I really enjoyed this article. It is so nice to read someone who thinks clearly and can back up their assertions with research.
Domestic violence is abhorrent no matter the gender of the perpetrator or the victim and it is right of the author to criticise the governments approach which appears to be about making this a gender issue.
The critics of this piece appear intent on misrepresenting it as some kind of attack on women. This is absurd. She is only saying that policy should be based on the reality of the situation, rather than some ideology which does not reflect the reality.
I am also concerned about moves to expand the definition of domestic violence. People do get angry with each other in relationships and this can involve arguments and shouting. This is particularly the case when a relationship is breaking up. There will always be conflicts about money, particularly where one party has a tendency to spend recklessly. Provided there is no actual violence or threats of violence then this simply needs to be viewed as the normal part of human behaviour that it is. Redefining DV to include any ordinary disagreement only undermines the position of those who experience real violence in a relationship.

Ah voxUnius, if only it were that simple.

But it's not. This is a complex topic which doesn't lend itself to developing ideological explanations and approaches. Neither is there much scope to approach it in an intellectual way, as the dearth of research on some categories of domestic violence (and the subsequent encroaching suspicion of bias in many of the highly-subscribed categories) inhibits informed debate. Until we have accurate figures of the extent of *all* types of domestic violence, and an accurate picture of *all* the factors contributing to each case of that violence, then it will be extremely difficult to talk about it in a way commensurate with the complexity of the problem, and to come to solid conclusions. However as this article has pointed out, we are still a heck-of-a long way from reaching that point.

And so ok, I'd like to register here that I agree with the article: The gender bias in the National Plan is verging on the bizarre given the emerging evidence that a gendered perspective on domestic violence is unhelpful, or at least anachronistic.

But if domestic violence is not gendered, then what is it? It clearly exists, and contrary to some ursine commentators I could mention, talking about one form of it doesn't diminish the seriousness of another. There is of course the human rights framework and its exhortation that all people should be able to live a life free of violence - which is ultimately rooted in the subjective experience of "I don't want anyone to hurt me (or at least, not without my consent;-)". And this is a useful point of view, as it allows us to state that "all violence is wrong" - suggesting that governments should target it equally in all its forms.

[cont]

Fantastic, but that still begs the question, "so if it's wrong why does it still happen?". What makes domestic violence any different from other forms of violence? And here I think that both radical feminists and the Mens Rights movement, and everyone in between, would all have to concede that we just don't know. But instead of running with the same old line that "men are bound by patriarchy to perpetrate domestic violence, and women are the victims" (which I myself believed at one time, until I was subjected to the female-perpetrated variety), we should be looking broadly and in good faith at all the available evidence - and realising that men and women have much more in common than we have dividing us - in order to allow us to work together to stop this thing.

voxUnius you should have a think about the fact that it was the coalition governemnt that spent millions on a deliberatly one sided public campaign about DV. A campaign that could so easily been against all violence or all DV regardless of the genders of the perpetrator and victim. A campaign that could have addressed the massive proportion of DV where the violence is mutual. I'm a coalition voter and my comments are not coming from a political wish to attack the coalition.

While people keep trying to make DV and child abuse about gender they are masking the real issues, they may help their own causes but they don't help to reduce most of the actual violence.

I'd be interested to see some examples from OLO of male posters (and Jennifer who is attacked on similar lines) condoning male violence, pretending that it does not happen etc. That type of claim is tossed around fairly regularly whenever it's pointed out that DV is fairly much gender neutral if you don't conduct the research with the assumption that it is genderised. I don't recall any examples which could support that claim other than vanna's habit of not seeing women with black eye's.

It's a tactic but I know it does not reflect my own views and I've yet to see evidence that it's a fair comment in relation to most others who have highlighted the same issues over a period of time.

R0bert

I am not sure domestic violence is always about gender hate, even though I can see in the case of relationship breakdown attitudes around gender can be heightened through personal hurt. Just read some of the comments on OLO about the the integrity of women. One would think women are never abused and go around just making stuff up on the basis of a minority of false accusations. Women who percieve men as would-be rapists and agents of the partiarchy are equally mixed up. It is a messy subject.

Much of the commentary is not necessarily based in gender hatred but it is also a form of gender self-protection which itself is a form of insecurity.

Violence usually comes from losing power- violence takes place to redeem that power. This loss of power can be real or imagined.

In ths context DV may result from the influence of drugs or alcohol and losing control, other violence may come through unhappiness, financial problems, pride/ego or discontent with their lot (male or female). When relationships break down the tendency is for people to find someone else to blame. It is rare until perhaps much later for people to look inward and own their contribution to the break down. When you allocate blame solely to the other person, violence is easier to excuse.

This can be equally valid for men and women. We have all probably experienced bullying from both men and women and can see it as a form of insecurity or fear of losing control. Maybe it is the same for DV.

But for a DV policy to work it has to be relevant and meaningful and it can only be so without gender bias.

Policies that support and protect victims are important, but without looking to the causes of DV (social and economic) the policies will be less than useful except perhaps as toilet paper.

Pelican

>> But for a DV policy to work it has to be relevant and meaningful and it can only be so without gender bias. <<

Exactly.