Child neglect has been around since the beginning of time, long before TV , gaming etc, and it occurs in all levels of society, in all countries, and amongst all races and religions.

So, there is no point trying to point the finger at any one group.
Violence occurs everywhere.
The main common denominator- mothers ie human adult women (and their invitees for a drug-fuelled shag).

The Offenders
http://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/who-abuses-children

The Costs
http://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/effects-child-abuse-and-neglect-children-and-adolescents

Wait a bit, while it makes so much sense to target child neglect and abuse and it is the only way to interrupt the cycle, that doesn't fit well with the middle class educated feminist elite, the fleas on fleas, the the gravy train, who have had their noses planted firmly in the trough of taxpayers' $$ for decades.

A 17 year old Muslim youth had to be told by a magistrate in Geelong recently that he, as the 'man' of the house did not have the right to beat his younger sister for not watching the TV channel he thought she should, even though this little prick claimed that he could because he was a Muslim. There is no man in this household: just the girl, her mother and the teenage thug. However, the matter was reported,the thug resisted arrest, but he was brought to book because the incident WAS REPORTED. If the women of a Muslim household are prepared to go to the law because they are not prepared to tolerate a traditional Koranic walloping in Australia where the ONLY law - Western secular common and statute law - applies, the there is no reason for non-Muslim, average Australian women not to do the same thing. The public figures who are concerned with domestic violence, as they should be, must stop excusing women victims for not helping themselves in the first place. How many times are police offices assaulted or abused by a female victim when they manhandle her tormenter? Many, many. The would rather take their revenge on people who are there to protect them (often called by the the victim herself), rather than on their abusive old man. The law can only help those who help themselves.

I have never claimed to be horrified by all violence, given for some situations there is no other choice, like returning controlled fire when fired on.

But I'm against rank brutality, and as a first and only remedy. Or as any kind of remedy in personal relationships or animal control.

I mean you've all heard of horse whispers and just using natural stress mechanisms to herd herd animals, without ever needing to resort to brutality or the whip.

I mean you can get more out of companion animal with a little TLC than all the whip cracking profanity.

We have all heard of horses who've run themselves into the ground for a master given to treating them with kindness, or loyal dogs who've sacrificed their lives for a loved master. None more so than the dogs who located mines. And at times paid for it with their lives!

Children raised in violent homes, often go on to repeat that example as adults.

For some uncontrolled violence is their first and only remedy, particularly those that get their jollies beating up women, kids and putting the boot into the family pet.

And suggesting an appropriate and patently deserved remedial solution is just not the same as implementing it personally.

At the end of the day, one has to chose to let go of their control as a conscious act!

For some (adrenaline junkies) it's connected to the rush of adrenaline that goes with it? Or lunacy!

Without question, one is entitled under circumstances (battered wife syndrome) to use lethal force as an appropriate survival response.

As an armed civilian I've helped brutalized women escape such circumstances and would do it again in a heartbeat.
Rhrosty.

It's been ages since I've bothered to join the know-it-alls that routinely decry responses and negate developments in DV practices, while crying 'It isn't men like me' who do it.

Everyone has an answer - if only the victims would behave differently - or chose non-violent men. My if only's would be if only the victim had a lawyer - or rights! If only at the first point of contact, the victim was given quality advice as to help them IDENTIFY DV - because most dont. If only we taught people to identify NARCISSISM (and other personality types) so that the charm mask could be spotted quickly. If only we taught financial management? If only we knocked that empathy right out of empaths or at least taught them self preservation so they aren't meat for the conmen/women of the world.

If only we, society, acted to prevent damage, instead of ignoring children's voices and reports for so long that it takes years to come forward. Or perhaps regarding incest as the terrible crime it is instead of putting it in the too hard basket because of the nature of the Adversarial legal system.

So, instead of knocking the RC's findings, and the Government's response, which still wont fix it all, what's your solution?

As for the definition of 'violence', I've had a long history of learning about this topic and it is really complicated to think through and understand just how financial, emotional and social abuse etc work hand-in-hand with actual violence to control and coerce the target to provide far more to the perpetrator/controller/beneficiary of undue entitlement. So defining Dv to your satisfaction is going to be a challenge. Family terrorism perhaps?

Perhaps this case, from the US, might explain a bit.

http://www.fosters.com/article/20160410/NEWS/160419950/-1/FOSNEWS

Susieoncrack shrilly screamed that "there is no point in blaming any one group for all violence", before she blamed one specific group for all violence. Nice one, Susie. With Leftist logic like that, you can appreciate why I had to abandon the Leftist worldview and started thinking straight. I can only hope that you can stimulate some neuronal activity in your rapidly atrophying brain, and do the same thing one day.

Please note leftist logic. Unable to formulate even a miserable paragraph of reasoned argument to support her view, Susie resorts to a sneery one liner that was so badly thought out that she could not even see the clear contradiction in her own slogan. Susie's miserable response is just so typical of the trendy lefty class. They are so convinced that they are right that they have never even thought about what they believe. They just parrot slogans and think that this will impress people.

Sorry to destroy your child like faith in a fairytale ideology that is going to Save The World, Susie. But unlike your good and naive self, I prefer to use facts and reason to analyse social problems.

Why can't you woman up and admit that Islam is a male dominated religion which openly preaches violence towards women to keep them in their place? Wife beating in sanctified in the Koran. And it is not Mormons attacking women in Cologne, raping scores of British schoolgirls in Rotherham, or selling sex slaves in Syria. But if it was Mormons, everybody knows you would be screaming abuse at Mormons and everything they stand for. Why does Islam get a free pass?

And if you really don't think that the media images and messages affect human behaviour, then you must support the idea that tobacco companies should be able to advertise their wares in children's comics. Using your logic, tobacco has been around for 500 years, and people from every race, religion and culture smokes tobacco, so the blame lies with "all people." Therefore, tobacco advertising executives are innocent souls because the media can not influence children's behaviour.