Iain,
yes, it's not a very original point we make but it deserves more attention. There's two sides to every dispute.
The other point I suggested, which women also generally don't want to consider, is the long-time culture wherein women need a man as a crutch in life, or to keep up appearances, or even to sponge off.
I used to say to my wife that she didn't love me, she loved the "idea" of being married, I was one of her possessions and a mode by which she maintained her "status" in life. When I left she was more devastated by the humiliation than the loss and I've often thought it's much easier when a partner dies that when they divorce; it's all sympathy for the former and gossip for the latter--especially among women. I've had half a dozen relationships that were bloody hard to break and emotional blackmail was de rigueur, this even from really capable and intelligent women. There really is a pathology of emotional/social and even cynical dependency, women on men, out there; a passive/aggressive desperation for "normalcy" that sets women up for abuse. This, I think, is what feminists like Naomi Wolf object to; to these needy and cringing women who let the feminist movement down, appealing to higher authority, reinforcing their subaltern status and patriarchy, rather than taking charge of their lives and asserting their independence.
Half the time, I suspect domestic violence and its non-reporting, is due to the agonised frustration on both sides and an unwillingness, or a failure of courage, to just end it or let someone go!

I hasten to add that though I'm generalising I don't suggest we all fit the stereotypes I'm alluding to, male or female, but that the stereotypes are nevertheless real.

Thus do we appear to sit on the horns of a dilemna - one view aspiring to solid relationships, where both parties strive to make it work; and a counter-view strenuously maintaining independence and freedom of movement into and out of relationships. The rigors and culture of the modern work environment appear to be increasingly impacting on the atmosphere and expectations of the home environment?

While there is, and has been, a wide cultural view of the male as protector and provider, we have increasingly a re-balancing, an accelerating movement towards universal financial and cultural independence - of rigorous assertion of individual rights both within and outside the home environment. Taken to an extreme, what may the future hold? Total independence? Economically, socially and culturally? And a possibly increasing revision and deterioration of the resilience, incidence and very nature of relationships and of marriage?

Always will we have a segment with licentious tendency, and a segment with rigidly spiritual inclination - and with the majority falling somewhere in between. Hence, 'buyer beware', in the face of the diminishing reliability of cultural and societal prescriptives?

Yet there is hope in love, as perhaps the most powerful human emotion and motivation, albeit increasingly tempered with caution and an eye to both emotional and economic survival. Purity of thought, action and intention reside increasingly in a challenging, complex, harsh and unforgiving environment. More's the pity.

However, physical, psychological or emotional abuse should never be condoned in any relationship, irrespective of circumstance, and we must strive by some means to reinforce and reinvigorate the exercise of moral fibre - but don't ask me how.

‘… the problem is an often toxic dynamic between partners rather than it being just a case of the pernicious nature of the male…’

That argument is a furphy. A toxic dynamic does not have equal implications for male and female partners. Women are approximately seven times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner, either ex or current, than a man is, and an even greater likelihood of serious injury.

A woman who is nasty, spiteful, narcissistic, provocative, violent and generally horrible deserves to lose a relationship. She does NOT deserve to be injured or killed.

The ‘few disturbed men’ argument is also a furphy. The vast majority of ‘normal’ men take advantage of a toxic culture that breeds both violence amongst men and a sense of male superiority over women.

Most men are not, as you say, pernicious, and would never harm a woman physically. However, most men will defend their priviged right to enjoy pornography, to cheapen women through humour and sexual objectification, to play or watch violent sports, to glorify war and weaponry, to assert control over others through superior combat or physical strength or bigger and faster toys – all of which come under the general heading of ‘normal’ masculinity.

Violence against women will only cease – or at least seriously diminish – once the cult of masculinity is no longer glorified. But I’m not holding my breath.

The problem is not violence per se, it is marriage contracts.

Imagine a world where corporations merge on a marriage contract based on Love, Santa clause and the tooth fairy and if you break the contract you have to give 50% of the company assests to your ex partner and pay for his/her mistakes (aka kids) for the rest of your corporations life.

The business world would turn not into domestic violence but an arms race and open warfare. Society would cease to exist.

So why do we have unjust, violence creating marriage contracts?

Because like Santa and the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, marriage contracts stimulate business and the economy and thus POLITICAL POWER -- that's why.

Now seeing politicians are ultimately the ones who must determine how to solve violence in marriages what do yo think they will do to solve the problem?

You guessed it -lots of talk, some weak unenforcable legislation and then ---- a big fat NOTHING!

SO girls you think Nicola Roxon the politician will solve your domestic problems ... Think again!

If people want domestic peace they ought to have marriage contracts the same as any other legally functioning and responsible business.

Killarney,

it's good to get a female perspective, but you haven't given it much thought.
It seems to me that where violence is not attributable to a "toxic dynamic", one party dominates while the other is passive, and the aggressor is violent for violence sake. But I doubt that's common--although disturbingly, according to Martin Amis, if one human being gains complete power over another, sooner or later his thoughts will turn to torture. This suggests narcissism on one side and prostration on the other, and hopefully it's rare.
More generally, if we think of relationships as like power-struggles, violence occurs as a barometer of the conflict, the frequency of violence being an indicator of its intensity. My mother has put up with violence all her married life, mainly psychological violence. IMO the physical violence is/was much less frequent because all the power is with him and she rarely struggles against it. When she does, violence ensues. Ironically, there are probably plenty of marriages out there where a hand is never raised and all looks respectable, not because peace prevails, but domination, dependency and fear.
It seems to me that persistent violence, whether physical, psychological or emotional, is an indicator of dependency and incompatibility, while gratuitous violence on one side indicates morbidity.
If we are to move on from the classic patriarchal model of marriage and family, wherein the Pater rules supreme, it's going to require action on the part of his subjects, and not wishy-washy PC or appeals to secular authority.
Healthy relationships based on real equality are difficult and demand maturity, compromise and independence on both sides. If this can't be attained or maintained, they should break, period!
And this is where women are, perhaps, more at fault than men; they all too commonly refuse to take charge of their own lives, or they hold on to rotten relationships. Women should be to be proactive, rather than passive victims.

Killarney

>>>>That argument is a furphy..<<<<

No its not a furphy and frankly I don't buy your attempt to justify feminist position on domestic violence with statistics about fatalities. We both know that the vast majority of domestic violence incidents are at a level far below that. Its also becoming quite clear that women are often just as violent and abusive towards their partners as men are.

>>>>A woman [,,,}does NOT deserve to be injured or killed.<<<<

True, however the feminist influence upon the debates about domestic violence has painted every woman as a saintly victim and every man as an evil abuser no matter what sort dynamics have actually been in play in the relationships or even who has the injuries.

>>>The ‘few disturbed men’ argument is also a furphy. <<<<

That is bollocks and suggests that your experience of the real world is rather limited.

>>>> However, most men will defend their privileged right<<<<<

Are you a Feminist woman? You sound like one!

Men and women are different and there is nothing wrong with that difference, but what you have to understand is that all of us men are programmed to be warriors, to be competitive, to want to succeed, with out such drives there would be no progress no technology and no society. Women have their own qualities which complement the masculine and in our modern world there is a far greater blurring of the differences but you can't think that the world will be a better place if either the masculine or the feminine were to absolutely dominate. We are hopefully to be moving towards a synthesis where both the male and female qualities of our collective humanity can be acknowledged and celebrated both for their differences and similarities. wishing away the masculine in favour of the feminine is not the answer.

>>>>Violence against women will only cease once the cult of masculinity is no longer glorified.<<<
Have you read any of Erin Pizzey Killarney? I really think that you should because she has the runs on the board when it comes to understanding domestic violence.