From what they are led to understand, people imagine that domestic violence involves physical injury and it is very common. This being so, why don't you see thousands of women with black eyes or physcal incapacity in the street and in shopping centres?

Obviously the definition of domestic violence is very broad, both in the actions that could be construed as DV and the 'injuries' (or other proof) that are evidence of DV. But if a broad definition is to be used to suit the needs of one gender, why not be fair and apply the same definition to the other gender and why leave same sex couples out?

I think this is why JamesH and others have cause to feel hard done by. After all, their demand and it is reasonable, is for honesty in reporting (and in policy), nothing more.

Ah, but there is an industry and guvvy grants at stake, you say.....

"I saw an article which stated basically that one of the strongest indicators for domestic violence (physical) was an emotional abusive, manipulative wife.

It may not be politically correct and I think alot of people avoid saying this, even though it seems to rather obvious. I have known bullies who will taunt and ridicule the victim and then cry innocent when the victim retaliates with physical violence."

You're right James H that such a statement is not politically correct- it is about as politically incorrect as shiek hilaly's comments. You are basically saying that women are 'asking for it' in situations of domestic violence. Funnily enough, it undermines your repeated argument that men suffer dv just as much as women, because if that is the case then men must be 'asking for it' by being emotionally abusive just as much as women are. You constantly attack feminists as blaming evrything that's wrong in the world on men, but you yourself seem hell-bent on blaming everything that ever goes wrong on women, and the tragedy is that you don't seem to be able to recognise this.

Maybe you should widen your consideration past our relatively advanced society and think about the situation in the rest of the world. For instance, women in India have acid thrown on them by their husbands and are killed for lack of sufficient dowry- I hardly think dv is gender-neutral in such instances. This study gives the latest and most accurate international figures:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/05/news/women.php

For example, 71% of rural ethiopian women are subject to dv- it is a serious problem, whether you recognise it or not.

Hamlet said: "JamesH, there is still no excuse for retaliatory violence."

Then why do so many women get to use it as an excuse for their violence and why do courts so often except it - even when they kill the man and so he cant defend himself against the charges of abuse?

Even Milosovic couldnt be found guilty after he had died but many Western men are found de-facto guilty of spousal abuse, after they are dead, even though there was no record of previous violence and no evidence to support the charge AND the woman killed the man while he was asleep.

There is an interesting story that Murray Straus tells about a man who was watching TV when his wife came home drunk and stabbed him - when he called the police and they came around his wife lied and said 'I was just protecting myself' and the police arrested him - keeping him in a cell all night with an untreated stab wound.

When I rang the police after my wife threatened to shoot me - they actually laughed down the phone. Men with their eyes open know that in the real world they are very likely to come off second best if they involve the police. This is one of the key factors why men do not report DV.

fallen angel, you may be right about conditions in the third world - most of us here are not close enough to tell. Likewise some sections of Australian society may have differing rates to the general community - there is plenty of talk about DV in some indiginous communities but I'm not close enough to tell fact from fiction.

The original article though did not seem to be targetting ethopian men or men in remote communities. It appeared to make some broad brush allegations about main stream australian men.

Allegations that are not supported by an honest look at the available statistics and the kind of assumptions that underpin some of them. Studies which don't used a biased collection method consistently show that DV in the western world is not significantly genderised. Men and women commit it at about equal rates.

Similar story for substantiated child abuse and neglect when you allow for the time in care (women commit more of it but have more of the care).

Unfortunately some sections of the feminist movement have made women as the victims of DV their poster issue to keep people interested. It's hard to move on from there.

The idea that DV is a male thing has become a mantra that few will question regardless of what the facts are. Studies that show otherwise are ignored (and their authors professional lives may suffer).

If DV is an issues in India or Uganda then talk about DV in those countries but don't use it to support the lie in this country.

R0bert

Posted by fallen angel, Sunday, 5 November 2006 11:22:19 PM

Interesting that quote about ethiopia. I live in Australia, not ethiopia.

Guess what fallen angel is not domestic violence more than physical violence? or so we are told, yet the debate degenerates down to who does the most physical damage or who is bigger, stronger, whilst ignoring the emotional, psychological etc etc forms of domestic violence.

UN Violence Report laced with myths and misandry
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.5

Well feminists have spent the last four or more decades blaming men for everything wrong with the world. Producing propaganda and myths, distorting facts. So what is wrong with challangeing this misandry?

I listened and heard the feminist anti male message for a long time and I am sick of it. The vast majority of the messages are nothing but manipulation.

If we really want to deal effectively with DV then it needs an holistic approach. If it means confronting women about their own negative abusive behaviour then so be it.

The message I am hearing is that women do not want to take responsibility for their own behaviour. They would just rather sit back and blame men.

Gee fallen angel you just have to be the victim.

Erin Pizzey has written about what she calls the family terrorist.

"The family well may be characterized as violent, incestuous, dysfunctional, and unhappy, but it is the terrorist or tyrant who is primarily responsible for initiating conflict, imposing histrionic outbursts upon otherwise calm situations, or (more subtly and invisibly) quietly manipulating other family members into uproar through guilt, cunning taunts, and barely perceptive provocations. ( The quiet manipulative terrorist usually is the most undetected terrorist. Through the subtle creation of perpetual turmoil, this terrorist may virtually drive other family members to alcoholism, to drug-addiction, to explosive behavior, to suicide. The other family members, therefore, are often misperceived as the "family problem" and the hidden terrorist as the saintly woman who "puts up with it all.")

James, at least we now know where those stats which don't detail the collection methods and which show an "overwhelming" genderisation of DV come from - a village in africa.

I'd always though that they were a result of basing the studies entirely from info gathered in female DV shelters.

Do the child abuse stats that show that children need protection from fathers come from the same village or a different one? Clearly they don't originate in Australia either, the published stats from groups like the Abused Child Trust make that "overwhelmingly" obvious.

That leaves the question, what can we do about DV and child abuse rates in Africa? Add them to the list of massive problems facing that continent.

R0bert