The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Turnbull's response to domestic violence ignores the evidence > Comments

Turnbull's response to domestic violence ignores the evidence : Comments

By Brendan O'Reilly, published 6/10/2015

Turnbull was effectively toeing the line pushed by feminists that intimate partner violence is the result of society condoning aggressive behaviours perpetrated by men.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
I, like the overwhelming majority of men don't abuse women or children and while I understand why men behave in such a way actually violently assaulting or victimising a woman or child is not something I can relate to or even picture in my head.
That's not to say that I can't conceive of using violence in the pursuit of justice against men who are not like me and who do hurt others, I'd be prepared to handcuff serial wife beaters and child molesters to the bike rack outside the Town Hall and work them over with a Sjambok for five minutes and keep doing it until they learn to behave.
See that's the response from most normal men "Give us five minutes alone with the bastard and we'll sort him out", if you want real men to take responsibility then that's our solution.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 9:46:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent article.

Politicians and chatterers cannot change attitudes if, as this class of people claims, attitude or 'disrespect' is the problem. Given that Turnbull has claimed this Abbott feel-good non-policy as his own, it is he, Turnbull, who will be the laughing stock and failure. More waffle and huff and puff that won't work in an attempt to get the female vote, particularly from the shrewish Left, who's darling he is.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 10:00:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After the despicable act of treachury against Abbott, Turnbull jumps on a moral bandwagon even though Abbott had done all the work on this issue. It did not take the Australian of the year much time to joing the feminist dogma. One really wonders what her motivation is. Go figure. Sounds like another climate change being the biggest moral dilemma of the century as called by Rudd before ditching the policy. Meanwhile we will import tens of thousands that pay little to no respect to women.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 10:08:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are a couple of elephants in the room.

Firstly;

We found only one-third of published psychology research is reliable – now what?
https://theconversation.com/we-found-only-one-third-of-published-psychology-research-is-reliable-now-what-46596

Secondly;

Researcher Says Women's Initiation of Domestic Violence Predicts Risk to Women
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-sacks/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746.html?ir=Australia

Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey
67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm
Posted by Wolly B, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 10:49:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Did anyone really think Turnbull was any less a slut than those in the Labor party, who have been courting the up market feminists for a decade or two. He will prostitute himself, & us anywhere he can hope to buy a vote.

He is very well aware he is not a legitimate prime minister, merely a usurper, unless he is actually voted in by the people. His ego could not stand not being elected, & will do nothing but crawl to any group that might have a few votes for him. Just look at his response to the Parramatta Muslim terrorist shooting, if you doubt that.

We will get this disgusting damaging response to all things as long as there are enough clowns in our society who can not see through this slime ball.

He even has the same pasty faced slimy appearance of K Rudd. People took far too long to wake up to his incompetence, & appear to have learnt little or nothing from the experience.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 12:08:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JOM:

“I, like the overwhelming majority of men don't abuse women or children and while I understand why men behave in such a way actually violently assaulting or victimising a woman or child is not something I can relate to or even picture in my head.”

I think every man who has resorted to domestic violence has had this same attitude about themselves. It is naive to assume that you will never commit domestic violence. If you have the attitude that violence is sometimes ok then you are much closer to domestic violence than someone who says it is never ok.

It is not ‘normal’ to ever inflict violence.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 12:27:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Phanto mixed response there, always be weary of blokes that deny
any sort of aggression to some but not others.

I am not aware of any response from Turnbull other than putting in 100 million to further the cause of finding a solution.

Turnbulls ignores the evidence; what is the evidence.
Posted by doog, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 12:51:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen What are you so upset at Turnbull for, He is your new successor, the liberal party PM
He has been elected by his own political party and that is all that counts.
So lift your spirits and get drunk, that will cheer you up.
Posted by doog, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:00:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Throwing petrol on fires is not a clever idea.

In any tense situation, you either escalate, or deescalate the tension & the inconvenient truth is that feminism has trained women to escalate the tension. Then point to the predictable results of provoking people who are already mentally ill as evidence that "all men are bastards" so that they can justify hiring even more social workers.

Jobs for the girls is what this industry is all about & they don't care how many children become collateral damage in their gender wars.
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:22:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

You clearly had no illusions about Turnbull, and neither did I. The people who seem to like him, apart from himself, are his fellow back-stabber, Bishop, and the loony Left, who woudn't vote Liberal in a fit; the second proving what a rotter Turnbull is.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 2:31:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brendan’s articles have been down this path before. The trouble is, he is guilty of the same sin he accuses the women’s lobby of, namely making assertions not backed by evidence. Mental illness, drug addiction, social conditioning, and cultural values all seem plausible as possible causes of domestic violence. Probably, all these and more are at work. Measures to address domestic violence should be driven by evidence, and their success measured by their effectiveness. But Brendan seems no less inclined to enter the debate driven by ideology than his opponents.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 3:21:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are all missing the point, except that the author touched on what is possibly the main cause of domestic violence. That is the use of drugs and alcohol.
Back in the early sixties before Aboriginals were given access to alcohol there was a very low level of violence resulting in homicides in Aboriginal communities. Now it is a regular occurrence.
In white society, women who are blamed for starting arguments which lead to physical violence do so because their husbands have come home drunk and if the women themselves have also been drinking that will exacerbate the problem. Ditto for drugs. I would suggest that if men went home after work instead of going to the rubbity for a few drinks with their mates there would be less DV.
It would be great if there was a solution to the cause for DV, but the measures to be undertaken by the government should be lauded, and you people who are pouring sh1t on Mr.Turnbull should be ashamed of yourselves. The provision of more refuges for those at risk is to be applauded.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 3:31:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The title of the article speaks for itself.

“In my view the government could do a lot to help reduce domestic violence by more directly targeting likely classes of perpetrators and DV hotspots. …

There needs to be recognition that policies against DV need to be targeted. The mentally ill, substance abusers and Indigenous families require special assistance measures, and a balance between civil liberties, equal rights, and the rights of victims needs to be struck. …”

Presumably, substance abusers include those drinking alcohol to excess, probably the main cause of domestic violence.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 3:57:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, would your opinion of Turnbull mellow if he were to achieve the sale of the ABC? Fanciful, I know. But stranger things have happened. See article below from Quadrant Online:

“The man best placed to sell the ABC” http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2015/10/man-best-placed-sell-abc/
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 4:32:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian

I am surprised that you doubt the importance of alcohol,drugs,and mental illness as conrributors to domestic violence. I did not want the article to be a complete literature review but see below for evidence you seek:

The ABS found that 49 per cent of women who had experienced an assault in the preceding 12 months where the perpetrator was male, stated that alcohol or drugs had contributed to the most recent incident. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research found that 41 per cent of all incidents of domestic assault reported to the police between 2001 and 2010 were alcohol related.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/DVAustralia#_Toc309798377

Belfrage and Rying (2004) found that perpetrators who had committed Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH) were more likely to have a mental disorder. These perpetrators were to a greater extent classified with a dysphoric diagnosis (i.e., depression) or a borderline personality disorder [BPD], which manifests in traits such as aggression, impulsivity and a fear of being abandoned (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition [DSM-IV], American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2002).

According to Belfrage and Rying (2004), suicidal ideation is a major risk factor for Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH) in general and IPH. Furthermore, the authors concluded that nearly 80% of the perpetrators who committed IPH could be classified with a mental disorder. In line with these results, Dixon, Hamilton- Giachritsis and Browne (2008) found that a high proportion of the perpetrators of IPH in their study showed symptoms of BPD or dysphoria.
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:540123/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Posted by Bren, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 4:59:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian evidence has been covered pretty well on a variety of threads. For an insight into some of the correlations in Australians intimate partner homicides have a look at this http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/21-40/rip38.html

There is plenty more material around discussing (and providing evidence of) a very wide range of aspects of the issue.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 6:35:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bren/Brendan

Read my post, I do not doubt the contribution of drugs or mental illness to domestic violence. I merely point out that you accuse others of proposing positions without providing evidence, then do it yourself.

My main point was that you seem to be no less ideologically driven in these issues that those you criticise.

Feminists stress the cultural and systemic dimension to domestic violence, you downplay these and emphasise the individual aberrancy of the perpetrators. I would expect you both to be partly right. The stats you quoted certainly suggest so. If 49% of DV assaults are alcohol or drug related, presumably 51% are not.

Furthermore, the explanations are not mutually exclusive. A culture of male entitlement and aggression will encourage men with other problems (depression, substance abuse) to be violent towards women (and men).

The tone of your article works cumulatively to belittle women’s concerns. Turnbull’s DV policy is to “appease the women’s lobby”. You patronisingly conceded that increasing the number of women in cabinet from two (initially one , under Abbott) to five (still less than 25%) is “not entirely without justification” (but by inference, mostly so). You sneer at Turnbull’s call for men to respect women.

You say that government could do a lot to help reduce domestic violence by more directly targeting likely classes of perpetrators. But you refuse to acknowledge what your own stats suggest – the “class” that contributes the great majority of perpetrators, is men.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 6:54:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, Turnbull makes me feel dirty.

I only have to see him on TV for less than a minute & I can feel the slime starting to cover me. This is exactly the same reaction I had to Rudd, & is totally unconscious. It appears though, that my unconscious is a damn good judge of politicians. I never had this feeling from Gillard. The waves of hate she projected for people overcame all else. I simply responded with dislike for her. She was not worth expending more energy than that.

As for domestic violence, I think some men must be saints. The amount of verbal abuse & verbal violence some of them put up with is really unbelievable. Fortunately Hollywood appears to have stopped the fashion they used to promote, of women slapping a man's face. This is a very good thing. Keeping ones hands to themselves should be the first priority of women who don't want to be hit.

I don't know how many women believe it is OK for them to strike, but not OK for the favour to be returned. I have never been put to the test, but I expect my response would be automatic & instantaneous, regardless of the gender of the hitter. This was in the school yard with boys, the last place I experienced personal violence.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 8:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian

The bottom line is that I can and did provide evidence for all that I have argued. The same cannot be said for the assertion that "all violence against women begins with disrespecting women", which is the grossest exaggeration. It is equally untrue to suggest that domestic violence perpetrated by women is "insignificant". It is quite clear that proposed new spending will not work because it is based on a false set of premises.

I also take issue with your assertion that I " cumulatively belittle women’s concerns". I don't. I share concerns about all form of violence against the person, irrespective of their sex. While I have belittled the Government's response, I did propose alternative measures that are much more likely to be effective.

There is a further reality in all of this, namely basic biology. The male in nearly all species is more aggressive that the female. The reason has little to do with "respect" or "socialisation". The underlying cause is basically hormonal.
Posted by Bren, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 8:56:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pointing out the problems with the patriarchy theory of DV is easy. It is a flawed understanding of DV. Coming up with a solution to the problem of DV is harder.

My understanding is that an inability to find new housing is a major stressor. People cannot leave or ask their partner to leave because they will not get alternative housing. Solving this problem will do more than making motherhood statements about respecting women.

@Jay- Women who think like you end up going from one violent relationship to another. They are always looking for a "real man" to protect them from the last thug. Everyone opposes violence, but some can always justify their violence, because of "exceptional circumstances".
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 9:24:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bren:
“There is a further reality in all of this, namely basic biology. The male in nearly all species is more aggressive that the female. The reason has little to do with "respect" or "socialisation". The underlying cause is basically hormonal.”

I think biology has a big part to play but I’m not sure it is hormonal. There are many types of aggression – violence is only one type. I think if you looked at any domestic relationship you would find that the desire to hurt is equal for both genders. When you want to hurt you are going to use whatever advantage you have and men do have a biological advantage when it comes to violence because they have more power and strength. Nine times out of ten in a violent fight with a woman the man will come out on top. Probably women only come out on top when they use some kind of weapon which evens the score.

A small man is not going to take on a large man in a physical fight for the same reason – he has little chance of succeeding. It is always about who has the physical advantage. It just stands to reason that the biggest person will usually win such a fight.

Women use other methods of aggression and these methods work or else they would not bother with them. Bruises and broken bones will heal but sometimes the damage done by belittling, sarcasm, humiliation, destruction of property and many other methods can do more damage. Anyone on the end of these aggressive behaviours knows how much damage these things do especially if it goes on for years.

Many women have an agenda to keep the focus on violence rather than aggression because they feel guilty about their own acts of aggression and this is how they try and bury that guilt. This dishonesty contributes a lot to a toxic domestic relationship and it needs to be a part of the debate.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 9:25:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bren

Who has said that female violence against men in “insignificant”? Did Turnbull? It is certainly less significant than male violence against women, both because male attacks on women are more frequent and because they tend to have more severe consequences. But violence by anyone against anyone is a problem.

You provided a lot of stats on the relative prevalence of male and female violence, but almost none supporting the proposition that the government’s measures won’t work.

You say “The male in nearly all species is more aggressive that the female.” True, but biological determinism really isn’t an excuse for male violence
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 9:30:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It also occurs to me that talking about mental illness is problematic, because it lumps together a wide range of people with a wide range of behaviours. It is more useful to talk about certain diagnoses causing certain problems, like depression looking like laziness and borderline personalities leading to complicated relationships.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 9:34:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian

You ask "Who has said that female violence against men in “insignificant”? Did Turnbull?"

Effectively all those who emphasise "violence against women" instead of "domestic violence" are saying this. This is the extreme feminist line that claims that more respect for women and changing attitudes will solve the problem. Turnbull only talked about "violence against women" and "respect". By omission, he is supporting the line that female violence against men is insignificant.

Biology is no excuse for bad behaviour, though it might help explain it.

There is probably no complete solution to domestic violence. I have proposed some measures that might be more effective that what Turnbull announced, and which should cost a lot less.
Posted by Bren, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 10:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do women want or need to marry, it is outdated by DV and no love. People say they get married because of love, is that really the case.

Maybe love overrules friendship, and one is not compatible to the other. Most women want to have kids, do all men want to have kids.
Women should go it alone, and not delve into marriage. It clearly has a problem. Police say two thirds of their shift is taken up with DV visits.

Men only want to shack up with a female for sexual purposes, and women know that is their prized attraction. If a female starts rationing sex she is in trouble and at risk of DV. It takes a very good friendship to live in a relationship without sex.

In Japan wives buy their husbands life sized silicon robot dolls to have their sex at will with. [ And China ]
I say sex or the lack of it is a gigantic cause of DV. No one seems to mention it here. If a man was being furnished with more sex than he can handle, would there be DV.

DV and road rage I say have links, why I do not know, but why go crazy on the road for someone else’s unruly driving skills. Violence comes to the surface.

The more women are empowered DV will feature more. Maybe men feel threatened as women were seen as the fairer sex, and now they have power that is fast equaling that of men. I do not believe women can be responsible for DV against a man.
Posted by doog, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 9:02:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bren

Emphasising violence against women simply recognises the fact that most DV is committed by men against women.

Interestingly, many arguments used to deny that DV is a male problem parallel those used to argue Islamist terrorism is unrelated to Islam. They use the same mix of half-truths, special pleading and unjustified sense of entitlement. Here are some similarities:

1. Most men/Muslims are not wife beaters/ terrorists.
“The overwhelming majority of men don't abuse women or children” - Jay

This is both true and important. It is as stupid and bigoted to say all men are potential wife-beaters as to say all Muslims are potential terrorists. But it is also true in Australia at present that most terrorists/DV perpetrators are Muslims/men.

2. Most victims of male/Islamist violence are men/Muslims not women/kafirs

Also true, but it does rather point to being male/Muslim as part of the problem. Nor does it diminish fact that women/kafirs are singled out for attack.

3. Women/kafirs also commit acts of violence/terrorism against men/Muslims

True again, but in our society it is more likely to be the other way round; and more likely to result in serious injury or death when it is.

4 Men/Muslims are victims, not perpetrators

“… some men must be saints. The amount of verbal abuse & verbal violence some of them put up with is really unbelievable” - Hasbeen.

5 we were provoked/they asked for it

“If a female starts rationing sex she is in trouble and at risk of DV” - doog

5 Its about being a social outlier (mentally ill/socially isolated/individually inadequate or deviant) not being male/Muslim

Important, and partly true. But not all terrorists/DV perpetrators are social outliers, and most social outliers are not terrorists/DV perpetrators. It’s a contributing factor, not a complete explanation.

___

I also see Turnbull’s speech in this context. Yes, his claim that it’s all about respect was an oversimplification. But just as it’s very important that prominent Muslims denounce Islamist violence, its important that leading men denounce male domestic violence. Culture and self-perception are part of the problem, and this helps to counter it.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 12:01:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When families crack nations fall! Do unto others as you would have them do unto you [unless of course you are always in the right and that scum of a bloke or bi-ch of a woman are always in the wrong]?!

Quick fixes are never the solution for anything if the underlying reasons are not addressed . . . but that usually takes more than 4 years of a parliamentary term and if I just want to get re-elected I will just pander to the most vocal among society and hope that I will gain some 'credo' and votes by adhering to this policy.

If you don't like it well go and see a taxidermist because us pollies are doing very well thank you very much . . .

Respect cannot be legislated or enforced by wielding "a big stck".

How about ALL perpetrators being court-ordered to complete 20 counselling sessions aimed at finding WHY they are like they are . . .is it bad role modelling, drugs, despair, child abuse, etc? Hang on that could be very expensive and pollies are not in the business of addressing 'root causes' any more than most perpetrators . . . . Over to you . . . .
Posted by ZhanPintu, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 4:57:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Emphasising violence against women simply recognises the fact that most DV is committed by men against women.//

Most suicide is committed by men. So clearly we shouldn't worry about women killing themselves, since it is less common than men killing themselves and therefore not really a problem. When you have something that appears at face value to be a problem for everyone, it's only really a problem for the gender who are most troubled by it.

Those women who tragically die by their own hand? Turns out it's not so tragic after all, because they were less likely to do it than men. Yeah, sure, their family and friends will argue otherwise. But they're wrong: women are so much less likely to kill themselves than men that it should be no cause for concern when one of them does.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 10:19:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, Turnbull reminds me more and more of Kevin Rudd -- ongoing spin; ideologue talkfests; pusher of politically correct causes, e.g. AGW.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 10:21:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team ANNUAL REPORT 2012-2013

Of the 12 intimate partner homicides studied:
• 9 women were killed by their abusive male partners.
• 3 male domestic violence abusers were killed by their female intimate partners.

So far, so good. One in three – mathematically correct. However, according to the report …

• Females killed by their intimate partners were domestic violence victims and males killed by their intimate partners were domestic violence abusers.
• Almost all of the 29 men who were killed by their female intimate partner in a domestic violence context (90%) had been the domestic violence abuser in the relationship.
• There were NO cases where a woman was a domestic violence abuser who killed a male domestic violence victim.

The One-In-Three campaign is not interested in the gender power dynamics of intimate partner homicide – only how the statistics can be used to promote the premise that women are ‘one-third’ as violently predatory as men. Thus, all this nonsense about male violence against women is feminist bunkem.

Doog

‘If a female starts rationing sex she is in trouble and at risk of DV. It takes a very good friendship to live in a relationship without sex.’

Whoa!! At least you’re honest. On your backs, girls … if you wanna stay alive! Forgive my naivety, but being terrorised on a daily basis does little for the female libido.

And the last time I checked, consenting to sex in order to avoid violence or death constitutes rape.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 8 October 2015 3:59:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clarification:

The '29' male homicides in my post referred to the period 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2010, which is separate from the 2012-2013 DV statistics quoted - but still endorse the same findings.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 8 October 2015 4:19:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, women attack inflict more DV on their innocent husbands than men do.

They also murder their children at more than double the rate that fathers do.
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Thursday, 8 October 2015 5:32:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The elephant in a 6x4 room and no one can see it. I bet sex features heavily in cases of DV. To have and to hold. And now you say sex can constitute rape in the wrong circumstances. [That is a stacked Quote ]

It is nothing new, that men require sex more than women. Humans would be far in the minority when it comes to mating for life. Most other animals have multiple partners.

Some women have very little or nothing to do with sex. Others are sex willing until a certain time in life. And more are sex willing spasmodically.

A majority of men would be happy with sex every day. Others say they are celibate, but we know that is a life-size lie.

So how does the differences in sex behaviors be compatible, without stress, or confrontation, or out sourcing, of commodity.

No doubt DV comes in many forms and with many consequences.
Any solution to DV is going to be very hard to achieve, while marriage for life is the ultimate scenario played out.

It may be the best to understand what causes divorce first. Is DV a divorce that never happened but should have. Women persist in a DV relationship because they have to. A discussion in this matter is hardly for real when all or most persons here are male and you will never get a balanced discussion.

I do not believe blaming one side or the other in a relationship is healthy for debate. An outcome is going to be hard to achieve, while there are two persons in a wedded relationship.

The causes of DV would be hard to pin down as a single cause. To change attitudes will be just as hard to achieve without one side or the other being incarcerated, and how will that stop DV
Posted by doog, Thursday, 8 October 2015 8:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is one sure fire way for the violence towards women to stop and that is for them to not enter domestic relationships at all and if they are currently in one to leave immediately.

The problem is that they simply do not care enough about their safety. They are told repeatedly that there is a one in three chance of them being victims and yet they continue to rush into relationships or remain in them. Only a fool would risk such odds when it comes to personal safety.

Women who enter these relationships are addicted to romance. They are fed the romantic fairy tale from such a young age that they rarely see any alternative. They are constantly fed this lie on TV, in fiction, films and in women’s magazines. All these things promote romantic love as the pinnacle of happiness. It is one of the biggest lies in society. There is a multi-billion dollar industry built around this lie. They are told that their wedding day is the greatest day of their life – so what is there to look forward to after this?

Romance is a drug. I have seen women on their death beds pouring over Mills and Boon stories still waiting for the knight in shining armour. Who are the drug dealers but other women? Mothers, aunts, sisters, teachers, celebrities all try and convince their fellow women that this is what life is about. This is your goal. This is the only dream worth having.

Nearly every woman gets married because of this drug. They call it love like the alcoholic calls his drunkenness just ‘having a drink’. It is not love at all – love is something far greater than this manufactured and contrived sentimentality.

When the drug wears off women become very resentful and they blame the ordinary bloke they married for not being the knight they wanted. Slowly but surely that resentment becomes aggression and the put-downs,
the sarcasm, the taunts, the bullying and sometimes even the violence begins to become the norm. (cont)
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 8 October 2015 10:05:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont.)They find it hard to leave because they do not want to appear as though they have not fulfilled the dream – the ridicule of the other women (who are probably in the same state of denial) would be too hard to cope with.

They blame men for their misery and any cause which they can latch onto which helps deride men becomes their cause too. There must be something other than themselves which is to blame. The campaign against domestic violence gives them a voice, a kind of mob-mentality in which they all collude to place the blame for failed relationships at the hands of men.

No one has to swallow the myth of romance and no one has to enter domestic relationships or to remain in them. If there is a women’s movement or genuine feminism then it should be using all its powers of persuasion to debunk this myth and to stop women from entering domestic relationships at all. They should be telling young girls and women that the risk is too great and the first person you should love is yourself. How can you love anyone else when you show so little concern for your own welfare? Look at the statistics, look at the number of deaths – it is just not worth it.

But we hear nothing like this. Where are the women leaders imploring their sisters to go it alone or to get out while there is still time? They are probably standing around the water cooler discussing the last episode of the Bachelor. It is time these women either put up or shut up. If they are serious about reducing the numbers of DV incidents then they should be putting all their energy into this direction. It is the only action that is guaranteed to work.

Unless we hear of women’s groups actively engaged in stopping domestic relationships altogether then we can only conclude that the problem is not really important to them at all. They cannot hide behind such hypocrisy any longer.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 8 October 2015 10:08:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni

Your suicide analogy is interesting. Men and boys are actually less likely to attempt suicide than women and girls, but they are significantly more likely to actually kill themselves when they do. The difference seems primarily due to significant differences in the methods used. Males are most likely to use violent means such as shooting and hanging, while females tend to favour overdose, which is less likely to be lethal and also takes longer, so increasing the chance of discovery before death.

There is some evidence that these patterns are changing, though.

http://whv.org.au/static/files/assets/141b28e2/Women_and_suicide_GIA.pdf

So no, I don’t accept that suicide is predominantly a male issue, but nor would I see it as one which we should approach “gender blind”. These gender differences are significant and suggest fruitful avenues for research as well as perhaps different approaches to managing the issue.

Imacentristmoderate

You say “women attack inflict more DV on their innocent husbands than men do.” That is not supported by any of the data I have seen. Can you back it up?

You also say: “they also murder their children at more than double the rate that fathers do.” This is not true, but filicide is unusual in being one of the few forms of violence in which women are about as likely to offend as men. Between 1997 and 2008, 291 children were killed by their parents in Australia: 140 by their fathers, 127 by their mothers, and 24 by both parents.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/seeking-to-understand-the-inexplicable-20120224-1trvd.html

Again, though, there are significant differences between mothers and fathers in the motives and means of filicide. The gender of perpetrators is part of this issue, too.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 8 October 2015 11:52:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phanto I reckon you are on the right road, I believe that love is a predominantly female item. Passed down by mothers in all ages.

Friendship I say is more important, If you can’t be friends what hope have you got. Some last 50-60 years and some last 7-10 years.

An overspend on mortgages because they want the best and now, must put untold pressure on the marriage specially when there is nothing left for anything else for the next 35 years. All of which contributes to DV to evolve and fester.

Money in the household, is only reliable while two people are working. When one has to stop working, the mortgage has to be reconfigured, and then all those payments already paid have gone out the window, and they are back at scratch. More reason for agitation and DV.

I Can see DV being centered around the family home. With big Mortgages, replacement white goods, and no money. They are trapped by their own inexperience, and not willing to do without until it can be afforded.

Probably multiple credit cards, which are full with the latest must haves, because the neighbor has got one. It is all a recipe for conflict and DV.

People are being murdered as a result of DV, It is going to be hard to see an outcome to prevent DV. It certainly is not an option to blame either side. As DV is centered around and in the home, so whatever the conflict is about it is between two persons.

Is forced separation an option. No matter what it is no doubt it will cost more on the social security to have any sort of remedy for DV.
Posted by doog, Thursday, 8 October 2015 3:55:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, ALL of the sources you quote are left wing or feminist & ALL of them lie, obfuscate & hide the real data. on the few occasions when real raw data is available women are more violent, abusive & more involved in infanticide than men.
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Thursday, 8 October 2015 5:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
which "real raw data" are those, exactly?
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 8 October 2015 5:10:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not raw data but a paper on the issues around DV research and gender symmetry from one of the leading family conflict researchers - http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717660_Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment

Also another link to a paper I may have already linked to on this thread which discusses research into the underlying assumptions of the Duluth Model http://www.researchgate.net/publication/15503361_Patriarchy_and_wife_assault_The_ecological_fallacy

Another paper discussing the case against the gender paradigm
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257066719_Case_Against_the_gender_paradigm_2

A lot of resources and references at http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm including summaries, studies and some links on available texts etc. For those trying to get a handle on why some of us are so convinced that the gendered paradigm of DV is false and detrimental to a serious reduction in DV rates that material is I believe a good start. Chase from there to fact check what you don't believe is adequately justified in the material.

On the opposing side this appears to be a starting point to the case (although I disagree with the conclusions) http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/IssuesPaper_25.pdf , those promoting a highly gendered version of DV are welcome to post better links, not trying to set up a strawman if that page is not right.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 8 October 2015 6:23:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phanto

'If there is a women’s movement or genuine feminism then it should be using all its powers of persuasion to debunk this myth and to stop women from entering domestic relationships at all. They should be telling young girls and women that the risk is too great and the first person you should love is yourself.'

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant people are about feminism! Yet those most ignorant of feminism think they actually know all about it.

Hell-O-oo! This is EXACTLY what feminists have been telling young women for decades. Feminists keep telling women till they're blue in the face to look after themselves and their own financial independence. Feminists constantly warn women against the romance trap.

This is precisely why feminists are constantly told they hate men. This is precisely why the rest of society chooses to portray them as man-haters.

The irony is that at least 90% of the feminists I've known over the decades are happily (or at least contentedly) married - and the reason they're happily married is because they put their financial and emotional self-worth first. All the unhappily married women I know - and I know many, MANY unhappily married women - are traditional non-feminist women.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 8 October 2015 7:53:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
doog

'It is nothing new, that men require sex more than women.'

No, it certainly is nothing new ... but it's a big fat patriarchal lie. For one thing, it's mathematically impossible for men to 'require' more sex than women, because women are the people they 'require' sex with.

The myth of the male-permanently-on-the-make is a power construct, designed to maintain a sense of male entitlement to women's bodies, and to nurture a sense of sexual passivity in women. The myth of men needing a lot more sex than women is all about power, not libido.

The main reason a lot of women get turned off sex is because most men are selfish lovers who make little to no effort to please a woman in bed or learn anything about the basics of female anatomy. The culture just doesn't permit men to be caring, generous or monogamous lovers - indeed, it brainwashes men virtually from birth to be the very opposite.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 8 October 2015 8:03:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney:

“The irony is that at least 90% of the feminists I've known over the decades are happily (or at least contentedly) married - and the reason they're happily married is because they put their financial and emotional self-worth first.”

But obviously not their physical well-being. If they are in a domestic relationship then there is a one in three chance of them being victims of violence. They are the odds and anyone who plays with those odds is a fool. You cannot be happy when you are living in a situation that is so threatening.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 8 October 2015 8:57:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//For one thing, it's mathematically impossible for men to 'require' more sex than women, because women are the people they 'require' sex with.//

How very heteronormative, Killa.

//The myth of men needing a lot more sex than women is all about power, not libido.//

Nobody 'needs' sex: celibacy does not make you ill and nobody has ever died of 'blue balls'. However, some people desire it more than others and there is a huge smegging heap of research to back up the popularly held belief that men (on average) desire sex more than women (on average). When you consider it from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, it's not really surprising that this should be the case.

//The main reason a lot of women get turned off sex is because most men are selfish lovers who make little to no effort to please a woman in bed or learn anything about the basics of female anatomy.//

I've been speaking to a few of my female friends about this. They disagree. The general consensus is that the dud roots are less common than the decent roots. Maybe you're just trying your luck with the wrong crowd?

Even if the sex is lousy, why do women masturbate less than men? If libidos were the same you'd expect women to jill off as much as men jack off, but they don't. What's up with that, Killa?

//The culture just doesn't permit men to be caring, generous or monogamous lovers - indeed, it brainwashes men virtually from birth to be the very opposite.//

Again, the friends I spoke to disagree. I also passed this comment along to my mate Aaron, who prefers the romantic company of gentlemen. His reply is not fit to repeat, but suffice it to say that he doesn't think much of your uninformed appraisal of his boyfriend. I think I speak for both of us when I request that you refrain from making such sweeping negative generalisations on the basis of scant information.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 8 October 2015 11:41:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since when does a man pass a female on the street or anywhere else that he does not size her up as a sex object. It’s what men do continually. There is no exceptions.

The world of goody goody’s does not exist, and that is no lie.

It’s a fact of life for any normal healthy man, Sex is number one on the list. Celibacy does not exist, as some would have you believe it does. It is laughable to think a man would pass up on an occasion of getting his oats if offered. It does not and never will happen.

Celibacy of 24 hours is almost an unbearable length of time. This is why I say sex features heavily in DV cases. I have no proof of that but I suspect it is the root cause. I have never seen or heard of it discussed as a cause of DV.

If a female allows sex once a week, and the partner wants sex three times a week, you have potential conflict. Can a compromise be negotiated or is no negotiation taking place.

Either way you have grounds for DV to arise. This leaves a man between a rock and a hard place, and it will take a special kind of man to accept no terms of agreement, or a lesser agreement.

I say sex is the most predominantly non discussion ever held.
What else would couples blue about. Mortgages, dogs, kids, money, mother in-laws’, drugs, alcohol.

There will never be a single subject as why violent in home behavior occurs, I think it is a matter of more in-house discussion of why conflict arises.

Probably the women would be the most reluctant to talk about balanced quotas. It is not uncommon to hear men say ,they got more sex before marriage than after. Sex is a tool of persuasion, and a man would agree to anything at the crucial time
Posted by doog, Friday, 9 October 2015 9:04:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
doog while I agree in part with the point I think you are trying to make about different sexual needs/wants this " It is laughable to think a man would pass up on an occasion of getting his oats if offered." is getting very close to an uncovered meat and cats view of men (other than the offered rather than taken part).

Maybe not what you were meaning but most of the men I know well would pass up on the occasion because doing otherwise generally means harm or hurt to a partner. There may well be other reasons to pass but I all other considerations aside that is there. I know there are plenty of exceptions of people who cheat on partners just because there is opportunity to do so don't define either gender.

I also think that there are people who manage to stick to celebacy, I don't necessarily think its healthy unless there is an abnormally low interest in sex and I certainly would not want to take sexual or relationship advice from those who do so (or from those who claim to be celebate and act otherwise).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 9 October 2015 12:02:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi R0bert

Thanks for the links. I couldn’t get beyond the abstracts for the researchgate articles, but the other article was interesting and pointed to a few other areas worth exploring. Hence it has taken a little while to respond to you.

To oversimplify rather, it seems to me the statistics supporting the argument that intimate partner violence (IPV) is overwhelming asymmetrical (male against female) derive primarily from victims of crime surveys and agency data (hospitals, police, family and general courts, injury and death stats, refuges). These are the data I was most familiar with.

The statistics you point to supporting symmetry (women are as likely, if not a little more, to initiate IPV) seem to rely mainly on surveys of people in relationships, especially using Straus’s Conflict Tactics Scales and similar instruments.

The issue is clouded because both sets of data are ideologically freighted – feminists emphasise male control and asymmetry; anti-feminists stress symmetry.

I have no idea whether he is regarded as credible in the field, but I found Michael P. Johnson’s analysis interesting and persuasive in explaining the differences in the data, and proposing a way forward for academics and policymakers. He proposes that the gap between the findings of different statistical methods is a product of failure to identify that there are different types of IPV, with different probabilities of being initiated by men or women; combined with sampling biases in the methods used to measure violence which tend to under- or over- count some types of violence. So “coercive controlling violence” is more likely to be perpetrated by men, and more likely to result in behaviour captured by agency data, but is likely to be under-reported in family conflict surveys. Other forms of violence may be symmetrical or asymmetrically initiated by women, but tend to be less severe in consequences or for other reasons less likely to appear in agency. These are over-represented in survey data.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjACahUKEwi11_e6rrTIAhUBrZQKHXP4BVk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.personal.psu.edu%2Fmpj%2Fin%2520press%2520VAW.doc&usg=AFQjCNEyIMYuZd7ciztVsfd2IPbVzVC9uA

http://ocadvsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Differentiation-Among-Types-of-Intimate-Partner-Violence.pdf

There is broad agreement that the consequences of IPV are more severe for women than for men (hence the strong asymmetry in the agency data)
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 9 October 2015 12:50:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert That is a very cautious way of getting around being kind to some men but not all.

Celibacy to me is a figment of imagination, I will never believe that it exists. No doubt Harm or hurt does happen when caught out playing with someone else’s property. But that happens on both side’s of gender forms. And would have to be a gigantic contributor to DV.

Personally I do not like uncovered meat, it does nothing for the imagination. You are right about celibacy not being healthy, my cardio doctor told me that. He said it is just something else floating around in your blood stream.

Sex is a subject that people do not talk about in mixed company. Do you notice there is no females on this thread. DV and sex are off limits for the fairer gender. That will add to a solution for DV being ever found. No one could outright dismiss Sex as a cause for DV

So unless you blow every scenario of relationships out of the closet, you are never likely to find any sort of meaningful solution to DV.

Women that murder men in acts of DV can I believe only do that as an escape from an inescapable situation.

There was a women and son being continually bullied by a husband that would come home every day drunk and demand sex. The end was she got the son to hit the man with a jimmy bar. She got 3 years and the son being young got off. Probable 10 years ago now.
Posted by doog, Friday, 9 October 2015 1:29:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, odd that you could not get past abstracts on those papers. I'm not a member and can see them.

My understanding is that they survey type research disproves the claim about significant gendered differences in the types and motivations for coercive DV. The report versions are heavily impacted by existing beliefs about DV, a lot of DV with male victims goes in reported because the dominate narratives don't recognise it as DV.

Whichever way that aspect is dealt with it is abundantly clear that the way DV has been presented over many years has been very misleading. From the material its also quite clear that the majority of DV is not patriarchal coercion. Its people not handling conflict well. It would be a bit step forward for government and DV agencies to put aside the ideological assumptions about DV and present a more balanced view of it. If nothing else giving both parties option to seek help in an abusive relationship might mean less where one feels trapped with no where to turn and eventually hits back.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 9 October 2015 1:48:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi R0bert

The website requires an institutional email address to register and access papers; I only have a personal one.

My reading of Johnson’s articles is that both sides of the debate have the story partly right, but also have legitimate criticism of the other side’s position. The symmetrical case is right that agency data under-count non-coercive violence, and so over-state the proportion of violence initiated by men and underestimate the level of DV. The asymmetrical case is right that family survey methods under-count coercive violence and overstate the proportion of violence in conflict situations. There are other criticisms of Straus’ survey instrument, such as failure to count rape or violence between separated/estranged partners, both of which are mainly perpetrated by men; but I’m not sure if other surveys have addressed these issues.

Johnson’s view of sampling differences also helps to explain other differences between the analysis methods, for example whether violence tends to escalate over time (it does with coercive violence, not situational violence).

I agree that the way DV has been presented has been misleading. But both sides of the debate have misled; and there’s reason to think neither of them did so intentionally (though given the ideological flavour of the debate, both could be subject to confirmation bias). They were just describing different parts of a picture that is bigger and more complex than either of them realised.

I certainly support giving both parties options to seek help in an abusive relationship.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 9 October 2015 2:31:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
doog

On what basis do you say "Do you notice there is no females on this thread"? I'm one. With the others, some have names or use arguments suggesting they are male, but not all. I have always assumed Killarney is female (sorry, Killarney, if that's wrong).
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 9 October 2015 2:45:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I also think that there are people who manage to stick to celebacy, I don't necessarily think its healthy unless there is an abnormally low interest in sex and I certainly would not want to take sexual or relationship advice from those who do so//

There's no evidence to support the view that celibacy is unhealthy. I'm not celibate and I don't think I have an 'abnormally' low interest in sex, but I do sit towards the less interested in sex side of the Gaussian distribution and I don't seek out sex as actively as a lot of my peers. I don't think that's unhealthy.

//Personally I do not like uncovered meat, it does nothing for the imagination.//

Who cares about the imagination? It's the taste that's important. Uncovering your meat and allowing it to sit exposed to the air - oxidising, essentially - for a day or two can significantly improve the flavour of red meats like beef and lamb. Note that this should be done in the refrigerator, where flies cannot come and lay eggs in your uncovered meat: nobody likes carpetbag steak with maggots.

//You are right about celibacy not being healthy, my cardio doctor told me that. He said it is just something else floating around in your blood stream.//

Your cardio doctor sounds like a quack to me. Your blood stream is there to have things floating about in it, and you'd be in a sorry state if it didn't. You'd miss your red blood cells if they weren't floating around in your blood stream. Of course, there are things that you really don't want floating around in your blood stream, like plasmodium.

I cannot think of a single pathogenic agent that celibacy alone would introduce to your blood stream. Can you?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 9 October 2015 3:55:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni, I was thinking more of religious orders where regardless of interest in sex celibacy is the requirement. You may be right about the data, not something I've researched much.

Rhian, You raised a number of points
- Researchgate access : I'm wondering if it's a browser issue. In both Firefox and Microsoft Edge I have a window on the Reseachgate site that lets me scroll through those particular article (but not all articles). I'm not a member nor logged in.

- Use of DV as a means of coercion - I will attempt to address that point with some references. A little bit referenced in the Straus article I link to for the next point. From one of the papers from the researchgate site http://www.researchgate.net/publication/15503361_Patriarchy_and_wife_assault_The_ecological_fallacy

"Another tenet of feminist thought is that male violence is part of a wider repertoire of control tactics men use to dominate women. In the literature on "feminist therapy" (Adams,1988), emphasis is placed on "male control and domination." However, in one of the few studies to
examine controlling behaviors and psychological abuse, Kasian and Painter (1992) found that females were more jealous, more verbally abusive, and more controlling than males in a sample of 1,625 dating
undergraduates. Use of controlling behaviors and verbal abuse appears to be bi-directional in intimate relationships. If controlling behaviors are bi-directional and feminist therapy seeks to reduce control tactics in men who already feelpowerless in intimate relationships, a positive therapeutic outcome is contraindicated." Whilst I'm cautious of extrapolating too far from studies of undergraduates I think it's more evidence than the males use DV for coercion viewpoint has to back their view. There is quite a bit of other material touching on this.

TBC

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 9 October 2015 4:37:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I came across a very good paper while trying to track down more material on claims of differing patterns of coercion in DV.

http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/DV/Gender%20Paradigm%20In%20Domestic%20Violence.pdf

I think it's the best of the point by point coverages of the topic which I've seen.

Rhian you also raised a point about the way the gendered paradigm of DV is presented being a result of differing views or deliberate deceit in response to my comment about it being misleading. I have some fairly strong views on that but if you don't mind I'll leave it aside for the time being as it would easily become yet another distraction from the core issue about the evidence.

Now for a slight distraction, earlier comments about romantic love were brought back to mind in a Ted talk I watched earlier http://www.ted.com/talks/mandy_len_catron_falling_in_love_is_the_easy_part

Not quite the same tone as the earlier discussion.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 9 October 2015 7:06:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavis

‘However, some people desire it more than others and there is a huge smegging heap of research to back up the popularly held belief that men (on average) desire sex more than women (on average).’

Really? And what is that ‘research’ based on? Asking men how they feel about sex. And what is the main influence on how men feel about sex? Cultural messages that keep telling men that they need lots and lots and lots of sex. And LOTS and LOTS more. The more the better.

And if they don’t quite hear the message, then don’t worry. It’s subliminally repeated about a thousand times a day – through visual and written imagery, through film and television, through advertisements, through news articles, through novels, art, music, historical stories and just about every other kind of cultural megaphone you can shake a stick at.

Hell! If I had been raised a man in this society, I’d be wanting sex every day, several times a day … and then some. Gimme a woman … NOW!

Also, you seem to have spent an enormous amount of time over the last few days, doing all kinds of polls among your friends and acquaintances regarding my previous post. Isn’t it fortunate that they all confirmed your own views about sex and universally rubbished my arguments? You obviously choose your friends and acquaintances well.

‘Even if the sex is lousy, why do women masturbate less than men?’

WTF?!? Ahem … on what scientific methodology do you measure this statistic? ‘Mrs Beaton’s Book of Household Management’?
Posted by Killarney, Saturday, 10 October 2015 5:03:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phanto

'If they are in a domestic relationship then there is a one in three chance of them being victims of violence. They are the odds and anyone who plays with those odds is a fool.'

Well ... yes. But there is a two in three chance of NOT being a victim of violence. Why assume that a woman wanting a soul-mate, to start a family and have financial security is a fool? Most men want these things too.

Even so, I understand what you say. At least you are one of the few posters here who recognises that women are the main victims of domestic violence, even though I don't agree with your premise that their own resentments and romantic disappointments may contribute to their victimhood.
Posted by Killarney, Saturday, 10 October 2015 5:20:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian

For years, I've been posting comments that refute R0bert's ongoing links to research based on Conflicts Tactics Scale methodology every time a DV thread appears on OLO.

(Sorry, R0bert. I don't mean to talk about you in front of you. I'm just addressing Rhian about your posts.)

Conflicts Tactics Scale (CTS) is a methodology that relies almost entirely on subjective recall by voluntary interviewees of particular incidents of violence with an intimate partner, usually within the 12 months prior to the interview. It's a minefield of statistical distortion. Yet, it's been around since the 1980s and is still being used as a measure for proving 'symmetrical' domestic violence across the genders. For obvious reasons, it's particularly popular on MRA blogs and websites.

However, common sense dictates that when a violent incident occurs between two people, both parties engage in violent activity. CTS leaves no room to distinguish between offensive and defensive violence.

I believe, as do many others, that CTS 'research' and its premise that women are almost as, indeed equally, violent as men is part of an ongoing campaign to derail the feminist campaign against domestic violence on women. For the first time in history, and due to the proliferation of female journalists in the mainstream media, domestic violence is no longer being reported from a purely male perspective. The issue is finally being reported by women, about women and for women.
Posted by Killarney, Saturday, 10 October 2015 5:52:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//And what is the main influence on how men feel about sex?//

Hormones. Which, incidentally, is the main influence on how women feel about sex. A hormone is any member of a class of signalling molecules produced by glands in multicellular organisms that are transported by the circulatory system to target distant organs to regulate physiology and behaviour.

Males and females have different reproductive glands, which produce different reproductive hormones, which influence their sexual behaviour in different ways. This ain't quantum electrodynamics, Killa.

//Cultural messages that keep telling men that they need lots and lots and lots of sex.//

Really? I must have missed those. Because I don't feel that I need lots and lots of sex. Or maybe I'm still subjected the same cultural pressures and my relatively low testosterone levels have more effect on my non-stereotypical libido.

// It’s subliminally repeated about a thousand times a day – through visual and written imagery, through film and television, through advertisements, through news articles, through novels, art, music, historical stories and just about every other kind of cultural megaphone you can shake a stick at.//

Subliminal messaging, eh Killa? How very convenient: stimuli that lie behold the threshold of conscious perception, so we can't spot them even if we're looking for them. Which means they may not actually be there at all, and there's no way to know the difference. Except of course from the evidence of the behavioural effects that they produce in men.

....
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 10 October 2015 6:57:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
....

Ever heard of Ockham's razor, Killa? Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate; introducing the concept of subliminal messaging to influence male sexual behaviour hidden in all our entertainment is multiplying entities beyond necessity, and drawing a very long bow in my opinion. That's almost heading into tinfoil hat territory - conspiracy theorists love wild conjecture about unnamed, shadowy figures manipulating our behaviour without our being aware of it.

//Also, you seem to have spent an enormous amount of time over the last few days, doing all kinds of polls among your friends and acquaintances regarding my previous post.//

Yeah, I figured why bother with this awesome technology at my fingertips to ask a few questions of a few friends I'd be chatting to anyway? So I decided to forgo the convenience and simplicity of the interweb instead and use carrier pigeons instead. Took me forever.

//You obviously choose your friends and acquaintances well.//

Life's too short to have dicks for friends, Killa. You don't get as much choice about your acquaintances unfortunately.

//WTF?!? Ahem … on what scientific methodology do you measure this statistic?//

I believe they generally use surveys. It's not foolproof but the alternatives wouldn't get ethics approval. There are variety of methods that can be employed to help ensure that participants give truthful responses to questions asked such as the 'bogus pipeline'.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 10 October 2015 6:57:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am sick to death with over the top and unbalanced assaults on males.

Given small to minute families with girls are trained to fear / disdain males it is little wonder males are keeping them at arms length. Living with, or god forbid marrying a "WWW" wealthy, white, woman fixated on first world problems is just insanity.
Posted by McCackie, Saturday, 10 October 2015 7:42:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry for my “ no ladies comment “ but it has worked. I was wondering where the other three was Poirot, foxy and Sus.
Tony You are a special kind of male. I am going to say I believe what you say.

Celibacy is a church requirement for some, but as we know it has not worked, and to what extent I say we will never know. For every one that gets caught I bet there are 5 that get away.
This subject is crucial to DV investigations.

Everybody is different to an extent, all I can comment on is the male’s side of events, well most males. All males that I have ever came in contact with through work or play are sex fiends.

I solidly believed that to be normal. It just means you are aware of a female in your midst and take notice.

Because you are a married man,that does not stop you from looking, and images flowing through your mind. Does it. Not in the males I have ever known anyway.

Sex in marriage I find is a compromise. I am allowed set dates and I do not forget or pass up on. 43 years now and never ever missed an opportunity. That is why I am so adamant that sex is crucial in marriage and you must have a calendar or whatever you use to never let a chance go by. I mean a compromise or agreement of terms of trade.
You must suite both sides, how else can you be happy. If you do not have an agreement besides not having anything to look forward to , you can end up with the 5 year scenario. And that is you have a glass jar full of stones and every time you have a win you take one stone out of the jar, and count the Years it took to empty the jar, then you put one stone back and see how many years it takes to fill the jar. If life is that long.
Posted by doog, Saturday, 10 October 2015 8:21:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Follow up to the comments re CTS

The arguments are well covered in the article I referenced yesterday.

Simply put from my perspective there is a massive tendency from supporters of the gendered version of DV to significantly overstate limitations to CTS and a corresponding tendency to ignore glaring problems in the methodology of the research they rely on (and often there is no research just feminist dogma).

There is a vast body of research demonstrating something close to gender symmetry across most aspects of DV including use of DV as a control mechanism. Not so when it comes to fatalities (but still a lot closer than you heard from the PM and in public coverage of Intimate partner homicides. There has been a lot of work done to validate the findings of the survey material using a variety of means. Far more valid in it's findings at understanding patterns of DV than methods supporting the gendered view of DV.

Rhian, "There is broad agreement that the consequences of IPV are more severe for women than for men (hence the strong asymmetry in the agency data)" - There is some interesting material on that as well. I don't think the agreement is all that widespread although it appears to be a relatively new area of serious study from what I've seen. The line has been used for a long time and I suspect that socialisation and other factors make some of the visible signs of impact less obvious.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 10 October 2015 7:34:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
doog/Toni

Your steadfast - but all too common - belief that men are always on the make and that women simply 'provide' sex to men is an entrenched cultural belief system, that is routinely muddled with voodoo evolutionary 'science' that assumes it's all down to hormones.

The basis of this belief system is that women have no real sex drive of their own unless and until it is necessary for them to provide it as a service to men for the sake of romantic or financial security. If this belief system were not so pervasive in the culture, conditioning both men and women alike, it would be seen for revolting premise it really is.

In fact, it's the basis of what all those pesky feminists mean when they talk about 'rape culture'. Portraying marriage as a system in which women apportion a quota of sex to their husbands according to a 'calendar' or whatever, so that their husbands will not look elsewhere, completely disregards any notion that women are sexual agents in their own right - with their own sexual needs or agenda.

Why not ask yourselves what it is like to be a woman in such a culture - brought up to believe that sex is something that you must provide a man, instead of a normal, natural part of being a human being?

If you are wondering why women don't hang around too long on these gender threads, perhaps it's because they feel too exasperated and disgusted by men who seem to feel that virtually every problem that exists between men and women is the result of women not 'providing' men with the sex that they feel so entitled to.

So, after this comment, you'll be pleased to know that there will be one less woman contributing to this thread. I'll leave you gentlemen to chat amongst yourselves about how women just don't seem to 'get' the sanctimonious importance of the male sex drive.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 11 October 2015 10:38:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<It’s Time to End ‘Rape Culture’ Hysteria

The nation's largest and most influential anti-sexual-violence organization is rejecting the idea that culture — as opposed to the actions of individuals — is responsible for rape.

..Twenty-first century America does not have a rape culture; what we have is an out-of-control lobby leading the public and our educational and political leaders down the wrong path. Rape-culture theory is doing little to help victims, but its power to poison the minds of young women and lead to hostile environments for innocent males is immense.
..
RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) is America’s largest and most influential anti-sexual-violence organization. It’s the leading voice for sexual-assault victim advocacy. Indeed, rape-culture activists routinely cite the authority of RAINN to make their case. But in RAINN’s recent recommendations to the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, it repudiates the rhetoric of the anti–“rape culture” movement:

In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “rape culture” for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campus. While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important not to lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime...

By blaming so-called rape culture, we implicate all men in a social atrocity, trivialize the experiences of survivors, and deflect blame from the rapists truly responsible for sexual violence. RAINN explains that the trend of focusing on rape culture “has the paradoxical effect of making it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own actions.”

Moral panic over “rape culture” helps no one — least of all, survivors of sexual assault.>
http://time.com/30545/its-time-to-end-rape-culture-hysteria/
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 12 October 2015 3:46:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney Man is entitled to sex while married, isn’t that in the wedding vowels. I think it is far better to have a calendar than be confronted with a headache. That leaves the man in a very uncomfortable position. And undoubtedly a cause for DV. I would never say women don’t have their own sex drive, on added extra’s are very much appreciated.

I could be wrong in some cases that women need more sex than men, I believe that to be in the minority. If a man ever gets raped by a woman it would be a very special, or un-special man that takes offence. Men actively hunt sex more than women.

Women with-holding sex is getting to be more prominent now than ever before, it is a problem through the whole western world. Women are not seeing themselves as housewives; they are equals to man, in their work and social life. Gone are the days when a woman would not go out alone. Today it is a hired house cleaner, online shopping, child minders and a separate bank account. And good on them.

If all of this can not be fairly managed it leaves it self open to conflict [ DV ]

Killarney do not go . the other women I was referring to Paul said they were on a tropical island
Posted by doog, Monday, 12 October 2015 7:09:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The needs of a male are intensive, and probably out of proportion to a lot of females. The whole of marriage is a compromise one way or the other, and sex is definitely on the agenda. I am sorry if it in any way sounds one sided, but men are men and that is one thing women will never change.

Is DV a bi-product of household power struggle. The subject of sex may be awkward for women to talk about. But it needs to be talked about or the subject of DV will never be complete. If sex is not discussed as a part of DV a solution will never be found. Sex is the glaring beacon in the corner that no one can find.

Countries that are not westernized have a totally different way of married life, where the wife is a housewife and child minder and the man is king. They do not seem to have the serious crimes that are committed between man and woman.

Australian women do not see that lifestyle as an option any more, and that leaves itself open to conflict and DV. This whole subject probably challenges the whole concept of marriage as is. Like some have marital contracts.
Posted by doog, Monday, 12 October 2015 7:10:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Your steadfast - but all too common - belief that men are always on the make and that women simply 'provide' sex to men is an entrenched cultural belief system//

I haven't expressed any belief like that, Killa, because I don't hold any beliefs like that. But nice attempt at a strawman there.

//that is routinely muddled with voodoo evolutionary 'science' that assumes it's all down to hormones.//

Medical science is not voodoo, Killa. You sound like anti-vaxxer.

//The basis of this belief system is that women have no real sex drive of their own//

Of course they have a sex drive. It's just study after study shows that it isn't as strong as males' (on average).

//In fact, it's the basis of what all those pesky feminists mean when they talk about 'rape culture'.//

Yes, of course Killa. Preferring actual medical science to nonsense pseudo-science that claims hormones don't influence behaviour makes me complicit in rape. Great argument. I can see you've studied at the Runner Academy of Logic.

//If you are wondering why women don't hang around too long on these gender threads, perhaps it's because they feel too exasperated and disgusted by men who seem to feel that virtually every problem that exists between men and women is the result of women not 'providing' men with the sex that they feel so entitled to.//

Or maybe they just don't like being called out when they advance arguments with as much scientific footing as young-earth creationism.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 12 October 2015 7:26:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Each time I read or hear about Domestic Violence I am disgusted to find that those who talk the most, know the least.

Domestic Violence in every case is about one person taking control of another person and by their behaviour forcing the victim to act in ways they would not contemplate for themselves.

Somehow all the people who discuss this issue appear to have never had a conversation with someone who has actually lived in a Domestic Violence situation.

I lived it for five years and eventually escaped and started the healing process. The perpetrator in my situation was respectful, charming and considered, by those who did not share the same house, as being a fine upstanding citizen.

If politicians and others in powerful positions want to know about Domestic Violence come and ask the people who have lived with it, instead of pushing their ideas of what it is or perhaps might be.
Posted by Hilily, Monday, 12 October 2015 4:28:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://ncis.anu.edu.au/_lib/doc/MD_Press_Club_110603.pdf

Take particular notice of the correlation between the increase in violence and the introduction of alcohol into the community.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 12 October 2015 5:27:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hilily "Domestic Violence in every case is about one person taking control of another person and by their behaviour forcing the victim to act in ways they would not contemplate for themselves."

Thats not what the evidence shows. Causes of DV vary a lot, in some cases it's about someone trying to control another, in others it's really poor anger management, it's often ties in with other issues (mental health, unemployment, substance abuse and other factors).

That's not to negate your experience but it dangerous to assume our own experience reflect the whole.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 12 October 2015 6:22:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The quantitative data partially supports both positions. Women are twice as likely to self report having been a victim of DV. However, at least a third of DV is aimed at men and cannot be neatly explained by the main theory of DV.

As Killarney says, some DV can be described as self defence, but assuming that women are more likely to act in self defence seems to be based on sexism.

We need to llok at more qualitative research to fully understand what is going on.
Posted by benk, Monday, 12 October 2015 8:29:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney "Your steadfast - but all too common - belief that men are always on the make and that women simply 'provide' sex to men is an entrenched cultural belief system, that is routinely muddled with voodoo evolutionary 'science' that assumes it's all down to hormones."

It's hilarious that you castigate evolutionary science when feminism is based in the metaphysical tenets of Foucault and other post-structuralists. Theories of power that feminists always rant about are not empirical claims, but are based on the metaphysical views put down by Nietzsche and Foucault. It's unprovable that all bad acts by men, as moralised by feminists, is one of power.
Posted by Aristocrat, Monday, 12 October 2015 9:52:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q, when will femi-nazis & closet communists stop making this stuff up as they go along?

The single biggest cause of all these problems is the avalanche of anti-social messages that the PC thought police have been feeding to the sheeple for half a century now. The left wing Arts, Entertainment, Media & Education industries have invested billions of tax dollars in training the sheeple to be angry & frustrated. Then throw up their hands in horror at the Road Rage or DV that they assiduously created.

See even people without a university degree can use big words too.
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Tuesday, 13 October 2015 6:42:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DV is something that will never be likely to go away. I think the best you can hope for is people stop murdering other people.

Man admits to stabbing wife to death over affair concerns. Man who killed wife blamed actions on sleeping pills.

Women would be very likely to tell lies to cover inefficiencies in other areas. And this muddies the circumstances of DV.

Whatever the said causes of DV are, I say you will never get to the bottom of it and DV is likely to rage on regardless.
Posted by doog, Tuesday, 13 October 2015 7:10:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Domestic violence is not the same as domestic abuse.

There is one common feature of all those who inflict domestic violence, i.e. offences ranging from ABH to murder.

They are at large.

It's the nod nod wink wink encouragement that the legal system accords violent criminals, including those whose violence is in a domestic setting, that allows them to be at large where they can commit their offences.

Ending the impunity would sweep the violence out of the homes and off the streets.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Tuesday, 13 October 2015 1:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EmperorJulian, what about male victims of domestic abuse & psychological torture with battered partner syndrome who eventually strike back?
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Tuesday, 13 October 2015 2:06:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THE RESPONCE IS THE WAY MEN WOMAN CHILDREN ARE RUINED IN PORGRAPHICS THE MUST A LINE .THE AMERICANS ALLOW BEASTILY AND THERE MUST BE CONTROLS TO STOP THIS HERE MY PLEA AS SICKESS OF MIND IN PORNO. IT RUIN FAMILIES THIS RUINS COUNTRIES.THERE PROTUTES THATSPREAD HIV
Posted by DICKIESEAT DAVE, Friday, 16 October 2015 2:37:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy