It is amazing, reading the above posts, how it is that there are some very different views on what the lady had to say. I would suggest that most of you, and I won't point out anyone in particular, go back and read the piece again, taking off your very biased sexist hats.

I have had some personal involvement in the subject, and all I can say, is that she has presented a very objective view of the situation, which is only to be expected from someone with her practical experience in the field.

David

@Dannybear

Nowhere do I suggest that women "shoulder the responsibility" for DV. That is a complete distortion of the article.

Neither do I "vilify women and children as perpetrators."

Perhaps you can explain why you think we are continuing to use out dated and completely unsuccessful frameworks to address DV, IPV and family violence, and while you're at it, perhaps you can tell us why you are against trying other perspectives that take a far more holistic approach that the current gender based paradigm that clearly does not work?

I'm not interested in blaming anybody. I'm interested in finding a perspective that works. Why aren't you?

On what basis do you attempt to discredit the article as being "driven by my own wounds?"
Do you think you have intimate knowledge of my life that allows you to draw that conclusion? Please explain and justify that comment, otherwise I think you are obliged to withdraw it.

Jennifer you are just writing the same article over and over again and you don't take note of the valid positions that are put up against some of your claims. If you can deny that there is gender based violence then I don't know what planet you are living on. It seems to indicate a disconnect from the culture that is experienced every day by many australians.
You have previously written about your own experiences.
It is pointless to engage with you because you can only see one point of view and you just don't seem to be able to engage with positions outside your own.
you are not talking about holistic approaches - but the government actually is whilst targeting attention towards the most vulnerable.
all the best with pushing your position - you do have a fan club of people who want women to be seen in the same light as you.
I won't be checking back here - I've seen your arguments with people that just go in circles...

@Dannybear,

I have yet to see any valid positions put up against claims that are not only mine, but are made by national and international researchers, clinicians, and adults and children who've experienced female domestic violence.

The only attempts at rebuttal are invariably ad hominem, together with allegations that I'm against women.

It's sad when a important situation cannot be objectively assessed. Attacks on anybody who attempts to introduce a perspective that includes female violence usually reveal far more about the attacker than they do about either the issue, or the individual attempting to bring it into public discussion.

I do not, for the life of me, understand how you justify silencing the voices of victims and survivors of female DV, and how you can ignore all the research.

The "most vulnerable" to DV and its aftermath are actually children, they are impacted in more numbers than are women, they are subjected to violence perpetrated by both mothers and fathers, and guess what, they are boys and girls.

No wonder you are withdrawing. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Oh! this is going to get me into soo much trouble.

Watching the ABC program Catalyst, they had a segment on premenstral syndrome. The woman admitted to picking up a knife and throwing it at her husband.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3251902.htm

<Debbie Dawson
We had a dinner party, and we were clearing the table, and he was starting to put things in the dishwasher. And I said to him, 'I'll sort the dishwasher out,' because it is a common fact - we all know that men can't load dishwashers. And he carried on, and I was getting really angry. So I just picked up the nearest thing, and I just threw it at him. Ah, and it literally skimmed his ear, and stuck in the washing-up bowl. He looked back, you know and you think God, that was, that could have been really, really dangerous>

<While fifty per cent of women get multiple PMS symptoms, around five per cent get disabling PMS - mood swings so serious they're categorised as PMDD>

It would be interesting to find out if there is a correlation between PMDD and domestic violence and if there is, how big a problem it is.

But then there are two chances of this, buckleys and none. Because DV is about power and control, not hormones, mental illness or drug and alcohol abuse.

I do know that when abusers of drugs and alcohol stop, the violence that they perpetrated when under the influence also stops.

briar rose writes, "I'm not interested in blaming anybody. I'm interested in finding a perspective that works".

A very decent and commendable sentiment.

The perspective that briar is seeking is identified in her own article where she relates the policy described as being attributable to the Gillard government. It is no secret that the ALP has a socialist/communist based ideology and they practice it overtly. Destruction of the traditional family (read patriarchy) is a significant plank in the communist platform. This was established by Marx himself in his 1848 manifesto. The concept of patriarchal inheritance did not fit his economic model. It was also observable that the church (another institution which Marx saw that required dismantling) was intrinsically connected to family. So he saw that the church, marriage and traditional family with its attendant inheritance all had to go. It is a fundamental Marxist strategy. And it's standard ALP platform, although not so overtly preached under that guise.

To achieve traditional family breakdown the Marxists (ALP, NGOs etc) have created and put in place mechanisms, such as the Family Law Act, FaHCSIA, amongst others, driven by feminism, to demonise men in the eyes of society and justify their actions of family destruction.

The FaHCSIA official policy on DV (Family Violence) sets the precedent for judgements to be made against men in the Family Court, which then justifies the redistribution of their property to women and THEIR children, it all being in the child's best interests you understand.

It really is as simple as that and they don't really try to hide it. Why people can't see it after all this time I don't understand.

The academics, researchers, government bureaucrats, NGOs, etc, being of sympathetic Marxist minds create the "empirical", "peer reviewed" and "world's best practice" lies to support it all. The media lapdogs report and promote it (ABC, SBS, etc) ad nauseam to drive the message home and the gullible believe it, irrespective of the truth, facts or reality.

The perspective briar is looking for is the political perspective.