Saltpetre its importand to understand feminist theory to understand those claims about DV.

You must remember that when men hit women its to control them, when women hit men they are fighting back against patriarchal oppression. Therefore women never actually assault their partners, they just defend themselves. Therefore its legitimate to say that DV is almost entirely a male thing.

If you are of a particularly cynical mindset you may ask how we know that men are oppressing women, well look at the numbers, after some feminist analysis has been applied its clear that men do almost all the assaulting of partners.

If you are struggling with that and keep going back to the part where the rates of actual physical acts are similar then you need to remember to apply some feminist analysis to the numbers (if thats to hard you can always use the old fallback of doing your surveys in womens only shelters and only asking about male violence against women). The other does not exist so why ask.

Its also important to remember that concepts such as objective research are a male patriarchal construct. Quality research which validates womens subjective experience of violence is a more fitting approach.

Its also important to remember that its perfectly OK to extrapolate your results. If you have counted deaths then its Ok to assume the same or worse ratios apply across a much broader definition of DV.

R0bert

Concentrating on men splits the resourcing and effort available to counteract violence (territorial conflicts and poor co-ordination are perennial problems) and ensures that the non-noisy victims, those without the ear of government, particularly children, always miss out on support.

Michelle Elliott,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCpr3hr0K30

Michele Elliott OBE, is an author, psychologist, teacher and the founder and director of child protection charity Kidscape. She has chaired World Health Organisation and Home Office working groups and is a Winston Churchill fellow. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Elliott]

However child abuse usually occurs within the broader context of child neglect, and should be treated from that standpoint.

Erin Pizzey encapsulates feminism in three minutes,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhliqceyoL8

Again, I am not dealing out blows for either side. However it is plain that there are needs unmet by present policy that is directed by a middle class elite of educated careerist women and the victim industry they created serves them well in putting bread of the table and providing life long sinecures in women's policy and the like. While this elite monopolises policy the broader aspirations and needs of less advantaged women will not be met either. Nor will the needs of children be taken into account.

I am asking, "What about the children?". To take an example from whistleblowers whose lives have been ruined by their courageous disclosures over the years, "Why should aboriginal girls and boys be subjected to molestation by elders of both sexes?" and "Why aren't aboriginal children accorded the same legal rights and protections, education and carefree childhood that other Aussie children have?".

OTB.
There's no solution possible if the only stakeholders are Feminists on one hand and MRA's on the other, synthesis is not possible, Karen aka "Girlwriteswhat?" explains the latest developments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13zZEizsIs0

onteh beach
'Again, I am not dealing out blows for either side. However it is plain that there are needs unmet by present policy that is directed by a middle class elite of educated careerist women and the victim industry they created serves them well in putting bread of the table and providing life long sinecures in women's policy and the like'

I am glad you are not dealing out blows as sometimes these discussions generate into a general anti-women dialogue probably borne out of these frustrations but which rarely help.

I agree with your comment quoted above. Policy is influened by the prevailing groupthink and because of that inevitabley there will be areas unmet by current policy. Whenever did the OSW stand up for women staying at home to raise kids for a time. As far as I know, it hasn't happened, partly because many feel (wrongly) that to do so is betraying some aspect of the feminist cause and reduces women to the kitchen. Paradoxically there is praise for men who make the decision to stay at home while there spouse brings home the bacon. Social engineering at it's greatest instead of policy that provides opportunities for choices for families that are not gender-centred.

In effect the boffins in government have now decided what feminism is about and seek to define it in terms that suit the current economic demands. We now have 'working families' not just families. I note the other day the new manra is 'modern families'. It just gets funnier (you have to laugh).

pelican,

Once again we have worked our way to an agreement. You have expressed it well and the practical effect on women who are not part of the feminist 'joke' too.

*joke: this was a term used in an independent inquiry into corruption involving police in Qld. Bjelke Peterson and Commissioner Lewis's era. The police, public officials and criminals cooperating in the very profitable web of favourism, deceit and crime at the time were said to be part of the 'joke'.

Should a misrepresentation of DV statistics be made a criminal offence? We all know one push or shove in past 12 months is not a beating.