Pelican <"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."

I agree that there will never be any moving forward on the subject of domestic violence while we still have such denials that most violent actions in our society are caused by men, and thus we need to work out why that is so, and find out how to tackle it, as a matter of priority.

Yes, there are violent women too, no doubt about it, and perhaps if we change the DV advertisements to read :

"Domestic Violence - ALL Australians say NO MORE" ,

we could get everyone's ok to fight it together, rather than this non-productive gender squabbling?

"Domestic Violence - ALL Australians say NO MORE"

That is a good non-gender specific slogan suze.

For the record I do support Jennifer's view that the policies should be all encompassing without a gender bias, but the support services need to be improved and/or maintained where there is greatest need.

It would be positive too, if the policies also supported more research into reducing violence overall. What is driving the increase in violence and how do we fix it?

A big ask, perhaps posing insurmountable because the results will most likely go against current neo-liberal culture and the 'conditioned' reliance of economic growth, and the effects on social wellbeing. It will be unwieldy to re-think our position on these entrenched beliefs and there is certainly no leadership in Australian politics except from the Greens in challenging these positions.

I don't hold out much hope other than from the grass roots - people doing it for themselves.

<I agree that there will never be any moving forward on the subject of domestic violence while we still have such denials that most violent actions in our society are caused by men, and thus we need to work out why that is so, and find out how to tackle it, as a matter of priority.

we could get everyone's ok to fight it together, rather than this non-productive gender squabbling?Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 10 July 2011 11:30:32 PM>

There is no such denial that generally the most violent actions in our society is generally the actions of males.

The problem is that the actions of this small number is used to extrapolate to all instances of DV.

Erin Pizzey wrote that 60 of the first 100 women to visit her shelter were as violent, if not more violent than the men that they had left(Prone to Violence)

We are faced with a problem in that our societies attitudes about gender is biased, and that female perpetrate abuse is not recognised and is even excused.

The trap is laid, firstly the types of behaviour that are defined as DV gets expanded, then for example Suzieonline almost always refers to physical violence that results in injury requiring medical treatment.

Someone once raised a good point about men who avoid going home and would prefer to either stay at work, or down the pub or anywhere else rather than go home to hostile houshold.

http://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/soul+happiness/expert+opinion/how+can+we+argue+fairlyr,13091

<We argue badly and I always end up feeling hard done by because she twists what I say and somehow it always ends up being my fault. Sometimes it is but not always.

(A) Many women are far more articulate than men. Many men have a hard time finding the words to describe their feelings or thoughts and are slow to get them out of their mouths. And in a conflict situation with a woman, they have an added burden of a lack of verbal confidence.>

Suzeonline:"No thanks deary"

Thought not... The question I asked was how do we increase the number of relationships in which arguments only occur when both parties want to argue and stop when one party doesn't?

It's nice of you to confirm that you're really only interested in whingeing about men, not in solutions.

Pelican, we expect such things from the weak-minded, but you're usally much better than that. I guess it's that ol' "girlfriend" thing, eh?

And Pelican, all of the most reputable studies, including those released by the WRD people, show that low-grade physical violence is very much the preserve of women, while women make up the greater number of victims of serios injury.

Why do you find this so difficult to grasp? A frequent trajectory of violence is thus:

argument -> she slaps him -> more argument -> she throws something or hits him again -> continue until -> he hits her, she starts screaming, police called, he gets arrested, he is recorded as an aggressor, she is recorded as victim.

How do we stop this from occurring? Clearly, pretending that it's "all his fault" is not going to do so, nor is pretending that she's as pure as the driven snow.

I say we need to be educating young women that slapping boys as a form of protest is not acceptable. We need to be educating young children of both genders in conflict resolution and teaching them about mutuality.

The great disaster that feminism has created is due to the way in which it has sought to divide the interests of men and women. Men and women are two sides of the same coin and we have the same essential needs and basic drives for the most part. By pretending that all sorts of derivative aspects of life are really, really important, feminism has diminished the importance of that common ground, reducing it to something which is fought over, rather than shared.

The suzeonline, chazP types are the result. Makes ya proud, eh...

Antiseptic
There was an attempt in the US to have a law relating to "mutual domestic violence".

This was because both parties were involved, so both parties could be charged.

Feminists opposed it, because they wanted a "perpetrater" and a "victim", and of course the man is alawys the "perpetrator", and the woman is always the "victim"

That was their idea of equality and equity.

One only has to see how daughters so often fight, or see how much mothers and daughters so often fight, to see that domestic violence is never carried out by a female.

Pelican and suze, my post above was in response to your earlier posts, which appeared on page 11 of this thread. It seems you've had a bit more of a think about it since then and I applaud your efforts to come to an understanding of the mutuality that is a feature of so much of what is called violence in a domestic context.

I had a rather weird encounter with my ex yesterday. She wanted me to do something for her involving the children, but when I aksed "why is this necessary now?", I got the response, in a very angry manner "I've had 10 years of you, I'm sick of this", follwed by a tirade of insults, to which I responded by winding up the car window and driving away.

I could have bought into the argument and no doubt she would have accused me of "violence" as she has done in the past. I chose not to participate, which means I will now have a long period in which she will not respond to the simplest queries about the children and will try to pretend that I do not exist. She'll tell the children I'm a bad father and generally make herself a PITA.

I suspect there are many reasons behind her belligerence, including resentment, a certain dissatisfaction with her own life's path, a fair degree of stress at work and the effects of the menopause. She may have a personality disorder, although my confidence in the definition of what constitutes a "disorder" and what is merely a part of the normal range is not high.

None of that is addressed by the gendered approach favoured by the Feminist lobby. Her actions are unanalysed in this model and I only appear insofar as I respond, at which point I am defined as an aggressor. Obviously you have come to this realisation as well, finally, so how do you suggest we address it?