Antiseptic

No re-thinking, it is all in interpretation of what one has written. Perhaps you come to a post written by particular posters you see as adversaries with a pre-conceived notion of what they are about, or what you think they are about.

I try not to take sides based purely emotion and without weighing up all the facts. I am probably not perfect but are you?

Frankly as much as the irrational radical feminist lobbies annoy me, the vitriole from the irrational radical masculinists are equally as counterproductive. As I have written on other occasions, some of the vitriole directed at women on men's fora is quite appalling. Much worse than anything I have heard from women.

Basically I agree with the premise that DV policy should reflect a non-gender bias I only dispute the assertions by most of the men on this thread that women are more violent. It doesn't stack up.

There are degrees of violence and aggression of course. A slap on the face by either party is unwarranted and unacceptable but a constant battering or assault of a person occasioning bodily harm is quite another matter. I don't approve or condone either behaviours no matter the gender of the attacker.

pelican "I only dispute the assertions by most of the men on this thread that women are more violent. It doesn't stack up."

It's not an assertion that I make. As I pointed out earlier I have seen some plausable material suggesting that women initiate DV more often than men but if so there are reasons for it and they are not about being more violent. I've not seen enough to decide how real the findings are.

Given the social stigma against male violence against women and at best luke warm censure of women hitting men that could be credible. Likewise men taking the first hit against an obviously weaker opponent has it's own taboo's (not to strong in some circles admittedly). There are also differences in social conditioning between the outside world and the home. Outside we are supposed to compete, inside the home men are supposed to be the protectors willing to sacrifice themselves for partner and kid's. None of that applies to everyone but I think that it's widespread enough to make the difference between public and private violence more credible.

R0bert

Pelican,
It could always be put to the test.

If either party has been carrying out domestic violence, then both are charged.

As well, both can be charged simultaneously.

I would think this simple system would decrease DV rates by 50% to 80% within a few weeks, and cost almost nothing to implement.

As opposed to the proposed policy, that has a projected life of 10 years, and is likely to cost the taxpayer mega millions, and has a 0 chance of success.

Obviously worth a try out.

Sorry, typo

If either party has been carrying out domestic violence, then they are charged.

As well, both can be charged simultaneously (if both have been carrying out domestic violence)

An interesting theory Vanna, but how would the police decide who 'committed' the domestic violence?

What if both parties have injuries, but one or both states these injuries were caused by trying to defend themselves?

If they were two male family members found with injuries after police were called to settle a domestic dispute, would you still advocate they both be taken into custody for domestic violence, no matter what they say?

If, as is being advocated by some posters, there are all these poor men being intimidated or goaded into committing domestic violence because of the terrible actions of their female partners, why on earth do these men stay living with them?

It seems the same sort of questions directed at female victims of domestic violence doesn't it?
The police and courts are put in a very difficult situation aren't they?

So maybe the only way the courts have of deciding who is MOST to blame in domestic violence situations, is the person who inflicted the most physical damage on the other?

Because this is the the only 'measurable' way of dealing with this sort of violence isn't it?

Suzeonline, every other matter that is brought before the judge requires him to make findings based on not just the prima facie matter before him, but on how the situation arose. Every single one, with the exception of simple regulatory matters such as jaywalking.

"who is MOST to blame in domestic violence situations, is the person who inflicted the most physical damage on the other?"

This is like blaming the driver who hit the jaywalker without looking at how the incident occurred. It might make the jaywalker feel all warm and fuzzy to know they are "never to blame", but they'll feel the broken bones a lot more, I suspect.

The Feminist-dogmatic approach that you find so comforting gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling not because it works, because let's face it, it doesn't, but because it makes you feel like a "sister", as Pelican and Ammonite have described. That sororal communal impulse is very strong and except in the well-equipped mentally, it can dominate. Solidarity, sista-girl! Hardly the basis for clear thinking.

Pelican, how long since you spent any time outside a highschool at pick-up time? I do so every day and I see, every day, girls hitting boys who make bad jokes or try on a line. I never see boys hitting boys and I rarely see girls hitting girls.

Boys who hit get suspended, girls who hit get a laugh. There's the double standard right there.

Vanna, your approach of taking them both away and letting them cool off is probably the most sensible I've heard. I can't see why emergency creches can't be funded to house the children of such relationships while Mum and Dad are in the watchhouse overnight. After all, we can find the money to pay women not to go to work...