Septic ~ You do seem to a rather sad and pathetic creature who, rather than make an informed contribution to this debate, chooses to deliberately rankle, irritate, and annoy others from the safe confines of your shed and anonymity. Your comments of "You'd love to hit me" and "You can't hurt me (if you do hit me)" indicate a form of masochism probably borne from the reactions of others in your past to your attention seeking behaviours. None of us have any wish to hurt you in any way, although you constantly invite others to do so by your deliberately provocative behaviours. You really should seek professional help with your problems. Perhaps there are other ways you can get the attention you crave, rather than poking people with sharp sticks. It worries me that you have been permitted to have contact with your children, but then thats a typical part of the bizarre and idiosyncratic determinations of Family Courts.

I've posted some extracts from a report which I think is relevant to the earlier claims on the DV as a hate crime thread.

The report is http://www.science.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/118532/Australian_Institue_of_Criminology-Trends_and_Issues_No195-Yound_Australians_And_Domestic_Violence.pdf

The report does still play the gender game, highlighting at the start the violence against mothers and stepmothers aspect where the claimed difference was 1% compared to witnessed violence against against fathers and stepfathers. It unfortunately drops back at the end to the needing a deeper understanding idea at the end to dismis what it's just demomonstrated.

Whilst I disagree in parts I do think it's well worth a read. It does highlight some of the issues around kid's being exposed to DV and the risks to them and put's gender as an issue in DV into some perspective compared to other factors, substance abuse, not being with both natural parents, being poor or aboriginal etc (and I suspect that rates for aboriginal kid's are mostly about the other factors).

R0bert

Robert : "....one woman is killed almost every week by a partner or ex-partner, according to national homicide figures." How does that compare with the number of fathers who are killed during by a partner or ex-partner?. Or allegedly commit suicide because they are denied contact with their children (honoured by an empty chair at Father's Rights groups meetings).?.
Or my earlier questions: "How many fathers have been brutally raped?. How many fathers have been otherwise sexually abused?. How many fathers have been kicked in the stomach during pregnancy (points commented on by Dep Chief Justice Faulks that well known feminist). How many fathers have been dragged by the hair screaming into the street?. How many fathers have lived in absolute terror every night knowing that when their wives return from the pub, they will be brutally beaten?. How many fathers have sought refuge with neighbours and friends after being attacked in their own homes by their partner or ex-partner?.
And I can add others such as how many fathers and children have been threatened with guns, or have been constantly threatened by mothers that they and their children will be killed if they leave?. How many fathers are in hiding, changing their names because of fear they will be hunted down and killed?. Bare numbers do not disclose the apples and pears comparisons you are trying to show.

happy:"I am not the one who has called you a “dog” and a “grub”. You did this repeatedly. "

It's clear you have some diffivulty understanding simple English phrasing, Patricia, so I'll say this very simply. I called you a grub, because you exhibit all of the characteristics that my mother would have described by that word. I didn't call you or anybody else a dog: dogs are among my favourite creatures. I said that you and ChazP and the rest of the maternal bias crowd are so concerned about the current, reasonably fair system remaining in place that your behaviour is like that of an ill-bred cur when someone tries to take its bone away.

I believe that is an entirely appropriate description.

When are you going to ask Graham to remove your dishonest claim to represent a non-existent "group"? It's a shame you have to invent friends, I do feel sorry for you.

Ammonite:"No one can punch me to the floor here"

Oh fawd, is that a line from one of those little plays you spend your time on instead of working? It sounds like the sort of thing an overheated undergraduate might come up with.

R0bert, the report has to play the pro-feminist game, it's the only one in town. As long as all funding is dependent on the researchers expounding a particular view (or, at least, not contradicting it too baldly), there is no chance of a report without weasel words. JamesH has posted lots of links about the failngs of the Canadian experiment, which has been replicated by diligent feminists here in Oz.

Chaz, dear, isn't it time you went and had a nice cold shower? Those hot flushes must be uncomfortable.

Antiseptic, the ability to dodge and weave is impressive in a sick fashion. ChazP was thoroughly caught out cherry picking the bit of the report that painted men in a bad light but rather than address that she moves onto something else. A pattern we see repeated over and over.

I wonder what the rates she refers to would look like in a system where both parents were actually treated equally as parents and providers?

I wonder what the stats ChazP want's to talk about would look like if we had a better understanding of suicide rates and the causes, there does seem to be little quality work in that area but if we treat emotional abuse as a serious matter then those figures should be part of the equation.

Just so I don't look to be playing ChazP's game of avoiding inconvenient truth's males do kill their partners and former partners more often than females do. At a rate that is statistically significant but not so high that we can or should ignore the other entirely.

It's almost never excusable (just as women killing their partners should rarely be excusable).

R0bert

R0bert, there is no argument about the outcomes of extreme cases of DV.

More men kill their partners, but more mothers kill their children. It's pretty obvious why that happens: when a strong person and a weak person beciome physical, the outcome is unlikely to be that the stronger one ends up hurt or dead, unless the weaker one has a weapon and that is exactly what the data show.

Women who kill their partners use weapons while men who do so often don't. In any other situation use of a weapon would be regarded as evidence of intent, but not in domestic violence cases, where a woman can claim "I was scared" and get acquitted while a man is held to be culpably responsible even if he just lashed out once with his fists in response to years of being tormented by a shrew.

However, extreme cases are not the norm and even in extreme cases there are contributory factors in the lead-up. The lack of any effort to address anything contributed by the female partner is at the root of the failure to find a solution.

While the aim of keeping children from experiencing violence is a noble one, undoubtedly, it cannot be achieved by rigidity and arbitrariness. It can't be helped by committees concerned more about putting the right weasel words on paper and bum-covering than about the genuine needs of children and it certainly can't be helped by a presumption of maternal priority.

There is a big push to get men to do more of the child-rearing by Feminist women seeking to empire-build on the backs of a big sorority of working women. How can "all men are bastards" as espoused by ChazP et al be reconciled with this? Are these women not concerned that this will lead to a massive surge in child murder?

Of course they're not, because except in the feverish imaginings of the would-be maternal gatekeepers men are not a threat to their children as a rule. They don't suddenly become bad fathers jost because they separated from Mum, either...