Without having seen the report, I don't know what the Victorian government is proposing to spend the taxpayers' money on to minimise domestic violence.

If it's a bunch of slick advertisements to shame men into respecting women, it's unlikely to do much good in a culture that thrives on misogyny and s/exploitation of women as the servants and playthings of men.

I'm putting my money on the untiring work of feminists who are making very slow but sure progress in changing social attitudes to women. For the first time in history, women are taking control of the DV agenda. Female journalists are finally starting to write about the problem from the women's perspective - instead of the traditional male perspective that it's a problem of a few disturbed men that must be solved by the benevolence of some majority of caring, sensitive men.

If the Victorian government doesn't come up with the goods, then so what? Feminists will keep up the good fight for as long as it takes.

A disturbing article. The official response to this issue, makes a classic example of how socially acceptable it became, to burn withes at the stake!

But on a more pragmatic level, it's about the money wasted, to address a problem which is really not going to respond in proportion.

Giving opportunity to the unscrupulous, offering discount mortgages, and other largesse (to victims of crime) (sic) , is a Pandora's box that should not be opened!

A few months ago I suggested to a local magistrate that from my observations in his courtroom that if it wasn't for drugs and alcohol he would be out of a job. No surprise, he agreed with me. According to Victoria police, about 40 percent of DV cases they attend are alcohol related. These factors seem to have been completely ignored by the Royal Commission as well as our Premier. No one in official circles seems to admit that many of today's social problems are caused by alcohol.

David

Killarney

You say that "Without having seen the report, I don't know what the Victorian government is proposing to spend the taxpayers' money on to minimise domestic violence".

You also state that "I'm putting my money on the untiring work of feminists who are making very slow but sure progress in changing social attitudes to women".

On the first point, the article contains a link to the full report (not to mention a summary of the recommendations) so you can see for yourself what is proposed and decide for yourself whether the root causes of domestic violence are being addressed.

The status of women in society only started changing about 150 years ago with the advent of mechanisation and the industrial revolution. Technological change has accelerated since then, with birth control an important development in changing the role and status of women. I think it is likely that technology/science has also facilitated the birth of feminism, with feminism being largely an effect of social change rather than a root cause.

The feminist rhetoric about family violence in this country is unduly concerned with gender inequality and "respect for women", and ignores other important issues. All the equality and respect in the world will be lost on people who are either violent by character, violent through alcohol or drugs, or affected by psychosis or a similar medical condition.

I think the Royal Commission paid too much attention to people with a feminist axe to grind, and came up with a set of expensive solutions that ignored much of the problem.

I don't believe that only 40% of cases of domestic violence are related to alcohol; more likely to be double that; but who knows, with research skills being as dumbed down as all other academic pursuits are these days.

If alcohol were to be introduced today it would be illegal,along with A-class drugs; it is the most dangerous drug of all, because it is socially acceptable,and there is money in it for governments. Claiming that two glasses a day is OK, is like saying that a certain amount of heroin per day is OK. No amount of alcohol is safe: this has been known since the 18th century, when doctors stopped prescribing it for certain illnesses; but the lesson still has not been learned.

All this talk of the dreaded alcohol 'causing' people to bash their loved ones in their own homes makes me wonder what everyone thinks is the cause if the perpetrators aren't drunk at the time of the offenses ? I wouldn't mind betting that it is this sort of domestic violence that rarely gets reported unless the victim is extremely injured or dies.

People affected by mental health problems don't all bash their loved ones either, so it can't be that as the root cause of domestic violence either. Of course, having mental health or alcohol problems certainly will inflame any conflict situations in the home, but there must be something else that happens as well.

I would suggest that the perpetrator must have an inborn propensity for violence in the first place, whether that was a learned behavior from a violent home environment as a child, or whether they were simply born that way, I don't know.
One thing is certain though, not all those people raised in a violent home turn out to be violent themselves either, so there must be something else involved.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think any money thrown at the problem by the Government must be used to help keep the victims safe, as well as managing or locking up the perpetrators, and trying to educate them in anger management etc before letting them out to start again with a new family...