Do you think that men are oppressed?

I support elements of FNF's position adn I understand how so many men feel because I'm a mother and I nk ow how I'd feel if I were denied meaningful contact with my chidlren. So it's not surprising some of them go a bit far.

But most women who want fairness at work and at home which is all feminism really is are as much in favour of enhanced rights for men as women. There is little women have done to damage the cause of other women so much at work as exercising all these flexi time part time work options.

"Do you think that men are oppressed?" - maybe/probably - but not as much as women are.

I have chosen to be a feminist so I'm primarily interested in campaigning against opression of women.

Snorbs - your first post on this thread wa "I'd agree that there is significantly more oppression of women than men but there are at least a few issues where being a man is a hindrance." - I agree.

You've obviously had to make some difficult choices to support your DC.

Re "Families Need Fathers" - I have just read the document Dittany linked to and I have to say I am about it.

"?men appear to be at equal risk to women of domestic assault?" - WTF - equal risk what does that mean - what about what actually happens!

"The Women?s Aid classification, for instance, includes significantly milder negative behaviours which could be said to belittle the experiences of genuine victims, not to mention diverting limited resources from people in real need - female and male." - Attacking the Women's Aid classifications - that is low. . Those behaviours are part of a pattern and abuse can and does escalate through the levels - women need to know that an entire range of behaviour exhibited by their parter is infact abusive - as sadly otherwise they may just think "oh he just hits me".

"The male on female predominance is asserted, and the contrary minority is discounted." - I am sorry but I cannot see how female on male violence is a major issue (2 main reasons - a man is usually physically stronger than a women and also it is more usual for the man to earn more and use this to leverage a reason for the women to stay).

"Children should be allowed to spend time with both their parents and their wider family unless this presents a risk to the child. If there is thought to be a risk to someone else, other means to protect him or her should be used." - What sort of message for a child who has seen their father beat their mother - they will be scared that their father will do this to them?

"it is discriminatory for services and support, including financial and refuge services, to be available only to some sections of the population, for example, to women alone" Snorbs - do you really think that there is a genuine need for lots of refuges for men?

My eyes have been opened by reading the MN relationships section. Snorbs - have you read any of the stories on there?

Please please listen to the radio 4 programme linked in the OP of this thread.

You can't take statistics re domestic violence from female on male and compare them unless the seriousness of the abuse is allowed for.

"how many male victims of DV would you need to see before you believe it to be a crime that affects both men and women"

• I would want to see men setting up "Men's Aid" to help all these poor defenseless men who are at their wits end, in fear of their sanity and lives due to their wives abuse of them - it won't happen because it is just not a major issue.

We're back where we started - just because you say that FNF is anti-women it doesn't make it true. But do please feel free to try to prove me wrong by quoting chapter and verse if you can.

And just because you say I'm a misogynist it doesn't make that true either.

Uh-huh. Of course. Saying that some women are violent towards men is exactly the same as saying that I hate all women. Obvious misogynism. Thank you, Dittany, for pointing out the error of my ways

Meanwhile, back in the real world, I'm happy I'm not a misogynist either. I don't hate anybody. It seems that there is at least one area in which you and I are similar.

On the other hand, I don't tend to make wild, sweeping and offensive generalisations and then avoid backing them up so I guess we're not that alike.

And I note you rounded it off with a gorgeous little passive-aggressive smiley too! What a card you are.

Given that you claim to be a feminist one would hope not.

Hang on a minute... ah, I get it. You're trying to imply that I'm a misogynist, aren't you? Just because I believe (based on personal experience and demonstrable facts) that some women are violent towards men then, of course, that must mean that I hate all women. Stands to reason.

Oh Dittany, you little minx, you.

Oh, right, so you answered the question of "how many male victims of DV would you need to see before you believe it to be a crime that affects both men and women?" where, exactly?

And you answer to the request for a quote where FNF advocates violent men having unsupervised contact with their children is where, exactly?

And your evidence that the Home Office has got its figures wrong and that, instead, only a "tiny minority" of DV is female on male is where, exactly?

Dittany, you don't half talk a lot of bollocks sometimes.

The British Crime Survey 2008/9 rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0809.html gives the following statistics on domestic violence:

female victims 77%
male victims 23%

Care to answer the question Dittany or are you going to continue to ignore anything anyone asks you except for whatever trivia you think you can score points against?

And since when did I say I represented the FNF party line?

Exactly. You say that it's a "handful" of victims in "very rare cases" whereas the home office statistics (remember, 1 in 6 men are victims of Domestic Violence) prove you to be wrong. Even if every male homosexual beats up his partner (and of course they're not) there simply aren't enough gay men out there to get anywhere near to hit 1 in 6 of all men.

But yet you persist in hand-waving the hard evidence away and, instead, flaunt your prejudices by saying that it's a "handful" and women are the perpetrators only in "very rare cases". Why is that, Dittany?

Why is it misogyny to realise that there are a significant number of women out there hitting their boyfriends and husbands? I'm perfectly willing to accept that, yes and very sadly, there are more men out there hitting their girlfriends and wives but to try to pretend that woman-on-man DV is "very rare" is simply not supported by the facts.

And at the risk of highlighting your ignorance again there are groups out there who see DV as a crime that affects both men and women and that it should be treated as such. I gave some links to them earlier.

P.S. I note that, yet again, you have avoided my question - how many male victims of DV would you need to see before you believe it to be a crime that affects both men and women?

I have read that men are at a lot more risk in same sex relationships than in straight ones. A crucial factor seems to be whether you are facing down an angry man or an angry woman in the kitchen.

LeninGrad, speaking as a single parent I hope you're right

"Figures about DV against men often include women defending themselves against attacks."

Got some proof of that or is this another example of you talking through your hat?

That being said though Dittany I think your mildly repugnant but sadly common attitude towards male victims of DV is being aired in just the right thread. You don't think that DV really affects men, or if it does it's only in gay relationships and, anyway, even if they did get hit by a woman they must've hit her first. How sad.

You failed to answer my question - how many male victims of DV will you need to see before you accept that DV affects both men and women?