Whenever I see the words “women and their children” I immediately know what is about to follow.

A bigoted, gender prejudiced attack on the male gender, with every attempt to demonize and denigrate the male gender.

The new domestic violence policy does just that.

Hands up those males who voted for the Gillard government.

I actually agree with much of this article's comments.
Domestic violence should not be a gender-hate crime, but it is often perceived as being so, by both genders.

I am all for whatever will decrease violence in our society, and especially in homes, where children can be witnesses.

I doubt it was the Gillard Government that started this though- especially given the Howard Governments stand on domestic violence over many years.

What I can't understand is that if we have all these 'statistics' saying that there are so many female violence perpetrators
(gay and straight) out there in the community, bashing both men and women, then why are the predominantly male parliamentarians carrying on with supporting the same old anti-male domestic violence laws we have had for years?

I am assuming that the medical records from both GP surgeries, and hospitals, are backing up this increase in violence-caused injuries against lesbians and against straight men, by their 'intimate' partners?

Why not change the laws to reflect this change in domestic violence statistics?

Are politicians not listening to the academics that work out the domestic violence trends, and if so, what could they possibly have to gain by ignoring all these violent females?

Suzeonline

>> what could they possibly have to gain by ignoring all these violent females? <<

That has me puzzled as well.

No doubt, Suze, you have seen many a beaten man in ER as a result of violent females. Surely records are kept in order to prosecute such violent criminals? This is an important article, neither sex should be given any special privileges over the other. Otherwise, we are no better than when women and children were considered mere chattel.

<I am assuming that the medical records from both GP surgeries, and hospitals, are backing up this increase in violence-caused injuries against lesbians and against straight men, by their 'intimate' partners?

Why not change the laws to reflect this change in domestic violence statistics?

Are politicians not listening to the academics that work out the domestic violence trends, and if so, what could they possibly have to gain by ignoring all these violent females?Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 5 July 2011 10:47:24 PM>

Firstly, men are much less likely to seek medical assistance than women. See the article on men's health.

Secondly, Who is going to believe them?

Thirdly, you use the more extreme examples of domestic violence, where the victim needs to seek medical help for injuries, yet the definition of domestice violence, covers things like financial, psychological, manipulation, emotional abuse.

Finally, when data is not collected, then it is easy to say that the problem does not exist.

Going by Suzie's and Ammon's definition, that the only data that counts, is actual physical injuries,that require medical treatment and is recorded in the medical records.

All other data is irrelevant if it doesn't show physical injuries have occurred to a male.

James they are fair questions. I agree with the points you've made though.
Some further comments
- Firstly it's my impression that there is less equality in serious physical injury. The difference in physical strength when all bets are off will account for that. At the same time I wonder how much male suicide rates are impacted by the alleged female superiority with emotional abuse - no evidence on that but food for thought.
- While the male is considered responsible for almost all DV (if he was hit she was defending herself etc) men will be extremely reluctant to report DV.
- While DV against men is not considered to be DV some won't even know it's DV. DV's something men do to women so it's just the missues being angry.
- I've never really noticed men being especially protective of other men outside of a peer group. Our socialisation still has elements of women and children first so I don't find it surprising that mostly male politicians act against the interests of men. Those assumptions about the genderised nature of DV are staunchly guarded by some and to challenge them is to challenge some of the core beliefs of a lot of feminists about oppression. A polly has to be fairly committed to go there.
- It's not actually a change in domestic violence statistics, Strauss and others have been showing similar for a long time (I think around 40 years). It's two different approach to researching and understanding DV and one has managed to hold the public's attention.
- One approach says that DV is about male control of women and defines female DV largely out of existance, the other asks about the behaviours without underlying assumptions about gender.
- A number of researchers have described the tactics used against those who've challenged assumptions about the gendered nature of DV, I'll reference some later if I can find them.

R0bert