack on a women who scored 9% of queensland and 11 seats for speaking the mind of at least 25% of my facebook friends.((wouldn’t the diludbran loonies be over the moon with 11 seats) A women who reaches perhaps 25% of libs and finds sympathisers in a good % of the under 100 IQ men and women in the labor party.
    Is she intelligent enough to be as you describe? Doubtful but she has learnt since ’98.
    People who are fearful of muslims do not fear their cultures as they fear their religion. Culture of saudis, syrians, Afghans, bangladesh, indonesia and Rohingyas have little in common but islam.
    When islam believes murder is rewarded in heaven with hymens to be first to break. There is every right for women to be fearful.

  10. kerri

    My daughter scowled at me for suggesting that Brock Turner might get a friendly reception if sent to jail!
    (Brock Turner being the rapist who was given 6 months probation for “20 minutes of action”)
    But seriously, some of these people can only empathise when they suffer the same fate! Hanson is only capable of seeing the world from her own perspective! She considers herself a success and cannot comprehend others who may not have had her opportunities?
    A lack of empathy is unforgiveable in a politician, even if said politician was raised by a single dad!

  11. Arthur Plottier

    I agree with you Michael

  12. Carol Taylor

    Trish, I agree..”She isn’t trendy or cool or ‘speaks her mind’..but rather she is the product of a PR team. As you noted, always the opportunist, Hansen has swapped from Aborigines and Asians and turned her attention to la cause du mode of Muslim people. Clearly the democraphic work done by her backup person or persons has worked out that anti-feminist issues (because objection to violence against women must be anti men) likewise appeals to these types. Basically Hansen doesn’t care, because it’s all about Pauline and ‘look at moi’.

  13. mark delmege

    Kerri – Brock Turner would be placed in protective custody because crims hate kiddy fidlers – party because some crims were abused as children.

  14. Carol Taylor

    Wam, likewise some Christian sects who believe in very similar – that it is their god-given right to ‘discipline’ women..and children.

  15. Wayne Turner

    She’s an ignorant moron.ONLY ever voted in by ignorant morons.Shows how many ignorant morons are out there.Plus,same can be said about Abbott supporters…

  16. Matters Not

    Victoria Pike re your assertion(s):

    I am not aligned with the political thinkings of Pauline Hanson, I am considerably more aligned with her empathies than yours.

    Could you unpack that a little? Which of her ’empathies’ do you align with and which of her ’empathies’ are out of line with her (or your) ‘political thinkings’. Please explain.

  17. silkworm

    Victoria Pike should be called Victoria Puke. It’s posters like her which give this site a bad name.

  18. Matters Not

    silkworm, I don’t think your last comment was helpful. Give Victoria the opportunity to ‘explain’. Please.

  19. paul walter

    Must admit, I was surprised and puzzled at the line Victoria Pike took. I doubt whether Pike will return though..her posting was all over the place like a dog’s breakfast.

    Where did Corry err?

    What Corry alleges, was said. What was Hanson on about and has the fact that some men also are abused by women to do with the far more critical issue of male on female DV and its trail of deaths? My memory of Hanson over twenty years is that she well fits the role of a conservative politician..mouthy, ignorant, sly and vindictive and little or know self or real world knowledge. There is some residual working class merit in some of her views, particularly the view that the system hoodwinks us, but she is so typically Australian in her conditioned, manufactured ignorance, that she fails to discern the true sources of the trouble making.

    Actually, Trish Corry presents a thread starter that pairs well with the Tracy Aylmer posting on Africa, as to ignorance conditioned within a info vaccuum.

  20. mark delmege

    Its a pity most people who have commented on here missed the point and gave knee jerk responses – much like the article writer herself. I have seen both sides – as a kid I used a cricket bat on my step father as he bashed my mother. As an adult I saw how women can also abuse fathers – more emotional than physical abuse, but abuse nevertheless– which is I think the root point that Hanson was making. Anyone involved in human relationships, the Family Court or police matters knows that some women rort the system for their own selfish reasons. Mostly the media only report how (some) men abuse women – but there is another side to this too and Hanson acknowledged both sides of the argument. Pity more here can’t do the same. I guess if you haven’t been there you wont understand. But go back to the (edited) Hanson grab and listen to what she said.

  21. Matters Not

    Paul Walter, there’s (as always) any number of ‘thread starters’ in most posts. The one that most interests me tonight is the one I referred to above.

    fearful of Muslims, do not understand their culture

    Could I suggest that while ‘culture’ and ‘religion’ frequently overlap, it’s a serious mistake to equate those two concepts. Those who follow the ‘Muslim’ religion around the world but who are from different ‘cultures’ behave very differently. Take Waleed Aly and his wife as an example. Both are adherents to Islam. Both are Muslims. And yet both are very much immersed in the Australian culture. They behave as Australians behave?

    Take those who adhere to Catholicism. Didn’t notice too many Australian Catholics heading off to Ireland to become terrorists in the time of the ‘troubles’.

    In short there are ‘cultural influences’ and there are ‘religious influences’, but they are certainly not the same.

  22. @RosemaryJ36

    It is one thing to disagree with another person’s views but to attack the person is something else. I am sure much of Pauline Hanson’s claims of the percentage of police tied up with DV issues, many of which are frivolous, is pretty inaccurate. It is true that men are also the subject of DV and those that are do need help. But there are few headlines about men being killed through DV, so the resources must be directed appropriately.
    What comes through loud and clear is that most of the unpleasant attacks on groups arise from lack of education. I studied – as a part of the curriculum for senior students at my secondary school – comparative religion and have found that knowledge really valuable.
    People are wary of those who are different but learning more about their culture – and getting to know the people themselves! – can completely change the picture.
    Prejudice often comes from home, which adds another burden to the education system to try to undo damage already done by ignorant parents!

  23. Trish Corry

    Mark
    “I guess if you haven’t been there you wont understand”.

    A good rule of thumb when commenting about women who are sharing experiences about domestic violence, responding to women in domestic violence threads or commenting about women who are just writing about domestic violence is not to assume their experiences.

    I’ll also leave these excerpts from my post right here.

    “If Pauline Hanson is unable to argue a bigger space for men in domestic violence services, without putting women down, then why does she deserve anyone’s vote?”

    “How does it benefit our country to start a narrative which is only meant to stigmatise and shame women who are victims of domestic violence and make it harder for them to speak up?”

  24. paul walter

    A couple of odd late posts, but I think RosemaryJ36 got it back on track.

    Take it one step further, it is horrifying that mainstream politics carries out a deliberate policy of dumbing down and of reinforcement of negative traits.. here is the REAL criminality, the criminality of commodification.

  25. mark delmege

    I know you don’t get it Trish – your hatred of Hanson and reliance on an edited grab blinds you to other issues that are also real problems in the community. In case you haven’t noticed I keep using the word ‘some’ for a reason. Some men do bad things and some women do bad things. A criticism of some people is not an attack on all men or all women. But both sexes are capable of doing bad things – and they tend to do them differently. When some women abuse their x partners they are also abusing the rights of their children – it has a profound effect on the childrens lives – and the fathers. Its not an attack on all women or a diminution of criticism of men who do bad things. Violence by (some) men is not condoned and Hanson doesn’t do that – if you listen carefully.
    Violence can take many forms and its not limited to physical.

  26. trishcorry

    Mark –
    “I know you don’t get it Trish – your hatred of Hanson and reliance on an edited grab blinds you to other issues that are also real problems in the community”

    I’m not sure that is how one would start a productive conversation……….but I’ll give it a go.

    I’m not sure if you missed the two excerpts in my last response – but they are essentially inclusions particularly meant for people who think that Hanson is being fair. They are also meant to challenge readers who may respond with that I’m just writing this for some personal vendetta. I am not. I personally do not normally take an interest in Pauline Hanson, but I will address anything she says that I consider to incite a damaging narrative that has potential to cause harm to any group.

    You will see a pattern in my blog posts as a major theme being stigma and its affect on particular groups and how narrative (from politicians) seeks to oppress people for political gain. You can have your personal opinion and that is up to you, but this is not simply about Pauline Hanson, per se, or a personal based attack because I don’t like her politics. I am speaking to a much broader issue here.

    As you did not address the excerpts, I am not sure if you see how these put some of my arguments to your earlier points into context in relation to my blog post.

    There is more to just ‘what words are said’ there are patterns, history, context and political strategy of Hanson and the political strategy of populist and nationalist political set in general to consider. (Otherwise politics would not be a major at university level) Most people identify with these points within my blog post. I’m not sure why you don’t or what your main argument is once I get passed your reasoning that I don’t understand, uneducated or somehow this is personal.

    Could you outline your essential problem please? My article speaking to the issue that it is not ok for a politician to vilify/pass judgement/create doubts about women domestic violence victims for the purpose of achieving something that a politician has identified is a gap for men and the ramifications of this type of narrative on women. (This is taking into account that the two concepts she is talking about (access to children and domestic violence) are two separate concepts and one is not intrinsic to the other.

    I’m interested in your response, because your opinion, that Hanson is being reasonable and your argument against – the main one, that I am being unfair to the politician starting a narrative – a narrative that I see as dangerous – if let develop and grow, is the same narrative that I think will be dangerous for women as a whole and the impetus behind writing this piece.

  27. townsvilleblog

    Trish, I appreciate your piece, men are the main instigators of Domestic Violence, my wife was treated this way by her previous husband, I encouraged her to get away from him, and she finally worked up the courage to do so. Hanson is one of those ultra right wing Liberals that say what all ultra right wing Liberals think, which is why she began her political career as a Liberal Party/LNP candidate. She espouses racial discrimination against people who don’t look like her, red dyed hair and anemic white skin. I’d be willing to bet,(if i were a betting man, which I’m not) that she has never traveled outside Australia, because her views are so jaundiced that she holds on to ignorance like a badge of honor instead of being embarrassed as she as all tories (LNP) do, believe they are a cut above the rest of us. It is likely that she will get a Senate place, but I very much doubt she can do anything to hijack the new progressive Labor government.

  28. mark

    julia was admirable,pauline not.mark

  29. Travelalot

    I don’t know how many of the commenters have lived in the same area as Ms Hanson but I have. Our children attended the same school. She was on my local council prior to going big time. She has not changed one iota since then. She is still a nasty, vindictive, opportunistic, self-interested, piece of work who appeals to the lowest common denominator in our society. She fits right in to the hard right populist side of politics. A vote for Pauline is a vote for more inequality in society and greater stupidity in parliament. Anybody you thinks she is balanced or being fair needs to be more reflective and look deeper into Pauline’s motives. Apologies for the apparent personal attack on Pauline but truth must out.

  30. diannaart

    Trish

    I thought your point:

    ““If Pauline Hanson is unable to argue a bigger space for men in domestic violence services, without putting women down, then why does she deserve anyone’s vote?”

    Is one of the most important.

    Not just for Hanson, but for any who claim to be supporting male victims of domestic violence.

    This crime can be presented without detracting from women’s experience, in fact, it needs to be presented as part of the overall problem of domestic violence. Hanson is not capable of such nuance, as you have demonstrated her brand of politics is about division, dog whistling; grasping for votes from the lowest common denominator.

    In addition, a big thank you to those who have the courage to write your support of Pauline Hanson, you cannot begin to imagine the importance of such knowledge.

  31. Guest

    Another hypocrite who uses women as a convenient political tool and bemoans their ill treatment whilst in the same conversation, shows her obvious support for Muslims/Islam. Condemning violence against women and at the same time being an apologist for a violent, intolerant and hate filled cult that promotes FGM, paedophilia, honour killings, child marriage and total dominance over women shows no real concern for women, just stupidity and total hypocrisy.

  32. Jexpat

    As the old saying goes: grifters gonna grift.

  33. mark delmege

    I think I have said all I need – maybe apart from saying that I am no Hanson fan but she raised an issue which I think is too often ignored.

  34. Zathras

    “Grifters gonna Grift” and “Haters gotta hate”.

    I’ve always found that those with the strongest views about racism are those who have never been its victims.

    Hanson may feel personally under threat (I remember her mother referring to “the yellow peril”) but she has never been a victim.

    Howard’s biggest mistake was not slapping her down (figuratively) in Parliament when he had the chance but he was more interested in winning back those voters to defected to her twisted way of thinking and left behind a cruel and divided society as a legacy.

    A resurgence of Hansonism will do nothing to improve things.

  35. diannaart

    Not ignored, Mark, just not as frequent, as acknowledged repeatedly by those discussing the issue.

    ….The Australian Bureau of Statistics is clear on this: in 2012, 87% of domestic violence victims were women. Where women are the perpetrators, the violence is different: studies have repeatedly shown that it’s not as prolonged, and that men are far less likely to be living in fear. They’re also far less likely to be murdered: men kill women in four out of five intimate partner homicides. In the vast majority of cases where women kill their partners, the death follows a history of being subjected to domestic violence………

    Men do suffer domestic violence, at the hands of both female and male partners. They can become isolated, humiliated and injured, and they too need support. But when men’s rights groups claim that one in three victims of family violence is male, they promote a dangerous fiction. According to sociologist Michael Flood, these statistics derive from a widely criticised measurement tool that only counts individual acts of violence (such as slapping and punching). It doesn’t ask whether that act was part of a pattern of abuse or if it was an act of self-defence, and it neglects to measure other violent acts such as sexual abuse, stalking and intimate homicide……

    “It’s gender roles that allow this violence to thrive,” says Gillespie. “For women, society’s gender expectation is that they will meet the needs of men: women will look how men want them to look, say things men want to hear, and do things – make the right meal, stay home for the evening – to please and nurture men. Men, on the other hand, are trained to be the protector, the provider. So for some men, when they feel like they’re out of control, or they’re unable to protect, or there’s resistance to their needs being met, that somehow means they’re less of a man. All of their focus is on getting back in control, to make them the man they need to be.”….

    https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/march/1425128400/jess-hill/home-truths

    Domestic violence impacts us all and needs to be addressed as a societal problem and not another excuse for division between the sexes.

  36. mark delmege

    Ok for your benefit, at least, diannaart and as any reader of feminist literature (from at least the ’60’s forward) should know – violence takes many forms and physical violence is only one form. A quick scan of what you provided didn’t go into emotional violence by women of men. Simple stuff like denying access or contact is probably the most common. Think about it. Reverse the roles – how would you feel?

  37. diannaart

    Mark

    FYI

    I was both physically AND psychologically abused by my ex-husband – I know EXACTLY how it feels.

  38. Trish Corry

    Mark

    Are you assuming that because I have spoken out against Hanson’s comments, that I refuse to recognise men are victims of violence? If so, I suggest you read the article again. I do take the time to answer your questions, but you have not responded in kind. I’m not sure if any of my previous comments have clarified anything for you. However, with your exchange with Diaanaart it seems they have not.

    Diannaart (or any woman) should not feel that she needs to defend her own experience (if that is how she felt by putting it) have posed a question that alludes that she doesn’t know how it feels. The same that you posed a question to me previously that ‘unless you have been there you wouldn’t understand” I don’t need to explain my lived experience to discuss this topic. We also should not expect all women or all men to have the experience of violence to include them in working towards solutions or to understand the points of view of women who have. That would indeed be counterproductive.

    Your questions come from the viewpoint of a male who is most concerned with Hanson’s comments about men doing it tough, than they are about the claims that women make frivolous claims and the ramifications of that narrative). Which is what this post is about.

    We have seen a little bit within the following comments of what Hanson wants from this. For women to have to validate that they are in genuine need and for men to fight back and say but we are in more need because………. She wants to pit gender against gender in competition for this space. If this debate can happen in a forum about her claims, If people don’t speak up, she will be on all over the TV shows pushing this narrative and creating huge controversy, just like she did with Indigenous People and Asians in the 90s.

    I don’t know your age, but you are concerned about lived experience it seems – did you live through that? Do you remember the damage done? I’m asking this question because you do not seem to be able to draw the line from how Hanson’s campaigning style works – to the damage this can cause to women.

    Just because men experience something, it does not mean that women need to re-validate their own experience to determine if they are on par, worthy or in need of assistance, that they understand, that they can have empathy, or that they have lived it.

    This is becoming a huge problem when men insist we talk about men, when we are in fact only talking about women. The beginning of Hanson’s narrative is that women make frivolous claims about domestic violence, then went on to use this is the basis to move on to argue that men are hard done by.

    That is what needs to be discussed and this is what has the potential to cause women harm:

    Do we need to vilify women to talk about the needs of men?

  39. paul walter

    Mark, your binary thinking has you tangled. Care for men on the wrong end of some situation should not preclude a consideration of male on female violence, which seems far more prevalent and for obvious physical reasons if no other.

    You are on safer ground complaining about psychological damage, but this is the way society operates in its current primitive form and few people escape damage of some sort or another, as people ill-prepared for relationships and their instabilities and dynamics are thrown together through cultural factors.

    It is a slow and painful march forward for humanity as currently constituted and progress seems glacial, yet it would be hard to deny that humans can solve their problems, with effort and goodwill. In our society we no longer employ child labor, for example.

    Don’t make the mistake of being too hard on the sister’n- they are edgy, but because common knowledge has beatings and some times deaths as legion.

  40. mark delmege

    Trish I don’t mean to be rude but from my first post I think I made it clear what I think. You are welcome to disagree. Hanson isn’t the most articulate person in the world but I think I know what she was trying to say and I don’t think it was what you suggest. I don’t think she was criticising women per se just some who manipulate a situation for self serving reasons. I agree with her on that.
    This isn’t about male violence against women but something else.
    Paul I think you make the same mistake you accuse me of – being caught it a binary. See my last sentence.

  41. Trish Corry

    Clearly Mark, yes I do disagree, as the entire article is about why Hanson felt the need to vilify women to argue a case for men.

    It is not ok to support people who constantly say these types of things, that create hatred, judgement, division, prejudice and stigma and use the excuse that the person isn’t very articulate and means the opposite to what they say. This is an excuse used for Hanson time and time again.

    Yes, it is about male violence against women, as the ramifications of this narrative if it got out of hand, like it has with her campaigns in the past has serious implications for women and their decision to report abuse, seek help or leave a situation.

    I would be interested if you can answer just the one question I have posed to you a number of times:

    Do we need to vilify women to talk about the needs of men?

  42. mark delmege

    no one is justifying male violence in any of its forms.

  43. Trish Corry

    Ok. I’ll leave it there. You appear simply unable to answer a simple question that is the crux of my article, which you have argued the premise of is wrong.

  44. Backyard Bob

    An article about anything Pauline Hanson says is like an article about anything Andrew Bolt says: clickbait.

  45. Jexpat

    Zathras:

    Somehow I doubt you know what a grifter is.

    As to Mark, there’s another old saying from the US.

    Has to do with hitting tar babies.

  46. paul walter

    From the beginning through, despite some exchanges, a constructive conversation. Something like this could possibly be clickbait in the wrong hands, but there is the ambience of authenticity almost throughout.

    Seriously, people do need to think about social psychology and also take an anthropological look as well as others. Also mythologies.

  47. Backyard Bob

    Paul,

    Seriously, people do need to think about social psychology and also take an anthropological look as well as others. Also mythologies.

    Yes they do. You might want to put that waffle into a context so as to avoid the perception of blither.

  48. Trish Corry

    Paul

    Don’t mind Bob.

    It is just a passive aggressive love note to me, as he is completely besotted. Its an ongoing thing on anything I write and post….

    Kudo’s though for the clickbait thought to him though. Normally its backhanded passive aggressive statements about me being either uneducated or stupid, then to the extreme of being too academic. But he has said that its all about I can’t think for myself cos I’m a mouth piece for Labor, but he has reassured me his comments are not personal. So that is a nice touch.

    As he has taken a new approach this time and has been a bit more creative, he gets fairy claps all round from me. Although I do wish I had thought of:

    “Pauline Hanson tried this new trick to oppress an entire gender and what she did next will leave you shocked”

  49. Backyard Bob

    Yeah, don’t mind me, I blew my political load in another thread. I’m not getting younger.

  50. Backyard Bob

    It is just a passive aggressive love note to me, as he is completely besotted. Its an ongoing thing on anything I write and post….

    And here I am at this hour, responding to your insipid clickbait. I guess I’m drawn to your articles because you, and Victoria Fielding, presume to represent me or someone like me and you are desperately wrong in doing so.

    Vote Labor. It’s that simple. Don’t vote Labor, hello Tony, welcome back.

    Oh btw I mean the last line VOTE LABOR. If you don”t you’re a dill. Don’t make me get Benny Hill on your arse.

  51. Backyard Bob

    It is just a passive aggressive love note to me, as he is completely besotted

    That can’t be true, but I can’t but concede the possibility, I dare not concede the possibility that Trish Corry is, in fact, a brunette. Yes, dammit! It’s possible! Good God it’s possible. We all know it. Those of us with aesthetic sanity want it to be true. Oh Trish, stop tormenting us, please..stop.

    Bare vour hair.

  52. jantonius

    Then, on the other hand it might just be the obvious thing, that he has a dislike for self-indulgence over easy targets.
    That’s not social criticism. That’s mulch.

    Anyone who views the clip provided and thinks it such a federal case is a little too twisted to be safe.

    Hanson in her disabled way makes mention of misreporting, the trouble-making complaint that grossly exaggerates out of hatred. This piece witlessly gives example.

    Just saying…

    btw: it’s ‘kudos’, not ‘kudo’s’. Do you think the apostrophe adds something important for you?

  53. Backyard Bob

    It adds a lot if you read the last few posts in a Spanish accent. Or at least mine, which were written that way in my head.

  54. Backyard Bob

    For the record I agree with Trish 100% Hanson is a fool. I didn’t realize that up till now and I thank her for her expose.

  55. paul walter

    ByB, what an eruptive phase. Trish Corry, I am besotted, too.

  56. corvus boreus

    ByB,
    Overindulging in Alliance?

  57. Patagonian

    She’s so thick that she hasn’t worked out that once again she is being used by a group of men for their own ambitions.

  58. Jexpat

    Patagonian:

    As long as Hanson can continue to feed at the public trough, I don’t think she cares.

  59. jim

    Liberals better money managers, NONSENSE.acording to bulsit flogged relentlessly for the last six years by the federal Coalition and the mainstream media, the Howard-Costello years – 1996 to 2007 – were a period of wonderful money management.

    “The Government of John Howard now looks like a lost golden age of reform and prosperity” is a favourite Tony Abbott mantra.

    Like countless propositions repeated ad nauseum by Australia’s media, the opposite is the truth. In fact, the Howard years are widely regarded outside Australia as dismally disappointing. And now we have this mob with triple the deficit………..

    https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/we-really-must-talk-about-the-howard-and-costello-economic-disaster,5686

  60. Trish Corry

    Jim I think you accidentally put this comment on the wrong post. Did you mean to put it on another post? This one is about domestic violence and Pauline Hanson.

  61. mark delmege

    I guess its not surprising that no one has shed any tears or insight into male suicide in this whole thread. Just shoot the messenger. No wonder it is such an ongoing problem and no help from yous.

  62. Trish Corry

    Mark. Men are important. They truly are. However, I am unsure why you keep insisting we talk about men, when this post is about women and the ramifications for women due to the reasons I have already outlined. Are you saying women are not important and we simply MUST talk about men regardless. We cannot give women our undivided attention? They must either compete for space or remain a secondary thought?

  63. mark delmege

    Hopefully my last post on this.
    lets see what Hanson actually said in that first video. I’m sure very few actually watched and listened and if they did I doubt they understood what was being said.
    Hanson
    …we have over 27 men a week in this country who are suiciding because they are not being heard. Everyone has a right everyone needs to be heard in Australia and it has got a lot to do with it..you know it starts with child support it happens in our Family law Court its right across the board.. what I’m saying is you’ve got to allow everyone to have a say lets find the answers to it so we can stop the suicide rate stop the domestic violence and we can help the kids that are caught up in this as well.. I feel for everyone I really do but throwing money at it and not debating the isssues and find the right answers…

  64. paul walter

    I’d find it difficult to beleive Corry would not have some insight and empathy with men for their depressive probs, an example being the pathetic Orlando killer and his life thus far, who is an example of a type of person so dysfunctional they can’t live normally, but also evidence of what this means for other people.

    That is, any more than you’d not have a genuine human sympathy for a woman beaten up by a boyfriend.

    It’s not nice to accuse people of gloating at the downfall of others and while some feminists are misandrist, perhaps, as many men are misogynist to a greater a or lesser extent, I won’t accept that your average feminist finds enjoyment in men’s suicide anymore than we would feel anything but sorrow at another wife killing. Like us, they will think sadly on what society and culture is and wonder what on earth can be done to improve things for all concerned.

    Give the little battling Trish Corry a fair go..you might find you have made an intelligent friend and loyal ally.

  65. Trish Corry

    Mark, the point you make is cunning at best. Hanson started out with a statement about women making frivolous claims about domestic violence. That was used as leverage to talk about the plight of men, as if the frivolous claims were the antecedent for the pain and suffering and violence some men are experiencing. No one is disputing that there are gaps in the system and that men’s issues need attention as well as women. However, I will ask you now for the fifth or sixth time:

    Do we need to vilify women to talk about the needs of men?

  66. mark delmege

    for the last time…editing… think about that.

  67. Trish Corry

    I’m watching Bill Shorten on Qanda. I’m not completely infallible. I corrected my error within 2 minutes.

  68. Matters Not

    Also watching Shorten on tape. He’s been very, very impressive. Grew an extra ‘leg’ as it were.

    Across so many ‘issues’. And where’s Malcolm?

    Big mistake Malcolm but perhaps only in terms of Q&A watchers.

  69. Trish Corry

    Shorten was brilliant. Simple Transformational leadership. We need it.

    Turnbull is on next week.

  70. Matters Not

    Yep, Turnbull can only ‘respond’ next week because Shorten set the agenda. Turnbull will now have to play on Shorten’s political turf.

    As for infallibility, or the possibility of same, are you aspiring to be the first Pope Trish?

    If so, are you aware it comes with certain baggage such as … and you will inherit Pell as your chief advisor?

  71. Trish Corry

    It will be interesting to watch. I hope he gets as many progressive questions as Shorten did conservative ones. Will Jones live up to his new elevated standard he has set as the ‘pesky interrupting jackass” We shall see.
    Lol No. I’m not a big fan of religion.

  72. paul walter

    I’ve only caught a few moments of Shorten. He seemed ok with his difficult task, but he is an instinctively cautious man and the less rash person withholds judgement till the repeat is viewed and the rest is seen.

  73. Matters Not

    Actually, I thought that Jones did rather well. And Shorten seemed to win a fair amount of audience support.. A good night I would have thought.

    As for the Pope possibilities – lift your game. A US female President is one thing but an Australian female Pope is something else again. My mind boggles. While Pell’s explodes.

    Just think an atheistic female Pope. Now that would be a first. (And probably a last)

  74. paul walter

    It’s a monumental flaw and the interrupting is something most of his colleagues do also. It blights the style of someone who would be otherwise a reasonable presenter.

  75. jim

    Liberals better money managers, NONSENSE.ACCORDING TO THE LINE flogged relentlessly for the last six years by the federal Coalition and the mainstream media, the Howard-Costello years – 1996 to 2007 – were a period of wonderful money management.

    “The Government of John Howard now looks like a lost golden age of reform and prosperity” is a favourite Tony Abbott mantra.

    Like countless propositions repeated ad nauseum by Australia’s media, the opposite is the truth. In fact, the Howard years are widely regarded outside Australia as dismally disappointing. And now we have this mob with triple the deficit………..

    https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/we-really-must-talk-about-the-howard-and-costello-economic-disaster,5686

  76. Michael Jones

    I never would have voted for Hanson prior to her statements on DV and the Family Courts, but now she is getting numbered first on my ballot paper. The reason is that the fanatical man-hating feminists who are driving the “gender debate”, have succeeded in vilifying men enough that they are treated like dirt on family matters such as these, and more broadly I might add.

    I previously would have voted with regard to how my decision might impact on other people, but it had got to a point where am no longer prepared to put my own gender last for other people’s benefit. Hanson is thus far the ONLY politician I have heard who is prepared to speak up on behalf of men, so despite the fact that I disagree with her views on immigration and multi-culturalism she has my vote.

    You wanted a war ladies and now you have it, collateral damage and all. It didn’t have to be this way, but if you keep kicking a dog he will bite. Feminism and the major party cowards who kowtow to that cult, are about to get bitten through the ballot box and in Parliament through Pauline Hanson.

    Well done.

  77. Trish Corry

    Thank you for either not reading the article, or having comprehension skills so poor that you do not understand it, nor have the tenacity to read through the comments where I have responded to similar questions in the same nature as your comment. You deserve to vote for Hanson. At least you will be voting for someone with the equal intelligence and the same level of ignorance as yourself.

  78. Michael Jones

    No, I read and understood the article and your comments. They are nonsense, the needs of men are not taken seriously on these matters and won’t be until somebody shakes things up. If that has to be Hanson doing it in her particular way, so be it, no other politician in this country is prepared to challenge feminist vilification of men.

  79. jantonius

    But Michael,
    First rule at law: never be represented by a dimwit.

  80. Matters Not

    The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines feminism as:

    : the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

    The Urban Dictionary defines Feminism as:

    The belief that women are and should be treated as potential intellectual equals and social equals to men. These people can be either male or female human beings, although the ideology is commonly (and perhaps falsely) associated mainly with women.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feminism

    Even Malcolm Turnbull claims to be a ‘feminist’.

    So is the Dalai Lama:

    During a September 2009 speech at the National Civil Rights Museum, the Dalai Lama hit the nail on the head when commented, “I call myself a feminist. Isn’t that what you call someone who fights for women’s rights?”

  81. Michael Jones

    Jantonius, a better law to quote would be, “Never give somebody nothing to lose”.

    Matters Not. Those definitions are what feminism claims, but the reality is different.

  82. Trish Corry

    Michael please entertain us with your reason as to why we need to vilify women to discuss the needs of men.

  83. jantonius

    ‘Nothing to lose’ is the attitude which will find something.
    Such as being identified with that woman – who will at best waste your time.
    You are going on a brief clip. It is not a good basis for such a decision – particularly as you are aware of her stubbornly stupid reaction on other issues.
    Why would she do any better for you? Could you imagine explaining the details of your case to her? How is she going to negotiate for you? Think again.

  84. Kaye Lee

    No doubt there are some women who hate all men as much as you seem to hate all women Michael. There are people who hate all Muslims. There are people who hate all dark-skinned people. There are extremists in every movement.

    Having dealt with the courts on a few occasions, I am fully aware that the outcome is not always just or fair. Having seen the relationship breakdown of others, I also know how vindictive and hurtful it can become.

    But to suggest that feminism means or requires the vilification of men is completely false. In fact, feminism has been very beneficial to men in many ways.

  85. Michael Jones

    Trish, Hanson isn’t vilifying women by pointing out that there are big problems with the way that men are being treated after DV applications. Hazem El Masri is the best recent example of that, he was assumed guilty by many in the media until it was proven, after a five month ordeal, that his girlfriend lied. She should have been punished herself for that, potentially ruining somebodies life through perjury is as bad as abuse itself.

  86. Michael Jones

    jantonius, Hanson serves my purpose as she denies the major parties my vote and probably a Senate seat until they come to a fairer position on this issue. She will also voice these issues in Parliament and perhaps encourage others to speak up for men. That is all she needs to do.

  87. paul walter

    Look, you accuse them of being fixated, but how fixated are YOU??

  88. Trish Corry

    But Hanson’s approach has worked on you, hasn’t it? Your first post was full of hate for women. Imagine a million more of you screaming the same hate at women about their frivolous domestic violence claims. The tactic you deny Hanson’s using has at least achieved her first recruit to attack women so her voice gets louder about men’s issues. Obviously where the votes are this time. Unless you truly hate women I hope you feel conned at best.

  89. Michael Jones

    My post was not full of hate for women Trish. It was anti-feminist which is not the same thing, because feminists do not speak for all women.

    Anyway, I am not really interested in debating this further with you, you are clearly just going to try to use insults and misrepresentations to get your way and I am not buying into that. I am just telling you what me and tens of thousands of other men are going to do about the way we are being treated. If you and people like you want to rethink your beliefs and be more reasonable things might change, but until that happens we have Pauline.

  90. jimhaz

    While no one in mainstream politics will talk openly and honestly about any of the non PC issues she might raise, then I support her being in the game.

  91. diannaart

    @jimhaz

    While no one in mainstream politics will talk openly and honestly about any of the non PC issues

    I guess, that opens the field completely on people you will support, what about PC issues mainstream politics will not discuss?

    I can’t think of anything where discussion does not attract those who are offended. I thought of coal versus clean sustainable technology – but no, that is a ‘greenie’ topic, how about pedophile priests, no that mentions men… um… freeways or public transport, I know, too ‘green.

    Does your statement mean you would support Trump if you lived in the USA?

    I’d appreciate your input here.

  92. Trish Corry

    Yep. Just rethought my belief that women deserve equality and I still believe women deserve equality

  93. Jexpat

    It’s an age old story.

    Grifters like Hanson and Trump know how to exploit people’s resentments, vulnerabilities and prejudices for their own personal gain.

    When they’re successful at it, those who’ve been grifted often don’t even realise it until well down the track, by which time it’s usually too late to do much about it.

  94. cornlegend

    Trish Corry
    Sad that you have to rethink it, and it is not just a given.
    An old saying my grand daughter uses
    “A womans place is EVERYWHERE”

  95. diannaart

    Trish

    I think I have worked it out – this “speaking for all women” thing.

    Women should not speak out for other women who do not believe in equality. Women who prefer standing behind men must really resent being told they deserve equality.

    In future an article on domestic violence will have to run something like this:

    While 87% of DV is men harming women, at least 90% of the discussion must acknowledge that 13% of men are harmed by women – which is worse, I mean, women actually harming MEN – that’s obscene, clear proof that women don’t know their place and we should applaud all the Pauline Hansons of this world.

  96. Trish Corry

    I really was just being facetious

  97. Matters Not

    Listened to Fran Kelly (Radio National) Tuesday morning – Breakfast program. Roving reporter Cathy Van Extel went on a ‘dry pub crawl’ through the electorate of Capricornia. She interviewed lots of men in the various pub bars (Carmila, Nebo and Great Western) and while they were pissed off with the major political parties they were complimentary towards Pauline Hanson. From what I could work out, they fitted the typical Hanson ‘demographic’. Male aged between 45 and 65, engaged in ‘blue collar’ work outside the major cities, worried about losing their jobs and the like.

    It was these men who brought Hanson into the discussion. Worrying, because Hanson like Trump doesn’t have answers but certainly provides targets to hate. In her heyday, it was about Aborigines (particularly Aboriginal youth in Ipswich) and multiculturalism. Now it’s about Islam and Muslims; topics I suspect she knows nothing about. But never mind, It works. Both here and in the US.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/election-2016:-tight-tussle-for-capricornia/7507596

  98. diannaart

    Very true, Matters Not, part of the trend for voting for those who do not have the best interests of people at heart, just the goal of power.

    All the fault of feminists wanting equality… 😛

  99. Kaye Lee

    Political correctness should be banned – the term I mean. The Australian just had a ridiculous article saying our children have been “exposed to and bullied by political correctness, by word and by syllabus, ever since they entered kindy.”

    I do not want to live in a world where people think it is ok to insult and vilify certain groups, to exclude and marginalise people on the basis of their race, faith or gender.

    It is not an assault on your freedom to expect you to behave in a civilised manner. I want my children to display tolerance and empathy and to accept difference.

    Pauline Hanson is a dumb loudmouth who is trying to jump on the gravy train. Have you ever heard her express anything but hatred and division? She has no idea how to improve our society and the fact that anyone could even consider that she is qualified to make decisions on running the country shows how low we have sunk.

  100. Matters Not

    diannart, in the case of Hanson it’s all about the money. Whether she gets elected on not the 262.784 cents per eligible vote (provided she gets above 4%) is a nice little earner because she spend very, very little on campaigning. Over the years, failed campaigns have been quite lucrative.

    For publicity, she relies on public appearances which the MSM readily provide. Like a ‘freak show’ at the circus.

    Look there’s Pauline on the side of the road, There she is at the football … And so on.

    And when she gets elected to the Senate she’ll put Bishop the Elder to shame in the ‘expense’ stakes.

  101. diannaart

    MN

    Knew I shoulda written “money/power”. 🙂

  102. paul walter

    Yes, let’s compliment MN for moving the conversation to the next stage.

    Getting older myself, I can begin to understand why older rural workers, probably left school at fifteen to do shearing or laboring and integrated into a male work culture and ill-prepared to deal with change, retreat into confusion and dismay. I suffer a mild version of future shock with computers and consequently hate them because I’m not competent with them, by analogy, yet for younger people computing is second nature, as they were brought up with them. Blue collar misogyny is more obvious than the more sophisticated misogyny of a city elitist, who makes less noise and is less entitled to grumble, but who does more harm than a grumpy grumbler merely “ventilating” who’s also not probably had the best of the system.

    On the basis of my sense that Trish Corry is NOT biased to anywhere near the extent she has been accused of; not over the line, as a Laborite she probably feels a pang of sympathy for all blue collar people, I feel empowered to write this.
    I beleive this post will be taken as an observation of a male demographic category, not an endorsement of its worst traits, also an attempt to add by trying to work out what is at the back of a lot of male resentment, fair or unfair, involving various “others”. Like MN this time, I would rather see the topic mined for its informative potential than be something bogged down to point scoring attrition.

  103. paul walter

    That is more like it. Forget for a moment the simplistic comments and instead go to the pessimism and anxiety that drives the responses in that segment.

    Fascinating to compare Rockhampton to an urban rust belt seat as to both similarities and differences…the scepticism firstly. They are like Orwell’s farm animals both in the country and blue collar city locations..they sense they are being dudded but feel very excluded and this distills the angst into overt, reactive resentment. Rural myths make it plausible for an angry populist like Hanson to make inroads, the same as (manipulated) suburban myths determine who will win a blue collar seat, or across town in the conservative green and leafies.

    More later. It was a good segment, the sort of thing the ABC does do well and I’m still letting some thoughts percolate through at this early stage.

  104. Trish Corry

    I live in Capricornia. The Great Western Hotel, is a hotel where they have the rodeo. More catered toward the rural people who normally vote National. It is hardly surprising to find staunch nationalists drinking at that pub. Michelle Landry is obviously tapping into these people as today, all she has is “WE WILL STOP THE BOATS” In really crappy writing stuck on a trailer. They have nothing. You will find Hanson supporters whereever you find non-thinking people. That does not have to be in a pub in regional QLD, it could be in a fancy dress shop in Brisbane city. Rise Up Australia last election in Capricornia only got 439 votes. So no, people interviewed for the purpose of a story at a pub in regional Rockhampton, are not representative of the population or thinking of Capricornians.

  105. paul walter

    The rodeo thingie sounds a bit crass, like Big Bash in the city. I suppose I shouldn’t ask what the local teev and newspapers are like.

  106. Trish Corry

    The Local Newspaper is very right leaning. I unsubscribed a few weeks ago when there was an Editorial slamming the Labor candidate and praising the LNP MP and then there were 5/5 anti-Labor letters to the Editor that followed. I love my town. It is great. Capricornia is a Labor seat. Landry only won by 1305 votes and that was for many reasons. She will be gone on July 2. She has done absolutely nothing positive at all. She is a ‘Gunna Do’

  107. Michael Jones

    paul walter,

    To save you a lot of trouble writing your patronising, long-winded essay on those poor ignorant inhabitants of Animal Farm, I will summarise what is happening for you. Many Australians are sick of over-indulged, pompous, politically-correct twits who don’t give a rats kazoo about their welfare, telling them what they should think and do. And the more you people piss them off, the more they are going to punish you for bit at the polls.

    It happened before in the mid-nineties, the pitch of political correctness reached its heights and then came crashing down when Pauline Hanson hit a nerve, with John Howard ultimately capitalise on the sentiment leading to enjoy a long Prime Ministership. It has been brewing again for a while and again it looks like Hanson is going to play a part.

    You people fail to learn from such recent history and then you call these folk dumb?

  108. Random

    Trish, your piece of reactionary journalism is somewhat Murdochesque, and for such an important issue, your piece should have been so much better. I find it disappointing that you have become a pale imitation of the very forces you are railing against, all because you preferred to have a sensationalist rant, instead of doing an intelligent analysis of the problem raised and proposing some solutions.

    I watched the linked clip and read the piece, with commentary by Diane Mangan, and did not see Pauline “attack women”. Was what she said dumb and controversial, and drive a wedge between genders? Yep, for sure. But still not an attack. Was what she said factual and are her motivations pure? Who knows…but these controversial types sure like controversy – cue Trish Corry.

    This is where you could have injected some rationality to the topic – and discussed this instead perhaps; “Labor will make a series of critical investments in services and programs that directly support women* and children escaping family violence. Labor’s interim package will deliver more than $70 million over three years in targeted funding to ensure those suffering from family violence can access critical services” – but decided instead to engage in name-calling and outrage some like rabid piranha…focusing on Pauline and her shortcomings and motivations for the entire article, even throwing Muslims into the mix before you made a feint towards the discussion of DV in paragraph 15, but then it was all really still just about Pauline. Wow, you’re such a genius sleuth – she’s doing it for votes (no kidding! Just like every other politician during their “election campaigns”. Stating the freaking obvious!). I understand passion, don’t get me wrong, DV is a subject I am passionate about, but it appears your real motivation for writing the article had little to do with progressing the cause against it, and more to do with who not to vote for. I think I just heard someone chortling with glee from the Liberal Party room!

    * I wholly support the change in narrative to encompass the Family as being effected by violence, but this needs to be reflected in all areas by equally promoting and providing support for men. The gender divide needs to be dismantled, therefore removing any resentment to ‘feminists’.

    From the link you provided, Pauline’s points seemed to be (from my limited perspective – and I’m not endorsing any as FACTS);

    1. 80-85% of “Police are tied up” dealing with domestic violence, “some” claims being frivolous
    2. A full overview of the child support and family court system
    3. Men not being heard resulting in over 27 men committing suicide a week due to being victims of DV
    4. Debate needs to occur to find solutions that work before funding occurs

    1. A very quick ‘Google’ couldn’t verify the percentage, but just for hypothetical’s sake, let’s say she wasn’t stretching the truth too far.
    What does that indicate? That there are too many frivolous claims? Or that there are not enough resources to deal with the problem?

    The first is subjective, particularly on the part of police officers who can perceive reports that way, but who are also intelligent enough not to let claims of isolated ‘domestic insults’ get as far as a courtroom. Her commentary here holds no water and should have been shown for what it is, so rational minds could then then quickly dismiss it, rather than then start a campaign of outrage that will contribute to the insecurity of women who are being victimised.

    The second can be measured, so I prefer the second being the actual heart of the problem. We need to increase and improve resources in this area, and I doubt many would disagree. This would address providing sufficient support for men, women and children equally.

    2. Anyone who has had to deal with Child Support Services, and the Family Court could not disagree with this. These two provide as much heart ache as any violence done itself, to all members of vulnerable families.

    3. I believe men need a completely different type of assistance to women, and the lack of this assistance is resulting in their disillusionment and resentment. Good policy and funding could provide this WITHOUT SACRIFICING or DIMINISHING the assistance provided for women. The rhetoric around DV also needs to change – on this point Michael Jones and Mark Delmege, you are not doing your gender any favours.

    Linking the questionable suicide statistics to support her case is a mistake I believe, as suicide is not only tragic but very complex and needs its own research and policy. But we’re intelligent right? We can see this ploy for what it is?

    4. Yes, let’s have some intelligent debate about what could be done to reduce Family Violence without knee-jerk sensationalism and demonising the other sex. It’s so long overdue…

    So, next time instead of shooting the messenger (a MO lately favoured by some AIMN authors), ask yourself how you can edify people regarding the topic raised – dispel myths and make people feel that they can make a difference (implying people are silly for their voting preferences doesn’t count!). Or more pertinently, ask yourself; will this piece contribute to the ‘divide and conquer’ fray the LNP thrive on, and am I doing their work for them?

    “Random” is a pragmatist with good comprehension skills, and one of the many victims of the lack of real action regarding violence in the home 😉

  109. Trish Corry

    ok

  110. Kaye Lee

    With all the money we are spending on terrorist threats and national security, an Australian woman dies every week at the hands of an intimate partner – a woman in Australia is more likely to be killed in her own home by her male partner than anywhere else or by anyone else.

    I would also say that feminism has not only empowered women to report domestic violence – it has helped men in abusive relationships too. Feminists fought for paternity leave for men. Feminists fought to break down gender bias. I have not had experience in the family court but I believe things are improving regarding child custody and access ( it will always be heartbreaking).

    And could I say I find Pauline’s statistics unsupportable, as is pretty much everything that comes out of her mouth.

  111. paul walter

    Yes, that is much more to the point. Again and again I look through the comments of people criticising the post and discover only sloganeering.

    I’m convinced now that a small group only wants to derail, based on their own unexamined prejudices and that they are useless as a hip pocket on a singlet in their current frame of mind. Go back, rethink, for your own sakes..

  112. Michael Jones

    Random, you describe an ideal, evidence based approach to DV, but I think that you are naïve to think that facts alone will change the minds of the feminists who are driving this debate nor change policy.

    Domestic violence by women against men has been well documented for many years, yet have you seen a single government funded advertisement acknowledging that fact? I certainly haven’t. I actually raised this in a letter to Tanya Plibersek as the responsible minster six or seven years ago, asking her why the “Violence against women” campaigns weren’t aimed more generally at family violence. I even related a personal incident I witnessed involving a woman throwing scalding water over her male partner, the endgame of an escalating physical abuse by her. The response I got was to the effect of “Terribly sorry for your experience but men are a minority of domestic violence victims and we don’t have enough money to address their needs”. I can’t think of another miniority in this country where that would be considered to be an acceptable answer, can you? I have seen no significant change since then and I don’t believe that without radical action, anything will.

    All this reflects that in the warped ideology of the sort of feminism we see today, gender issues are a zero sum game where men are privileged and women are not. They think that if men are helped, women will lose, Stephen Covey called it a win/lose mentality and stated that it is a very difficult mindset to shake. So men have only two choices, continue to capitulate and accept that this means that a lot of them are going to suffer due to the excesses of modern feminism. I am not prepared to do that and anybody who tells me that I should can get stuffed. Or they can let the people in power know that if their needs are not addressed, there will be consequences at the ballot box. Right now voting for Pauline Hanson is the only way for us to take the second option, so men like me will exercise our vote in that manner.

    Hopefully the threat of political consequences will wake the major parties up to the fact that they can’t let the feminists dominate the debate and that they will have to take men’s issues more seriously. As we all know, the major parties don’t do anything that there isn’t a vote in, so the threat of consequences via the likes of Hanson is the only way to get them going in the right direction. When that happens we can have an all inclusive approach to addressing domestic violence like you advocate, and I genuinely I hope it happens sooner rather than later, for all of our sakes.

  113. mark delmege

    Random that was a very good response but from my perspective you, like most others, narrow the meaning of violence to physical violence. I know from personal experience how much some men, sorry fathers, suffer when they are separated from their children – the emotional turmoil they go through often with little support but I think you are right in that things appear to be improving. But DV orders through the courts and other manipulations in the Family Court are real. Thats not in anyway meant to undermine the relevance and importance of such orders – just that some people – mothers – frankly make shit up.
    I haven’t raised the issue of feminism till now but personally I have always supported the feminist struggle – though I adopt the philosophical position that men can not be feminists – merely supporters.
    That said I agree and like your input to the discussion.

  114. Michael Jones

    Random, you describe an ideal, evidence-based approach to domestic violence which I would full support if I thought there a was any possibility that it would happening. The reality is though that female on male domestic violence has been well researched for many, many years but no progress has been made in meeting the needs of men suffering this. And unfortunately it won’t while modern feminists are driving the agenda, because they see gender relations as a zero sum game and such attitudes are almost impossible to shake, at least in time to address the very real needs of the men out there who are suffering. They need to be politically marginalised before we can go forward, it is simple as that, and the only way to do that is to let the major political parties know that there will be consequences if they continue to kowtow to the feminists. Because the reality is that very gets done by the major parties if they don’t see a vote in it, or unless a vote is put under threat. That is what Pauline gives men the opportunity to do.

  115. mark delmege

    As for Pauline – she is a Lumpen with a lumpen mentality – it doesn’t mean she is not genuine in her beliefs. She gets it sometimes but more than often she can be confused by whats happening in the world and why. Just like most people.

  116. jantonius

    The writer of the above piece attacking Hanson is one of the identified mates here, and it is human nature that she would be defended against personal attack. But, once that is done, please try to put the more personal aspects aside.
    Then, it is simply not true that Random’s contribution @ 9:17 pm is “only sloganeering”. If people cannot see that they are giving up a lot merely for a social gathering, which protects itself with intolerance of other opinion.
    This is not to say that Random is beyond criticism. But let’s have the criticism by engaging with the content. To ditch all the content in what Random writes leaves just inane support, which is unreliable on the truth of these complex and thorny issues.

    It’s a mad species the human. Maybe, just maybe, careful argument might be some kind of therapy.

  117. paul walter

    That’s a much smarter attempt, Mark Delmege. But you have not seen the posting in the light of the conviction held by many that the hard right and its economic and social policies will not alleviate the problem you describe with male on female and vice versa, DV, or several other social issues, because three years of conservative government has shown nothing better than tendencies to avoid issues like more efficient courts, more social workers and counsellors and more attention given to social infrastructures that lessen tensions between people, rather than wasting billlions on freeways to nowhere, dodgy wars of aggression, (corrupt?) defence procurements, surveillance and idiot “border protection” twaddle.

    Women are edgy of being reconsigned to the sort of lives their grand mothers and and ancestors had to suffer and even reassurance would work better in winning them over, before getting frustrated with them.

  118. Trish Corry

    How about instead of a few men who have come along and dumped their anger, hatred and ridiculous assumptions in this thread about me (as the author) and and who try incessantly to shift this conversation to be about men, let’s instead talk about what the actual piece is about.

    This piece is NOT about men. This piece is written about women victims of domestic violence.

    Nowhere in this piece have I made any statements that I do not believe that men’s issues are not worthy to be discussed.
    Nowhere in this piece have I voiced the opinion that men victims are of a lesser value to women.
    Nowhere in this piece have I given any indication that I think the family law courts are fine with how they are and work does not need to be done for men.

    The men who have decided to stop by here to insist this is what is in the article, need to read the article over and over and over again until they realise that this is not about men at all.

    This article is about women full stop. It is not written to discuss anything about men. It is to create the discussion based on some central points ABOUT WOMEN VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE following Pauline Hanson’s leading statement that “women make frivolous claims about domestic violence”:

    These central points are:

    1. Do we need to vilify women to discuss the needs of men?

    2. What purpose does Hanson have to push the message that women make frivolous claims about domestic violence (and should not be believed) and they also waste police resources, during an epidemic where women die, are tortured or abused every single day?

    3. What are the implications for women victims of domestic violence if Hanson creates a cult following (such as she has in the past) who doubt that women reporting domestic violence are telling the truth and ‘are just doing it for attention’

    4. What does the history of Hanson’s campaign style tell us about how she uses the divide and conquer technique to set groups against each other? Why has she chosen women against men?

    5. What aim is Hanson trying to achieve by pitting men against women in her ‘quest’ to achieve outcomes for men?

    Another question has been raised now because of the comments:

    6. How come every time there is a post about women, there are pockets of men who insist we need to talk about men instead.

    and

    7. Why do they get so abusive, angry and degrading towards other women, or the feminist movement in general when we don’t?

  119. mark delmege

    I rail against war their politicians and sheep followers and the media cos I think it is the ultimate crime Paul that I can’t stop them wont stop me from having an opinion on whats wrong – the same goes for many issues. Do I care that it upsets some peoples sensibilities? Not one iota.

  120. Jexpat

    What purpose does Hanson have to push the message that women make frivolous claims about domestic violence (and should not be believed) and they also waste police resources, during an epidemic where women die, are tortured or abused every single day?

    To reiterate:

    It’s an age old story.

    Grifters like Hanson and Trump exploit people’s resentments, vulnerabilities and prejudices for their own personal gain.

    There’s really no more to it than that.

  121. paul walter

    Mark and Jexpat thanks.

    We end up back with Jexpat’s description of Hanson as “grifter” and Trish Corry and the nature of Hanson and Hansonism. I think to err is fair enough and I’ll give Hanson the benefit of the doubt for twenty years ago but alas, she and some who follow her seem to have learnt nothing over changing times and the wedgy stuff is now passe.

    I still buy the line that social conservatives are used by hucksters interested in maintaining an unfair and innefficient staus quo when better options are available when thought through.

  122. diannaart

    @ Michael Jones

    Why, when challenged do you refuse to answer fair and reasonable questions such as those Trish has asked?

    6. How come every time there is a post about women, there are pockets of men who insist we need to talk about men instead.

    and

    7. Why do they get so abusive, angry and degrading towards other women, or the feminist movement in general when we don’t?

    It was not so many years ago that the testimony of women was so devalued that women were banned from serving on juries, continue working if they married, entering politics and so much more – this happened within or very close to the lifetimes of many people here.

    Pauline Hanson’s claims of frivolous women taking up police time harkens back to those days. As Paul Walter noted women have only recently emerged from a age of enforced invisibility and will not return to subjugation such as this.

    The predictable response to any article written about women reveal there is a pernicious subset of men who prefer the “way things used to be” – great for most men, enervating for most women.

    In this, I believe Trish is a little bit wrong, violence affects us all. I have yet to stop thinking about the Orlando killings, men are a part of the solution as much as women, in fact more so because in 2016 the balance of power remains firmly with men, in spite of the many inroads women have made.

    Just as women fear returning to the dark ages, men fear they are losing power. And they are right. Men will have to cede power to women if we are ever to have an equal and equitable society. This does not mean a loss of power, but it sure as hell means sharing it. And sometimes, I become very frustrated that a subset of men think sharing power is not enough.

    Get over it.

    Women are not returning to the kitchens.

    Men have to learn to share and this means acceptance of articles such as Trish’s – instead of derailing, dismissing and, finally, not wanting to hear.

  123. diannaart

    Somehow a paragraph repeated itself

    “It was not so many years ago that the testimony of women was so devalued that women were banned from serving on juries, continue working if they married, entering politics and so much more – this happened within or very close to the lifetimes of many people here.”

    When I went to edit it out – the entire post was mixed up and became further jumbled as I tried to repair it.

    To the moderator – could there be a bug in the system again? I am not having any issues with my PC.

  124. Random

    Mark, I can understand how you perceived that I was discussing mostly physical violence as I was using the usual ‘terminology’, but that is not my thinking or experience. I should have substituted “abuse” for the word “violence”, and this is perhaps something policy makers should consider doing as well.

  125. Kaye Lee

    Michael Jones,

    You say men must either fight or capitulate. How about, instead of vilifying all feminists (which is as ridiculously unfounded as vilfying all Muslims), you consider what a partnership with women to bring about change might look like.

    I don’t think you would find one feminist who would suggest that abuse of men and boys should be ignored. Feminism is about equality, not supremacy. Our society is far from perfect but anger and division won’t improve it. We should campaign together for refuges for the victims of abuse. We should campaign together for better mental health services. We should campaign together for legal aid to be accessible to all. We should campaign together for better counselling and community support programs.

    Together we can make change – divided we can only go backwards.

  126. Random

    Michael, your thinking is half right in drawing the logical conclusion from your experiences, that you do need to vote for who you believe will provide the solution. Now, extrapolate that same thinking to motivations of politicians and policy makers; why do you think you were told by Tanya that there wasn’t enough money for men? Is it really to do with feminists, funding and data, or simply where the votes are?

    There are noisy radicals on both sides of the fence and they are easy targets, so generalisation doesn’t help, but I believe most women want exactly what men want – for the destructive rhetoric, abuse and violence to stop. So, if both sexes spent less energy on the ‘them and us’ wars and more on effectively lobbying politicians, you might see the change everyone deserves.

    PS: I actually know very little about Pauline Hanson, but is she genuinely lobbying for men to be heard and does she have policy to support this? Take a closer look before you decide where to place your allegiance.

  127. silkworm

    “You people fail to learn from such recent history and then you call these folk dumb?”

    You just called us “twits.” Hypocrite.

  128. Trish Corry

    Diannaart. *In this, I believe Trish is a little bit wrong, violence affects us all. *

    Just to clarify. So do I !! Please refer to my comment above which includes the list of central points.

    Until ALL men are willing allow women to take up space on a topic and stop derailing conversations about women to talk about men, I will insist where we are talking about Women, we do just that. This does not mean that I think in conversations about men, that we should not talk about men or their needs are not important. Where were are talking about violence towards men, we should indeed not derail that and we should talk about violence towards men.

    Even my previous articles on single parents and stigma have sections particularly dedicated to men. (I am a liberal feminist – liberal feminism includes men). LGBTI men who you use as an example above, share many of the same antecedents to discrimination and stigma that women do and feminists recognise this, and feminists as allies fight for change in this area, as do the LGBTI community themselves. But this post is ONLY about women.

    It is possible to just talk about women, when we should just be talking about women.

    I will disclose I am a survivor of domestic violence in another lifetime, where I had to flee. I do not share any details. It is no ones business. BUT, it will be a cold day in hell, before I allow topics about women to be derailed by men, so we stop talking about the impacts for women with issues such as these.

    So much progress has been made in this area, it is critical that the needs of women are discussed, so they do not have to go back to the mismanagement of terrified, but very, very brave women fleeing violence, and the lack of support and rights that occurred in my day.

    So if this is the case, I will remain “a little bit wrong”, if that is how people choose to see it.

  129. diannaart

    @Trish

    I fully understand you point of view. Also had to flee – and hate when I feel I have had to make mention of it – such as when a male (it is always male) claims I know nothing.

    I am far from ignorant, I am very experienced in much of what life can throw at people and I will not allow such topics to be derailed by the “usual suspects” either.

    Despite the derailing attempts, I wish to acknowledge the support many male commentator have made. In an ideal world I should not have to make special mention – but since when were we in an ideal world? We all have to make room/sacrifices for other people, it is a condition of life, as is the one constant we can expect: change.

    It is not unreasonable for people to resist change, however, when such resistance means denigrating other people, they remain part of the problem and that is unreasonable.

  130. Kaye Lee

    One of the great things about the AIMN is the way discussions evolve through the comments and I do not think it at all unreasonable, in an article which is also about Pauline Hanson, for people to express why they find her worth voting for, particularly since the reason pertained to domestic violence and Pauline’s claims regarding such.

    I hear a great deal of pain and bitterness coming from Michael. I think it worth listening to and worth trying to understand and help.

    That being said, as with the improvements to workplace conditions won by trade unions passing on to all workers, improvements won by feminists do not exclude men. Because of women fighting for rape in marriage to be defined and recognised, male rape also became a crime. Because of women fighting the stigma of domestic violence, men now feel empowered to talk about the abuse or discrimination they are subjected to.

    That is a good thing.

  131. diannaart

    Kaye Lee

    I do not find opposing points of view unreasonable, just when these views are accompanied by insult and denigration and nonsense statistics – dog whistling at its most heinous.

    As Trish has repeatedly asked;

    “Do we need to vilify women to talk about the needs of men?”

  132. Kaye Lee

    Do we need to exclude men to talk about domestic violence?

    I agree the method of expression could be better.

  133. Trish Corry

    When it distracts from the issues as important to women, yes. When people ignore the central points raised about women and insist we talk about men instead, yes. When women are attacked and asked to “prove their understanding” then yes. When the critical ramifications the OP points out are not discussed so men can push women out of the space, yes. Men do not need to only talk about men in threads about women, they can find or write a post about men and talk about men there.

  134. Kaye Lee

    I disagree. This article is not about women, it is about why people should not vote for Pauline Hanson. Whilst I don’t agree with many of the comments made or the manner in which they were made, I think they have been in keeping with the topic at hand and by no means an attempt to disrail discussion about Hanson’s views.

    I do not understand why you feel so upset. Is your empathy for victims gender exclusive? Do you really believe “the space” only has room for men OR women?

  135. Trish Corry

    I’m sorry. I didn’t realise you wrote the article.

  136. Trish Corry

    I’ve already listed the central points of the article, for those who misunderstand the article; as you appear to be doing right now. My focus was on nothing else, but the comment that Hanson made that women make frivolous claims about domestic violence. If you would like to discuss the issues Hanson raised as pertaining to men, and how they are more important than the frivolous claims raised by women, I suggest you have the proven capacity to do that.

  137. jimhaz

    @ TC

    [What purpose does Hanson have to push the message that women make frivolous claims about domestic violence (and should not be believed) and they also waste police resources, during an epidemic where women die, are tortured or abused every single day?

    There is no epidemic. If there has been a rise in DV then it is due to immigration from poor/developing countries with outdated cultural systems, and over immigration generally that is causing boganism.

    Hanson simply raised a point of fact. Some women do raise frivolous claims. I think this occurs a lot in child custody situations. She may have overstated the case (1400 male suicides pa due to gender issues…nah!), but I say you do the same.

    [What are the implications for women victims of domestic violence if Hanson creates a cult following (such as she has in the past) who doubt that women reporting domestic violence are telling the truth and ‘are just doing it for attention]

    None. She will not build a cult following any more.

    [What does the history of Hanson’s campaign style tell us about how she uses the divide and conquer technique to set groups against each other? Why has she chosen women against men?]

    I don’t think she did it for that reason. She is looking for an angle to attract male or anti-modern feminist voters. She cannot pick any angle that requires a high level of expertise (not that it would seem the mainstreamers have much expertise either, other than in bullshitting), so relies on this sort of thing.

    [What aim is Hanson trying to achieve by pitting men against women in her ‘quest’ to achieve outcomes for men?]

    She just wants an easy job for income purposes, the sort of job that is attention seeking. No different to any other politician, other than she lacks the conversational intelligence experience that the main party career pollies experience as they move through the ranks.

    [How come every time there is a post about women, there are pockets of men who insist we need to talk about men instead]

    Well, Hanson was talking about men missing out in the video link you posted, but your point is still valid. We each wish to talk about what we know best.

    [Why do they get so abusive, angry and degrading towards other women, or the feminist movement in general when we don’t?]

    Well your articles always annoy me somewhat. They have phrases in them that seem like hysteria and seem overly idealistic – expecting perfection when no such perfection is possible.

    @Dianna

    [And sometimes, I become very frustrated that a subset of men think sharing power is not enough]

    That is exactly what the men feel. This seems to be the crux of the matter. We sense that the louder feminists do not really want equality, but are using things like DV problems as a method to obtain increased power over both men and women. Equality is a mere pretense.
    TC’s repeated comment “But this post is ONLY about women” leads men to defensive positions, thus they respond offensively to be included.

    In any case, my support for Hanson being a pollie has nothing to do with her comments on DV, it is about over-immigration. That is the topic I want a hardcore national discussion about – the sort of social discussions we used to have in the 80’s about nuclear issues.

    Interestingly over-immigration and modern feminism produce similar feelings in me – both are opportunity losses. Excessive change producing net losses instead of the gains the promoters promise – neither of which would be issues if the the change was more moderate in the case of immigration, and more moderately expressed in the case of I want it all feminism.

    If you want to decrease DV, then one has to change the environment first. What we need is more philosophy and psychology relating to emotions and the ego taught at school, albeit that this could have unintended consequences (nihilism).

    Men are blessed/burdened with higher testosterone which leads to a stronger ego system. They have cock egos – ones that extrude out from within – pointy, volatile and thus somewhat fragile. Women have a different sort of ego, it may have similar levels of strength, but is normally less volatile, smoother, flatter, more herdly and thus more predictable. A typical man’s ego might be referred to as an action ego, whereas a women’s comes from a more cooperation loving base or bias. Modern society is very highly feminised so the latte drinking set are fairly androgynous.

    Kids need to be taught about the ego, so when reflecting they can recognise what is occurring when they are self-centred or angry. My hope would be that the act of recognition of the endless futility of the egos desires when young would prevent more severe issues developing as they age.

    For instance, it would be my speculation that the Orlando mass murder seems to be the result of an ego handicapped by bullying at school and via his religion in terms of homophobia, resulting in a faulty ego as an adult. This faulty ego led him into ongoing emotional turmoil – which often made people reject him. The hurt of this rejection led to a mental illness (via obsessive negative reflecting on a repeat loop) and the desire to get back at X, thoughts he would have had as a kid, and one night his ego motherboard burnt out and he became a death robot. An early understanding of how egos operate may have prevented the turmoil as it would have prevented the bullying from causing as much hurt, it would act a bit like Teflon to strong feelings of negativity.

  138. Kaye Lee

    Thanks for that Trish. I see no further point in discussing anything with you. You don’t want discussion, you want affirmation couched in exactly the phrases you want to hear. I suggest you reread YOUR article to see if one could be forgiven for thinking it was about why people should not vote for Pauline Hanson. This a forum for discussion, not for edicts.

  139. Trish Corry

    “I do not understand why you feel so upset. Is your empathy for victims gender exclusive?”

    I would expect this type of rot from a certain few who comment on here, but not you. As a regular blogger, you must be aware that I write across both genders when it comes to many areas of disadvantage and also ensure that I include as much diversity as possible, including pointing out further layers of discrimination when it comes to Indigenous or LGBTI people.

    To ask me a question that attempts to pose that I am not empathetic, nor understand the plight of men, because I wrote an article about the ramifications of Hanson’s narrative on women, and would like to talk about that, instead of talking about men, so we don’t talk about women. is at best, nonsense. When even if you don’t read my articles, as a regular blogger yourself, you should be aware of at least my broad themes.

  140. Trish Corry

    I’m fine, with you not discussing it further Kaye with your added way off base personal jab as to why you assume this must be so.

    I look forward to your article that lists all the areas of discrimination women have redressed by women talking about men instead.

  141. Trish Corry

    Yes, Jim Haz – a repeated response that this post is about women, in the context that men had come into the thread to make the post about me ignoring men in the article or stating had no empathy for men and wanting to make the discussion about men, whilst ignoring any points that were raised about women. Why are men so important and women are so much less than men, that this is seen appropriate? You! Woman! Sit in the corner and Shut up!

    Context adds a lot, when trying to argue something is happening (when its not the whole story).

    Andrew Bolt’s posts annoy me, but I read about two and never read them again. If my posts are annoying, maybe just don’t read them. I don’t put pen to paper and think “hmmmm what does JimHaz want me to say today”

    PS please tell the families of all the women who have died that there is no Domestic Violence epidemic and it is just because of immigration.

  142. jimhaz

    [PS please tell the families of all the women who have died that there is no Domestic Violence epidemic and it is just because of immigration]

    I have not looked up the historical stats but I do not see an “epidemic”, I see a long term problem of DV. Admittedly I do not feel DV has declined even though it is far more out in the open and viewed far more negatively than say 25 years ago. Though DV will always exist, there should have been a decline in light of the number of DV support organisations that now exist, and if there has not been then there must be reasons, which should be identifiable. PCism may be preventing the true assessment or reporting of those reasons.

    Immigration is just one factor in creating a non-decreasing DV environment, but it is one that is easily changed by policy. A growing population keeps us in a state of social immaturity – stupid teenagers forever! A slowdown would allow us to concentrate more on self-development as opposed to the needs of growth development.

    Btw…I wouldn’t actually vote for Hanson myself, but don’t mind that much if others do, as I wish to see the LNP and ALP attacked for their complacency.

  143. Trish Corry

    May the hard working women and men behind the scenes of stopping the travesty of domestic violence, be given strength, as your opening line shows we have such a long way to go.

  144. Kaye Lee

    If there are groups in our society where DV is more prevalent then we should do more to help those groups which is, I assume, why Trish wants to focus on women. If it is more prevalent in migrant communities then we need to understand why and help to address it through education and support. If it is an ongoing problem in Indigenous communities then we must work on removing the underlying causes. But at the same time, we should not just act in areas where the numbers are greatest. If that was how we worked then, in a country where the majority are heterosexual, we would not fight for gay rights. Discrimination, abuse, violence, marginalisation, victimisation and harrassment are things we should work together to eliminate regardless of who is the victim. If you want change then you need to take people with you.

  145. jimhaz

    [as your opening line shows we have such a long way to go]

    Yes it will take some time for the human race to become androgynous, should this change in sexual personality be necessary to remove domestic violence and to obtain income equality. If we survive 100 years I suspect both sexes will be using highly feminised or masculinised robot dolls for their sexual and intimacy kicks – we will miss the old sexual differences so much.

  146. paul walter

    Digressing slightly, here is something that gets back indirectly to to Hansonism and rightist politics, via Michelle Laundy:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/16/george-brandis-has-a-history-of-meddling-with-independent-agencies-hes-at-it-again

    Brandis and co lurk in the background, rejoicing, while people like us divide through the pouring of metho over deep cuts inflicted through life by the social conditions arguably evil people like that have created.

    Trish, I feel your pain from here, as with Mark Delmege. I hope a bit of ventilation will help people continue recovery from their traumatic experiences in life and I think you have put up basically a reasonable posting here. I think there is a bit of orchestration in the line taken by a small ginger group with affiliations to religious conservatism.

  147. diannaart

    We can make a complaint to the Libs/Labs by voting for others who are not so at the extreme end of whatever, pro-white male ideal is supported by the likes of Hanson.

    With all the baggage this woman carries plus the implication that she is only doing this for personal gain, why would even the most right wing fascist vote for this woman?

    Yes it will take some time for the human race to become androgynous

    Really? Is that what you think ? Where is the evidence?

    I believe it will take a long time for (some) men to recognise women as simply human – not from Venus, from planet Earth.

    A bell curve of human characteristics reveals most men and women featuring in the middle – together – with the extreme alpha macho men at one end, and the ultra feminine women at the other – they are the aberration and not the norm.

    We are not so different from each other – although much of our media, politics, religions and other belief systems prefer to create more differences than actually exist, to divide us.

    Always division, which always weakens, which always harms. We have just witnessed an extreme example in Orlando.

    Unlike Trish, I do believe we can include men in the discussion about Pauline Hanson.

    Unlike Kaye Lee, I do see some generalising/derogatory comments against women from a very few men.

    This is where I offer hugs all round, but I guess that is going a little too far.

  148. Trish Corry

    Kaye, If we allow the Narrative such as Pauline Hanson has displayed take hold, and looking to her history as the way this can take shape; then the women in minority groups who already have extra layers of discrimination and extra barriers placed on them due to sexual orientation, race, nationality, including Non-English speaking background, and religion, then if we can’t talk about women in general as to how Hanson’s narrative affects them as victims of domestic violence, because it is more important to talk about men, then these groups of women if they are victims of domestic violence have absolutely no hope, as they will be the last to be believed and they will be the most stigmatised, they will be the most likely to be accused of it ‘being their fault’.

    It is extremely important to discuss all groups, but I do not accept the argument that when domestic violence is primarily a woman’s problem and the target of Pauline Hanson was indeed women, (the major point in the OP) then it is not more important to talk about men, when we can’t even be bothered discussing women first.

    There is no natural progression of debate in this thread Kaye. No one here has discussed the ramifications for women to the extent that we are now crossing a natural barrier to talk about other groups, including men.

    The primary concern for how the narrative affects women, has been largely ignored in over 100 comments. This is extremely telling as to where we are in discussing anything that focuses on harm purely just focusing on women in 2016.

    The argument you are supporting is to discuss men at the detriment of women. I do not accept that, and I do not accept it in the guise that it is more important to just talk about minor groups (that include men) to make your point.

    I also do not accept that by talking about women in general that all minority groups are excluded. If you are a woman in any of these groups, Hanson’s narrative will affect each group at various levels and for some groups of women, it will be even harder.

    But let’s argue a case about how important it is to talk about men first before we even bother with how her comments will affect women victims of domestic violence – the actual targets of victimisation of her narrative and the actual central topic of this post.

  149. Trish Corry

    I also do believe we can talk about Men Diaanaart, but I do not see that this should occur with women being pushed aside before anything is even considered about women first.

    As I have said to Kaye, there has been no natural progression in this thread about discussing the implications for women from Hanson’s narrative and then progressing onto men. Women have been largely ignored. Ignored. again. Ignored. I see that is a huge problem.

    The comments have mainly been about “what about men” Well stuff women victims hey? Just what about men?

    Does anyone ever stop to ask the men who insist we only talk about men, why they don’t want to talk about women, especially if women are the actual topic?

  150. Kaye Lee

    “The argument you are supporting is to discuss men at the detriment of women.”

    Absolute f*cking bullshit!

  151. Trish Corry

    Really? F Words? You are making an argument to talk about men instead of women. You have tried a number of angles to which I have responded. Take it or leave it as you will Kaye. But I do not support an argument that it is more important to talk about men, on a topic about violence and women, when we can’t even be bothered to talk about women first.

  152. Kaye Lee

    Thanks for the hug diannart. I am expecting ByB to pop in any moment and say how much he enjoys watching chicks fight. 😉

    Yes Trish….I said the “f” word. Rolls eyes.

    “You are making an argument to talk about men instead of women.”

    Care to back that up with a quote from what I have said?

  153. paul walter

    I back Kaye Lee on the point that the post seemed to be about Hansonism rather gender.

    What appears to have happened is that the younger and still fiery Trish Corry got nettled by an orchestrated attack and has gone a bit defensive, but the article remains valid, the attacks have centred around an instinctive probing of personal issues and the wounds there must be still a bit tender, hence a touch of reactivity, both with Trish and a couple of people she has been conversing with and I don’t buy the attack on her as having any intellectual substance. You are good already, Trish and you will get better as you mellow, but at this stage in your life, the fires still burn deeply in your belly, not that it detracts from your basically correct analysis of Hansonism and its roots in this election.

    It remains a valid posting including on gender influences and the harsh words should be seen as distractions.

  154. jimhaz

    [Hanson’s narrative affects them as victims of domestic violence]

    Well it might help them as the result of Hanson’s comment being picked up as click bait by the media if for 20 more women in media to write articles about the issue.

    It might also help them if in some way more practical targeting by police of the more severe instances is the eventual outcome.

    It does not help where it reinforces existing disregard in certain males for women, but whether it would actually make any sort of catalyst type difference is questionable. I do not think it would lead to lesser funding by governments, but I suppose it could lead to a study of DV claims being done and if she ended up being somewhat accurate in terms of the wastage from frivolous claims, then it rightfully could lead to a change of funding systems.

    It may upset victims of DV, but I’m afraid thems the breaks in social discourse regarding the best use of government resources. The only thing I agree with Brandis on is the right to offend, however this is limited to when there is some practical suggestions involved (not offending for stirrings sake).

  155. Trish Corry

    I’m not in a defensive stance. I am defending something that is very important. That we should be able to talk about the implications of Hanson’s words towards women. Without insisting we talk about men instead.

    This post definitely is about Women. However, as Pauline Hanson made the comment, she is also central to this. HOW her narrative in particular will have a severe impact on women victims of domestic violence. The title is about women, the discussion is about women. As politicians are over arching bodies or people who make laws and fund supports, it is essential in my view to include how to ensure this type of politician “hanson’ does not have a voice in the part where laws are made, or money is allocated to assist victims.

    As the Author, I hope I can claim some validity in what my actual article is about!

    By the way Paul. I’m used to personal attacks on almost every single one of my blog posts from many regulars here. You do get used to it after a while, but I’m not just going to skulk off while people are declaring public opinions about who I am or what I think. If by 46 I’m not mature Paul. I guess I will never be.

  156. Kaye Lee

    Perhaps it is a function of age and experience, but I have always believed that if you are going to advocate for change then the only way to achieve it is to convince those who may have initially disagreed with you to come along and you certainly will not achieve that by dismissing their lived experience or point of view. Things change slowly but the change will be permanent if you have allowed all parties to be heard and to be part of the solution.

    “I’m not just going to skulk off while people are declaring public opinions about who I am or what I think”

    So stop trying to tell me I am advocating for men to the detriment of women. It’s just silly Trish.

  157. Trish Corry

    Kaye, I am wondering how much longer you will attempt to keep misconstruing my points? Are you delighting in the way that you are trying to falsely position me as someone who does not give a damn about issues of violence concerning men?

    I cannot explain it any more than what I have, that this is not about excluding men, but it is about talking about women, who are the victims, the targets of Hanson’s narrative.

    This article is about women. It is about women, because Pauline Hanson used one of the most important factors – reporting, in escaping domestic violence to create doubt. To create stigma. To place shame on these women. She then used this as a lever to discuss how badly men are off in contrast to women.

    Take this non-gendered scenario, that demonstrates the stigma which underpins Hanson’s narrative which has used women as the target in the same manner.

    Scenario: Workers have very poor conditions and wages, accidents are happening and some people have been injured badly and have died. Workers organise to fight against this.

    Politician: “Union thugs make frivolous claims about wages and conditions. They do it out of spite. No one is talking about the needs of business. We see shops close down, business owners go broke. Businesses not making the profit they should. Although some workers die, it is just wrong that Businesses don’t get heard enough when they are forced to spend unnecessary money on health and safety and how it affects them.

    Motivation of stigma for political gain: Call workers who want their rights, union thugs, a disparaging term, so they are not to be believed and are seen as a blight on society, to create sympathy for business (who are harming the worker).

    Response: Ok, lets talk about how important the needs of business are, instead of the workers who are not getting a fair wage and poor conditions and don’t have a safe workplace. If you don’t see business as a priority to talk about, before the affects of the anti-union rhetoric on the worker, then you are just anti-business! and that is plain wrong!

    This is what is happening here. It is not that the needs of business are not important. As it is not the needs of men are not important, but we do need to talk about the harm that the anti-union narrative has on workers, if that is the focus on the topic. As we need to talk about the harm the actual frivolous claim narrative will do to women.

    I am disappointed that some who have commented here, advocate for it to be ignored instead.

    It appears that as a topic on its own, that simply is not valued by many here, including other women.

    The ramifications for women, if this narrative got out of control (considering Hanson’s history) are to me, a great concern. It is very disappointing to me, that others do not see that, as something valuable to discuss.

    This is not about men at all.

    Call it radical, call it protest, call it what you want, but I do not think that it is such a radical concept, that when men jump into a thread and insist on making the conversation all about men, whilst at the same time attacking the women’s movement, or making stupid baseless comments about the female author, or other women who are commenting, that it is so radical to try to push the conversation back to the very group who will be harmed by the narrative, discussed in the OP – women. In fact, pushing it back is an over-reach, if the conversation hasn’t had an opportunity to begin.

    It is a sad day when I have realised that we actually cannot have a conversation just about the detrimental affects on women, following an article written about a stigmatising narrative that will have a negative affect on women and we simply must talk about men instead. Instead is the key word here, because no one has entered into debate about how Hanson’s narrative affects women thus far.

    If wanting to talk about something that harms women, instead of talking about men instead, means I’m radical in my thinking, or I’m “not aged and experienced” then like many women before me, I’m sure as hell comfortable with that. But it sure as hell does not make me anti-men.

  158. cornlegend

    “All through life there were distinctions – toilets for men, toilets for women; clothes for men, clothes for women – then, at the end, the graves are identical.”
    ― Leila Aboulela, Minaret

  159. Michael Jones

    Kaye,

    You have just discovered why I wouldn’t bother trying to work with feminists on domestic violence matters, because Trish Corry is representative of that ideology nowdays. She may claim to believe that violence against men should also be addressed, but it always comes with the caveat “…unless it impacts on women”.

    The kicker is that they will argue that any action for men is at the expense of women, because as you have just seen to Trish the necessary acknowledgement that women can be both violent and lie about violence constitutes the vilification. To her gender relations a zero sum game where if men win, women to lose.

    That is is why protecting men from family violence gas not progressed despite years of research and advocacy by credible organisations like “One in Three”,and it will never progress while feminists like Trish Corry and more prominently the likes of Rosie Batty and Clementine Ford dominate the debate. It is also why those who beg to differ experience dishonesty, manipulation and extreme nastiness from the likes of Trish, as we have both experienced in this discussion.

    Now, if there are other feminists who genuinely want feminism to be about equality rather than the domination and vilification of men, those feminists need to call out the man haters and take control of the reputation of feminism. Because right now there is no reason for men like me not to see feminism, as currently presented, as being the enemy and many women who don’t hate men feel exactly the same way. You only needed to see the “I don’t need feminism” internet movement by young women of a few years ago to see that.

    Like I said, the only political option for men like me to have our voice heard on this issue right now is Pauline Hanson. Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten aren’t going to do anything without the threat of losing a lot of political skin, and only Pauline provides that threat. If more moderate feminists or others want to give us a credible option of getting something done that is less abrasive than Pauline, I am sure that many of us would shift our support

  160. Matters Not

    .

  161. Michael Jones

    diannart, the article isn’t about women, it is a response to Hanson’s assertion that many men are being treated unfairly in DV cases, both as victims and as falsely accused perpetrators. Why the hostility to those notions from people like you and Trish, despite the fact that these issues are well researched and that people here have related personal experiences? Pauline Hanson has not stated that genuine cases of domestic violence by men against women should not be treated seriously, nor has she stated that women should be disembodied I’m any way, so why the rush to condemn her?

  162. Kaye Lee

    Michael,

    Trish and I are both dyed in the wool feminists (when I was 17 the headline in my local paper was “schoolgirl pours scorn on sex bias” after a speech I made in the first International Women’s Year), and I agree with her about the damage that comments like those made by Pauline Hanson can cause. Stating that too many women make “frivolous claims” is not helpful. There was a time when people would not report DV, partly because of the stigma, but also because they were often not believed. We do not want to go back to those days. I know that in the hurt of relationship breakdowns, people can be vindictive, some people may even lie. We would be better served working together to improve the system than dividing into camps, hence my comments about legal aid, refuges, counselling and support services.

    Pauline Hanson will never work for positive change because her whole political career has been built on fomenting and exploiting hatred and division. This is not what we need from our elected representatives.

    As for the dolly birds who insist they are not feminists, to me they are like the workers who refuse to join the union but happily accept the improvements won by the unionists. The notion that, to be a feminist, you must hate men, is rubbish. I will fight against injustice and discrimination wherever I find it.

  163. Trish Corry

    Michael Jones. Reading through your hate-filled and angry comments, comments which are so full of resentment towards women in general and it appears real loathing for women who speak up, does not surprise me.

    After just reading one article I have written and read through a debate that followed where I insisted that women were being ignored and this article was written to make people think about the harm that Hanson’s rhetoric and campaign style had on women victims of domestic violence; you seem to have been tipped right over the edge. This is, according to you to know enough about me to understand my every thought, my aims in life and how I feel about men. All very wrong assumptions.

    Thank you for this example. Thank you for your misrepresentation of me, your angry character assassination, you livid misjudgements towards me, as well as Rosie Batty and Clem Ford – according to you the scourge of women, simply because they dare to speak up – about women. Women that don’t feel the need to be forced by men to push women aside and talk about men. Women who are articulate and intelligent and comfortable talking about men in conversations about men, but who insist that there are particular topics where it is important to really critically think about the impact on women. That thought alone, appears enough for you to express so much hatred and contempt.

    Imagine thousands of angry hate-filled men just like you, who Pauline Hanson recruits with more and more of this same accusatory rhetoric towards women. Thousands of angry men, just like you, spewing their vile disgusting rants about the women you see as making false claims, because Pauline Hanson has told you this. The women, who, although you do not know them, are radical and evil, lying, manipulative and doing it for revenge women. Women according to you, who hate men. Women who whilst may be a small number, will be extrapolated to include all women victims of violence. Just as Hanson has done with Indigenous, Asians and Muslims and now it is women.

    According to you, It is not because of a judicial system and laws made by men who do not give men a fair go, it is the women, especially the women who have escaped violence. It is their fault, according to you, because that is what Pauline Hanson has told you. That is WHY she started and underpinned her further comments with a statement that ‘women make false claims’ To advocate a case for men, she did not need to vilify women. But you appear to have responded, just as she requires, so I guess she is onto something, if it is your type of vote she is after.

    (I hope I can take liberty with my own assumptions about your character as you have done to me and other women – I mean, that is only fair right?)

    Thousands of angry men who come together to express their ‘rightful freedoms to express their anger towards women, because Pauline Hanson has told you, that you should be angry and she will speak up for you. History shows she has already done this with certain groups. I spoke up because I do not want this group to be women. This does not mean I hate men. I know people have expressed that they simply do not understand WHY I have written this article, but this certainly is the reason why I wrote it. It certainly was not about men at all.

    Whilst I have been a bit of a lone wolf here and people disagree with me and believe giving men such as yourself a voice, is more important than even paying a modicum of attention to the harm Hanson’s narrative will cause to women; I still don’t.

    Not only do I believe it is possible to have a discussion just about women, when women are the subject as targets of something harmful; I have been in too many threads discussing how domestic violence affects women, yet men, very like yourself come in and insist to make it all about men. Women end up, not being able to feel that they can contribute. These men, just like you, make angry hate-filled accusations towards women, men insist they give ‘proof’ of their violence, doubt their claims, tell the women how they don’t understand at all and start screaming statistics at women and insist that we should not talk about women at all, but how important it is to talk about men, because it is men who experience the most violence. Just like it is some type of sick competition that men have to win. Very much like your posts in this thread.

    If that makes me someone who only wants to hear what I want to hear, according to some. Then tough.

    I don’t think that women need more men like you, screaming their anger at them, just because Pauline Hanson gives you the power to do so.

    If there is a choice to stand with women like Rosie Batty and Clem Ford or stand with women like Pauline Hanson. I will choose Rosie Batty and Clem Ford.

  164. diannaart

    OK

    There is a subset of men who feel threatened by women gaining status beyond the kitchen. I have to wonder if these men are simply projecting their own behaviour onto women.

    During WW2, women were quickly utilised to keep factories and other businesses going for both the war effort and to keep the nation running. When the war ended, women were expected, and most did, return meekly to their kitchens. What man would stand for being so used?

    Feminists are not taking over the world from men. We want to work with men. As we repeatedly say, and will continue saying we are about equality – no ifs or buts – any woman who is about world domination IS NOT A FEMINIST, she’s a control freak – men have control freaks too, although we call them alpha males.

    Pauline Hanson’s behaviour is a retrograde step to a time when women were regarded as the frivolous chattel of men; not to be taken seriously. No man would accept being called frivolous – why should we?

    We are still not taken seriously. Why should I or Trish or any other woman have to discuss her personal history because our comments are not accepted as valid?

    Such as Mark Delmege, asking me on another thread, if I understood what being abused felt like? Or, if I dare to criticise a part of the porn industry – I must be a dumb know nothing.

    Trish’s article is about a very ignorant woman (woman, not man) who is so interested in her own power that she will use the fears and anxieties of some men. Any man or woman falling for such obvious manipulation needs a rethink.

    This is not a forum for the victim’s of female abuse. This is about female behaviour – just one, Pauline Hanson’s.

  165. helvityni

    If Pauline finds out how many words are written about her here, she’d be delighted, ‘must be my red hair’…

  166. Michael Jones

    Kaye,

    If you can’t see the need to call out patterns of bad behaviour by significant numbers of women with respect to DV, when calling out bad behaviour by many men and demanding legal sanction has been central to feminist action, then you are simply not serious about helping men in these situations. Men like Hazem El Masri, the footballer whose girlfriend was recently found to have made a false DV claim against him, have been assumed guilty until proven innocent and put through hell and can have their lives ruined by this behaviour.

    Yet women who do this face no sanction and therefore face no disincentive for this behaviour. If you believe that women who do this to men should be allowed to get way with this, then you prove my point that feminism is not about equality. When push comes to shove you will always throw the welfare of men under a bus in the interests of women.

    That is why men need to back politicians like Hanson who will fight in our interests, because we will never get a fair go dealing with feminists.

  167. Kaye Lee

    You are so very wrong Michael. I don’t think lying is exclusive to any one sex and I fully understand the damage it can cause having been on the losing end of a couple of court cases myself. I fully understand the anger and frustration caused by injustice. I agree El Masri went through hell but you will note that, in his case, justice prevailed. This was, in part, because he could afford a good lawyer. That is why I say that legal aid and community support is very important in helping to solve this problem. You need someone to talk to and good advice on how to proceed. You need someone to represent you.

    Do you want to solve the problem or apportion blame?

    I, like many others, feel you could find a more capable person to help improve the system than Hanson. What has she ever achieved other than to stir the populist pot? She talks up things she doesn’t understand and has no plan to fix anything.

  168. Michael Jones

    diannart, if what you get out of men wanting to be treated fairly in DV cases is actually them being threatened of women leaving the kitchen, nobody can help you because that is loony.

  169. Michael Jones

    Kaye, justice didn’t prevail with Hatten El Masri because his false accuser was not charged with perjury like she should have been. People like to talk about all the support that we should give men, but baulk at the prospect of legitimate criminal sanctions for women who do the wrong thing. Like it or not the big stick is part of how we keep society civil, it is just that it is waved at men far more often than women.

    As for the more capable person to improve the system, Pauline Hanson called out political correctness in the 90s and that re oriented public discourse in this country for over a decade. She is very capable of being a catalyst for change in her own way, the people who are about to lose power just make out she is dumb because of the threat she poses to them.

  170. silkworm

    I move that Michael Jones no longer be heard.

  171. Kaye Lee

    I disagree silkworm.

    Michael,

    So you want punishment rather than solutions?

    I was on the management committee for a local homeless youth refuge. All of our residents had been through their own version of hell and they were 15-21 years old. We found that a rewards based system that taught life skills and encouraged good behaviour, combined with lots of support with form-filling in and legal issues, and outreach after they had left us, worked far better than punishment.

    I know this is a very different sutuation with specific issues but it is my approach to most things. I don’t think blame and punishment are constructive in the long run. It is only human to feel anger but it is ultimately a destructive emotion.

    Can you suggest what you feel needs doing to improve the system to help all people in these situations before it gets to court cases?

  172. jantonius

    Michael,
    It is clear what kind of ‘catalyst for change’ she has been. She is a hateful, ignorant disaster. But if you want to support her for the sake of your own personal claims – go, knock yourself out.

    silkworm: wouldn’t that be a kinda – you know – Hansonite move?

  173. Matters Not

    Pauline Hanson called out political correctness in the 90s and that re oriented public discourse in this country for over a decade.

    Wow! re oriented public discourse in this country for over a decade. Perhaps someone should tell the ‘historians’ because they seemed to have missed it completely.

    But I now have some understanding of why you believe she can help. Shakes head.

  174. Michael Jones

    Kaye,

    I am sure that those supportive measures are great under the circumstances you describe, but what we were dealing with with Hazem El Masri’s girlfriend was a malicious action which could have ruined him. Of course trying to prevent problems is ideal but sometimes people just do bad things of their own free will, with the only prevention being the credible threat of sanction.

    I note that you are not proposing to remove legal sanctions for men who commit DV, so I am going to assume that you accept the role they play. All I am saying is that the same principle should apply to women who do the wrong thing in DV cases. If you are committed to equality like you say you are, I can’t see how you could have a problem with with that.

    As it is governments have been dragged kicking and screaming to even acknowledge that men can suffer DV, but it isn’t really taken seriously. Think, when was the last DV advertisement that you saw featuring a man suffering at the hands of a woman? Because I never have and I would put it to you that if we did see that acknowledgement, prominent feminists would scream blue murder.

    They ain’t going to give men a fair go without a fight, so that is what will need to happen.

  175. Michael Jones

    Matters Not. What, you don’t think that John Howard’s social policy approach had anything to do with reconnecting with disenfranchised Coalition voters who turned to Hanson? Righto.

  176. Kaye Lee

    Fighting for the right to insult, vilify, marginalise and victimise sections of our society does not count as a worthy achievement in my eyes. She created the environment for people like Tony Abbott, Cory Bernardi, George Christensen, Eric Abetz and all the others who seek to blame rather than come up with solutions to the problems we face.

  177. Michael Jones

    Well like I said Kaye, if there are feminists who are committed to re orienting their movement towards genuine equality, they only need to make themselves heard and Hanson be needed.

  178. Michael Jones

    edit – Hanson will not be needed.

  179. Kaye Lee

    Feminists fighting for equality….

    Gillian Triggs, Cassandra Goldie, Marcia Langton to mention a few. The movement does not need reorienting – it has always been about equality.

  180. jimhaz

    [She created the environment for people like Tony Abbott, Cory Bernardi, George Christensen, Eric Abetz and all the others who seek to blame rather than come up with solutions to the problems we face]

    Bit of an oversell there. This group are mostly the dregs leftover from the Howard days.

    In fact I happen to agree with a lot of their policies. It was just the party itself was rabid.

    In its late 1990s incarnation, One Nation called for:

    zero net immigration – I agree

    an end to multiculturalism – I agree as it is being used to prevent complaint about high immigration. Are we not alreafy multicultural enough

    a revival of Australia’s Anglo-Celtic cultural tradition which it says has been diminished – too late for that, but a large decrease in immigration would help slow the change to no identifable Aust culture.

    the abolition of native title – disagree

    and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) – agree, too much wastage, too little achieved

    an end to special Aboriginal funding programs – disagree

    opposition to Aboriginal reconciliation which the party says will create two nations – disagree

    a review of the 1967 constitutional referendum which gave the Commonwealth power to legislate for Aborigines – unsure

    The party’s economic position was:

    to support protectionism and trade retaliation – agree

    increased restrictions on foreign capital – agree

    and the flow of capital overseas – agree

    and a general reversal of globalisation’s influence on the Australian economy – agree

    Domestically, One Nation opposed privatisation, competition policy, and the GST – agree

    while proposing a government subsidised people’s bank to provide 2 per cent loans to farmers, small business, and manufacturers – agree.

    On foreign policy, One Nation called for a review of Australia’s United Nations membership – agree but only in relation to the definition of refugee’s as travel and smuggler organsiations have ruined the original definition/agreement

    an end to foreign aid – disagree

    to ban foreigners from owning Australian land – agree in part. Limited forms of ownership are OK. Need caps, that would be lower than present OS ownership.

  181. Michael Jones

    Kaye, I am sure that you believe that you prioritise equality, but I believe that this conversation has revealed that when push comes to shove, you don’t. And given that I have never heard Triggs or any other prominent feminist acknowledge the inequities towards men in the DV system, noting that Triggs is in a very powerful position and could have pushed for change, I can only conclude that she is the same.

    I realise that being confronted with a perspective that challenges a core part of your identity, feminism, is difficult and I don’t propose to say any more. So thankyou for the discussion, I will leave you to think about it

  182. Kaye Lee

    Xenophobia writ large despite her not even knowing what the word meant.

    Michael, you want us to specifically talk about men. Trish wants this discussion to be about women. I want it to be about all victims of discrimination and abuse.

    Karen Willis, Executive Officer of Rape and Domestic Violence Services NSW, said:

    “In terms of service provision, safety from domestic violence or sexual assault, or assistance with the criminal justice system, we should be, and are, gender-blind. Anyone who needs help will get it, gender is just not relevant.

    The problem is that by that point, the violence has already occurred.

    If we are going to talk about prevention, and we take gender out, we are never going to get anywhere, because the perpetrators of violence are almost always men. Gender analysis of the perpetrators is critical in understanding and therefore preventing sexual violence and assault.”

    The purpose is not to vilify men or win some macabre abuse competition. Nor should anyone suggest that it is an excuse to ignore male victims – where they are in need of assistance it should absolutely be available to them. But in a discussion about how we address domestic violence and where the resources need to be concentrated, we must understand the facts.

    And the facts are that women and children are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence, and men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence, both against women and against each other.

  183. diannaart

    Non sequitor: Man tells feminists what he thinks feminists believe, is disappointed when they disagree…

    … maybe he should just “think about it”.

  184. Michael Jones

    “…the perpetrators of violence are almost always men”.

    To use your preferred response to such claims, absolute f*cking bullshit!

  185. Kaye Lee

    “Almost always” is perhaps inappropriate – it came from the article I was quoting.

    Between 2010 and 2014, females were around five to six times more likely than males to be a victim of sexual assault (between 140 and 145 female victims per 100,000 females compared with between 25 and 30 male victims per 100,000 males).

    In 2014…..

    For victims of family and domestic violence-related assault, there were:
    Four times as many female victims (4,534) as male victims (1,157) in South Australia;
    Four times as many female victims (3,482) as male victims (807) in the Northern Territory;
    Three times as many female victims (10,648) as male victims (3,860) in Western Australia;
    Three times as many female victims (465) as male victims (145) in Australian Capital Territory; and
    Twice as many female victims (19,488) as male victims (9,261) in New South Wales.

    For victims of family and domestic violence–related sexual assault, there were:
    12 times as many female victims (230) as male victims (20) in South Australia;
    12 times as many female victims (81) as male victims (7) in the Northern Territory;
    Seven times as many female victims (1,147) as male victims (165) in Victoria;
    Seven times as many female victims (471) as male victims (70) in Western Australia;
    Six times as many female victims (692) as male victims (114) in New South Wales; and
    Three times as many female victims (29) as male victims (9) in Australian Capital Territory.

    In Queensland, there were 36 female victims and no male victims of family and domestic violence-related sexual assault recorded by police.

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0~2014~Main%20Features~Experimental%20Family%20and%20Domestic%20Violence%20Statistics~10000

  186. Michael Taylor

    Nobody can argue with those statistics, Kaye.

  187. Michael Jones

    Kaye, those stats just reflect reported cases of domestic violence, the fact that violence against males is under reported is well researched. Not that it should matter, just because men who suffer DV are in a (large) minority, is no reason to ignore them in attempting to prevent DV, which is what “gender analysis” does.

    Anyway, you are clearly just another lying feminist without capacity for genuine self reflection. Feel free to get stuffed while I go and vote for Pauline.

  188. Michael Taylor

    “Feel free to get stuffed . . .”

    That’s totally uncalled for.

  189. Kaye Lee

    There is no question that DV is under reported. I doubt that that is a male phenomenon alone. Gender analysis is only one reporting measure that helps decide where to best use limited resources. It has been found that gambling can be a contributing factor which is why Labor introduced gambling reform laws which Kevin Andrews immediately abolished. Alcohol is another contributing factor that is difficult to regulate (apparently). Lifting people out of poverty and educating everyone would help. I have nowhere suggested that any victim be ignored.

    You are entitled to vote for whoever you feel will do the most good. It is truly a sad reflection if you think that person is Pauline Hanson.

  190. Michael Jones

    Michael Taylor, if you have seen Kaye’s previous posts I would suggest that she can dish it out, take it and doesn’t need you to leap to her defence.

  191. Kaye Lee

    Geeze Louise it’s hard to have a sensible conversation. I would point out that Michael Taylor is a co-owner of this site and has every right to tell any of us to pull our head in. He also knows me very well. I would also say about myself, I am 58 years old and on a continual self-improvement program. I like to learn. I also prefer looking for solutions than stopping at the complaint level. Recognising a problem is one thing. Doing something about it is the important part and that involves addressing the causes as well as the symptoms.

    PS Honesty is one of the most important things to me. Do not tell me I lie. I might be mistaken. I NEVER knowingly lie.

  192. Trish Corry

    Kaye: Michael, you want us to specifically talk about men. Trish wants this discussion to be about women. I want it to be about all victims of discrimination and abuse.

    Personally, I think it is sad that the comments thread have paid very little attention or serious discussion to the consequences of Hanson’s narrative on women; but rather pushed women aside and apart from my tenacious attempts at insisting to try to turn the debate back to women, and sustaining a rather high level of verbal abuse for my efforts, the majority of the thread has been about a few very aggressive and angry men pushing out any discussion about women and insisting it to be about men.

    Does anyone really care about the implications for women from Hanson’s narrative?

    Does anyone really care that Hanson’s narrative is used to create a following to stigmatise one group? This group now being women.
    Do people really care if Hanson recruits thousands of angry, hate-filled men just like Michael Jones screaming abuse at vulnerable women, calling them liars and men haters?
    Did anyone notice how much more powerful Michael seemed to appear in his new comment this morning, when he thought he had an ally in Kaye, who argued to give him a voice yesterday?
    Did anyone notice how nasty Michael Jones is now towards Kaye, after she reassured him, she does not share his pack mentality against women and is indeed a feminist?
    Does anyone really care that men like Michael see the abuse of men, which research shows is not at the same level of prevalence nor intensity (as in violent intensity and death) but mainly emotional abuse, as more important than women dying from this violence?
    Does anyone really care that in almost every single thread about domestic violence on social media, there are men like Michael Jones waiting in the wings to scream abuse at women and tell them they are secondary?
    Does anyone really care that people like Michael who’s voice has been enabled and encouraged in this thread, what type of emotional affect he may have on other women readers?

    I guess not.

    This is really a freedom of speech argument. As if there was a woman that was as hateful and abusive as Michael screaming about men and putting down women, I would have acted no differently. I am on the side that freedom of speech should be curbed if it causes harm. Others may differ in that opinion. It is a complex topic and everyone has their own opinion. I would not support him screaming his abuse towards a woman in real life, and I don’t condone it online either. I don’t think either situation should be enabled and given more of a voice.

    Michael Jones is not here to learn from you, to listen to you, to share with you, to participate in debate, to understand domestic violence as a whole. He does not want to work collaboratively and collegiality on a solution with women. Because in his mind, any woman who disagrees or thinks women need to be taken seriously – hates men.

    There has been no natural progression of debate here. Michael Jones does not care about the impact Pauline Hanson’s narrative and his accusations and agenda has on women. He is here to judge the women he thinks are a threat to men. The women that Pauline Hanson warned him about. The women, she prefaced at the beginning of her speech.

    She did that for a purpose and I really truly hope, that although women were not discussed in this thread, that people see Michael Jones as the very example of men I was talking about. He is essentially here to get a kick out of the abuse he gives to women, he chooses not to like. This has been his intent from the outset. You will find a Michael Jones in almost every thread about women and domestic violence online.

    I just hope that Hanson’s agenda on this does not get out of control and we do not see thousands of Michael Jones screaming their abuse at women, judging them and calling them liars and comparing them to how much more important men are and making it harder and harder for them to report. I hope this latest agenda from Hanson does not get any footing and I hope that day never comes.

  193. Kaye Lee

    Trish, you read things into my comments that are not said. You keep accusing me of pushing women aside but when challenged to show one example of me doing that you were tellingly silent.

  194. Trish Corry

    I have not accused you of pushing women aside. I am saying that by you arguing to give Michael a voice and I should listen to him, pushes women aside. Not you as a person, an action that can be taken. I disagree with that action. It is a well known strategy used by men in nearly every thread about women and domestic violence. I saw him coming a mile off. I don’t enjoy the abuse his type brings and I don’t enjoy how they purposely derail conversations that SHOULD be about women and insist they are about men. I just don’t like it. No. No I don’t. I don’t like anything (ok sorry, now I’m getting carried away).

  195. Trish Corry

    I did not see you ask for examples. Fair go Kaye, I copped a fair bit of shit yesterday from all fronts. However the entire debate was about insisting my article was not about women. I’m sure there are examples where you argued for men to be heard otherwise the debate would not have occurred.

  196. Michael Jones

    In other words Trish is only happy when everybody agrees with her and will try to discredit them in any way possible if they don’t. That is what her freedom of speech argument comes down to and is pretty indicative of the totalitarian ideology that modern feminism is.

  197. jimhaz

    Trish and Michael J both need to examine their ego’s IMO. I think the discussion once MJ arrived has not been about rightfulness, but about satisfaction from winning an argument.

    That said I’m fully certain this is not the first article on this topic where Trish completely excludes men,and this onesidedness does grate on me. It is as if she wishes to exclude them from human reality.

    Micheal however is on mission. I do not know whether this is justified or not, but if the trend is for increasingly levels of female against male domestic violence (and we know it is the case for female V female) well quite frankly that can be expected from the emancipation of females. The gaining of more power results in more opportunity for the abuse of power.

    In both cases it would seem to be past personal experiences driving their viewpoint, which is OK as it is hard to step aside from ones significant experiences.

    Something I might find interesting is domestic violence stats in relation to gay folk of both sexes. Could that tell us anything?

  198. Matters Not

    While one can proceed with the best of intentions and choose words with the utmost care, one has absolutely no control over the ‘meaning(s)’ that are subsequently given. ? ?

  199. diannaart

    Something I might find interesting is domestic violence stats in relation to gay folk of both sexes. Could that tell us anything?

    That the protagonists are more evenly matched, physically?

  200. Trish Corry

    Michael Jones
    *That is what her freedom of speech argument comes down to and is pretty indicative of the totalitarian ideology that modern feminism is.*

    If that means trying to sway the conversation towards what the topic is about (women) and prevents abusive, vile, men who truly deeply hate women like yourself from abusing women online – then tough. Its tough if you don’t like it. Call it what you want to call it.

    Jimhaz
    *That said I’m fully certain this is not the first article on this topic where Trish completely excludes men,and this onesidedness does grate on me. It is as if she wishes to exclude them from human reality.*

    Really? I did not know you spoke fluent horseshit JimHaz. I have excluded one person from commenting on my blog, for two blogs only. This is because he sent me a vile, abusive personal message on my other blog, of which the owners of this site are aware of. That type of behaviour does not need to be tolerated by me or anyone. Otherwise, I have never prevented or refused comment from anyone.

    PS. Jim, I have no idea who you are. I’ve never even seen you comment on anything I have written, yet you speak of your insignificant contribution like you are an expert on my previous work. As if you are some type of expert on who I am and claim to know more about me and what I think than what I do. That is super bizarre behaviour JimHaz. Maybe start talking about the topic instead of me, so I don’t have to keep thinking you are an obsessed weirdo.

  201. Kaye Lee

    I do not think listening to another person’s point of view stops me from expressing mine.

  202. Michael Jones

    I was talking about you Trish, not too you. I wouldn’t bother trying to change your mind, my only purpose was to further highlight how feminists like you are a large part of the problem, and need to be marginalized.

  203. Trish Corry

    “Something I might find interesting is domestic violence stats in relation to gay folk of both sexes. Could that tell us anything?”

    Probably not. There is very little data on LGBTI relationships. This is a strong argument of why marriage equality should occur. There is very little data on LGBTI single parents, data on reasons of breakdown etc., etc.,

  204. Michael Taylor

    Michael Jones, I find your attitude repulsive and disgusting. To suggest that anyone deserves to be marginalised is absolutely sickening.

    I think it would be best if you just moved on.

  205. Trish Corry

    Kaye Lee June 17, 2016 at 3:40 pm Edit
    I do not think listening to another person’s point of view stops me from expressing mine.

    What is that in response to Kaye?

  206. Kaye Lee

    Trish,

    It was in response to your comment “by you arguing to give Michael a voice and I should listen to him, pushes women aside.” He was saying why he wanted to vote for Pauline Hanson. He has been belligerent and derogatory, but so have you. And I said the “F” word.

    If you wanted to you could completely ignore MJ’s contributions. He can’t control what others write.

    When I was a member of the Teacher’s Federation I was voted in as the Women’s Contact Officer. The fact that I wasn’t even present for the vote tells you what a popular job it was. After being informed the next day of my election in absentia I said I will be the Staff Contact Officer – I cannot be a party to gender exclusion. I said it as a joke, but I do feel that excluding people breeds resentment. We do better to discuss things than live in an echo chamber.

  207. jimhaz

    @ TC

    [I have excluded one person from commenting on my blog, for two blogs only….That type of behaviour does not need to be tolerated by me or anyone. Otherwise, I have never prevented or refused comment from anyone]

    Fair enough. Completely rational to do so.

    [PS. Jim, I have no idea who you are. I’ve never even seen you comment on anything I have written, yet you speak of your insignificant contribution like you are an expert on my previous work. As if you are some type of expert on who I am and claim to know more about me and what I think than what I do. That is super bizarre behaviour JimHaz. Maybe start talking about the topic instead of me, so I don’t have to keep thinking you are an obsessed weirdo].

    Ahh it is just that I recall writing a fairly lengthy post for one of your articles that was not much different from this one– but I never posted it as I was not satisfied (the more one writes the more lose ends eventuate). I hope I’m not mixing the writer up here. I very well could be. Perhaps it was this article https://theaimn.com/50098-2/

    More recently there was some sort of rant about Turnbull – l’m sure I made a comment on that thread. Generally I don’t bother responding to your articles though I read them – they seem to lack adequate objectivity.

    As towards me, well I am a weirdo. In fact I would doubt there is any regular poster here who does not think I’m a twit so my dear you are on safe ground. I do speculate a bit too much.

    I think differently than almost everyone else. I don’t like any form of ‘rote’ thinking (as in repeating all the accepted memes of whatever group one aligns with).

    Anyway, time for me to leave this thread alone – otherwise I might say something that will later lead to “post anxiety” 🙂

  208. jimhaz

    Thanks K,

    A quick perusal shows not that much difference. I wonder if this shows that more effort should be put towards educating people to make better selections for the right partner for each person. The first stat I quote below is a bit odd – statistical trickery I suspect.

    Of the 54.7% of participants who reported experiencing abuse in a previous relationship, 63.2% of those indicated that they had experienced abuse in a same-gender relationship, and 44.3% in a heterosexual relationship”
    14.1% reported being physically hurt by their current partner at least once.
    14.1% reported being stalked by their current partner on at least one occasion.

  209. Trish Corry

    Kaye, I think that there are some real fundamental differences where we disagree. Yes, his comments should be put aside, and that is exactly what i was doing. I have a previous blog post on this very topic about Repressive and Discriminate Tolerance. https://theaimn.com/49979-2/

    Where you argue that all people, regardless of how harsh and damaging their rhetoric is, should be given a voice. I, only the other hand, believe very strongly, if we are to progress that these types of harmful opinions should be bracketed and put aside. (See the article for more detail). This applies to how people use language to attack and harm people on race, religion, sexuality and gender etc., not just women. I did try to bracket and put aside the harmful intentions of Michael Jones, yesterday, which is where our disagreement began.

    Men, like Michael Jones are prevalent in threads about women and domestic violence. Their voice does not do anything to assist women victims of domestic violence and they certainly do nothing to assist victims of domestic violence who are men. This is because they spend their entire time essentially trying to control the conversation through knowledge power (their own version of stats) and the dominance of women (men more important, ridicule women, request to prove women are a victim etc.) We have seen all of these things within this thread.

    Your self effacacy may be such that you can deal with that. However, many women, particularly victims of violence do not cope with this type of behaviour very well at all. They do not have the self-efficacy to stand up to this type of behaviour. It is a source of huge complaint from women. They do not feel they can contribute safely in this type of men abusing women online environment. I was conscious that maybe women victims may have been attracted to this post.

    I have zero problems at all discussing violence and male victims in a productive environment. However, there were far too many tell tale signs early on in the thread as to what was going to occur (which it did). I also see no problem discussing women, when women are the actual topic.

    The main purpose for me trying to keep the focus on women (besides that being what the article was about) was that I saw his and another person’s attempts to quickly derail the conversation. They develop a pack mentality and their comments are harmful and do nothing for progress. As you can see Michael Jones thought he had developed the pack mentality with you, this morning in his first post and became aggressive when he realized you were not an ally in the “Let’s have a go at Trish brigade” and that you were just vehementy disagreeing with me on some points.

    There has been no progress here by today by enabling Michael Jones to have his say, unless you call notching up personal ridicule of Trish Corry, or expressing an ingrained hate about feminists an achievement. Which I don’t.

  210. Kaye Lee

    Another interesting thing I cam across is the investment of money raised during Movember in various men’s health initiatives including mental health.

    The results of poor mental health can be deadly. Globally, a man dies every minute from suicide. Men, regardless of age group, often don’t recognise when they’re experiencing a mental health issue, and may not be comfortable asking for help. The uncomfortable truth is that some stereotypical forms of masculinity are killing men.

    We’re committed to looking at the issue of mental health through a male lens and ensuring that the programs we fund and support are tailored towards men.

    https://au.movember.com/programs/mental-health

    One of the programs was a survey in conjunction with Sydney University asking what fathers wanted from parenting programs amongst other things. Hopefully programs like this will help prevent domestic violence and also support men who are victims.

    I know you would prefer we be talking about women Trish. Sorry. I don’t mean to derail, more to show MJ that there is progress being made in dealing with men’s issues, and to point out the benefit that men and women can get from early intervention and support. If he knows that progress is being made on his concerns he might be able to accept other actions designed to help other groups. Personally I think men and women must work together to find a solution.

  211. Trish Corry

    *He has been belligerent and derogatory, but so have you. And I said the “F” word.*

    Isn’t it funny how we see ourselves Kaye – I would indeed feel that yesterday, you were belligerent, derogatory, a passive aggressive smart arse and yes, using very uncalled for language towards me. Yet you only see your use of the F word as the problem. I don’t think Michael Jones thought you were his mate this morning, for no reason.

    Well that is the online world for you isn’t it. Sometimes it does more harm than good.

  212. Kaye Lee

    Let’s get real here. I did not direct any bad language “towards” you. I said your claim that I was arguing to the detriment of women was bullshit and I stand by that. The worst thing I said to you was that you want affirmation rather than discussion. Perhaps you could show me where I was belligerent or derogatory or a smart arse?

  213. diannaart

    @ Kaye Lee

    I know you would prefer we be talking about women Trish. Sorry. I don’t mean to derail, more to show MJ that there is progress being made in dealing with men’s issues…

    Which is exactly what MJ has be angling for – “wha wha wha what about the menz?”.

    Do you think this is the first time anyone has tried to discuss the help that is available for men, to MJ? That MJ just sprang up overnight?

    @Trish

    …and you are not Robinson Crusoe in this discussion – thanks for nothing. Clearly I have done something to offend you, I thought I was trying to find a reasonable path through all of this sniping.

  214. Kaye Lee

    I think the rest of that paragraph put that phrase into some context diannaart which is lost by being selective about where you end. Early intervention and support will be beneficial for everyone.

  215. paul walter

    Trish Corry: “isn’t it funny how we see ourselves..”

    Do you see yourself as others see you?

    I concur with Kaye Lee that Michael Jones has as much right to participate as the rest of us, no matter how obnoxious he or his view may be, for the simple reason that if he is excluded, the way is open to exclude all others, also by fiat, including yourself. Any contribution MAY hold a solution, even from unexpected quarters. Trust people to have the brains to work things out for themselves, but shutting down a conversation just means you convince observers that you lack faith in your own convictions. For my part, I took from Michael what sounded reasonable and left the rest.

    Kaye Lee has played a lone hand here today, eventually Michael lost patience and showed himself up with his “feminists” comment, as happens with free speech, but I beleive that shutting down debate is a foundationally bad thought, most of all coming from someone as intelligent as yourself.

    Personally, I thought the column might have shut down today, since no one wants to consider the other viewpoint if one exists, but it still continues, loaded with recriminations and much good work is undone

  216. Trish Corry

    Curbing debate and shutting down hate speech are two very different things

  217. Trish Corry

    Not at all Diann. I’m just being a self serving brat. Thinking of myself. I tend to do that with prolonged online abuse. I do value your contributions and thoughts and comments. I truly do and I should have thanked you.

  218. Trish Corry

    Perhaps we just leave it there. I honestly can’t be bothered after two days of this shit.

  219. diannaart

    Kaye Lee

    Deliberately cutting the end of your para, was my point. Michael Jones knows full well what he is doing here and it is not for an inclusive discussion about DV. I don’t believe this is the first time he has tried to derail a discussion authored by a woman about women.

    …and yet, he claim he is voting for this woman: http://junkee.com/pauline-hanson-calls-for-total-ban-on-muslims/80695 – if his claim is true, then we can’t reason with him, if untrue, he has succeeded in derailing this thread.

    A thread which was about the stereotypical trope Hanson is casting at women – that of wasting male (police) time, vexatious litigation, frivolous claims, using children and on and on. When we know that this a small number of women, just as DV is perpetrated by a small number of women.

    DV includes abuse of the elderly, siblings, young children not just a male/female binary. Yet MJ is only talking about men, not his mother,father, kid sister, daughters or sons, but about men like himself – frightened of losing power and frightened of women.

  220. Kaye Lee

    Just to lighten the mood (hopefully) and give some background about the kind of household I grew up in, my father, who was a charming larrakin, insisted on going to the Lesbian Teachers’ Tea Party once because his “union dues were helping to pay for it”. They were very smart women who handled it beautifully, allowing him to come in and giving him a cup of teas in a lovely china cup. He lasted about 5 minutes before he was on his way out, looking for a beer.

  221. paul walter

    Kaye Lee, the china cup thingie was a give away. He was out quick smart when he saw he was getting a cup, because old fashioned blokes know a sheila doesn’t like you if she gives you a cup of tea in a fiddly china cup instead of a big, stained mug, which is how a proper bloke drinks tea.

    As someone who packed in drinking, I identify with the five minutes later he was off bit , always beer o’clock once you’ve got the “taste” for grog, but it often takes a while for a problem drinker to realise how subtle the grip can be and what a behaviour determinant alcohol cravings are.

  222. trishcorry

    I was in a “Women doing Research” Group when I was an academic. A number of men made a lot of hoo-ha about equality and how they should be able to participate. A few men from memory did indeed participate. Some just did it for laughs I expect and disappeared, possibly looking for beers too!

  223. Michael Jones

    diannaart, I have been asked to move on but I will address a couple of things you just said and hope that the comment get a left up. I agree that elder abuse, child abuse and other forms of DV deserve as much attention as any other form of abuse. I do believe that we have programs to address those which are uncontentious, so it isn’t really relevant to discuss them here and prior to you raising it, nobody else has either.

    I don’t agree with Pauline Hanson’s views on Muslims, but then there is no political party whose platform I agree with entirely and let’s face it, we aren’t going to ban Muslim immigration. The worst that she can do to Muslims is to hurt their feelings, I am sure they can cope.

    She might encourage the majors to do the right thing by men on DV though, so I am voting for her specifically for her views on domestic violence. I also like her support for voluntary euthanasia and medical cannabis. When she has shaken things up on that issue, as I believe she will, I will reconsider my position.

  224. Trish Corry

    Diann
    DV includes abuse of the elderly, siblings, young children not just a male/female binary. Yet MJ is only talking about men, not his mother,father, kid sister, daughters or sons, but about men like himself – frightened of losing power and frightened of women.

    Indeed. I have a special interest in child to parent abuse. I have read about this for a few years now, but I have never written about it. It is something that is not spoken about very much at all and it appears there are very little supports for it, from what I have researched.

    The QLD Government has had a special awareness week last week on abuse of our elderly people.

  225. paul walter

    Trish, we often duck these sorts of soirees because we get the feeling they are gambits to corner and button-hole us for stuff we didn’t do.

    The abuse of older people losing their sharpest powers and more reliant on some times uncomprehending younger people or state bodies got shown up fifteen years ago with Jenny Macklin and Btonwyn Bishop and the petrol bath scandal and as the demographic ages and as neoliberalism cuts more and more into social infrastructure, I reckon you’d tell me that we barely see the tip of an iceberg and that it is going to get worse. No doubt it parallels DV esp with dependent women and kids and say, the defunding of shelters.

    Btw am WELL aware of the hate speech issue, over long times and am well aware of the issues, including peope deaking with things they don’t agree with being dumped in the too hard basket, as hate speech.

  226. diannaart

    Our elderly are every bit as vulnerable as our children, I believe the conversation has finally begun but can we discuss such behaviour without it becoming gender wars.

    I have had a gutful of capable healthy men whining about female instigated DV – a different thing entirely if the men are as helpless as children or elderly, but they are not these downtrodden men have had greater privilege all their lives – I guess it is a type of privilege blindness – just as rich cannot fathom what life is really like for the very poor.

    These articulate capable men arrive on articles like this with the refrain: “what about me, it isn’t fair” – well, life isn’t fair, not for anyone, unless you have billions of dollars to buy fairness and even then we all die in the end.

    Life is not fair, never has been, never will be. Life just is.

    What we make of life, by dividing ourselves according to this elusive “fairness” is not going to achieve a fracking thing.

    It’s all those feminazis wot dun it….

  227. Trish Corry

    *including peope deaking with things they don’t agree with being dumped in the too hard basket, as hate speech.*

    Just for clarity. Is that a general statement, or particular to this thread?

  228. paul walter

    Ok, so I dun a typo..haw, haw.. I repeat what I said above on this old and labored subject of hate speech. Let the mug involved blather and the contradictions flow so rapidly that, like the grandaddy of them all, David Irving, they make complete fools of themselves.

    Now, abusing someone on a bus wearing cultural clothing; THAT’S hate speech. Merely disagreeing with someone else is not necessarily hate speech and I don’t want to live in a George Brandis world. I did say in several posts that I largely agreed with your propositions, esp in the use of the Hanson exemplar.

    I also agree tha t Michael and his friends have been dogmatic and incredibly narrowly focussed, not at all holistic and coming across, IN THEIR WRITING, as derailers with axes to grind and remain surprised you reacted to them, although I understand why.

  229. Trish Corry

    I guess it is the worlds we participate in Paul and our personal experiences. I have seen men like Michael, upset to the point of distress vulnerable women who are participating in conversations. His comments about feminist I would indeed class as hate speech. Maybe that is a fine line for you, but I see it as hate speech. I see targeted abuse towards women as hate speech. Again, maybe we differ, but it is a layering of experiences that bring many to this point. I see patterns in narrative. I don’t believe people view narrative in the way that I do. I see narrative shapes our world. To me language and how we use it to progress issues is extremely important and we shouldn’t be flippant about it, or too scared to call it out, even when it doesn’t fit into a dictionary definition of the word. Was Abbott a misogynist. By the standard dictionary definition, no, he was not. An indepth academic study of the underlying constructs and antecedents of misogyny would support the argument that he is.

  230. paul walter

    As I said in a previous comment, you people wisely allowed Michael to continue and he eventually gave the game with his “feminists” comment. I am well aware of their focus and suspect they could be part of a south QLD DLP affiliated soc con ginger group.

    But trust us a little, eh? We are quite capable of reading a posting and its responses without being nannied. Besides, doesn’t subjectivity come into that decision-making, say with moderators at a blog site, even with the best of us? Last time I got deleted was at a site more sympathetic to Zionism, for what I felt was an exemplary effort at fairness as to Gaza.

    As for Abbott, a seething ball of subjectivities, poor individualisation/socialisation and a commodified product himself although unlike some us, never likely to be aware of it.

  231. Kaye Lee

    The best way to get rid of hate speech is to show people they have nothing to fear. Feminism should not be viewed as a threat nor used as one. I think most people who interact online have seen poor behaviour. The good thing about it is you can hit the red x any time. MT would not allow anyone to be harassed to the point of distress here. MJ is speaking from his personal experience. His view of feminism is distorted in my view but I don’t think shutting him down will change that. Probably reasoned conversation won’t either but it is worth a try.

    Julian Burnside receives dreadful hate-filled emails from lots of people. His response has been to ignore the abuse and then allay fears with facts. He has found that people come around to at least speaking civilly if that is how he phrases his responses. Demonstrate the behaviour you want to see reflected. None of us like to be dismissed. None of us like to feel unheard.

  232. Trish Corry

    We are quite capable of reading a posting and its responses without being nannied

    We really are talking about two different things.

  233. Trish Corry

    Well I guess, he achieved his real objective of making sure we gave zero consideration of how women may be harmed by Hanson’s rhetoric, or if women have any concern if her targeted attack on women, as Diann explained previously, and I have explained, would produce thousands of like minded men like MJ spreading their message of hate against women and those lying victims of DV. I guess we all spent two days talking about what was really important. Yes, please read that in a sarcastic tone. Not sarcastic towards you. Just a disappointed sarcastic tone, as still after two days, people cannot see that there is a breed of men like MJ who should NOT be given a voice in these discussions. I cannot imagine a thread about violence and men flowing the same way.

  234. paul walter

    Once again, thanks to the more balanced Kaye Lee.

  235. Kaye Lee

    “I sat up late at night answering emails: thousands of them, mostly abusive. Some of them all in capitals; lots of exclamation marks and lots of very rude words. I am no shrinking violet, but I was astonished by the rudeness of many of the emails I got. Unpopularity brings strange rewards.

    Since their complaints fell into a few recognisable patterns, I had a few standard responses. Typically I would grit my teeth and say something like:

    Thank you for your email. I gather you do not agree with me. But did you realise that…they do not break any law by coming here asking for protection; there is no queue…etc.
    If I was surprised by the rudeness and vehemence of most of the emails, what followed was even more astonishing. Nearly all of them responded to my reply…and every response was polite.”

    https://theconversation.com/julian-burnside-alienation-to-alien-nation-18290

  236. Trish Corry

    MJ and men like him are not going to be polite. He responded many times and was increasingly more abusive. He has a purposeful intent. Unless you are aware of how online spaces for women work, been involved in them, you simply will never understand, the type of person MJ is, how deep his hatred for women is and his intent to upset and disturb women online and why women don’t want him to derail the conversation to be all about him.

    Diann’s post spoke to this very well. “But but but what about the menzz”

    I think if you did a comparison of Clem Ford’s abuse and Burnsides, they would be quite different. Anger is one thing, Nationalist incited anger another and so is gendered anger, then there is gendered hatred. What MJ has brought to this discussion is gendered hatred.

    Maybe have a look on Clem Fords page – on her pinned post about rules. This has developed due to prolonged abuse towards Clem Ford, from men who hate strong women who speak up. They are real, they cause harm and I still say they do not need to be heard.

  237. Kaye Lee

    But they exist Trish. In my opinion we will not achieve cultural change by ignoring the bits we don’t like. There will always be people who disagree, there will always be people who take things to extremes. It’s easy to feel good in a safe environment where everyone abides by the rules. It is not so easy to take on the problems we need to fix. Exclusion doesn’t make the job easier. We need to listen to the people with whom we disagree and at least try to alleviate some of their concerns. We are stronger together.

    I should add, I do believe in special protection for traumatised and victimised people. They should have a safe place to go. I don’t mean to imply everyone must take up the battle.

  238. paul walter

    I’d back that. It has been an intense column. I personally might have been happy to read the thread starter and leave it at that, but reacted to an obnoxious early post from someone called Victoria Pike, about the time things got more restive.

  239. jimhaz

    “obnoxious”

    There was actually nothing obnoxious from any poster, unless one regards emotional stupidity as obnoxious. By that I mean accuse; blame; complain about; disregard; ignore; exaggerate; misconstrue; misquote; misinterpret etc etc – well it is what we limited humans do.

    It animates our emotions…and in the end that is all we are.

  240. paul walter

    Just back to re read that. Yes. Pike was genuinely WAS obnoxious.

  241. Matters Not

    A very interesting post and reactions to same and perhaps for reasons no individual person intended. I ‘learnt’ a lot. Not so much about the ‘issues’ (been well canvassed again and again in so many other places including the ‘academic’ literature) but about ‘posters’, (broadly defined).

    No particular comment because it’s all there for the ‘reader’ to attribute whatever ‘meaning(s)’ they choose. (And it can be no other way.)

    But shit we live and operate in a ‘strange, strange world’. Thank the deity of your choosing (if you are so inclined) that we don’t have a gun culture. But who knows what the future may hold.

  242. corvus boreus

    jimhaz,
    I, for one, do not think that you are a weirdo.

    Ps, why must we wait 100 years for those ‘intimacy robots’?

  243. Michael Jones

    You people mocking concerns for men suffering DV really just confirms a mindset warped by modern feminism. The bloke who I know who suffered DV was attacked throughout the relationship by his female partner, including with household implements like knives and rolling pins, while she was drunk and as I related he finally got out when he had scalding water thrown over him. He never hit back because he was bought with the view that men absolutely don’t hit women. That is why I get furious at this slander of modern masculinity by feminists that men are indoctrinated towards violent oppression of their female partners, it is the opposite of the view that I and my mates were bought up with, and is a real vulnerability for men in situations like this. Despite ignorant assertions by some here that we should not concern ourselves with “capable men”, it was just as hard financially for the bloke I am talking about to leave the relationship as it would have been for a woman. Though I personally could never be emotionally attached to a person like her some people find making the emotional break too.

    Really, that is what Hanson is relaying on DV issues, she is just speaking for these blokes to get a fair go. Since the article is about Hanson’s comments it is entirely appropriate to talk about them, the attempts to characterise that as “derailing” is simply another dishonest tactic to discredit all opposition. The attempts to throw up the strawman of “why aren’t you talking about child abuse/elder abuse etc” of various posters here is equally dishonest, they are different topics to the one at hand. I will say one thing though, the fact the entire DV agenda at the moment is so heavily focussed on violence by men against women that you would have a hard time remembering that violence against anybody else existed or was caused by something other than the upbringing of males. This is despite plenty of evidenced that women too can hurt older people and children, and despite evidence of plenty of other drivers such as substance abuse, socioeconomic status, mental illness etc. This is the real pitfall of “gendering” of everything to do with DV, just saying “men are to blame” risks overwhelming evidence of other causes and stopping us from coming up with real solutions.

    What we have seen are standard tactics that modern feminists use all the time to attempt to dominate these debates and it reflects the hateful and totalitarian ideology that presently dominates that movement. Women who identify as a feminist but who are genuinely interested in equality need to be honest with themselves, you are not the public face of your movement, the man haters are. And let us be entirely clear, they are man haters because anybody who could deride people over addressing the sorts of terrible circumstances that I describe a man being in above, can only be motivated by hate.

    Furthermore, you blokes who are tacking yourselves onto this feminist bandwagon, need to think very hard about who your friends would be if you ever found yourselves on the wrong end of a bad relationship with a woman. Hazem El Masri was a White Ribbon ambassador, but that organisation dropped him like a hot potato as soon as the accusation of domestic violence hit the headlines and he was used as an example of domestic violence by feminist writers before the case even went to court. What did we hear from any of those people when he was found to be innocent? Not a peep, no acknowledgement that he had been hard done by. What this highlights is that as a male ally of modern feminism, you are only accepted entirely on their terms and you are dispensable at the drop of a hat. If you blokes want to be useful idiots for people who hate your gender, good luck to you but I have other plans.

    This is all why blokes like me see our only option now as being to fight fire with fire, through actions like supporting Pauline Hanson. I don’t think that is where it will all end, there are already journalists like Miranda Devine who are speaking up on this and Mark Latham is highlighting the issues in his own inimitable way. I don’t think that it will be too long until the groundswell of discontent amongst people who know that what is going on is not right, is tapped into by more opinion and decision makers.

    Kaye, sorry for calling you a liar, I don’t agree with everything that you do but you do appear to be making a fair attempt to get your head around these issues with everybody’s interests in mind. Thank you for that and I hope that feminists like you become more representative of your movement than is currently the case.

  244. Kaye Lee

    MN,

    I must hasten to reassure you that, at no stage during this conversation did I feel any tendency towards violence. I am sorry if my ill-considered expletive indicated otherwise. My wish was to get us all in the same room, not so we could punch it out but so we could work it out. I failed dismally.

  245. Michael Jones

    Ps, paul walter, do you seriously think that a DLP member would be expressing support for voluntary euthanasia? Your powers of deduction appear to have failed you there my friend. Suffice to say the internet is a big place, you are always going to find somebody who disagrees with you, but that doesn’t make it a conspiracy …. most groups aren’t smart enough to organise one.

  246. diannaart

    This has been a very harrowing thread and also very interesting and, indeed, inspiring.

    I, like, Trish, found MJ’s comments deliberately disruptive. A disruption which degenerated into personal abuse of female commentators who have the temerity to declare themselves pro-equality or feminist. His didactic lecturing of what he thought feminism is about, is something we see across many public forums – he didn’t want help, did not listen to Kaye Lee any more than he listened to anyone else.

    As for Jimhaz – he just likes to stir and does it very well – that does not mean I will not challenge – I wish him well with his custom designed robotic doll. Prefer humans myself – even though humans are so contradictory, bloody minded but rarely boring.

    Kaye Lee, I do understand you extended a welcome to someone who does indeed need help – but that was not why he was posting here. Apparently that makes you more “balanced” than I or Trish, according to Paul. Whatever, I saw MJ as another of those men’s rights campaigners who feel personally slighted by any progress made by women – he is far from ignorant and quite capable of exploring further without derailing a topic.

    Paul and other male commentators – thank you for being regular and incisive contributors, this is why I continue at AIMN, I do not always agree, but I do acknowledge sincere points of view.

    There will always be Pauline Hansons, Julie Bishops, Maggie Thatchers et al, who are more comfortable with conservative men. Only people like MJ seem to claim women are monochrome. Which rather contradicts their championing of the above mentioned.

    Strange world, getting stranger. People deliberately supporting those who have no empathy for others, people such as Hanson or Trump or Abbott, because they feel so betrayed, with good reason – our leaders, these past 30+ years have been successfully monopolised by by corporate ideology and successfully manipulated into attacking people who, generally, have the least power – refugees, race, sexual orientation and, of course, gender.

  247. Kaye Lee

    No wonder you are so angry if you consider people like Miranda Devine, Mark Latham and Pauline Hanson as speaking for you. They will NEVER do anything to help you. They will demonise and denigrate and spit poison but they will never offer positive suggestions. It’s all somebody’s fault to them – feminazis, illegals, bludgers, rorters, cheats. Their language is always inflammatory. This is not the way to promote or achieve social cohesion or progress on any of the problems we face. Have any of those three made practical positive suggestions on how to help victims of injustice or abuse or have they just made noise?

  248. corvus boreus

    Michael Jones,
    As others have pointed out, the different forms of violence (from and upon all genders) that occur within relationships, and the best means to address them, is a subject that needs rational discussion solidly grounded in verifiable claims.
    “Fighting fire with fire” (aka ‘backburning’) is only beneficial if carefully employed with strategic intelligence in appropriate conditions, towards the express goal of helping to contain the main conflagration by denying fuel.

    Miranda Devine is a cackling pyromaniac who maliciously throws around Molotov cocktails.

  249. Kaye Lee

    diannaart,

    It became apparent that MJ is one of those people who has decided what he is going to say and no response was going to change that. He is justifably and understandably upset about what happened to his friend. What he perhaps doesn’t realise is that pretty much everyone here would have either experienced, or know someone who has, domestic violence. I respect contributions from both you and Trish which is why I have continued trying to explain my point of view. As I have said, I think to bring about cultural change we need men and women to work together.

    cb,

    You do have a way with words. I can only agree.

  250. Michael Jones

    People like Divine, Hanson and Latham are effective in raising the profile of issues, just as the likes of Germaine Greer were in raising women’s issues back in the day, before she lost relevance.The problem is that when radical change is needed in the face of entrenched opposition, cautious application of reason does not work, because the opposition are not reasonable and will not let it. That is why these aggressive advocates are needed, everybody else is basically too gutless to say what needs to be said.

  251. diannaart

    Kaye Lee

    It is disturbing how much cross purpose and fighting occurs within groups of people who really need to be supporting each other.

    Men are as victimised by this hierarchy system as women, it is only to the benefit of the ‘top dogs’ that we continue to fight among ourselves – to the point of stupidity, for example, the antagonism between Labor and the Greens.

    If the self-proclaimed MR’s groups could focus their energy on a system which uses them instead of blaming many women… if pigs could fly… MJ is going to vote for Pauline Hanson and believes Mark Latham has a handle on ‘how life should be’ – reveals such a load of information about himself…

    Now, I am weary of this thread, weary of pointing out that 99% of men and women are not enemies…

  252. cornlegend

    one small step in the right direction
    Terri Butler MP ‏@terrimbutler 16m16 minutes ago Brisbane, Queensland

    We’ll legislate to help stop parties personally questioning their former partner in family law where there’s family violence

  253. Michael Jones

    Butler’s idea would be good of both partners were guaranteed legal aid, so that people aren’t forced to represent themselves. From what I have heard getting legal aid as a man is nigh impossible, not so for women though.

  254. silkworm

    Michael Jones seems well versed in the politics of the DLP, and that is where I would suggest his real allegiances lie.

  255. Michael Jones

    Good grief. I know that the DLP is a party of conservative Catholic fruitcakes who were completely irrelevant for 40 years, until the vagaries of the old Senate preference lottery elected a Victorian blacksmith to the red chamber. Apparently that makes me me an insurgent for them … and I thought this was a website for clever people :-/.

  256. paul walter

    diannart, thanks for considered comments, will just say you need to know what people like Michael are saying before you can critique their inputs. That is why I preferred Kaye Lee and a slightly less confrontational approach, which merely worsens th ediscussion when opponents are also in a combative frame of mind.

    Having said that, I can’t see what else Trish Corry could have done or said differently, or just about any one else who has commented.

    Its just that many on both sides are too close to the marriage breakups issues by way of personal experience.

    I specifically reject Michaels seeming assertion tha theleft are toblame for current woes, but Michael also was entitled to a hearing, even only to understand his views before moving things along.

  257. Trish Corry

    Paul I have a new post about Marriage equality. Do you support giving voice to homophobic hateful people in the marriage equality debate?

  258. diannaart

    …will just say you need to know what people like Michael are saying before you can critique their inputs….

    I did ‘get him’ – straight-away. Maybe one has to have been a victim…

  259. Trish Corry

    Thank you Diann. I was about to say a similar thing.

  260. diannaart

    MJ’s FIRST post, giving this man far more import than he warrants BTW:

    Michael JonesJune 15, 2016 at 1:21 am

    I never would have voted for Hanson prior to her statements on DV and the Family Courts, but now she is getting numbered first on my ballot paper. The reason is that the fanatical man-hating feminists who are driving the “gender debate”, have succeeded in vilifying men enough that they are treated like dirt on family matters such as these, and more broadly I might add.

    I previously would have voted with regard to how my decision might impact on other people, but it had got to a point where am no longer prepared to put my own gender last for other people’s benefit. Hanson is thus far the ONLY politician I have heard who is prepared to speak up on behalf of men, so despite the fact that I disagree with her views on immigration and multi-culturalism she has my vote.

    You wanted a war ladies and now you have it, collateral damage and all. It didn’t have to be this way, but if you keep kicking a dog he will bite. Feminism and the major party cowards who kowtow to that cult, are about to get bitten through the ballot box and in Parliament through Pauline Hanson.

    Well done.

    First comments on this thread, Paul.

    PS

    I have never kicked a dog, let alone a man – but I have been kicked by men – physically. And don’t get me started on the psychological!

  261. paul walter

    Trish Corry, have just come from there and you can get my feelings on it from the post there, which is only a brief one. Basically It says that the Plebisicite is a sop to soc cons and something that could be resolved quickly but won’t be because vested interests want it to continue as an issue for diversionary purposes and for religious ideological reasons..once again reactionary modernism involving a retreat to a seige position involving people who have found it hard to adjust to change.

    I accept the point re Michael, dinnaart, but you have to let these things run their course for opportunity for refutation and in some cases, maximum evidence-extraction (if he hadnt been given the chance he wouldnt have made that statement and you would not have had the means to make made a judgement based on that)

    Just be greatful you aren’t a conservative- not that Jones needs to be demonised when we know little of him, his life and formation of his ideas and feelings. He isn’t to my taste, but, on the whole, I’ve read many more stupid comments from far more stupid people over time in the past, also…if dills flew, the skies would be midnight.

  262. Trish Corry

    Paul, I think what is very frustrating with both you and Kaye from my own position, is that I quickly identified MJ as the MRA type who only came here to disrespect women and cause them grief. (As did Diann). Please trust us on this – we caught on immediately. We don’t know each other -but we both have lived experience with domestic violence – so surely that tells you something.

    I think it is a right on my own post to do what ever I can to prevent women from harm. Nasty comments towards women (particular DV victims – regardless of how long ago it was) can create upset and anxiety.

    Diann has gone to great pains to detail this for you, as did I. I can feel the pain in her words – why can’t you? How can you not see that MJ was causing distress?

    I agree with freedom of speech, but not when it causes harm to others. You say “we’ didn’t give him a chance, but I picked him immediately from his first post. Which included vehemently hating women and feminists. It is called experience.

    He already had a chance with his first hate-filled comment. I knew exactly why he showed up on a dv article about women, by a woman. There are many like him.

    The argument from both you and Kaye for him to be listened to that went on for two days and at points was quite nasty was absolutely ridiculous.

    In future, I’ll just block people like that from my posts if they are on domestic violence and I don’t care who doesn’t like it. The feelings of women who may be caused distress from people such as him, come first for me over free speech.

    I thought by trying to curb the debate towards women (the OP topic) this was more polite and I was trying to give credibility to the OP topic on an article that was clearly getting hijacked by a men’s rights activist.

    I’m not alone in this it happens. It is putting the feelings and free participation of women victims of DV first, over so called ‘freedom of speech”.

    It is no different to my post on marriage equality. I see the harm that the anti-marriage equality lobby’s voice does to people – to human beings. To me, mitigating that harm is paramount – which does not include giving people who cause the harm a bigger and stronger voice.

    There are many spaces on social media that people like MJ could express his hatred towards women, me and victims of domestic violence.

    Harm to others is not secondary to free speech. There are consequences for all behaviour and freedom of speech doesn’t give one a get out of jail free card to cause upset and distress to others.

    I have written an article on this on marriage equality previously – based on discriminate intolerance

    Marriage Equality. How Tolerant?

    I stand by my view. Safety of women is primary and trumps MRA type women haters / feminist loathers every single time.

  263. Kaye Lee

    “The argument from both you and Kaye for him to be listened to that went on for two days and at points was quite nasty was absolutely ridiculous.”

    Could you PLEASE show me where I was nasty? paul and I also talked about a lot of things other than MJ.

    I did not realise diannaart was distressed. I thought she expressed her view and I appreciated her contributions.

  264. paul walter

    I take your points without necessarily feeling enthusiastic about them..for my part, i think letting the thread go allowed us to see a lot more of the soc cons than they might be comfortable with and allowed for the refutations flowing subsequently of the sort that discredit, on logic and evidence, the opposite viewpoints or at least demonstrates their limitations.

    The pen is mightier than the delete, delete indicates a possible lack of faith by the person proposing an idea that their theory is not water tight and they can’t refute criticisms.

    I offered an example of my thinking in an earlier and neglected comment where I suggested that hate speech of the sort seen with people wearing muslim garb abused on public transport, or gays heckled round a public toilet happen in a context that can only lead to condemnation, to a political discussion, where false ideas or poor personality traits are exposed through a lack of substance..eg the constant reiteration of the male DV thing, for want of other points to make, during the conversation..

  265. Trish Corry

    Oh please stop getting defensive Kaye. It was a heated debate. I took some things you said as nasty – as in patronising nasty. If it wasn’t intentional, fine. I will take that at face value.

    I took Diann stressing the fact that MJ was purposely targeting this thread, what he stood for etc., as experiencing some distress. I may be wrong, but that is the emotion, I personally took from her words. Otherwise, I assume she would be comfortable with MJ spreading his hate of women and feminists.

    Regardless, I was acutely aware that this post may attract women who have experienced or who are living domestic violence, and I tried to curb the debate in an attempt to ensure that a MRA type woman hater was not derailing the thread (and trying to give a bit of respect to the women we should have been talking about – those who may be caused harm by Hanson’s narrative). I’m sorry if you don’t see that as my prerogative on my post.

    However, as I said before, I will not try to curb debate with the next MJ or any other MRA type women hating, feminist loathing men on DV threads, they will be blocked at my discretion.

    The free participation and the protection from the upset these types cause to women, is my first priority.

  266. Trish Corry

    Thanks Paul. Our opinions differ greatly on freedom of speech. You don’t seem to acknowledge limits on freedom of speech where the speech causes harm – I do.

    Which is interesting, because it is one of the major underlying constructs of the original post – that Hanson’s rhetoric causes harm to women. Yet, I don’t recall you speaking against that point, but its a long thread and I may have missed it.

    I don’t see the point in going around in circles again.

  267. Kaye Lee

    I also think it is very important to remember that, when engaging on the internet, you are in control. It has opened up communication allowing all sorts of people to express their opinion but no-one can force you to read what they write or to engage with them. Never ever let it get to the stage of distress. You always have the option to ignore or walk away. I am not directing this at you Trish or at diannaart. It is a cautionary reminder about putting personal well-being first.

    I also think that those of us who choose to put our opinions on sites open to public comment must be resilient up to a point. We could just talk to our friends but we have chosen to invite strangers to discuss our thoughts.

    Advocating for change ain’t easy.

  268. Trish Corry

    *I also think it is very important to remember that, when engaging on the internet, you are in control.*

    I’ll leave you with a quote from Clem Ford:
    NEW RULE: Anyone who tells me to “just ignore trolls” or “block them” as if they have a) any idea what it’s like to deal with the relentless onslaught of bullshit that comes here or b) any right to tell a woman how she should and shouldn’t respond to harassment will be immediately banned.

    I’m not alone in this type of thinking. She gets people like MJ every single day. I’ve been in many groups (about women’s issues) with people like MJ. I don’t think we need to purposely expose ourselves to them either. I have witnessed first hand the distress they cause and the reluctance of women to engage and comment because of them. To me that is a very important issue.

    Not all women have the same self-effacy to stand up to bullies as other women. They just disengage and no longer participate, or get incredibly distressed. Surely you did not miss the deeply personal targeted attacks towards me. (Admin blocked one of them and found it highly offensive). This is how they operate – they get personal and the woman either fights back (which is what they want) and some get highly distressed or they disengage.

    As per my comment to Paul. It appears we differ greatly on Freedom of Speech. You do not seem to agree with curbing of speech or blocking of speech even if it causes harm and neither does Paul. I do. I’ve written an entire article on the subject.

    I don’t see the point in going around in circles again.

  269. paul walter

    Trish, I’ve had a real feeling through this thread that you do not read my posts, or through some alchemy, misconstrue them.

    Can you have hate speech when no one has yet uttered an example in a situation? How can you eliminate from someone in a conversation without first hearing them out. Where/ when do personal subjectivities intervene?

    Ive had enough of the likes of Murdoch and Brandis trying to block my capacity to know things, without others trying the same thing.

  270. Kaye Lee

    I realise not everyone is resilient Trish which is exactly why I made that comment.

  271. Trish Corry

    Paul. Diann gave you an example of his first post earlier. I’m confused as to why you just don’t get this. It’s pretty straight forward to me.

  272. paul walter

    You see, you DON’T read other’s posts!!

    I already commented, did you not consider what I had said earlier? Where is your response to my point re hate speech and definition?

    I hope you don’t end up as dogmatic, closed minded and impervious to reason as your opponents.

  273. Trish Corry

    I read every single word of your posts Paul. I extend the same courtesy to everyone who takes time to post.

  274. Kaye Lee

    Would this count as bullying?

    “I did not know you spoke fluent horseshit JimHaz…. you speak of your insignificant contribution like you are an expert on my previous work. …….That is super bizarre behaviour JimHaz. Maybe start talking about the topic instead of me, so I don’t have to keep thinking you are an obsessed weirdo.”

  275. paul walter

    Well, you don’t HAVE to read EVERY word, I suppose.

    Then you’d end up as silly as I am.

    ……………………………………………

    Perhaps, given the lack of response to actual points, I identify a difference between reading and comprehension. Seriously.

  276. Matters Not

    paul walter the reading of a post is a guarantee of nothing in the whole scheme of things. As I said above, you may write as as carefully as you can but you have absolutely no control over the meaning(s) that are subsequently given.

    People always give meanings based on the ‘theories/world views’ and the like they consciously or unconsciously hold.

    A basic understanding of the ‘sociology of knowledge’ indicates that ‘theory’ (mental constructs broadly defined), ‘methodology’, ‘fact’ and subsequent attribution of ‘meaning’ are inextricably related.

    And if you are still in doubt, just ask Trish for clarification.

  277. paul walter

    BTW, why do you keep dangling the Clem Ford bait? No, not me, my friend.

    MN, am considering adding Trish Corry to some others as an exemplar, actually.

  278. Trish Corry

    Yes, I do read your posts. I read everyone’s posts.

    AS MN has said – communication is definitely subjective and interpretive – unless we take the time to construct meaning and clarify with each other every single time until we share understanding.

    You said: Can you have hate speech when no one has yet uttered an example in a situation?

    I took this to be about your defence about MJ not a general question.

    I responded that Diann already gave an example of his first post, which showed that he had already expressed hateful speech. She identified him as an MRA-Type troll that purposely come here to derail the thread and so did I.

    I don’t know how you can come to the conclusion that I did not read your comment, with that response.

    If you don’t know what an MRA-Type troll is, or how these men behave; I suggest you go join some online women’s groups and see how these men treat women in the threads and how their strategic objective is to turn any post about a woman’s topic into a topic about men.

    Stop making this about as if I am trying to exclude all reasonable men or anyone who want to engage on my posts in a reasonable way.

    I have never done so, I do not intend to do so but I will block people or try to curb debate when I decide that there is someone here trying to cause trouble or here to purposely cause harm through distress or upset.

    That is my right and my decision as the Author to decide that MJ was indeed one of those people.

  279. Trish Corry

    What on earth are you on about?

  280. Kaye Lee

    Trish,

    You called me defensive before. I don’t mean to be. I just want to understand what I am saying that you consider nasty and personally derogatory and smart arse or if that is just something that you are inferring. I also want you to consider how your comments may be viewed by a reader. As MN always points out, meaning is attached by the reader rather than the author.

    You write about important topics.but the comments so often upset you. I think you should be proud that you make people think and take the time to comment, whether you agree with them or not.

  281. paul walter

    It’s an interesting point you raise, Kaye Lee as to “bullying”, I suppose even mods do it if they are avoiding meaningful communication.

  282. Matters Not

    consider how your comments may be viewed by a reader

    You mean – Walk in another’s shoes? Look at things from another perspective? Become political? Try to win hearts and minds?

    But what if they are ‘wrong’?

  283. Trish Corry

    *Would this count as bullying?

    “I did not know you spoke fluent horseshit JimHaz…. you speak of your insignificant contribution like you are an expert on my previous work. …….That is super bizarre behaviour JimHaz. Maybe start talking about the topic instead of me, so I don’t have to keep thinking you are an obsessed weirdo.”*

    ********

    No Kaye – It is not called bullying. I have not sought JimHaz out as a target, to repeatedly harass him, create repeat negative events, that cause him negative affect for a period of time. At best it could be defined as a critical incident, if he experienced severe negative affect as a result.

    It is retaliation to his comments about me. A retaliation to a series of comments that were becoming more personal. Implying who I am, what I think, and deciding things about me as a person. This has the constructs of online bullying and when you add in a number of people doing the same thing online and bouncing off each other, this has the underlying constructs of mobbing.

    If you would like to know more, just say so, this is my special area of expertise – bullying, mobbing and negative affect.

    Should I just shut up and sit down now?

    What on earth are you trying to achieve here? Is this you NOT being patronising or nasty?

    I’m out this post has just turned to shit.

    A huge round of applause to the pair of you for insisting an MRA-Type Troll should be given a voice on a thread about women and domestic violence and turned this serious post about the negative affect and harmful affect of Hanson’s rhetoric on domestic violence.

    We could have been talking about women victims of domestic violence and the impact of harmful rhetoric and the campaign style to create mobs of men to carry that message forward that women make frivolous claims;, but this has been the derail of the century, I’m sure. So bravo!

    I cease to engage at this point. Talk amongst yourselves.

    I just read your last comment, but after the “example of bullying comment” I’m not even going to bother to respond. Disappointed isn’t even a word that comes close to the word I’m searching for.

    Please don’t ever suggest I am too sensitive to comments on here. You have got no idea. Admin does. But it really is NONE of your business and I will not be explaining to suit you.

  284. nurses1968

    It seems to me that if Trish Corry or Victoria Rollison reprinted a version of the 3 little pigs as an article there are those that just sit back and wait to put their own agendas into play. I say this as one who regularly reads both authors articles but not necessarly inclined to add my tuppence worth.
    I often just wonder if the fact that they so openly publicise their support of the Labor Party is not the trigger for some of the attacks that surface quickly after the publication of their works. If one were to read the last half dozen articles by the 2 authors you would see the same old suspects dash in with some petty attack as sure as night follows day.The article seems to quickly become secondary.

  285. Kaye Lee

    In an attempt to get back on track, if I was a Labor Party strategist I would undermine Pauline Hanson by coming up with some actual help for male victims of domestic violence and increase funding for legal aid, refuges and support groups. The fact that this would flow on to help female victims of domestic violence and children would be an added bonus that I would quietly smile about.

    There are ways to get what you want. The lesbian teachers could have given my father the reaction he was looking for. Instead of dismissing or deflecting him, they politely deflated him. It was pretty to watch. Hanson could also easily be neutered because she is stirring an empty pot. She has no recipe for a solution.

  286. paul walter

    Just reading a posting at the Failed Estate blog, a review of the Sixty Adverts debacle, and thought, what a pity the run of the mill person has to negotiate nauseating msm treacly murk before even thinking about considering real issues.

    No wonder messages get waylaid in this sort of cultural pea soup. Perhaps it has been ordained.

  287. Michael Jones

    Kaye, by putting yourself in a Labor Party strategist’s shoes in addressing the threat of Hanson, you just demonstrated why she has a role to play. That has been my point all along, the major parties do nothing unless they have something to gain or lose.

  288. paul walter

    You see it is the system, Michael Jones..you are not an unintelligent person.

    But Corry has responded by critiquing what she feels is wrong with the Hansonist approach and why her conclusions and solutions are problematic, in the first place.

    This was the basis of the thread. You responded with a fair but peripheral point that the system also produces many psychically wounded men, which most here, including Trish Corry, acknowledged, although it was then pointed out that the legal system is reponding to a previous situation involving injustices to women in the past

    What created hostility toward you involved your almost obsessive persistence with the MDV issue almost as single-issue. You didn’t succeed in linking this to other elements that added up to indicate a general problem with society at this stage in its evolution. The underlying problem is exacerbated, as Kaye Lee rightly suggests, by (deliberately?) poor social policy that, if changed quickly, could allow for a bit more cooling down and less adversarialism derived of personal trauma.

    I’m sad that men and women under current social circumstances are like pit bulls shoved in a ring to fight for the amusement and benefit of others.

    I think you may well have had bad experiences with the system, Trish Corry and others have had experiences as bad if not much worse… if you failed anywhere it was in a perceived lack of sensitivity as to what some of the women have been through, that precludes much sympathy for a masculinist position. You’ll say they have failed for the same reason as to you, but if you have suffered because of the system, you ought to be able to appreciate why they are angry and reactive also, particularly after things have deteriorated to trauma inducing violence.

  289. Michael Jones

    I wasn’t here to elicit any sympathy for men Paul, I know very well that it won’t be forthcoming from feminists like Trish Corry. If that is because of some trauma in their past then I am sorry for that, but it doesn’t excuse their stacking of the system against men who are suffering appalling circumstances.

    And based on many discussions with such feminists, I think they are beyond reason. To them women are victims, men are perpetrators and that is that.You have seen Trish’s responses even to people who generally agree with her but with a slightly more open mind, like yourself and Kaye, she is attacking all of you too. Why would I bother trying to convince someone so utterly unreasonable?

    I am really just here to to relay one of the reasons why I think that Pauline Hanson will do very we this election, because she has tapped into how pissed off many people are at this issue and at the people driving the issue. If people consider themselves more moderate than either extreme in the debate and don’t want her to get elected, it is time to step up and provide men suffering in the DV system real reform options. Pretty simple really.

  290. silkworm

    “… provide men suffering in the DV system real reform options…”

    Such as?

  291. paul walter

    Like I said, it is the system. It refuses legislation or funding for so many things that could alleviate social tensions, in so many areas, as Kaye Lee suggested.

    For Trish Corry and others, Hanson will be problematic because she is associated by them with an older, unyielding attitude toward women and with that comes the fear that the worst of the old system will be reimposed, as some Tea Party groupings in the USA seem to have proposed.

    Thanks for your response, Michael. I have no doubt in the world that the current system will need improving, but it will depend on political will and the willingness to change economic priorities.

    Personally I think all of the current uncertainty comes of change of economic mode. Nuclear Marriage a century made more sense, but in a post industrial, neolib world there is little concern for people scrapped, male or female and little sense that the people running things don’t want that anyway.

    Methinks nuclear marriage cant function under current conditions for many people.

  292. Michael Jones

    No worries paul and thankyou for the discussion.

    Silkworm – “Such as?”

    A start might be:

    – Real acknowledgement of male victims of family violence in domestic violence campaigns and education, and not just “special” groups like older men and the disabled.
    -Access to legal aid on the same basis that women receive it.
    -Charging people who are caught lying about DV accusations in court with perjury, to deter malicious claims.

    There are undoubtedly other things that could be done, I am not an expert.

  293. Kaye Lee

    Michael,

    Pauline definitely taps into discontent – she uses it to her political advantage. But she offers no solutions. The hatred and division she preaches is harmful.

    We need to do more to help all victims of injustice, discrimination and abuse. I guess what I have learned from this thread is that there are some men and some women who think this will be best done by addressing their particular concerns separately. Whilst there may be gender specific issues, there are also many needs in common like legal aid, counselling, emergency/affordable accommodation, community support groups, mental health services.

    Stuff is being done with NFPs picking up some of the slack. Did you look at how the money raised by Movember is being used? They would be an excellent group to contact to help with specifically male concerns.

    You are suggesting that Pauline’s attraction is to make the majors do something to counter her. If she really cared she could advocate for change as a community member. I would like the people in government to be capable of understanding the problem and to have positive practical ideas on how to fix it. Social cohesion is very important and Pauline does her best to destroy it. Look at how this conversation has gone.

    I do appreciate you moderating your tone. You came in with aggression – it isn’t productive. Your recent responses are far more likely to get people to listen. Don’t be like Pauline just lobbing grenades. Work with people instead of against them.

  294. diannaart

    Michael Jones caused distress well before “moderating his tone”.

    He is also capable of doing what I have just done and searching for assistance for male victims of DV:

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

    http://www.domesticviolence.nsw.gov.au/get-help/male-victims

    http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/121-140/rpp126/06_support_services.html

    http://www.dvrcv.org.au/help-advice/guide-for-families-friends-and-neighbours

    An observation I made while searching for genuine programs as opposed to those which are from the extreme MRA’s was the paucity of help for male victims of male violence.

    More men are harmed by other men – in public and/or the home – why are proponents of MR’s, such as Michael Jones, so silent on this widespread problem.

    Also, Paul and Kaye Lee, if a person’s first comment is abusive and demeaning of women OR feminists – I see no reason to listen anything further – that I did try to counter the lies about feminists that Michael Wrote and continues to write is not the same as not listening but rather hearing too well.

    As an adult I can make decision as to what I find acceptable – I do not need to told this from other posters – you want listen to Michael disparage feminism, that’s your choice, not mine. And no he was not writing a reasoned critique of feminism – please don’t try to make that claim.

    Perhaps you might want to think about the reasons why Caroline Jones is so very unhappy over comments Eddie Maguire made over the weekend.

    http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/we-cant-let-the-misogynist-banter-of-eddie-mcguire-slip-past-20160619-gpmmyk.html

  295. Kaye Lee

    People approach things in their own way diannaart. Choosing to meet aggression with aggression is one approach, choosing to ignore is another, choosing to try to moderate is another. Of course you make your own choices – no-one ever suggested otherwise.

    Maguire is a moron. He doesn’t have the capacity to upset me. I watch a lot of sport but the only sports commentary show I watch is Offsiders which is very good. My way of dealing with Eddie is to not watch anything he is on.

  296. diannaart

    I am pleased to know Maguire does not upset you.

    You would care to respond to the rest of my post?

    I raised several points:

    1. There IS help for male victims of DV

    2. There is more male on male violence in public and in the home then any other form enacted by women.

    3. There is inadequate help for male victims of male violence

    4. To quote you; “People approach things in their own way” I found MJ’s comments distressing and offensive and derailing of a topic and justifiability so.

    Sometimes we all make mistakes and sometimes we continue to add further fuel to those mistakes.

  297. paul walter

    I would have thought Kaye Lee calling Eddie a moron is not really saying that Eddie does not upset Kaye Lee.

  298. diannaart

    Paul

    I will not be goaded into arguing about the likes of Eddie Maguire – seems my point has been lost on you as has been Trish’s article – that language matters and may well add to hatred of the other.

    As I commented to Kaye Lee, how about addressing the issues I have made?

    For what it’s worth – I don’t believe Trish can control the dialogue of any thread she starts – that any discussion of DV does include men – I have made this point repeatedly in my posts. That said, Trish is within her rights to point out trolls and trolling behaviour – you don’t have to agree, but you can contribute by expanding upon the topic, instead of attacking the messenger(s).

  299. Kaye Lee

    Perhaps you would like to tell me what I am to say diannaart because it is obvious that nothing I say will be acceptable to you. Thanks for providing links that might help Michael and others like him.

  300. Trish Corry

    I stepped out of this thread the other day. Thank you Diann for your recent comments. However, it has made no difference.

    I am currently listening to the interview about Maguire. I’m a bit shocked they are discussing how the impact of his language affects women and can also increase violence towards women.

    I mean….it was just a joke and men have jokes made about them too. I think people should demand that the radio stations only talk about Eddie’s feelings and of men who are the brunt of jokes, because that is so much more important. *Sarcasm intended*

  301. diannaart

    @Kaye Lee

    I have not told anyone what to say, nor am I about to start.

    I simply asked for a response or responses on the points I raised – if they are not worthy of reply – then so be it.

    I did not provide the links specifically for MJ – he is capable of so doing himself, that was one of my points.

  302. Kaye Lee

    The thing that crossed my mind about your links diannaart was that they would have been helpful earlier in the conversation but if you were only providing them to say stop whinging, then maybe not. That would be like telling women victims that they just need to go online and access the vastly greater number of sites dedicated to helping female victims.

    Are we allowed to talk about Maguire or would that be goading? Or does it depend who is commenting?

    The thing that has really disappointed me about this discussion is that we had an opportunity to talk to people who had empathy with Hanson’s comments – to understand why, to point out that her statistics are absolute crap, and that she is not providing any answers. But no – we can only discuss domestic violence as it affects women. Of course women make up a far larger proportion of victims but that does not mean that we cannot listen to men who have also been victims of DV or ugly custody battles.

    I don’t think competitions about who suffers more achieve anything.

  303. Trish Corry

    You have put so many things out of context Kaye to keep control of your argument, it is beyond ridiculous.

  304. Michael Jones

    Kaye, any party will have policies which you will consider harmful, it is just a matter of balancing up those against their good policies and deciding which you can live with. Have you actually read the One Nation family law policy? I don’t agree with all of it but I think it has some good ideas for balancing things up to address the concerns that likely One Nation voters want addressed.

    And it certainly doesn’t advocate hatred for women, that is just a slur that people who are threatened are making.

    http://www.onenation.com.au/policies/family-law

  305. Kaye Lee

    Unlike you Trish, I am not trying to control anyone or anything.

    Interestingly….

    “Controversial political candidate Pauline Hanson has thrown her support behind Collingwood AFL boss Eddie McGuire after he came under fire for joking that he would pay $50,000 to see a woman journalist drowned.
    Hanson said the comments about AFL reporter Caroline Wilson were obviously made ‘in ‘jest’ and that she had similar thoughts about journalists during her time in the public eye.
    ‘Some of these journalists, I’d drown half of them,’ Hanson told the Seven Network on Monday.
    ‘Some of them, what they write, sensationalisism [sic]. They just don’t have regard for anyone else,’ she said.”

    Sometimes it is worth letting others speak as they shoot themselves in the foot.

  306. paul walter

    What Kaye Lee says makes sense to me. This attack on her is miserable.

    She is being attacked not because she has it wrong, but because she won’t employ adversarial hyperbole.

    Shame on both of diannart and Trish Corry. With this, you have lowered yourselves to the same level as the people you were originally debating who so offended you.

  307. paul walter

    Michael, why do you keep pushing it? Not now, eh?

  308. diannaart

    The point of Trish’s article is that language can cause harm – Hanson’s appeal to marginalised men at the expense of women.

    MJ’s derogatory comments cause harm by focusing hatred on women.

    Maguire’s “joke” (not his first) at the expense of Carolyn Wilson, furthers the idea that women are just not important.

    @Paul Walter

    I have not ‘attacked’ Kaye Lee – I have nothing to be ashamed of, all I have done is presented my opinion in clear terms, I have not used personal insults nor have I told anyone how they should respond. Asking some to respond to my comments is not telling someone what to do.

    You, Paul, just told MJ “not now, eh?”

    I guess that is acceptable as he is the troll who has sidetracked this thread and you still want to stick up for him.

  309. paul walter

    Yes diannart, words wound. You said Kaye Lee was pro Eddie, after she called him a moron. You say I am all for Michael, despite my several criticisms of him, including in the last post you cite. I am offended.

    At the mo all I see is perverse dogmatism from both sides. I feel sorry for Kaye Lee for trying to keep this rational, that’s what happens when you try to stop dogs fighting.

  310. Kaye Lee

    Michael,

    I understand that they are saying they are looking to improve the system but I do not believe their suggestions are practical. How can you abolish the family law court? I agree about counselling and all the rest as you know but unfortunately, sometimes the court must be involved. I would much rather work on preventative measures to avoid getting to the court stage as far as is possible. Pauline is dumb as a post and deliberately controversial for personal political gain.. You need someone smarter to be championing the cause. I truly believe that the crap she says only makes the problem and the division worse. I hope, by now, you recognise that I am trying to help but you need to help too by recognising that this isn’t a gender war.

  311. Kaye Lee

    paul, don’t worry about me. I was a casual high school maths teacher, a barmaid, a bookmaker’s clerk, a refuge manager, amongst many other jobs. I understand when people say things from their own place of hurt or anger. I don’t feel personally attacked in any way.

  312. Matters Not

    So Hanson supports McGuire. But will McGuire now support Hanson? (Just jokin …)

    Eddie is probably thinking along the lines of: With friends like these who needs enemies.?

    But for Pauline, the result will be a few more redneck votes.

    BTW, paul walter I’m not sure ‘dogs’ is … whatever.

  313. diannaart

    Paul

    You are trying to create further division – I don’t know why, but you have tried this before on “No Place For Sheep”.

    Where have I stated Kaye Lee is “pro-Eddie”? I doubt she is “pro-Eddie” – Kaye Lee said she was not upset by him – that’s all.

    You are reading meanings into comments that are not there.

    As for ‘sides’ – could you please elaborate? I do not see myself or Trish on a ‘side’ against you, Kaye Lee or even the noxious MJ – for the record he doesn’t matter to me as much as people I have come to know, or thought I knew on AIMN.

    We disagree – that’s all. It’s not WW3, it’s a difference of opinion.

    I may well be wrong (not unusual) I feel that sometimes people realise their mistake but feel they have dug themselves in too far to admit it.

    ——————————

    As for the harm words cause:

  314. paul walter

    McGuire. Wilson is a contrived publicity stunt. Wilson will also be basking in the publicity, even if she wasn’t a party to it.

    MN…Dogs is, y’know, quadraped carnivores with tails teeth and fleas who like stoushing, that people insist on feeding and housing.

    But wait..sensitivity.. you never had one as a pet, which is a deprived childhood?

  315. Matters Not

    paul walter had many a canine over the years. Even trained, bred and raced a few – both dogs and bitches.

    Those that fight get disqualified.

  316. Kaye Lee

    That is how generations of women have felt. They were supposed to breed, manage the home and children, and show obeisance to the master who paid for their food. Oh, and look pretty while you do it. Is it any wonder we sometimes bite?

  317. Matters Not

    My intended ‘meanings’ aren’t the ones being given by the ‘reader’. While I am not surprised, I think it’s time to go quiet.

    BTW, paul walter, I always found the ‘bitches’ to be better tempered. On the other hand, ‘dogs’ were easily distracted. It’s perhaps why good working dogs such as kelpies, cattle and crosses are castrated at a relatively young age. It helps their concentration.

  318. Kaye Lee

    Not at all MN. You know I appreciate your insight and input. It was too good a lead in to ignore.

    Men must realise how hard women have fought (I know you do), but it makes us defensive and even aggressive at times.

    In November 1966 Australia became the last democratic country to lift the legislated “marriage bar”, which had prevented married women from holding permanent positions in the public service for over 60 years.

    The following clip shows the type of guys I went to uni with, which included Tony Abbott who also hated feminists.

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/makingaustralia/educationextras/episode-one/clip-four.htm

    I have endured sexual harassment and discrimination for most of my life. Saying it was nothing I couldn’t handle doesn’t make it ok.

    I have learned to temper the anger I feel about the past in the hope I can contribute to change for the future.

    I am on everyone’s side but only because I have had the love and support of family and friends that has allowed me to process the injustice.

    Michael. trust me. Women know what it is like to be discriminated against, bullied and ignored.

    Thankfully, things are improving for all of us. Let’s keep moving forward.

  319. Deanna Jones

    Just a couple of points:

    1. So far this year, close to 30 australian men have murdered their female partners or former female partners. At the beginning of the 2016 autumn semester the number of murdered women was 9. By the end it was 32. Last year the number was 79. Most domestic homicides occur post-separation.

    2. In 2013 the World Health Organisation declared violence against women a “…global health problem of epidemic proportions”

    3. So-called ‘research studies’ around female on male perpetrated violence have been widely discredited by both male and female academics. The “it goes both ways” narrative has been largely accredited to a 1985 survey by Murray Straus et al. Richard Gelles, one of the other authors, has repeatedly critiqued the misrepresentation of their ‘findings’. This is a very harmful narrative.

    4. There are multiple issues with the so-called research around female perpetrators. Many respondents conflate not having their personal needs met, with domestic violence, for example, some respondents stated that not having their dinner cooked in time, was domestic violence. Men never state that they live in fear of their lives.

    5. The idea that the Family Court favours mothers is a MYTH and a LIE and should be challenged once and for all by all progressive-minded commentators. There is an abundance of empirical data and academic literature available on this topic, making ignorance unjustified. Crusty old, out of touch, magistrates, do tend to subscribe to gender roles. I have stated this here before.

    6. False allegations around violence/abuse, according to Dr Michael Flood, are rare and no more likely to be made by either sex.

    7. Around 49% of NSW police call-outs will be to respond to male-perpetrated domestic/family violence.

    Thank you, Trish, for insisting that we keep conversations about women, about women. If men raised their issues independently then I would be more open to responding. Yet they don’t. They invariably remain silent about them, then choose to raise them ONLY in a context where we are discussing women. It is a silencing tactic.

  320. Kaye Lee

    Must it always be a competition?

  321. paul walter

    Look, I get you MN. The thread is currently as it is because Michael and his friends are best likely victims of relationship breakups and what goes with it. Is the subtext a loud “ouch” and wringing of fingers from a hammer blow because of the psychological damage done?

    And if it is the case with some of the men commenting, how much more so, involving the women?

    Their personal stories are so harsh as to interpret their comments definitely as cries of pain as much as an attempt to discuss the Hansonist thing, that got diverted to DV.

    Kaye Lee, I won’t say much more either.. I don’t want to add to others stresses.

  322. Kaye Lee

    please don”t withdraw from the conversation guys. I did not mean to make you uncomfortable just as I didn’t set out to hurt Trish and diannaart. I welcome the dialogue. My intention was to try to help people think about others and again I have failed. Damn the internet where we can’t see body language or hear tone of voice. I want us all to keep talking – that is how we can move forward.

  323. cornlegend

    “Women know what it is like to be discriminated against, bullied and ignored”
    And in 2016 we still talk about this shit
    For the whole of my married life we have had a whopping great laminated poster on the kitchen door, given to my wife by a legend of a woman and fighter for all sort of Rights in the Illawarra, a CPA activist, miners wife a member of Save our Sons who in the Vietnam war conflict chained herself in Parliament house, helped establish the Wollongong Womens Centre and pages more, Sally Bowen
    The Lucy poster simply stated “Never Underestimate The Power Of A Woman” and all the females in my family lived and grew under that
    My daughter runs the family firm because she is better at it than any of us, and she can.She is actually the employer of her husband, brother and me.
    my daughter in law runs the Administrative side of the firm, because she can
    My 17 year old grand daughter in February got her pilots licence on a tuesday and her “P”s the following thursday because she could
    My “adopted” other daughter is studying Medicine, went to fight Ebola in Sierra Leone and then to Nepal to assist after the earthquakes as part of the Cuban rescue Mission, and is now in Cuba training under some of the best Medical practitioners in the world because she could. She has a year to go to qualify as an Orthopeadic Surgeon, the intends to run for ALP preselection because, she can. She was part sponsored byNSW Labor and Unions NSW and I can’t remember her gender being an issue just her ability to do the job
    My 13 year old grand daughter is busy with make up, snap chat, more make up, a bit of study and then more make up…. because she can !
    I never mentioned my son, son in law or little grandson but they all have their own special talents, the adults their trades, and if they chose to do something,they will do it, because they can too.
    Will I live long enough to ever see people accepted respected and loved for just being who they are, without “GENDER’ being an issue?

  324. Matters Not

    diannaart

    You are reading meanings into comments

    Of course. Humans ‘make meanings’ all day, each and every day. it’s one of the few characteristics of ‘human nature’ we can generalise about. And that generalisation includes cross cultural analysis as well.

    You proceed:

    meanings into comments that are not there

    Yep! The ‘meanings’ are never there unless you ‘put’ them there. ‘Meanings’ don’t exist separate from ‘humans’. They have no life of their own. Meanings are the creation(s) of humans. It explains why different humans give different ‘meanings’, even to agreed ‘facts’ and the like. It explains why ‘history’ (and other social sciences) are an ongoing contest.

  325. Matters Not

    Will I live long enough to ever see people accepted respected and loved for just being who they are, without “GENDER’ being an issue?

    Maybe not. Because in many ways, the explanation is deeper than the concept of ‘gender’. It’s not just females (or males in many instances) who are the victims of discrimination, bias or whatever. Try Aborigines (males and females), asylum seekers (female and male), medical professionals, teachers at all levels and so on.

    While we are all culture bound and therefore ethnocentric (to a greater or lesser extent), it is possible to rise above such limitations and, not only ‘tolerate’ our differences, but to celebrate same. Of course those ‘differences’ go far beyond what most people understand difference to be (beyond fried rice at school on special days) but must include the different ‘common senses’ across the world.

    A very, very big ask. And there’s nothing on the political horizon that we are even looking in that direction. (Anyone seen some asylum seekers so that I (we) can give them a good kicking.)

  326. cornlegend

    Matters Not,
    I’ll just stick to GENDER at the moment, I have no wish to live to 1000+ { “discrimination, bias or whatever”}

  327. Matters Not

    cornlegend @7.51.

    Sorry about the slow response but Mondays on ABC provides a distraction (watching the tape).

    While I have no problem with the tackling of gender discrimination (indeed I applaud same), I just wonder what is the higher rationale (principles) you use to justify same?

    Further, can these ‘principles’ be universalised so as to tackle other forms of discrimination. And if ‘gender’ is your motive force, is it limited to those in your immediate cultural surrounds? If so, then why?

    Yes I do understand the importance of making a start, but I am also interested in the ‘direction’ and perhaps a ‘universal’ principle that underpins the journey..

  328. paul walter

    Interesting comment, MN. I say it having just come from Quiggin, where (Dr) Paul Norton has tried to move the issue of Greens/Labor differences from something a bit desolate to a celebration of diversity and discourse with the outcome as yet unclear. People can’t always see things as processive when they are the ones who figure, uncomfortably, as part of the process.

  329. cornlegend

    There are a whole range of reasons why gender is the easiest form of discrimination for me to address {or not address, as it really isn’t necessary anymore} and that is because of the nature of our firm, the area we live [rural reasonably isolated etc} and at times pretty isolated from the community, and I am talking about my immediate surroundings where in a week at times we may only see family and a handful of employees. ,
    Given that, issues on race, religion and a plethora of other “discriminations” aren’t something that are a constant consideration in day to day activity .
    Of course I have views on a whole range of discriminations but that was not what I responded to.
    Kaye Lee made a specific comment/ A comment on discrimination of women

    Kaye LeeJune 20, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    ““Women know what it is like to be discriminated against, bullied and ignored”
    That was what my response was to.

  330. Matters Not

    pw, I am familiar with the work of Paul Norton and not only his publications (Try Lavatus Prodeo whose demise is to be greatly regretted)). I did go to Quiggin and read the debate. Yes, it’s ‘insightful’.

  331. Trish Corry

    Thank you Deann for your points about women and also your comment about the entire reason this thread has been derailed to talk about men. It is a silencing tactic. Deann appears to be aware, as is Diann, as is Corny of the tactics that MRA-type men use to derail conversations about women. I have clearly stated a number of times, this is the case in this instance, yet two people in particular and a few others have tried to insist this is about me silencing men and rather than focusing on women.

    I have clearly stated a number of times, that this is in response to a particular attempt to derail this thread. Based on my own experience (and obviously Deann & Diann’s) as women who have participated in groups where types such as MJ do this. I hope that some people here can respect that this is actually a ‘thing’. I even put up an example of how Clem Ford had to create ‘rules’ because she is often attacked by these types of men on her blog and Facebook and that was also dismissed. I clearly have stated how many women do not participate in conversation once they enter a thread being derailed about women to be all about men. As Deann said – it is a silencing technique.

    Kaye has pointed out a few times that the tactic is not to let it bother people, or don’t read it or don’t listen (not exact words) However, I have addressed this with self-efficacy. Not all women have the same self-efficacy as other women and I still do not think it is unreasonable to for one reason to allow a focus on women, on an article about women, so women (particularly those with lived experience with violence) feel comfortable to participate. Women cannot escape having to read something online when they are part of a discussion. Once it has been read, sometimes it can’t be un-read. The harm has already been done.

    I have posted another blog recently about the same sex marriage debate. We also have the comments discussed by Eddie Mcguire.
    The arguments to enable trolls such as Michael Jones to derail threads as these, is the same as giving the homophobes and LGBTI haters a space to degrade LGBTI people, call them names, tell them they should be cast aside and left to waste (yes, he used a term that meant this about me and this was removed by Admin). The arguments put forth here to ‘listen to MJ’ are the same as ignoring how the comments have an affect on women (and particularly the female target) and have men bombard the airwaves and insist that the conversations be about Mcguire and how this is damaging his career and how no on is talking about jokes made about men, etc., and ignoring how the comments affect women.

    If Kaye and Paul and any others wanted make people to think by including a derailing troll, because understanding ‘his pain’ HIS pain” that has seen him develop into a man who abuses and says denigrating this about women online about them and to them; would somehow add to the conversation.. That is something to think about. How derailing trolls prevent women from participating in conversations about women, attack women online verbally, so they feel threatened and uncomfortable and silence the conversation about women, so we don’t learn anymore about the affects on women, because we are now talking about men.

    Until people realise that sometimes you do need to curb a conversation, and take discretion in relation to certain behaviour types on line and that does not mean that you are excluding all men who would like to participate without vile, demeaning accusations, then these types of men will continue to filter through and they will continue to derail discussions about women to be all about men, so we never understand them. I know some men who have stronger feminist convictions than some women. This is not about excluding men. But about excluding an MRA Type troll, who had a purpose to derail a conversation with the intent to make that conversation uncomfortable for women.

    If this does continue, that these types of men are not assessed for what they bring, and silenced so women can be comfortable and so we can talk about women, then no, Corny will never see people respected regardless of gender. And women will continue to have to be subjected to comments such as Diann put forth in the video. People tell me I get too sensitive when certain things are said about ME online – personal assessments of who I am, what I think etc., what I’m like, the odd bullshit degrading name here and there…and that is only what is received publicly. But just like the women in this video of Diann’s – why the hell should I not call it out as I see it? Because it is shameful to be sensitive to derogatory comments? That women should not call out bullshit attacks towards them online? I hope that is not the world we live in.

    I have seen some bloggers get very excited about the number of comments on their blog. I would have preferred comments focused on the actual topic of the article – how Pauline Hanson’s rhetoric is harmful to women and how her campaign style may be a threat to inciting more hatred against women victims of violence, rather than 300 odd comments about whether we should include comments from a MRA-Type troll who was here to ensure we did not talk about women at all.

  332. cornlegend

    Trish .
    “this is about me silencing men and rather than focusing on women.”
    I wonder why that allegation would be made against you?
    I have commented on quite a few of your articles here and on other sites and never felt “threatened’
    Actually, you have been quite supportive and generous with your time, and skills.
    I made a request of you a while back to write an article on Youth Homelessness and your positive response was almost immediate.
    If you Trish are a threatening female, I wish there were more

  333. Trish Corry

    Thanks Corny and thank you again for asking me to write that article and also for donating to homeless on my behalf because I wrote the article. That was an extraordinarily overwhelming feeling and a great gesture to do something I could not afford myself, but has given me the feeling I have helped another, directly. I usually manage at best 10 – 20 for donations to charities, because I can’t say no when they contact me.

  334. Matters Not

    because I can’t say no when they contact me.

    Well I find it’s very, very easy to say No. (At least most of the time.) And I have a ‘rationale’ for doing exactly that.

    Citizens of Australia who are in ‘need’ shouldn’t have to rely on the ‘feelings’ one may (or may not have) for fellow citizens to respond in a positive manner but should claim their ‘rights’ as citizens and demand Government assistance.

    To use a simple example. If I happen to fall over in the street, or be hit by a vehicle or assaulted by a ‘skinhead’ (or more likely a pissed Young Liberal ever in search of ‘freedom’) or whomever, I don’t want to rely on the ‘feelings’ of the theoretical ‘passerby’ as to whether or not I am transported to hospital. I want better than that. (As do Young Liberals when they are ….)

    So it is with supporting ‘charitable institutions’.

    I don’t. I spend my time trying to make real change and not applying ‘band-aid’ solutions which ‘charitable institutions’ are all about.

  335. paul walter

    Trish Corry, I understood fully what those opposed your viewpoint were conservative and said it several times.

    You ignored again that i have agreed that FDV is a worse problem than female on male, despite me saying this also, several times.

    I eventually commented here after an idiot called Victoria Pike launched a nasty spray your way, on the basis that the thread was about Hansonism, rather like Kaye Lee, rather than an opportunity for exorcising your own demons at my expense.

    I say it is good thread, but I’d eventually give it a mark down on misandry, same as I give Michael and co’s efforts a markdown for misogyny.

    You continue to misrepresent what I say and others, eventually, at a cost to your own credibility.

  336. Trish Corry

    I really have no concern at all about what you think of my credibility, nor your rating of anything I write.

    Based on your understanding of the actual issues raised throughout this exchange (esp by women who also expressed their disagreement with your arguments), and your complete misunderstanding of terms such as misogyny and misandry, and that you take a stronger view that someone else is more of an expert than the Author as to what an article is actually about, your ‘rating’ has little value in my opinion.

    I know for a fact that many people disagree with you. Thankfully, I do have more supporters than haters, although haters always sound louder. Even if everyone in the world hated what I had to say, I would still write. I don’t write for a fan club.

    Your types of comments, about ratings, or any other disparaging comments I’ve had to read over the last few days, will do nothing to prevent me from writing nor voicing my opinion and standing firm in my beliefs; particularly where issues of women, disadvantage, welfare and stigma are concerned.

    As Kaye has said, if you don’t like something, avoid it. You have agreed with everything else Kaye has said, possibly take her advice.

  337. cornlegend

    Matters Not
    “I don’t. I spend my time trying to make real change and not applying ‘band-aid’ solutions which ‘charitable institutions’ are all about.”

    I hate to say you’re failing miserable in your quest for change
    More homeless last night than last year etc
    You keep doing what you are doing, it’s needed
    I and a lot of others will help out those in need while you struggle to make change {oh yeah, a lot of us spend time trying to make real change as well] It’s now 2.30 am. my wife and I just got home from picking up homeless and getting them a warm bed for the night .Right now it’s 8.9°C,W 22km/h,Mostly cloudy. Windy.
    These people needed help TODAY.
    I’ll try to find them shelter and keep them warm while you try to change the system
    Good luck with that

  338. paul walter

    That’s right Trish..you don’t care. Well from this point, neither do I.

  339. Michael Jones

    Kaye, there have been plenty of suggestions for courts to be replaced by bodies more representative of the general community over the years, not just by One Nation. I personally don’t agree with that part of their policy as I think the legal training of judges is important, but it is a flag that significant numbers of people in the community worry that the Family Court may be out of touch or biased.

    More generally I think it is a mistake to label Hanson “dumb”. She has some f*cked up views on immigration and multi-culturalism, but as a very successful business woman she clearly is not dumb and I also think that she is in touch with the problems faced by outer urban and rural people.

    I changed my view on her watching one of those reality shows that she was on, where she was in a team of celebrities (a generous definition) raising money for charity. The other team was led by some marketer who only wanted to go for big money from high rollers, but Hanson said to her team “no, some people won’t have that sort of money but they might still like to contribute, so we are going to find a way for them to do so”. She also washed a car in her underwear on a 50 grand bet, to be contributed to charity, despite the fact that she was in her 50’s and you could see that she was dying inside doing it.

    None of that came across to me as her being somebody consumed with hate. Rather she came across like many people she represents do, as being genuine and having legitimate concerns that many Australians ignored by the major parties, mixed up with some obnoxious views and communicated in an inarticulate manner.

    The problem has been that by labelling Hanson dumb or whatever else, people who opposed her have also insulted the people who vote for her, because she is representative of them. That seriously backfired in the 90s and until One Nation imploded they posed a real threat to the major parties. I have been saying that there are parallels between then and now for some time now, the level of political correctness in this country is really pissing a lot of people off, and if the majors fail to understand that they will be punished.

    I agree on your response to Deanna, it shouldn’t be a competition on DV. Unfortunately that is the entrenched mindset we are dealing with, they will go out of their way to attempt to minimise the seriousness of DV against men, it is despicable and if you wanted to know why men like me have become combative …. there you have it.

  340. diannaart

    @Matters Not

    I do not and did not need the lecture on “meanings” and how humans interpret them.

    I did not make myself clear enough for you.

    Paul claimed I stated Kaye Lee was “Pro-Eddie” – I did not, nor did I even imply that meaning. I went on to state that Kaye Lee was unlikely to be “pro-Eddie”.

    What Paul did was make a false statement – nothing ambiguous about that and another reason why I wished to leave this thread.

    I realise you mean well, MN, and we both know that this world is rarely black and white – however, a false claim was made by PW.

    Was I to remain silent?

  341. Kaye Lee

    Quite frankly Trish, you have spent more time commenting on commenters than discussing the topic.

    Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety data shows one in six women is physically abused by their current or former partner and one in four women suffers emotional abuse.

    The ANROWS’ data reveals one in 19 men experience intimate partner violence and one in seven men are the victims of emotional abuse.

    This is a tragedy.

    The discussion about domestic violence should and must be conditioned by love and compassion for the victims, not politics and prejudice.

    Hanson’s despicable comments about frivolous claims were cynically designed to divide men and women and unfortunately it seems to be working.

  342. Trish Corry

    *Quite frankly Trish, you have spent more time commenting on commenters than discussing the topic. *

    A 300 odd comments from commenters based on accusations that I ignore or silence people but now I should not be responding to commenters. Make your mind up!

  343. Kaye Lee

    Fair enough Michael. I would say, had it been me being offered money to get in a bikini and wash cars I would have told them to get stuffed. If they can’t donate without humiliating someone then I don’t want their money. Perhaps Pauline is more ignorant than hateful but I do find her comments divisive.

  344. Kaye Lee

    And once again Trish, you ignore the topic.

  345. Trish Corry

    Yes, I have ignored the topic by not writing an article about it…….SMH.

  346. diannaart

    Trish, Kaye Lee

    Both of you – please stop with the sniping.

    Take some time out.

  347. Kaye Lee

    I agree and I apologise.

  348. diannaart

    Thank you, Kaye Lee

  349. Trish Corry

    Good Idea. Thanks Diann. Apologies.

  350. diannaart

    Thank you, Trish

    Ready to move on and invite all to the next great analysis by Kaye Lee, or succinct insight by Trish and other vital AIMN writings and belt the crap out of each again…

    😛

  351. Matters Not

    not need the lecture on “meanings” and how humans interpret them.

    humans interpret ‘meanings’? Really? Clearly I wasted my time.

    Just for the record, humans make meanings. (Maybe next time).

  352. cornlegend

    Matters Not, I note in your response to Trish re her contributions to charities
    “So it is with supporting ‘charitable institutions’.
    I don’t. I spend my time trying to make real change and not applying ‘band-aid’ solutions which ‘charitable institutions’ are all about”.
    It is about 70 days since Trish wrote the article on youth homelessness and made the donation of 8 waterproof sleeping bags and 6 -two person tents, which I assume have come to good use in this bloody cold weather
    At the same time, the charitable institution the donations were made to has provided direct support to the homeless, made representation on their behalf, liased with Government departments, again on their behalf and continued to push for change.I think Trish donations made a significant direct impact on some.
    You did write
    “So it is with supporting ‘charitable institutions’.

    I don’t. I spend my time trying to make real change and not applying ‘band-aid’ solutions which ‘charitable institutions’ are all about.”
    I was just wondering if you could share with us, any submissions, representations, letters to politicans or whatever your ” real change” strategy entails and any results of such and if you have info, how the homeless benefitted from your actions?

  353. Matters Not

    cornlegend, ‘wondering’ is to be encouraged because it (maybe) causes thinking. (But clearly not always).

    I really don’t know the best way to start but perhaps giving deference to your ‘ego’ might be the best starting point. Yes your (public and well publicised) charitable ‘dick’ is bigger than mine. As is your (claimed and well publicised) political influence ‘dick’. As for the ability to ‘blow your own trumpet, well you have the greatest ‘dick’ of all. At least on this site.

    I am sure you will agree.

    cornlegend, I participate in ‘discussion’ on blogs because I am interested in ‘ideas’ (you should try it some time). I don’t participate on the basis of the ‘me’.

    As for ‘submissions, representations, letters to politicans (sic)’. That’s hilarious.

    You really need to do a ‘course’ on how ‘government’ actually works. You know, how decisions are actually made.

    But then if you did that you would be less of a ‘dick’.

  354. Trish Corry

    Many years ago, electricity was considered a ‘credit’. I was working for an organisation associated with homelessness and disadvantage indirectly. Four of our young people had secured a house to live in, but could not get the electricity connected because under 18 you can’t have ‘credit’. I penned a letter, using examples from researching legislation and rights etc., The electricity company faxed back a letter that after noon saying that they had amended their clause to include ‘for necessity’ I think letter writing can be powerful and it can change lives.

  355. cornlegend

    Matters Not,
    Sort of what I expected 😀

  356. Michael Jones

    There ya go folks, up to four Senate seats going to Hanson. That’s why the major parties should have plucked their heads out of their arses and listened to people on matters like this.

  357. jimhaz

    Way above, I said she wouldn’t get a cult following.

    Look like I’m in the wrong again in my gut feel predictions. I thought surely people had had enough of here electoral shenanigans.
    Maybe the press will tire of her soon enough – though she’ll get a lot more repeat news in this Senate makeup with a hung house of Reps.

  358. paul walter

    When are you going to pull YOUR head out of YOUR arse?

  359. Trish Corry

    Michael I seriously do not think people who vote for a populist party vote on a specific issue. I’ve asked six people why they voted for her (I know it’s not a big sample) but they all said it was about anti Halal or she says what I’m thinking. She has also said upfront she won’t support either side. She is just there for ‘her Agenda’ So let’s see how she goes making a joke out of a house of review or whether she will respect it before she is praised or shunned.

  360. cornlegend

    From Pauline
    “Ms Hanson said Attorney-General George Brandis had reached out to her on behalf of the Liberal National Party (LNP), but she was yet to get a call from Malcolm Turnbull or Bill Shorten for support in what could be a hung parliament.

    “To tell you the truth, I don’t particularly like either of them,” she said.:

  361. Trish Corry

    If Labor get in they only need Greens Xenophon x 2 and Lambie. Libs need 9/10 cross benchers so far so 9/9 if she doesn’t cooperate. Labor is the only way forward for a hung parliament.

  362. Trish Corry

    Jim she will be as important as xioa wang if Labor gets in and is not needed. She will be screaming into her own lunchbox.

  363. cornlegend

    Someone I know would be chuffed in Capricornia 😀

  364. cornlegend

    Trish, Tanya Plibersek today at Labor Leaders meeting ruled out a Coalition with Greens, latest has Xenophon likely to win 1 and Lambie is a Senator, so no help

  365. Trish Corry

    No I mean in the Senate. Hanson has no bearing on the lower house. They don’t need a formal coalition is my understanding just confidence like what it is in Qld with Wellington and Katter and 2 ex Labor Independents.

  366. cornlegend

    Just a “Memorandum of Understanding”
    basic support for supply and confidence, free to vote on individual Bills and Legislation as they see fit

  367. Trish Corry

    I think LNP will get right on 76. What do you think Corny?

  368. Michael Jones

    I don’t know whether either of the major parties will seek Hanson’s support if they can help it, at least to begin with as she is still regarded as something like the anti-Christ in Australian politics. I do think that will change with time, because to those of use who have been taking notice she has moderated and learned a lot in the last 18 years.

    However, right from the get-go will have greater influence through being able to state her views under Parliamentary privilege. Because of that she will pose an even greater risk to the traditional outer urban, regional and rural bases of both major parties, if they continue to kowtow to the views of inner urban hipsters. Labor is on a 34% primary vote, the second lowest in its history, while the Coalition is on its fourth lowest. People have turned away from them and towards minor parties like One Nation, because they represent people who feel left behind on many, many issues such as family law and domestic violence.If the majors fail to look for ways to give a fair go to everybody, the minor parties will become more and more influential. On 7.30 tonight both Anthony Albanese and Cory Bernardi acknowledged the rise of the minor parties as a failure of the majors to listen, so if anybody here thinks that the majors won’t be having a very hard think about how far they have let themselves be dragged down the path of political correctness, I would suggest that you are dreaming.

    On a personal note, I am just happy that having had to listen to the increasing and increasingly irritating tenor of political correctness in this country ever since John Howard left office, that the revolution has finally come and that hipsters now have to listen to Pauline Hanson for six years! Six years! The sweet sound of lattes being choked on from New Farm to New Town to Brunswick, as hipsters contemplate how embarrassed they are to be Australian now that Pauline is back in Parliament, is music to the ears of those of us who are also embarrassed that they are Australian. Good times ahead for the silent majority who are thoroughly jack of political correctness me thinks :-).

  369. silkworm

    Not a silent majority at all, but a very loud minority, which is just going to get louder. Pauline Hanson will earn herself a black eye soon enough.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: