Why does the portrayal of DV matter?

For those who don't follow the "Mischief in the Family Law Act" parts of it paint a very clear picture of the dangers in the utterly one sided representation of DV that is portrayed. I think part of that is pertinent to this thread.

I won't revisit the whole thing but ChazP recently posted a quote from a report that forms part of the basis of planned changes to the act. It highlighted the proportion of kid's who have supposedly witnessed violence against their mother or stepmother. ChazP repeatedly claims not to be playing the gender card yet almost exclusively gives examples of harm done by men.

I pointed out the omission of stat's about kid's witnessing violence against their fathers and stepfathers. After some back and forth ChazP has responded in part with "The reasons it does not include the figures you `suspect' is because they are at best negligible, and more accurately non-existent."

I note that none of the "fair minded women" have seen fit to challenge ChazP over her earlier omission and subsequent dodges. It will be interesting to see if any do so for the latest claim.

One of the reasons that a greater degree of truth in dealing with DV is that there are people actively trying to use those lies to have laws changed on that basis.

Anti welcome back. Good to see you back with your old Id and not a new alias.

R0bert

Robert

>> I note that none of the "fair minded women" have seen fit to challenge ChazP over her earlier omission and subsequent dodges. It will be interesting to see if any do so for the latest claim. <<

Have challenged Chazp where I disagreed.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12153&page=0#210267

I do not believe that Chazp has "dodged and weaved" or I would've challenged her on this. More physical violence is committed by men, this is why there are so many anger management workshops set up for men to learn to articulate rather than using their physical strength. Emotional bullying is more evenly divided between the sexes.

To reiterate my opinion, vast majority of couples sort out their disagreements amicably (not easy but does happen for over 80% of couples) more often than not. The remainder wind up in the courts, of those only the vexatious remain unsatisfied. Unfortunately we cannot legislate for people behaving badly, just ensure that each case is evaluated on its individual merits with the best interests of children as the primary goal.

As for question of domestic violence being a gender hate crime, I can only conclude that for some it is and for others it is not. Does it matter? I would say yes, just as racially based violence matters. People who hate others for reason of skin colour or sex are more likely to have less tolerance for the object of their prejudice and this can result in violence.

Ammonite:"Emotional bullying is more evenly divided between the sexes"

Not as such. The most reputable studies have shown that women are responsible for the vast majority of emotional abuse. Men tend to shut up about their abusive, bullying, nagging womenfolk, since to speak tends to invite ridicule. I'm sure you've seen this phenomenon.

Ammonite:"More physical violence is committed by men,"

Not actually. The most reputable studies have shown that physical violence is perpetrated mostly by women, but that when things get to extremes, men inflict more serious injuries, except for the poor blokes whose wife kills them (in a fit of insanity, of course)...

Still, it's good to see you acknowledge the fact that the whole issue is a problem for only a small portion of the population, most of whom are socio-economically disadvantaged.

Annonite I look forward to your response to ChazP's latest then.

I'm guessing that you can see the problem with the claim that 1 in 4 kid's have seen violence committed against their mum's or step mum's but the number who have seen it against their fathers or stepfathers is "at best negligible, and more accurately non-existent"

Thanks in advance.

R0bert

Antiseptic <"Care to have a go at the point I made above, dear, or are you waiting for Ammonite to tell you what to think?"

No thanks deary, I don't feel the need to comment on everything you write, amazing as that may seem to you.

I will comment on some inaccuracies from you though:

"The most reputable studies have shown that women are responsible for the vast majority of emotional abuse. Men tend to shut up about their abusive, bullying, nagging womenfolk, since to speak tends to invite ridicule."
Really? Which studies are those then?
Why are all these poor menfolk living with terrible abusive womenfolk not leaving them then?
Why stay and put up with it, AND not tell anyone about it?

"The most reputable studies have shown that physical violence is perpetrated mostly by women, but that when things get to extremes, men inflict more serious injuries..."

Really? Which studies are those then?

I thought you said men never told of the violence against them by women, and yet, here we have some 'studies' saying that physical violence is perpetrated mostly by women?

At least be consistent in your views, dear.

Here we go again. This continual insistence that women are more violent than men does not match the statistics, and just saying something does not make it true. Just look a the evidence, even if the statistics do not include unreported incidents (similar to rape which is much higher than official stats reveal).

Men have consistently been shown to be more violent than women, more men are imprisoned, more men inflict violence on other men and add alcohol to the mix then it gets even more complicated.

Can you all honesty say that during your life you have never observed violent or aggressive behaviour in males, or that your observations and experiences reveal women to be more violent and more aggressive? Really? I can't agree and that certainly is not my own experience or observations.

The fact that women can be violent is not in dispute only that men are typically more violent (not that all men are violent types). Biologically we are wired differently and men have always been the hunters (the aggressors) and in evolutionary terms that was important in natural selection.

It always bemuses me when the biological argument is trotted out in subjects around rape, intimacy, promiscuity etc when it suits but completely ignored on issues of DV or violence in general. Suddenly the biological imperative is irrelevant.

It just sounds like a personal agenda with the usual levelsof self-pity that arises in these discussions.

It is just as counterproductive as those who ignore the needs of men completely in DV policy and probably explains why there is rarely any 'moving forward' on this issue.