A well written and a 'Stop thrashing the wrong solution!' article. Putting band aids on the deep wounds in mainly male psyches is not going to solve the problem - deep healing with repentance and a turn around from violent behaviour can only come from change within. It is my view that only God can do this. It is a much cheaper 'solution to the problem' though it may not be seen as "politically correct" by the media . . . and the trendy spin commentators who feed on the rhetoric of some of the unenlightened politicians from all sides of the political divide. One day the 'sleepng church' will awaken and encourage believers to vote out of office those who claim to represent them but in fact are only complicit in deluding the 'masses' [not only the Roman Catholic masses either, Pentecostals are included in the unhealthy avoidance of any leadership comments to those in the pews about voting out ungodly political representatives].

ZhanPintu

you are right in what you say however your last comment is useless unless you point out who these 'godly' politicians are who should be promoted or elected. When you look at the trashing of husbands/wives by many of our pollies you would think they would shut up when it came to morality. Instead that try and make the gw religion or 'equality' a moral issue. Private philosophy certainly works it way out into public policy. In WA have had a couple of MInisters done for dui. One Labour culprit was actually in charge of roads. You got to laugh or cry.

It seems plain to me that ending domestic violence simply with the kind of loud urging that is going on at present can never achieve its ambition. To start with, no-one is in FAVOUR of domestic violence. There’s nothing to argue about. So in that context, more general arguments like the one put forward here are all that we have to go on. However, I would think that a return to religion won’t offer the answer either. Primarily, one would need to demonstrate that societies with the strongest religious tradition and activity have lowest violence rates. Now that would be a topic worth investigating. A researcher could look at intra-religious differences, e.g. comparing Christian countries like Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. Or at inter-religious differences, comparing say Christianity with Islam, Hinduism and atheism. Such a study (it might have been done already – not my field) might provide a few PhDs but is unlikely to solve the problem. If I had to predict the conclusions, my guess is that religious males are at least as violent as the rest and probably worse. But that’s just a guess!

ALL of our unresolvable interpersonal problems are caused by the fact that we do not grow into fully autonomous human beings who are responsible for their emotional-sexual presence and actions in the world.
These two references describe what is required for each and every one us to "first become human".
http://global.adidam.org/books/first-three-stages
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/human-maturity

Furthermore we (thus) always pass the "sins of the fathers" onto the next generation - all with the misguided "best of intentions". How this occurs is described in this essay
http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2

Sinners are of course by self-definition, and moment-to-moment dramatized action, constitutionally incapable of being fully responsible for their presence and actions in the world.

Thanks Tombee for your comment however I disagree with your statement "To start with, no-one is in FAVOUR of domestic violence. There’s nothing to argue about." IF I was a perpetrator of domestic violence [which I aren't] I suggest that certainly I am in FAVOUR of it? If only they conformed to me 100% there would not be a problem of their own making!I have to use it to control my heterosexual or same sex partner to conform to my demands [whatever they are] - that's not my problem surely if I am the DV perpetrator? He/she ONLY HAS ONLY GOT THEMSELVES TO BLAME - If they just did what I WANT 24/7 I wouldn't have any issue surely! This is a 'bit tongue in cheek'but I hope that I have made a valid? point?

The obvious response to violent criminals is to end the crime at the perpetrator's expense.

Breaching a "keep awey" order: Minimum of 7 years without possibilty of parole

Assaulting someone in the home: Minimum of 15 years without possibility of parole

Assaulting someone anywhere else: Minimum of 15 years without possibility of parole.

Repeat offence: Gaol time at least doubled.

Escape from gaol: Gaol time at least doubled on recapture.

Just sweep the mongrels out of the homes and off the streets instead of fiddling around looking for do-gooder sociological solutions that never happen and don't protect the victims.

Cost? Defray cost by confiscating offenders' assets and abolishing privileges.

I have yet to hear or read anyone asking the question, "Why are people becoming violent?'
I have yet to hear or read that women are as violent as men and are also to blame. (reputable research says they are)
I have only heard that men are always the violent ones attacking poor innocent women who have done nothing whatever to deserve it.
I have only read or heard that men must be taught, men must learn, men must modify their behaviour.
I have never heard that women must modify their behaviour, or learn what makes their man mad, or do anything except to continue as always, making him so upset he wants to strangle her.
As for this post...what nonsense to imagine that organised religion that's been around for a couple of thousand years has the answers to a problem that has surely existed for at least a hundred thousand years.
When people look to the reasons for violence with honest eyes, and accept the reality of our society's embrace of profit over decency, of consumerism over rationality, of belief in supernatural gods instead of reality, then perhaps solutions will appear.

EmperorJulien, I agree with the punishments you gave in your post.
The days of any more talk-feasts on this issue are over.
Just get on with putting the perpetrators away in jail, rather than looking for excuses anymore.

ybgirp, when we have deaths every week from women killing their current or ex partners, we can talk about blaming the women of society even more than is already done. Stop blaming the victims. If one man bashes another man to death, do you blame the dead man? Or do you think that killing someone else for something they said or didn't say, without trial or jury, is acceptable behaviour?

No one has ever said that ALL women were blameless in all these domestic violence situations, but that doesn't mean we should go on accepting all their deaths.
I agree that any talk of bringing any more religion or gods into the equation will make not one bit of difference, as domestic violence doesn't discriminate between religions or gods or atheists...

"If one man bashes another man to death, do you blame the dead man?" depends on the circumstances but most will often recognise that the victims choices may have played a role in the outcome. Much of the don't blame the victim rhetoric seems to be word games to help an agenda rather than an honest attempt to do what might reduce risks.

If I was to choose a fight with a thug and got hurt I'd not receive the same support as I'd expect if I'm an uninvolved passer by and get assaulted.

As a male who is not fond of being on the receiving end of a bashing I don't play with "bad boys", I know that sometimes I need to keep my mouth shut and walk away unless there is some compelling reason worth my life to stick my neck out. I don't hang around with bikies, ice addicts etc.

There is a strong perception in a lot of mens minds that a lot of women prefer the bad boys, especially when younger and maybe have not learned the downsides of that yet in the debate about DV I'm not hearing any sign of a message that exposure to violence might be in some way linked to partner choices.

I'm not hearing politicians asking whats going so wrong for some men that killing an ex then themselves seems like the best option available to them.

I'm not hearing politicians asking how many men suicided over the extremes of our family law and child support systems or how many of these deaths of women came about at least in part becuase of those

No easy answers to any of this, no society that I'm aware of has ever been free of it's thugs and those who want to be with them. Some we won't get to, for the rest speaking against all violence, finding ways to reduce the fascination with bad boys and working towards fairer outcomes from our legal processes are all steps that seem to be ignored.

R0bert

Suzeonline,
Imprisonment is the worst possible ‘solution’ to all criminal activity; it usually makes the perpetrator worse, and has proven to encourage recidivism. Alternative methods that attempt rehabilitation are much more successful. And if we follow your advice and never ask the reasons for the violence, then that will destroy everyone’s faith in the ‘justice’ system.
Your claim that searching for reasons for violence is the same as blaming the victim is too, too absurd; no different from the Jewish notion that asking questions about Israeli policies is anti Jew.
You ask if I think that killing someone else for something they said or didn't say, without trial or jury, is acceptable behaviour? I ask you if it is acceptable to imprison someone on the word of the victim, without trial or jury?
You are right, no one has ever SAID that all women were blameless in domestic violence situations, but the fact that the reasons for violence are never demanded, means that men are condemned without asking why, and that implies that women are blameless.

"The man who hits out at his wife and children nurses a great ball of disappointment and resentment and self-hatred that cannot be cured by education or even self-awareness."

Most abusers of children are women.

Half of all adult domestic violence is mutual. Of the remainder, slightly more than half is female-on-male.

When a man is violent towards a child, it is typically not the child's father, but the dirtbag mother's dirtbag boyfriend.

The safest place in the world for a child is in the arms of his or her natural father.

Paul, whilst the points you make are valid I do think to be seen to be fair it is relevant that child abuse rates are skewed by the relative time kids spend in the care of either parent.

I've not seen recent material on it but when they used to publish rates for substantiated child abuse happening in single parent led homes the rates per child in those homes were only slightly less for male led households than female led ones and that could be put down to the demographics of male led single parent households.

Also those step dads are often dealing with a very different situation to actual dads. Stuck in the middle needing to deal with the extremes of children's behaviour without any authority to implement strategies to alter those behaviours. Stuck in a situation where they may be a ready target for other parts of the family looking for someone to lash out at. An easy target for kids trying to manipulate the other parent. There are some real vermin who have done a lot of harm to kids but I suspect there are also a lot of people stuck between a rock and a hard place in dealing with difficult situations to stay with a partner they really value.

R0bert

"Imprisonment is the worst possible ‘solution’ to all criminal activity; it usually makes the perpetrator worse, and has proven to encourage recidivism. Alternative methods that attempt rehabilitation are much more successful."

But they have not succeeded, and the price is always paid by the victims. Locking violent criminals away for a very long time may do nothing to assuage perp angst but it gets the mongrels out of the homes and off the streets making both private and public space assault-free for the deserving. Any sign of recidivism on final release, back to gaol for double the time.

The ONLY acceptable excuse for assault is to respond to physical assault.

The gender ratio of violent criminals is irrelevant.

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

«… if God is dead then our death will quickly follow. »
.

Life and death describe a process observed in nature.

The concept of “God” is not part of nature and, therefore, not part of that process. “God” is conceived as something above and beyond nature, a “supernatural” entity. As such, “God” is not subject to the laws of nature.

“God” neither lives nor dies.
.

You also wrote :

« In Victoria religious education has been displaced by relationships training in order to "stamp out" domestic violence … I suspect those in high places in Victoria, believe that the cause of such violence can be put down to community attitudes …

What is left out of this simplistic aim, and what will defeat it in the end, is a lack of understanding of human nature … Theologically educated readers will recognize the heresy of Pelagianism … We, as a society have lost the deep understanding of the human bequeathed to us from our founding religious tradition. »
.

The doctrine of “original sin” (rejected by Pelagianism) is specific to Christianity as practised in Western civilisations under the influence of Augustine of Hippo (Saint Augustine) in the 4th century AD. It does not exist in Judaism, Islam or even Christianity as practised in Eastern civilisations - which all consider that babies are born pure and innocent.

According to the doctrine of “original sin”, guilt is handed down, generation after generation, from Adam and Eve, the original sinners. As a result, all subsequent babies are born sinners. The only way “original sin” can be washed away is by being baptised into the (Western) Christian Church.

You appear to indicate this as the basic “religious education” that "has been displaced by relationship training in order to stamp out domestic violence” – thus demonstrating “a lack of understanding of human nature”.

You insist: “we, as a society have lost the deep understanding of the human bequeathed to us from our founding religious tradition”.

Are you suggesting that domestic violence stems from “original sin” ?

.