//empty the existing prison accommodation by abolishing the violent penalty of prison for all non-violent offences, and establishing non-custodial penalties in its place.//

That's not a bad idea.

Although you wouldn't want to be the Attorney General that has to announce you're letting ice dealers back out onto the streets if they have no convictions for violence. The Terrorgraph would have a field day.

Hi Phanto,

So ...... it's not right if strangers wreak violence on each other I agree), but it's more or less women's fault if their partner, someone who they loved and had committed themselves to, and who they thought loved them, used violence against them to get their way ?

So what .... Love is a lottery ? No wonder many women become lesbians. I certainly wouldn't blame them.

Joe

Loudmouth:

No it is not OK and all the fault for violence belongs with the violent person.

How do you explain their anger though and outrage? Anger is a response to the denial of rights. No one has a right to being loved by any particular person. Love is a gift and if the other person no longer wants to give that gift then they are free to stop doing so. That does not mean they are free to be violent. If you think you have a right to another's love then that is part of the illusion that women and men take on board and they need to take responsibility for taking it on board.

If you think you are entitled to love then you will always feel angry but if you treat it as a gift you will not be angry when you do not get a gift.

They do not have to be lesbians they just need to face the reality of relationships in the real world. Perhaps they might be pleasantly surprised how much enjoyment you can have with a man when he is not under pressure to fulfill your fantasies.

//No matter how much you focus on the violence it does not absolve women from their decisions about which relationships they enter into.//

It's funny, because when somebody's car gets nicked, nobody ever questions their decision to buy a flash a set of wheels instead of a dinged up old van that nobody would want to steal. It's the thief's choice to pinch it that's the problem, not the victim's choice of car - even though that would have been a contributing factor to the crime.

And when a man walking by the side of the road gets run over by a drunk driver, everyone is naturally appalled by the actions of the driver - but they never question the actions of the pedestrian. And yet, surely, the pedestrian is aware that walking beside a road is the the second most likely place to be hit by a car after on the road? He would have been far safer staying at home, but chose to endanger his own life and limb next to a road! Idiot. But rather than question his choices, it's all about the choice of the other bloke to drive under the influence.

Yes, it's funny how we apportion blame some time. Run over pedestrians and former car owners? Nah, definitely not their fault. Just poor innocent victims of crime. Women that get beat up by their husbands? Well, it's their own fault really isn't it? The thug is still a thug, but gosh, these women do to have take some of the blame for being so silly...

Victim blaming shite.

Hey Phanto,
"Whilst your discovery may go some way to understanding violence in general it does not really explain the exaggerated level of outrage that we see from people like the author of this article."

I wouldn't say it's my discovery, I'm just winging it here..
And, no of course not, some blokes are just messed up, violent angry thugs.
(and that said, some girls seem to like that, but it's a totally different argument.)

I'm not in any way defending violent behavior.
It should be obvious to all that when a person is at risk of being physically harmed then there's good reason for the parties to be separated, and police are right to intervene.

...The whole purpose of my argument;
The reason I'm trying to push people past this shallow-ignorant 'blame' type of thinking isn't because I necessarily disagree with them.
It's because I want you to move past it, because we HAVE TO GET PAST IT to actually get to solutions that will make a difference.
You throw this mess onto young people often on drugs who lack the skills to have good relationships and resolve their problems, of course you're going to have problems.
And there will be statistics.
Lives changed irrevocably.

I'm trying to get past this 'blame' so we can get to the solutions.
Solutions where both parties have to 'wise up', to prevent their relationships from getting to that point in the first place.
I hope you all understand my point.

Toni Lavis,

Licensed firearms owners are made responsible for the theft of their property and that includes where the offender breaks into the home or vehicle, or even threatens the owner or family. The very consideration is charging the victim if s/he can be found to have 'contributed' to the theft in any way, even by having a club membership sign on his/her vehicle.

Doubtless though you would make exceptions where it suits your prejudices.

phanto does have a point though when he questions why women ever entertain being alone with a man let alone partnering, that is if the shonky research statistics of the feminists are to be believed at all.

Maybe phanto should say that instead. My guess though is that he has probably tried that before, but it has fallen on deaf ears.

The DV industry sucks a lot of dollars from government and there are those who jealously guard their slice of the cake and look forward to long careers, courtesy of gender politics.

It must be safer for women to partner same sex. Hold on a minute, what was that about the prevalence of violence in lesbian relationships? Hmmm, what does Rosie Batty say about that?