There are a couple points that you make that need to be considered more. To start with, 47 is hardly a number that will provide any statistical certainty. The second, and more important point, is the relationship between the perpetrator and their victim. What was the relationship between these perpetrator that were interviewed and the victims they were sizing up? I'm assuming they were strangers, unknown to each other. However, the majority of women are assaulted, physically and sexually, know the perpetrator, with many being past or current partners. That doesn't exactly make the situations comparable

One in five raped? Irena, maybe you should dial down the propaganda? What you will find if you check back on the stats with an open mind is that at worse the figure has been invented, at best it has an extremely broad definition of rape - being groped, say - come to think of it, you could get to one in five easily using that definition. But I think its always best to be honest about these things and note that its adopting a broad definition.

Of course domestic violence is a serious issue but it is always best not to repeated any figure, no mater how outlandish, without some qualification, simply to highlight your case.

Take out the Indigeneous, homosexual and muslim communities and the figures for dv and rape drop dramatically. Mind you with sickos wanting to sexualise kids and confuse them through 'safe'schools programs along with the porn industry rates are bound to increase.

Hard to argue with any of that given my Girls learnt both!

Even so, I'd be happier if they could of their own choosing carry a concealed handgun.

A little .22 or .25, with a fifteen round mag, would suffice, and carried on a holster on the inner thigh, not in the purse, given if attacked that would be the first thing ripped away.

Just as teaching kids to swim is a good idea, teaching them drown proofing is likely a better one.

A screaming gang leader clutching his testicles after having them damaged by a few well placed bullets, fired at very close range is likely to prevent others from following his lead?

You need other strategies as well, like when going for a run, take the dog.

And if going for night out, take a mate and make sure you drink only from bottles or premixed cans, you've opened.

As for proffered pills, if you don't know what's in them don't be fooled by the assurances of a complete stranger!

Better to go home in a taxi a little worse for wear, than wake up unable to move, with a dozen men taking turns to brutally violate your defenceless paralyzed body.

And even should you ever recover from that?

Possibly not from the STD's you might be infected with in the brutal rape!

The sooner we are given the right to protect ourselves with lethal force, the better, given reasonable cause.

It just takes seconds for home invaders to violate the safety of your inner sanctum or attack from behind and minutes for police to respond.

Armed cowards invariably pick the most vulnerable targets, drunk and or drugged girls or cripples! Hardly ever well built and rugged blokes.

They punch from behind or use iron bars and what have you.

And no matter how adept you are at martial arts, replete with stiletto heels, sometimes that's not enough!
Rhrosty.

I see your point Irena, but you are going too far.

No amount of martial arts training will turn a timid person into a lion heart. It just doesn't work that way.

Some people, regardless of gender will fight back, some will run away, but some will meekly submit. The training may make some confident enough to fight back, but most will simply be a meek person, who could fight back, but won't.

This doesn't mean I don't think it is worth doing, but don't expect it will work in more than a limited number of people.

All good comments so far, but I tend to favour the Rhosty solution.

A handgun is an equaliser, whereas a 90kg male (or several of them, maybe some bloated by steroids) attacking an unarmed 60kg female is going to end in only one result.

It is naïve in the extreme to think that "martial arts classes" are of any use whatsoever in defending against domestic violence or street violence, especially the latter. Yes, positive attitude and good posture are said to be deterrents, but it remains a bit of a gamble.

The attitudes required for self-defence and the willingness to do violence to an attacker are deeply related to personality. Not everybody has them and they can't be taught, though those with the right stuff can learn to be better.

Australia lacks the private training available in the US from ex marines, rangers and navy seals. Anything less is probably a waste of time.

On the other hand, a woman's chances of avoiding violence are improved exponentially by staying out of pubs, bars and nightclubs, not walking alone after dark and not going near, late at night, places likely to hide or obscure potential attackers, such as parks, alleys and underground car parks .

I've been aquainted with this notion of women and girls learning a suitable self defence programme, by several of Australia's leading self-defence teachers. I guess anything that will give these ladies and girls a tactical edge if they are violently attacked, is better than nothing I suppose.

On the other hand it could work in reverse. By giving them a false sense of confidence can intensify the personal risk dramatically. I met a young lady from Canberra not long ago, and she had a 'black belt' in some Korean fighting art, called Tae Kwon Do or Kwog Do perhaps? Anyway she gave several of us a demonstration of her skills with two males about her own age, in their twenties. She proceeded to belt the crap out of these two fellows, when one of the spectators asked if she could release herself from an ordinary choke hold from the rear.

She couldn't, amid smiles all round? Whatever chance she might've had, albeit however slight, she would've ended up being strangled. Therefore what possible chance would she have, with an 'enraged' psychopathic killer? Nil to zero. I honestly believe generating a 'false sense' of physical superiority over anyone else, is a very perilous course of action to take, and could lead to serious injury or death of that individual.

When I was at school we were taught self defence in PE for a week or two in years 9 and 10. A professional bodyguard came in ot instruct us. Rather than any particular martial art, it was specifically aimed at defending yourself in a street situation.

I could see the value in that, but I don't think years of marital arts instruction would give significanlty greater benefits. It's something most people will never need, and it would probably mean the attackers would also be better at fighting, so the end result could be worse.

One thing we were told is that if your opponent is armed, your best strategy is to give your opponent what they want.

More people using guns would make it much worse, as the easy use of lethal force would inevitably lead to more people being killed, and criminals, being more reckless than the general population, are probably more likely to use them.

Even if one was gullible and accepted the self-serving, fudged 'research' of the feminists to deliberately foster community hysteria, the prime contributors to premature death of women (and men) are lack of exercise and obesity.

Murder by partner is a horrendous, despicable crime as all murder is, but the incidence is infinitesimally small compared with the easily preventable deaths (and disablement) attributable to overeating fats and calories and to not being mobile enough.

Take those 10,000 steps, or a 30 minute walk today and eat more veggies.

Now, what about scientists finally doing something concrete about all of that fudged 'scientific proof' that abounds in the media and influences populist politicians looking to the next election? Yeah, I know that dispelling the guff could lend it 'truth' in some quarters.

However, it is time that ethics and principles in research were reaffirmed and given some real teeth by the academics and professionals themselves. Where they are not capable of policing themselves and that increasingly seems to be the case, a legislative solution should be found to handle the worst abuses.

An entry statement to this topic begins...

"As far as safety of women and girls is concerned, spending the first eighteen years of their lives improving their swim stroke does not address the real dangers to their lives in this country."

What exact dangers...? I could say car accidents for example and list lots of others. The article is VERY simplistic and depressing and this, I believe is shown by the authors photograph. In the article there is a reference to martial arts (and how this links with the protection of young girls).

My mother teaches Taekwondo lessons for young children and adults and also attends classes. She does this seven days per week (so she is very committed) - and my brother and younger sister also undertook such classes. Neither are stronger (physically) because they have undertaken such lessons. My brother was playing basketball (about 1 year ago), fell and badly hurt his leg. He couldn't work and had to spend one and half months lying on his lounge suite.

Martial arts is a movement, and also a sport, just like competitive swimming or swimming lessons. Within the teachings my mother undertakes, people win awards for completing certain elements. This is part of its multicultural heritage that links with Australia.

Some schools are obsessed with sport, some have little to no sport at all. Also the amount of swimming in schools is overstated in terms of the authors article. For example when I was at high school - we had a school swimming carnival once per year and that was it. Downgrading swimming lessons is selfish as I could downgrade all other sports or activities in society, leading to a very depressed society, becoming obsessed with protection.

Forget martial arts and forget deportment lessons for young ladies: rapists don't care how you walk, and martial arts train people to fight fairly and honourably.

Which is fine when you're training against other martial artists. But it's not so great against rapists.

We should be training young women to fight dirty - in the use of knuckle dusters, tonfas, concealed razor blades and such like, and to aim for the throat and the testicles.

Maybe after a few would-be-rapists have learnt that there are at least two meanings to the word stiletto and had their balls crushed underfoot while they lie bleeding on the pavement, it might discourage other cnuts from trying it on.

If Irene is so concerned about rape and sexual assault, why did she not mention the elephant in the room, the importation of Muslims into Australia that will greatly increase the likelihood of Australian women being raped and sexually assaulted?

Islam is a religion which uses rape to keep females under control. It is a "religion" who's "religious" teachings assert that men have "uncontrollable lusts" that are the responsibility of women to keep under control. Women can only do this by submitting to complete domination by men. If a female gets raped, it is not the rapists fault, it is because the woman did something not in accord with Islam. She "allowed:" herself to get raped and she is the one who gets punished.

Hardly a month goes by in Sydney without yet another Muslim taxi driver getting charged with raping or assaulting a female passenger. 70 Australian girls got raped by Muslim race hate rape packs at the time of the 2000 Olympics. Hundreds of schoolgirls raped by Muslims in Bradford. Hundreds of German women sexually assaulted by Muslim "refuges" in Cologne. 70% of rapists in Denmark identified as Muslim, even though they only make up 5% of the population. The rape of French women by Muslim rape packs so common in France that the French invented a new word for it , "tournantes" (literally, "take your turn")

Maybe if a group white European men invented religion which justified the rape of women, Irene would be screaming from the rooftops about how contemptible it is that white males could create a culture that approves of rape. In the USA, black males are similarly very disproportionately convicted of rape and sexual assault, which is hardly surprising given that black men have created a "gangsta rap" culture which praises violence and the rape and degradation of women. A white woman is 50 times more likely to be raped by a black man than a black woman raped by a white man, but Irene won't mention that either. Irene gives black male culture a free pass because they are not white.

Lego

Couldn’t agree more. Said it all in a nutshell.

Irene – you say -

"Teaching mutual respect should be high on the agenda, too”.

I totally agree, however there are those that “walk among us” who have no respect for our Western culture/lifestyle and wish to cause us harm. I guess there's a good starting point in teaching “mutual respect”.

Irene - Aussies wish to live their life in peace, we talk to neighbours, we respect one another, we respect all creeds, colours, religions, we will put our hands in our pockets in times of flood, fires or misfortune to citizens in any State. This is the Aussie way - looking after a mate, we do this effortlessly.

Respect is usually taught in the home at an early age, and continues through school life, friends, work and families.

Respect is a two-way street .. sounds like a song I once knew.