Really? we think that "that organisation" are representative of fathers in general? really?

Sorry, I should have made it clear that these are just figures for partner abuse, not general crime figures.

No- "Among those experiencing partner abuse in the last 12 months, in the most recent / only incident, 48% of offenders were male and 45% female.", SCJS Partner Abuse chapter

you do get that of those men assaulted in the last 12months most of them will have been assaulted by other men?

'a woman can more easily be 'trapped' in violence by societal factors that don't generally (back to groups rather than individuals) apply to men.'

Yes, they can be trapped , but I question if it's more easily than men. Men are also trapped in abusive relationships by their own gender-specific factors, the most common one being that if they get out of the relationship they can look forward to years of having their children used as a tool of abuse, or maybe never seeing them again.

'The only studies that paint female-to-male violence as anywhere near comparable to male-to-female violence have been hugely discredited by most working in the field.'

No - The 'gold standard' when estimating the prevalence of any condition is the community survey; ask any researcher or epidemiologist and they will say the same. They avoid most common biases which affect research results, the most common being recruitment bias, in this situation usually by looking only at incidents reported to the Police. In the UK we are lucky to have community surveys of partner abuse that have a robust methodology and avoid this bias.

For instance the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey, 2008-09, found 2.9% of men and 2.4% of women had experienced physical abuse within the preceding 12 months. 5.3% of men had experienced any physical or psychological abuse compared with 5% of women.

Nobody in the field has discredited these findings, they have simply ignored them because they do not fit with the woman good/man bad paradigm. The Survey is funded by the Executive and used as their own standard for planning across a wide variety of criminal behaviours (except domestic abuse where they're attempting to rebrand it as 'gender-based violence'!!!).

The above figures give a very simplistic picture. For instance 25% of women and 17% of men suffered a black eye or minor bruising from the most recent physical assault, whereas 18% of men suffered scratches and 9% of women. Women are much more likely to suffer serious bruising - 14% and 3%.

'Also, homosexual victims are included in the male victim figures (violence being surprisingly common in this group).'

That's right and violence is even more frequent in same sex female relationships!

'Men outnumber women 4 to 1 in Parliament. 69% of local councillors are men. Only 16 of the FTSE 100 companies have women directors, despite law graduates being equal by gender, most firms have less than 20% female partners'

Personally I would like to see equal numbers of women in all these roles. I think it would vastly improve society through a variety of both direct and indirect mechanisms; but aren't we both applying essentially male values when determining what constitutes power. I would like to have the power not to work a 50-60 hour week, or the power of having an equal right to stay at home and care for my kids, or the power not to have to subsidise my ex's lifestyle. All these would have far more positive impact on my day to day quality of life than the inequalities you mention.

'It's not surprising though that she's seen as a hero to those who dislike feminists, believe most domestic abuse is made up and just generally don't like women much'

I don't see her as a hero, and I don't dislike feminists, or believe most domestic abuse is made up, or dislike women. I would just like to see more true equality and a recognition that society can and does discrimnate against men maybe just as much as it discriminates against women but in very different ways.

'I hadn't realised that the appropriation of Erin Pizzey by F4J is an excellent illustration of what I meant in the final paragraph.'

I AM NOT A MEMBER OF F4J!

'Trying to shift perspective by saying "women are just as guilty as men" (when the figures suggest anything but" smacks me as not so much wanting to find a solution but as trying to diminish women's experience of DV and paint them in a negative light using twisted evidence.'

I am not trying to shift perspective in order to diminish women's experience of DV or paint them in a negative light. You don't hear politicians standing up and saying 'the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of domestic abuse are female' but that is no more or less true than saying 'the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of domestic abuse are male' which they do frequently. It's simply sexist oversimplistic nonsense which I find deeply offensive.

'i just don't think i'm seeing the same world as you.'

I think we are seeing the same world, just from very different perspectives, and therefore have much to learn from one another.

especially when you have to be assigned those chores and reminded to do them

I think Susan Maushart's Wifework should be a required set text in secondary school for everyone.

Because , the number of men I see who do basically nothing in terms of childcare and housework is depressing.

And, no, emptying the dishwasher or taking out the bins doesn't count.

i wish you were right about those stereotypes belonging to an era long gone but sadly you only have to look around the boards on mn to find that it is still incredibly common for men to do bugger all about the house or any childcare. women who couldn't possibly expect their husband to take a day off work because the children are ill but she automatically must, women who look after the children all week and all weekend whilst their partner goes out and has a life etc etc.

all surveys seem to agree that women, even when working full time, still do a much larger proportion of childcare and housework than men and even where men do contribute the woman is left with all the responsibility and coordination.

i also think it is just massively untrue that childcare is valued when women do it but not when men do. single mothers for example are denigrated and treated like the scum of the earth by policy makers and the media - a single dad is like some kind of superhero to be admired for how good he is, he's raised those children on his own you know! etc etc.

i just don't think i'm seeing the same world as you.

Johnde - while there are several valid point in your posts, I have trouble dealing withe the fact that to highlight male victims of DV and male childcarers,you seem to want to diminish the difficulties faced by women in the same situation.

No one here would deny that male victims of DV and male victims of rape are massively under-reported and suffer from a lack of resources. Why should that be made any better by saying women do it to men, too? Women's Aid, for example, don't care if a woman ends up in a refuge as a result of male violence or female violence in a lesbian relationship. It is the end result that matters. The solution to male DV is to highlight awareness and provide more shelters - something that could only benefit both genders. Trying to shift perspective by saying "women are just as guilty as men" (when the figures suggest anything but" smacks me as not so much wanting to find a solution but as trying to diminish women's experience of DV and paint them in a negative light using twisted evidence. Regarding the 8% statistic reclaimed by the World Health Organisation, who exactly 'scrutinised' the evidence? The methodological scrutiny placed on governmental and international bodies before they use evidence in their reports and plans is intense. I would like to know the rigour applied to the analysis. I strongly suspect that I know how the figure was reduced to 8%, and if I'm right I will not be taking that 'scrutiny' seriously.

I could not agree with you less when you say childcare is valued when women do it and undervalued when men do it. There are numerous studies out there that show when men are primary carers or lone parents they get a lot more support and praise than their female counterparts. Ironically, this is still based on sexism I think (poor man, he can't find it easy etc) but it's still true I think. I think individual men may feel the lack in status because the male role has been traditionally valued in terms of provider rather than carer, but socially speaking male carers are treated with admiration. They still suffer from exactly the same problems that affect female carers though - increased risk of poverty, negative effect on career, etc. That's why I, and many other feminists, want to see the role of carer much more highly valued regardless of who does it.

Again, while I commend you for your own domestic arrangements and I am delighted to hear that many of your friends and fellow campaigners follow suit, you cannot base your opinions on anecdotal evidence alone. Your reality just is not the reality for the majority of the population. You may wish that were different but it isn't. Alarmingly, we are actually going backwards in this trend because of the economic crisis, as more and more women have ended up becoming SAHMs as a result of losing their jobs in the public sector. While I completely agree with you that many judges could do with some enlightenment on the issues of sexism and the reality for ordinary people, I really don't think the judges are being unfair. I am sure there are individual cases where the wrong decision is made, but it goes both ways and I think generally the right decision is made. As more fathers become primary carers that should change (and as I've explained repeatedly, in the main they still are not), but until then they can't expect their child's welfare to be put second to their own perspective of what is fair.

Apologies for any factual innaccuracy but my point was not about her views, rather that when she expressed them her dog was killed, she and her children threatened, and she had to flee the country.

So says Erin. Mysteriously the police could find no evidence...

I can only talk about this from a male perspective, those are the cards I was dealt at conception. However I fully respect the views expressed here.

'we don't undervalue it (childcare) - we recognise that it is undervalued and see that as part of the problem.'

Maybe not, but I have heard plenty of so-called feminists describe childcare as dull and boring. To my mind it's anything but, most of the time. The problem I suffer from is that it is seen as valuable when a woman is providing it, but not when a man is. I see the comments as an application of stereotypical male values to the situation.

'then naturally the court would be making different rulings because when, as they do now, they maintain the status quo that status quo would look very different.'

It hasn't stopped them so far! Many judges have a sexist stereotyped view of gender roles. They are not 'maintaining the status quo' because their judgements lag way behind the reality for many modern families. The "status quo" reflects the reality 40 years ago, or more. The 'status quo' is already very different. I think there is huge variability between families in childcare arrangements now, but the courts still apply 'one size fits all' solutions.

Another quote from EP (great woman!) 'Justice and judgement are oft far removed'. (Pretty sure that one's right.)

'there is the odd person who calls themselves a feminist and doesn't value childcare - on these boards though the over riding view is that being a sahp is a valid job that should be valued more'

Couldn't agree more, would love to be one.

'Erin Pizzey was NOT a founder of Women's Aid. At the meeting in 1975 where Women's Aid was formed as a federation, Erin Pizzey flounced out in a huff because she was not automatically made the leader (there was no leader - it was a federation) and has spent the last 37 years pouting about lesbians 'stealing' 'her' movement.'

Apologies for any factual innaccuracy but my point was not about her views, rather that when she expressed them her dog was killed, she and her children threatened, and she had to flee the country.

'i also think it's disingenuous when dv of being punched, kicked, brutalised by someone stronger than you is viewed as exactly the same as being slapped by someone smaller than you or having something thrown at you. both are abusive and unacceptable but there are also very clear differences'

Yes, I agree, but I also know that a substantial number of men are also subjected to extreme violence by women, and the oft repeated 'the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of abuse are men' is complete sexist ignorant nonsense.

'it's also true that included in these figures of women who are violent towards their partners are women who are being abused and have fought back.' Yes.... but this stems from a WHO report which stated that the overwhelming majority of female on male violence was self-defence. When the studies cited were scrutinised they show this is the case in about 8 % of situations.

One could draw that conclusion, yes.

I thought Erin Pizzey was very well known for being gender-biased, i.e. doesn't like women much.

Actually, it was so long ago I posted on this thread - 10 March, I hadn't realised that the appropriation of Erin Pizzey by F4J is an excellent illustration of what I meant in the final paragraph.

Thank you Josephine for setting the record straight about Pizzey. She has seethed and tried everything possible to undermine those organisations who wouldn't bow down at her feet all those years ago. She didn't found Chiswick Family Refuge single handedly, either.

It's not surprising though that she's seen as a hero to those who dislike feminists, believe most domestic abuse is made up and just generally don't like women much.

The only studies that paint female-to-male violence as anywhere near comparable to male-to-female violence have been hugely discredited by most working in the field. The statistical analysis was highly flawed, the research was not peer-reviewed, and, most shockingly, it included female self-defence as a form of violence.

The slap-for-slap statistical approach also completely ignores the fact that the degree of violence is also substantially different, with men generally being far more violent. This isn't to say that women can't abuse men and some have been horrifically violent. My sympathy goes to men who suffer like that as they would for a female victim, but it is not true that men and women suffer equally.

Also, homosexual victims are included in the male victim figures (violence being surprisingly common in this group).

I also think the 'we have more power here in the west' is a bi besides the point. Of course a western woman has much more freedom and wealth than say a woman in Somalia. But if you compare men and women in the same country, the fact is that men hold far more of the wealth and far more of the political positions of power. Men outnumber women 4 to 1 in Parliament. 69% of local councillors are men. Only 16 of the FTSE 100 companies have women directors, despite law graduates being equal by gender, most firms have less than 20% female partners.

It is wonderful to see more women changing this, but there's a hell of a long way to go. And the big stumbling block continues to be childcare. Women earn the same as men (sometimes more) during their 20s, but this changes significantly after children because it is still women in the main doing the caring. The gender pay gap is mostly due to caring commitments.

I'm very heartened to hear that there is much more equality among your social group. I hope it is a pattern that expands, but it is certainly not representative of the norm right now.

it is also true that wider societal power differentials come into play too in dv - being financially dependent, being a mother of young children etc plays a role in keeping women with violent partners. a woman can more easily be 'trapped' in violence by societal factors that don't generally (back to groups rather than individuals) apply to men.

i also think it's disingenuous when dv of being punched, kicked, brutalised by someone stronger than you is viewed as exactly the same as being slapped by someone smaller than you or having something thrown at you. both are abusive and unacceptable but there are also very clear differences.

i realise it is not PC to point out that being slapped by someone a foot smaller than you and a few stone lighter is different to being the smaller subject on the receiving end of violence but none the less it is true.

it's also true that included in these figures of women who are violent towards their partners are women who are being abused and have fought back.

You should read the story of Erin Pizzey, one of the founders of Women's Aid for an illustration.

Erin Pizzey was NOT a founder of Women's Aid. At the meeting in 1975 where Women's Aid was formed as a federation, Erin Pizzey flounced out in a huff because she was not automatically made the leader (there was no leader - it was a federation) and has spent the last 37 years pouting about lesbians 'stealing' 'her' movement.

Erin has also spent the time in-between spreading deliberate misinformation about domestic violence. When she claims that, in her experience, women are as violent as men she is including self-harm. In other words, she claims that a woman who is beaten by her male partner and then attempts suicide, is as violent as the man who beat her.

we don't undervalue it (childcare) - we recognise that it is undervalued and see that as part of the problem. if it was valued more then we would have respect for people who sahp and more men would choose to do it. when a traditionally seen as female role gains status men start doing it more - re: nursing, teaching. also we would see easy access to affordable, quality childcare if society valued it more. we'd see couples making more creative choices re: work and childcare - two part time careers for example so that both can take a 50% role in raising the children and valuing it over being able to afford more holidays or fancier cars.

then naturally the court would be making different rulings because when, as they do now, they maintain the status quo that status quo would look very different.

there is the odd person who calls themselves a feminist and doesn't value childcare - on these boards though the over riding view is that being a sahp is a valid job that should be valued more.

Dear sab

Thank you so much for your comments. The first sign of non gender-based empathy. I am finding this dialogue very therapeutic.

Emmeline Pankhurst once said 'In order to free the women, we have to free the men' or similar, can't remember the exact quote.

I would argue that women and men have always (well over the past 50 years or so in the West) had power in different measure in different spheres of life. It depends how you measure power and freedom. Power is not dying young because you work in a dangerous job for long hours, or missing out on family life because of work. Even feminists undervalue the contribution of childcare to society bizarrely enough.

'How many men in your own social circle are as involved as you? How many men nationally?'

Truthfully, more than you might think, and we talk about childcare issues all the time, but thinking about it there is a real divide between those who have ex's/wives who also work full time, and those who don't. For those whose partners work full time the overwhelming majority share childcare equally, as far as I can judge. The national stats are that for dual full time working couples the fathers are responsible for about 45% of the childcare time, I think that was a CEHR study. But bear in mind that 'full time' can encompass anything from 37.5 to 60 hours a week, and men will work the longer hours.

The issue of domestic abuse is a really contentious, and highly politicised, one. Robust community surveys do not support the usual statement that 'the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of abuse are men' but I am very aware of the responses that this might provoke. You should read the story of Erin Pizzey, one of the founders of Women's Aid for an illustration.

I do not think you can draw any equivalence between crimes of violence, sexual or otherwise, and the issue of childcare. Should one not aim to eradicate inequality wherever it exists?

Johnde I'm not trying to minimise your experiences honestly, but you're on a feminist board and therefore you are going to have to expect us to talk about male/female behaviour in terms of patterns - that is how the group behaves as a whole.

Feminists tend to be more open to the idea of men as nurturers than anti-feminists IME. You won't find any feminist denying that a man can - and should - be more involved with his children. But generally this isn't the case. How many men in your own social circle are as involved as you? How many men nationally?

Whether married or separated, the overwhelming statistical truth is that the vast majority of men just don't put the hours in to rearing children that their female partners do. And that's reflected in residency arrangements. If you really want to see that pattern changed, you would be far better off encouraging other men to do as you have done, rather than getting angry at the law, which is basically just trying to provide some continuity for the child.

Likewise with the 'paradigm' of female-victim-good v male-abuser-bad - this is again based on statistical and historical truth that women have had very little power and have suffered at the hands of men out of all proportion with what women have done to men.

This is no way states that individual men and women cannot buck the trend. We all know horrible women and lovely men. But if you're looking at men/women as a group, you just can't deny the truth unless you are purposely determined to. As a feminist I would dearly like to see that 'paradigm' changed too, but in order for that to be the case, we need to see a massive reduction in rape and domestic abuse far more than we need to see equal residency arrangements handed out in court.

it's also the case that on school days it is down to the rp to be there in the morning getting them ready and delivering them to school on time and being there mid afternoon and picking them up and doing all that needs doing after school OR to pay for someone else to do this as they are at work. hence them being counted as days of residency and financial responsibility.

to do it yourself you need either to not work or work a very short day with very specific hours which is unsurprisingly difficult to do so for most who are working it means making use of childminders or afterschool childcare on school site.

it is massively misleading and/or unaware to pretend school days don't require parental responsibility and incur time and money commitments.

The answer to all your questions is both of us. I am aware of all your points because I do all these tasks, and more. I am not trying to insist anything. Time at school is time at school. We both take responsibility for it, and always have.

I will meditate on your comments on Sunday night when I will be shining their shoes, defluffing their blazers, ironing the incredibly frustrating blinking pleats in their school kilts (aarrghh!), helping with the late homework, etc., etc.

Do I value her input with the children? Absolutely. She does not, and never did, value mine; she views it as a threat to her gender-defined role, and possibly a sign of some effeminate weakness on my part. In fact in much the same way you might find some men criticising women drivers or managers at work; because they feel threatened in their gender-defined roles.

What I find people have difficulty with is moving beyond the 'woman weak,victim, good; man strong, abusive, bad' sexist paradigm.

I do not, and never have abused her in any way, shape, or form. She continues to verbally abuse me in front of my children, and whenever else she gets an opportunity. Thankfully I don't think she would hit me again, but you never know. She knows I am now way past caring how many different men she shags, so the kids become the tool of abuse when other avenues are closed off. Despite this I actually bear her no malice. I just wish she would stop, but I cannot make her. My view is that you are only responsible for one person's behaviour in this life, so I focus on that and remain calm and appropriate (which I think she probably finds more frustrating!).

I never went near a court. My view was that it would simply serve to fuel hostility and line the pockets of lawyers who create conflict that they then profit from - disgusting. If I had I would have had a much better financial deal but I would almost certainly not be seeing my kids.

Who takes them to the Dr/nurse/dentist/optician?

Who provides care when the child needs a day off school sick?

Why buys the school uniform - and by this I don't mean who pays for it, I mean who takes the child with them round the shops to make sure the clothes fit and the shoes are correctly fitted. Who notices that the shoes are wearing a bit thin or getting a bit small?

Who deals with the endless requests for money/items/help/information that come home from school every week?

Who makes the packed lunches, makes sure the uniform is clean and pressed? That the PE kit has been remembered, the reading diary filled in, the consent slip signed, and the coat has not only been brought home from school but is actually the right one and is clean. Every day.

Perhaps more importantly the question should be who did these things before the marriage disintegrated.

I don't doubt for a minute that fathers can make just as good parents as mothers. In some cases they might even do a better job; it all depends on the individuals concerned. However, I think many fathers are guilty of vastly underestimating just how much the mother of their child does and probably the first time they think about how much has hitherto been taken for granted is when it is 'used against them' in court.

Johnde, I can't comment on your individual case for obvious reasons, but if you were abused by your X then I am very sorry. No one deserves that. I hope you manage to get past it. However, asking for school hours to be deducted from her time is rather silly since you've only got to look at the points above to realise just how much time and effort goes into keeping a child at school even though the hours may not be spent together. Trying to insist that time at school doesn't count just makes it appear like you have an alternative agenda whereby you simply want to belittle and diminish your XW's contribution to your child. She may well be an abusive manipulative person for all I know but by using arguments such as that you are actually painting a negative picture of yourself that presents her in a more favourable light.