Obviously the above have no ideas on the subject.
I'm right. The triggers for violence of most sort, are drugs and alcohol.
Here is some practice advice. Out of four daughters ,only one was afflicted with violence from a partner. Guess what? He spent six months in hospital recovering from broken limbs.
Last I heard of him, his equally pathetic mother was unwrapping a rope he set around his neck.
None of my kids suffer from DV.
that's how you solve the problem .

Looking at the comments here, it's obvious we have a long, loooong way to go before recognising that DV is a crime, a criminal offence.

But no. It's just a situation that women bring on themselves, because they have some trumped-up attraction for violent men. Nice work, guys. Always blame the women.

Someone gets murdered? Oh, but that victim probably knew their murderer and maybe behaved badly to them, so the victim brought it on themselves. Murder victims have an attraction to people who are likely to murder them. So give the perpetrator some slack and let them go free. Someone gets robbed? Oh, they probably knew the robber and let them know they had money to rob. So they brought it on themselves. Theft victims have an attraction to people who will most likely rob them. So the robber can't be blamed. Let them go free.

None of this stands up to examination in a criminal court. People who commit criminal acts get arrested, tried and convicted. But DV is different. The victim had a relationship with the perpetrator, so they brought on their violent abuse themselves. The perpetrator can't be blamed, because their victim fell in love with them, married them, had children by them. So let's cut them some slack.

Stop deluding yourselves. DV is a crime, enacted by one human being against another human being. The victim is a victim of a crime regardless of context, like all other crimes. But in this case, the victim is on trial, not the perpetrator. By association, all women are on trial for the false crime of supposedly loving violent men.

As for tracking the movements of known DV perpetrators, it's a move that has long passed the point of sloppy recognition of democratic rights. DV perpetrators are criminals. Like most criminals, there is a high risk that they will continue to offend. Their past and potential victims need protection.

Killarney:

If you behave in such a way that greatly increases your chances of becoming a victim then you are to blame to that extent. If you put yourself in a position that you do not have to be in at all then you are completely to blame for your actions.

No one puts themselves in unreasonable positions where they are likely to be murdered or robbed and so they cannot be truly to blame. Perpetrators of these crimes should be punished and no real blame should be attached to victims.

If women put themselves in a position where there is an epidemic of violence then they are to blame for putting themselves in that position. It is no good denying that these women choose to do such things and should take responsibility for it.

In no way does this absolve the culpability of perpetrators of domestic violence. They are to blame for their actions and should be punished but it does not mean that victims of domestic violence should be excused for their reckless choices. No one is blaming women for the violence - they are being blamed for their poor choices which led to violence. The two issues are not mutually exclusive.

Women will never take control of their own safety until they stop putting themselves into dangerous places where they do not have to go.

diver dan,

Drugs including alcohol do contribute to violence.

As a general comment, it is simply amazing that a boy who is exposed to domestic violence grows up to be a perpetrator,

BUT,

a girl who is exposed to domestic violence grows up to be a victim. Women could never be offenders or contribute in any way.

Or at least that is how the DV industry sees it and politicians who should know better go along with that.

RObert,
Thanks for another good post.

Hi Phanto,

Speaking for myself, some blokes are devilishly handsome, charming and smooth talkers. Many of them are on the look-out for women. Many women are on the look-out for the right bloke.

But maybe, for women, it's a bit like X-Lotto, with say, a one in three or four chance of striking it lucky, so inevitably many of them may pick the wrong bloke. But they may not find that out until they are well and truly barefoot and pregnant. By that time, they are dependent, loaded (or about to be loaded) with all manner of home duties and kids, and crucially, with no independent income.

Maybe they sort of double their bet, if a bloke turns out to be a mongrel: they give him a chance, a few chances, while they get deeper into dependence. What are their options ? To go home to their parents, loaded with kids and the aggravation that their ex will keep bothering them - or to stay.

If they are lucky enough to meet an affluent milkman, maybe they can flit off together to north Queensland, but those opportunities don't come often. So they stay a bit longer.

I would guess that DV becomes more brutal and capricious over time. The bloke may also be pissed off that he finds himself saddled with a grumpy wife and kids when all he wanted was perpetual sex. He has his eye on a younger model, who is out of reach in his present condition. So he belts his wife and kicks the dog.

Of course, we can all exercise self-restraint, particularly in the case of dependants. Of course, DV is a crime, even for Muslims (sorry, my left friends, but obligations of care should extend to all men). Of course, such people as commit DV should undergo long courses of rehabilitation. Hopefully they may mature.

Maybe there should be a service for all young marrieds, like for young mothers, somebody going around just checking and counselling young marrieds ?

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth:

I am talking more specifically about attitudes that women have before they enter domestic relationships.

They may not know how their relationship will turn out but they do know what the odds are. This author tells us there is an epidemic of domestic violence and other women are keen to tell us that one in three women will be victims of DV. Why would anyone subject themselves to such poor odds? Why are women not educated to face these terrible odds? Why isn't all this money spent on telling the truth about domestic violence to young girls?

Why are there so many shows on TV which glamorise domestic relationships, which promote domestic relationships as the ultimate attainment for a woman. Why do they present a fairytale when the reality is that one third of them will be a victim of violence?

Why do women stay in relationships where the odds are the same. Why don't they leave while they have the chance? Even women who can easily leave choose to stay even though the odds remain the same whilst ever you are in such a relationship.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot promote domestic relationships as being the ultimate experience and also promote the fact that one in three domestic relationships end in violence.