Yes Todd, the figures are damning in todays society, or in any society and a situation that many men find untenable. So, what can men do to remove this blight?

I invite other men to add to the list.

We can start when our boys are much younger to teach respect for their sisters,their mothers and all other women.
We can teach our boys to hug and let them know its OK to cry.
We can teach them emotions and how to talk about their hurts and desires.

At school we can value all boys efforts, not just those who play footy, but those who choose the Clarinet.
Much research has been done by Peter West and others at UWS into how we can best educate boys at school, we need the government to take up the suggestions.

We need more male teachers, more male role models, more male exemplers, and more male counsellors who can reach out to men who are hurting and have no other way to show it other than violently.

I understand those figures produced about Victorian women have been totally debunked, and in fact domestic violence was found to be one of the least reasons a woman was likely to die.

It is amazing that I have never once in my entire life seen a woman with a black eye, and I can’t even remember the last time I saw a woman with a bruise.

I went to a shopping centre a few days ago, and there must have been 100’s of women there, but none with a black eye.

I went to an arts festival a few weeks ago, and there must have been 1000’s of women there, but none with a black eye.

I have been to major sporting events, and there must have been 10,000’s of women there, but none with a black eye.

But I have heard that new legislation being proposed for VIC is that someone accusing someone else of domestic violence cannot be cross examined. You can cross examine someone for murder, but not for domestic violence, thereby allowing perjury to become the norm.

It is also odd how a women is twice as likely to be injured in the workplace from another woman than from a man.

But its all because of those “men”. Never in history have “men” ever done anything for “women and their children”.

“Men” are bad, and “women and their children” are good

It's vital that men have mates who aren't afraid to tell them that it's *not* okay to lash out, violently or even with verbal abuse and put-downs, at their partners or children.

Men need mates who will tell them with conviction that women are neither inferior nor playthings, and who will actively stand in their way if they begin to treat a woman this way.

It's okay for men to play *with* women, but only on the basis that they're on the same team.

So who do we believe, the CEO of VicHealth or HRS?

As usual with HRS's bleatings about women in this forum, there is no supporting evidence for his claims, beyond his own evidently very skewed experience.

Women aren't frequently victims of domestic violence in Australia? Get real, HRS.

"In spite of this a study by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation in 2004 was disturbing.

The report found that violence by men against their partner was the leading contributor to preventable death, disability and illness in Victorian women. The study was of women aged from 15 to 44 and across all cultural groups.

Male violence against women causes more health problems in this age group than smoking and obesity."

At the very least I am intrigued to have a closer look at this study and how they derived the above figures, because intuitively it seems quite erroneous.

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

"Our first hypothesis is that men are significantly more likely to physically assault their partners than vice-versa. Table 1 gives the percentage of respondents who report that they were assaulted in each of several ways in the last twelve months.

Men and women report approximately equal rates of being assaulted by their partner, for all three types of assault we asked about. These results are in line with American data, which also show no significant differences.(9)"

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf
" About 27 percent of women and 34 percent of men among the Dunedin study members reported they had been physically abused by their partner. About 37 percent of women and 22 percent of men said they had perpetrated the violence."

also relevant

"Other studies have shown that although partner violence behaviors are similar across genders, consequences differ. Women are much more likely to be physically injured by men than men are to be physically harmed by women. The Dunedin study findings show that although women report perpetrating physical violence, the personal characteristics of male perpetrators are much more deviant."

and

"The researchers speculate that knowledge about the consequences of partner violence might explain this difference. Most men know that if they hit their partner, she is likely to be injured, the police may be called, and the police are now likely to act swiftly against male perpetrators. As a result, young men whose self control is compromised by enormous social stress, mental illness, or intoxication will be most likely to risk the consequences of hitting their partner. However women know that they are unlikely to injure their partner, he is unlikely to call for help, and the police are unlikely to intervene. Thus, there is little to deter an angry young woman from hitting her partner."

http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/facts.htm#3
Who perpetrates child abuse?
27% two parent (natural families)
23% two parent (other families)
37% single female parent families
5% single male parent families

R0bert

todd harper should know better than to ramble off figures without discussiing errors, all studies have, and probability that the conclusion does not represent the fact in community...

Firstly, no study can be done without removing instrinsic 'benefits' that result from domenstic violence use...eg father removed from family home and children isolated with mother made dominant parent with total power, authority and control over child...with automatic child support harrassment and and that dv order has great legal standing in famiy court...all done by the 'govenment' using tax payers money for women against men and children...and all it took the women to start all this was a phone call...and while at it remove legal principles of evidence in court like cross examination...and the chance of identifying women abusing this law for unbalanced self interest is almost totally removed...took a lot of corrupting to achieve this...

so say if law was passed that said the parent who has the child has to maintain the child solely at their expence...what percentage of women will be wanting to have the children...I have asked so many fathers this question and the answer was almost none...why cant this issue become a study to base new laws on...its will be a uphill battle all the way,,,just like law to allow a men to have children without being in a relationship with women at law ie surrogacy...yep...there is an element that has so far been acting to benefit women and avoiding public scrutiny...my guess is women+crown corporation...

what to do...the obvious...which is we men should always keep our power of reasoning at the cutting edge and assess everything being thrown at us...to see the deciet in face of whats been given and ability to see the fact behind the screen...and why the deceit is required...

It seems the final conclusion is that men need to become an effectively oraganized corporation themselves looking after their sole interest to counter-balance this negative force acting against us in the area of our children...or things are set to get much worse...

Sam

The politics of gender studies never fails to entertain. Men are this and women are that. A friend of mine is a policeman and he tells me domestic calls are the worst. According to him most women call the police not to punish their spouse but to win the argument that started the verbal and physical nonsense in the first place. They want an arbitrator. If it's a female complainant then she is encourage to press charges. If it's a male. He's encouraged to take a walk around the block and let the wife cool down. If there are children in the house the man is usually taken from the house. If he's the cause, for the sake of the wife and children. If he's not, for the sake of the wife and children. Women are rarely arrested and almost never taken from the home. Don't listen to me or look to stats. Ask a cop. They answer a number of domestic calls every day. Of course you'll want to talk with them off the record. They have political policies on gender to follow too.

HRS, I cannot believe that in 2007 there are still neanderthals like you walking (or crawling) the earth.
If you were in an incident of violence where the perpetrator broke every bone in your body but conveniently avoided your eye area, does this mean you were not assaulted?
Violence, against women, men, animals, anything must not be tolerated for any reason.
Go back to your padded cell where you might be safe....well, hang on, you'd still have yourself to worry about.

In The Australian of July 13, 2007, a prominent criminologist published research showing that violence in aboriginal communities was caused by alcohol. Here is a clip from the article:

"ALCOHOL abuse has been pinpointed as the most explicit cause of violence and sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities in an analysis of national crime statistics to be released today.

A report by one of Australia's leading criminologists, NSW Bureau of Crime Research and Statistics director Don Weatherburn, names alcohol as the overwhelming reason indigenous people become victims of violence.

....

The report, which analyses national Australian Bureau of Statistics data, finds the chances of an indigenous person becoming a victim of violence doubles when that person regularly consumes large amounts of alcohol.

In a paper to be presented at the Australian Social Policy Conference today, Dr Weatherburn has supported a push by Aboriginal activist Noel Pearson for dry communities, blaming alcohol for violence almost entirely.

The research finds alcohol abuse is not just a symptom of other social problems, it is the heart of the problem."

Now for all I know, the Vic Dept of Health could be bristling with criminologists and maybe Todd is breaking new ground, but it seems to me that his health bureaucrats just might be looking at a symptom not a cause. If so, one wonders for how long taxpayers have to put up with the wastage of public funds on redundant, ill-directed public 'research' and on scare campaigns that only serve to divide the community.

Fair dinkum, we have managed to divide the Aboriginal community with ill-conceived speculation about their men and culture being predisposed towards violence and now, having learned nothing, the same is being done to men generally. Shock, horror headlines from public bodies must be about about empires and funding, because they rarely contribute anything by way of solutions.

Goddess,
I would regard what you have said as being abuse.

Bronwyn Pike, Victoria's Vic Health Minister say she is concerned about alcohol abuse and has earmarked funds to counter the toll of drugs and booze. This is from her website:

"Mental health and drug and alcohol agencies across Victoria will share in an extra $14 million to upgrade services, facilities, equipment and training. This additional funding delivers on the commitment the Bracks Government made to Victorians to meet the challenges of substance abuse and invest in the services that matter to the community."

That is not much money to counter drugs including alcohol but it is better than nothing. The dollars would achieve more if there was effective liaison, cooperation and coordination between governments.

When you think about it, it is ridiculous that we blow money nationally on such advertising as "Australia Says No" when we would be far better off targeting the socially acceptable drug that is the cause of the violence. Government collects millions from alcohol taxes each year yet only a pittance is put towards encouraging responsible consumption of alcohol and providing youth with other diversions.

Binge drinking by youth at clubs and pubs is commonplace and events like Schoolies legitimise the connection between booze and having a good time. We have allowed kiddy starter drinks combining fruit flavours and alcohol. Parents routinely supply underage students with booze for parties. Booze carries none of the warnings carried by (say) tobacco.

Maybe we could drop the red herring of gender and give some thought to the connection between youth, booze and violence. Who knows, maybe we might reduce other problems too such as crime.

HRS how lucky you are that you have never seen a woman with a black eye....perhaps none of them want to go out looking like that...

All violence against women, children and men is abhorrent. Some of the emotional manipulation that women use against men is as bad if not worse than physical violence itself. I know of men who have been accused by women of child sexual abuse just so they can obtain custody of children. I also know men who think it is their right to commit violence against their wives and kids. The blanket answer that men are always the problem is a myth. The statistics quoted in this article are at best suspect and misleading. Some are dumb enough to count giving a child throwing a tantrum a smack as violence. Cave men might walk the earth but so do some ape women.

Well said ROBERT,
my own searching on these matters years back came up with similar figures, as most violence by women against men goes unreported to police but not to hospitals and doctors and counsellers.
the author of the article has apparently no concerns about violence against children by adults or other children regardless of gender. And this is what I see as the main problem with violence in our society, whack a man and he'l probably whack you back same with a woman but a child.. gets it only one way... till they grow up.
Men in australia are forever tripping over themselves to bad mouth their own gender to be seen as a good sensitive male in the eyes of the anti male femenists that persist after all the equality stuff was fought for they have nothing left to do now but get angry at dad.... ' men' we need some balance in male female responsibility rather than the pathetic govt ads for breast cancer and violence by men.. against women.. both need to be included with male cancers that are at least equal in mortality and population percentages, and the same with violence.. time to get up and grow up you blokes and get it even..
Cheers thanks for the opportunity Todd.
Neil

If some of you misogynists would just take a cold shower and read the article again you would realize that to make a statement that violence against women in a particular age group is a leading cause of injury and death does NOT mean that violence against men is OK, or that men are bad and women are good.

Violence against men by women is probably mainly of a very different nature. Psychological and emotional. I know. I've seen the terrible results of this with a close family member. But, not many men end up in the ED department of hospitals with injuries from their wives. And that is what this article is mainly about.

The truth is of course that men also use psychological, emotional and verbal abuse. Just read some blogs of male politicians or hear how the legal profession speaks of their female colleagues. And that is out in the open!

Just as you can ask a policeman about domestic violence call-outs, you can also ask doctors and nurses who work in Emergency departments of our public hospitals about female admissions of injuries caused by violence perpetrated by men. I can tell you stories that would make your hair curl. And not just a few. A regular weekly new supply of stories. When I first started as a young naive 18 year old I never imagined these things happened in our nice suburbs.

HRS, the reason why you don't see women with black eyes at the shopping centre, arts festival, sports grounds is because it is very unlikely she will be there. The shame of being hit by a husband/partner is dreadful. She'll wait until it is gone/cover it up with make-up etc.

It is imperative that we teach our sons AND daughters to respect themselves and others, regardless of their gender. When partners speak with each other or argue with each other and there are children present they 'learn' how to do this.

For those who question the validity of the research which claims DV is the leading cause of death and injury and costs 8.1 billion a year.

What they did is that they took the costs of a very small sample size and then basically multiplied that number by the estimated numbers who suffered DV each year.

Lets consider the fact that around 4% of female victims of DV actually suffer physical injury and about 0.06% are killed, Female suicide kills more women per year than DV.

So basically errors in research get multiplied numerous times, making the figures look impressive, where in fact if one were to conduct some decent research the actual figures would be much less.

but then who is game enough to challanged these highly exaggerated figures, publicly.

neilium, please don't misunderstand my position. I'm pro equality feminism. I don't believe that there is nothing left to be done but see the issue more as freeing up both males and females to use their potential rather than of one sided oppression.

I am really, really over the one sided portrayal of DV. I had an abusive spouse and saw first hand the issue the Dunnedin researchers speculate on. The excuse that the article is about male on female violence is way past it's use by date. Likewise the portrayal of the extreme end of DV as the norm. Some research has found indications that the rates of serious injury while being genderised are not as genderised as commonly believed, I've not seen anything conclusive in that area rather indications which researchers suggest warrents further research.

Another finding that shows consistently in those studies which attempt to look past stereotypes is that a significant proportion of DV is two way. People who hit are more likely to be hit. The continued portrayal of DV as a male issue is in my view resulting in more women being hit as their partners find themselves with no support when trying to get the hitting to stop. People who would otherwise not hit find themselves hitting to try and get their partners violence to stop (I doubt that it often works).

On another thread touching on gender violence recently a poster suggested that if men don't like being hit by women they shoud stop hanging around with women tougher than themselves.

R0bert

'What they did is that they took the costs of a very small sample size and then basically multiplied that number by the estimated numbers who suffered DV each year....Lets consider the fact that around 4% of female victims of DV actually suffer physical injury and about 0.06% are killed, Female suicide kills more women per year than DV.'

JamesH, can you provide a credible reference for the above statements. By credible reference, I mean an identifiable, scholarly reference. Not some unqualified comments from another blogger.

Women in Buddhism:

http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/D/DeSilva/WomenInBuddhism/womenInBuddhismSwarnaDeSilva.html#chap6

However, the early Mahayana masters were all male. Indeed it is the claim of some Mahayana sects that the Buddha established a line of patriarchs with Maha Kassapa as the first. This line of patriarchs naturally all consisted of males.

Women in Hinduism

"Sati" (burning the widow with the corpse of the husband) is a sad aspect, but otherwise it appears they had basic equality and mutual respect from men.

Women in Sikhism:

http://www.sikhs.org/women.htm
Guru Gobind Singh made the Khalsa initiation ceremony open to men and women alike, a woman being just as worthy. At the time of Amrit a man is given the name Singh meaning lion, the woman is given the name Kaur, meaning Princess. A Sikh women is an individual in her own right, she does not have to take her husband's name and is Kaur till her death.

Women in Islam:
While there are verses which suggest 'equality' the most difficult of all is Surah 4:34

If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may beat them.

Women in the New Testament:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

People do not usually physically attack others who they consider stronger unless their intended victims are disabled in some way (asleep, drunk etc.).

It stands to reason that more women are victims of domestic violence than men, but I'm not too concerned about domestic violence between partners - in most cases they deserve one another.

What concerns me, is the unreported or concealed physical and emotional abuse of children, by women - the mothers.

This is a crime which society, for some reason, finds too difficult to face.

Infanticide is officially recorded at about 5% of homicides in this country but gender break-downs of alleged perpetrators and victims is hard to come by.

In fact, information on China and India is more available.

High profile cases which reach the courts seem to involve the father or a male de facto.

But anecdotal evidence suggests that maternal violence against defenseless children is too common for comfort.

Violence is violence

Physical or emotional abuse of a child by its mother, the one person in the world that the child trusts, is too abhorrent for words.

HRS,

I've never had a black eye in my entire life. I have had emergency surgery to completely repair my entire vaginal region. And to cauterize and repair my anus. I've also had the cigarettes burns in my torso go septic. Spent a lot of time in hospital one way or the other being repaired.

Am I an isolated case? Not at all. In the gynie wards I've met scores of other women who have been ripped, torn, mangled, had implements inserted where no implements should go, had their uteruses removed...nary a black eye between the lot of us you silly, silly person.

Too much information? Too graphic? Not "nice"? Damned right its not "nice". That's why, as the author says, much of it is not spoken about publicly and secrets go to the grave: to protect the sensibilities of the squeamish.

Sure, women commit DV. but exactly how does this excuse male violence?

Until shelters are full of men and children in fear of their lives, until rape crisis centres keep emergency wards busy with male spouses on a regular basis, and until the numbers of men and children desperately needing emergency accommodation cannot adequately be catered why not address the suggestions of the first poster?

A male poster speaking of his violent wife, once said he had to hold her down to keep her from harming herself or anyone else. Women aren't capable of doing this to men: which is why we have the problem. We, as a society, have to start holding bullies down and Warrigal is the only man on this thread so far who has been strong enough to suggest ways of doing this

Romany, thanx for sharing that rather graphic personal episode..I'm sure it is not easy re-living such things.

Warrigal does make some positive statements about potential solutions.

I wish to offer one also. The major problem as I see it, is our total breakdown of love, family and values. As a society we are falling apart. The ariticle here just outlines and underlines the most visible symptoms.

Although I'll be poo-pooed and mocked, I'll say it anyway, the breakdown of our relationship with our Creator, leads to the breakdown of our relationships with each other. Solve one, you solve the other..in terms of moral framework.

With no frame work except 'guess'work.... MIUAUG etc... we will just continue to spiral downward, out of control, with the elite looking after itself, and the blue collar crowd just losing the plot, looking for leadership, but seeing it as self serving and corrupt.. leading to total cynicism and emptyness.. not caring which way life goes...
and then, we get to the violence and outrage and frustration....taking it all out on others...

The Welsh revival of 1904 is mocked by some of our 'thinkers' here, but it surely changed and transformed Wales.
Who cannot be touched by a 50,000 crowd singing "Guide me oh Thou Great Jehovah"

I see no hope whatsoever in the article, I only see a description of the problem.
"I came..that they might have life, and have it abundantly" said Jesus...its worth more than a 2nd thought

Yvonne

What the article suggests is that all men are responsible for violence against women. We all know that women suffer violence at the hands of their partners.

In the past too many women weren’t believed, or were blamed themselves, for DV. Today, I think people are far too ready to believe the worst of the husband/Man. Guilty until proven innocent. We don’t need laws which protect any accuser from cross examination. Our system is robust enough.

I had the misfortune to be married to an animal who accused me of all sorts of things in order to win custody and assets. None of which were true. I still lost my custody case convincingly.

You seem to be saying that emotional/psychological damage that women do isn’t as important as physical violence. But physical scars always heal. Mental ones often don’t.

The statistics seem very odd to me. The health risks of obesity and smoking to a person 15 – 44 years are vastly smaller than in later years. I think what the author is trying to suggest is that obesity and smoking are highly dangerous to 15-44 year old. They’re not. They will be in later life however. It is a false comparison, designed for impact value alone.

Hrs

I am very sorry for what happened to you and other women like you. However you weren’t married to a man, you were married to an animal. I have no problem with seeing someone like that in jail for life.

I cannot believe, however, that your case is any way the fault of men in general, or the way society brings up boys.

I take issue with the authors statement that “ women have a fundamental right to live a life free from violence”

I would have though everyone was due this right. Men are far and away the biggest victims of violence, mostly by other men. Violence is violence, gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Romany, are you telling us the whole story?

Which country were you in when this happened?

No, of course I'm not telling you the whole story. Am I really expected to go into more sordid detail concerning my personal life in order to validate an opinion?

The point is not my own experience - it is the commonality of experiences. This is the side of violence towards women that doesn't get written about in the Sunday papers or aired on ACA. I've known women chastised and vilified for even mentioning it.

What country was I living in? What an extremely strange question. Would it be ok if I had been living in, say, Antarctica at the time? Or excusable for residents of The Hebrides?

If what you are thinking is that this sort of thing doesn't happen in Australia let me assure you that it does. I have interviewed women from Toorak to Taree, from Caloundra to Childers - old women, middle aged women and young women. I 've also visited them in psychiatric wards, shelters, emergency rooms, nursing homes and their own homes. There is an article currently on OLO which describes a woman who is pregnant being kicked and beaten to make her miscarry. It took place in Australia. Do you think perhaps that was an isolated incident?

If the reason you doubt such things happen is because you've never read about them on your all-male sites, nor had any female friends sit down and confide such things to you this is hardly a basis for considering I'm making it all up. And you should give genuine and heartfelt thanks that you've led such sheltered life. For some people reality bites.

I'm all for holding bullies and creeps down. I'm even all for giving them a taste of their own medicine. Male or female. However, I am not all for gender bashing excused by statistical 'evidence' or personal experience. I'm appalled that such violence as Romany experienced exist in the hearts and minds of people. Not surprised, just appalled. Then again I don't think all people are equals. I am not willing to brand all men or all women as being complicit in the behavior of a minority of others. I personally know of a woman who slowly poisoned her husband to death over twenty years. Is this a less violent nature than Romany's experience. I don't think so. Is it any reason to vilify women or call them cavewomen. I don't thinks so. But, then again I don't support gender arguments and I think as long as feminist and whatever the hell their male counter part calls themselves participate in gender warfare not much will be done at any usable social level because the majority of people are not as these people want to portray every one with their broad gender discriminations.

It seems that if someone becomes suspicious of the statistics, then they are likely to be abused, and called such things as “Neanderthal”, “misogynist”, “ silly silly person” etc

So :-
Become suspicious of the statistics -> get abused.
Do not become suspicious of the statistics -> do not get abused.

In other articles recently, it has been said that men vote for female politicians based on their sex appeal, men only think of work sex and sport, men are elephants, and now men are cave men.

So as a man, I should not question

Instead I should believe that I vote for female politicians based on their sex appeal, I only think of work sex and sport, I am an elephant, I am a cave man, and of course I should believe that I abuse “women and their children”.

And if I don’t believe any of that, then I am likely to be abused.

I wonder if you can run a country on that?

Sam said

If you think DV orders have ‘great legal standing in family court’, I suggest you check this out with a Family Law solicitor.

The Family Law system is clear about the custodial rights and settlement rights of each of the parties and DV history does not come into it – unless the violence is extreme, can be clearly proved and is deemed by at least one court-appointed professional to be likely to cause bodily injury or death if allowed to continue. Before any decision can be made on any reported history of violence, both parties are usually required to take a separate Family Counselling assessment and a separate psychiatric assessment.

In any custodial battle, the children are given their own independent lawyer – whose role and interests are entirely separate from those of the parents and their legal representatives. It is this lawyer’s role to independently assess the affidavits of the spouses and their witnesses, and to request professional assessments on both parents.

There’s little left to surprise Family Law professionals. They’ve have seen and heard it all … many times over. Don’t assume that the system is so defective and so gullible that they take every DVO application at face value when deciding people’s futures – particularly children’s

This whole discussion has been perpetuated by certain morons who think that abused people should wear their scars like a banner in order to give credibilty to their suffering.
Some abused people can talk about their horror stories and even begin to heal, others internalise them and sometimes revisit them with violence on others.
I think that in the year 2007 we stop denying its' existence and learn mutual respect for all until proven otherwise.
Sorry, all those with little pee pees who think atrocities might make them bigger.
I do not think it works.

What is this fixation with Wales, Boaz?

>>The Welsh revival of 1904 is mocked by some of our 'thinkers' here, but it surely changed and transformed Wales. Who cannot be touched by a 50,000 crowd singing "Guide me oh Thou Great Jehovah"<<

That's just singing, Boaz. That's what the sound of massed voices does to you. They are just as spine-tingling when they launch into Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, or even Sospan Fach if you happen to be in Llanelli.

Sospan Fach is - as you probably know, being a fan - is all about Mary Ann's hurt finger, David the servant, the baby, the cat, the little saucepan, the big saucepan and David's shirttail hanging out.

Banal, it would appear. But with ten thousand tenors behind it in Stradey Park on a Saturday afternoon, it is spiritual stuff.

A fallacy that has always amused me is that the devil has all the good tunes, when the Church has for centuries relied upon the magic of music to fool people that there is something deeply mystical going on. In the days before recorded music, freely accessible music meant, predominantly, going to Church, and boy, did they ever leverage that capability.

Yes, 50,000 people singing Cwm Rhondda cannot fail to touch. But that has nothing to do with christianity, or the "Welsh Revival of 1904".

I noticed this little piece on the Revival, apparently written without irony.

"Public houses became almost empty. Men and women who used to waste their money in getting drunk were now saving it, giving it to help their churches, buying clothes and food for their families. And not only drunkenness, but stealing and other offences grew less and less so that often a magistrate came to court and found there were no cases for him"

Whatever could have happened?

mlk wrote "I suggest you check this out with a Family Law solicitor"

mlk are you describing practice and procedure using reported case laws or witnessed what goes on the ground on a daily basis in family court...its two different things...reported case laws is 'looking-good' pr work put out to the legal and public by court...

but in practice...yes child usually appointed an independent solicitor...usually legal aid...whom more often acts for the mothers interest...so the father faces legal team of woman and child against him...this 2 v 1 allows family court to circumvent judicial process and give orders the mother wants...

to dv orders...the judicial principle used is 'unreasonable risk'...and which only requires an 'allegation' to have legal weight for protective orders...usually remove father...then if the evidence ever gets 'tested' and found say unsubstantiated...months to years later...mother already has dominant control over child and starts controlling child behaviour to disrupt and severe fatherchild relationship...that is the daily reality...go follow cases for your self...its a public court so anyone can sit in...

Sam

“bleatings”, “skewed experience”, “get real”, “Go back to your padded cell”, “neanderthal”, “silly silly person”, “morons”, “little pee pees”

In a court of law, all the above could be regarded as being verbal abuse and probably emotional abuse in a domestic situation.

We are not in a court of law, we are talking on an internet forum where if you do not like the conversation or feel uncomfortable you can just go click and it's all over.

The Access Economics survey has been around for some years and was discussed at length on OLO. There were a lot of reservations about it including the very broad definition of DV and other limitations of the survey.

Here is the previous OLO thread:

www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3538

The survey report can be found here:

www.accesseconomics.com.au/publicationsreports/showreport.php?id=23%20&searchfor=2004&searchby=year

The survey was a political master-stroke by the Office of Status of Women (OSW), ensuring continuing government funding for it and for a burgeoning DV industry. Regrettably though, through reducing the causes of violence to gender and the patriarchy, it managed to bury the disease model of violence, thereby sucking resources away from needed programs such as family counselling and initiatives to reduce alcohol and drug dependence.

Romany, "We, as a society, have to start holding bullies down and Warrigal is the only man on this thread so far who has been strong enough to suggest ways of doing this"

Not quite true. I've suggested saying no to all DV, and pointed out that a significant proportion of DV is two way hitting. A proportion of that is female initiated so in those cases the woman faces less chance of getting hit if she is not doing hitting.

I'm of the view that the men who are still initiating physical violence in the home are just not getting the message. They are the ones with significant personal issues, maybe cave man like in some attitudes. No single strategy will stop this. We need to attack DV at every place, we need to stop the genderised portrayal of the issue and make it clear that no DV is OK.

Image the government spending millions on campaigns against female initiated child abuse and neglect, article after article suggesting that women need to stop hurting kids and almost nothing dealing with male abuse of children. I can't imagine that many women would be overly thrilled at that.

There are no magic bullets, there are a range of strategies and one of them is to resist those who portray the issue in a genderised manner. We can work at freeing men from societies imposed gender expectations. We can encourage women to value "nice guys" more highly than "Bad boys". Plenty to do and I still don't understand why anybody who actually cared would continue to want to see the issue misrepresented in a manner that leaves not only men but also women exposed to DV that we can stop.

R0bert

Paul and HRS, psychological scars from abuse can be far reaching. They are applied by both men and women on each other and by parents on children. Neither gender has a particular monopoly on this.

To imply that physical abuse is somehow OK because 'these wounds heal' is a very scary statement. This is of course negating the psychological scar from being physically harmed by someone you trust and believe loves you.

To support Romany. Today, 16/08, in my hospital, there is a woman with severe pelvic bruising. She was admitted on the weekend. Is she pressing charges? No. She really believes that this man cares for her. He didn't mean it. In fact, she was upset today because he didn't visit. She's worried that he thinks she is angry. Was this the first time? No.

A few weeks ago in Intensive Care, a woman driven over -several times- with a car by her husband. Her pelvis is shattered. Is she willing to assist the police who want to charge her husband? No. She really believes that this man cares for her. He was at her bedside. Sobbing with remorse. Was this an isolated incident? The first time? No.

These two little stories are from one good district alone in a major city in Australia. None of the perpetrators are from some other 'foreign' cultural background, but are true blue Aussies. Nothing ethnic in sight.

There is no excuse, no credible argument really to soften, justify or minimise the fact that there are a significant number of women in Australia being seriously harmed by men.

I can give you lots, and lots of stories. For each week of the year if you want. Charges are rarely laid. Often only if the police can do so without the assistance of the woman

Sam said

‘… in practice...yes child usually appointed an independent solicitor...usually legal aid...whom more often acts for the mothers interest...so the father faces legal team of woman and child against him...this 2 v 1 allows family court to circumvent judicial process and give orders the mother wants...

Oh, pleeease .,.

I’ve had enough direct experience of DVO and Family Law specialists to know they are too professional to allow themselves to crumple in the face of a distressed damsel in the witness box. They are trained to deal with lies, damn lies and divorce rage. They are also experienced enough to be able to detect where the BS is coming from – and it usually ends up being the partner with the loudest self-pity.

If there is so much pro-female bias in the Family Law system, how come so many men renege on their child care payments and get clean away with it?

Ah jeez, here we go again.

Yep, cave men do indeed continue to walk the Earth, just like this Todd Harper excuse for a civilised human being, who continues to perpetuate man-hatred and masculinity-bashing just like the old twentieth century feminist-Marxist dinosaurs (read "Goddess" in lieu if you like).

And I thought we'd all moved on from there. Wow was I wrong!

So here we go, once more for the dummies, let's get some perspective here. In August 2006, the Australian Bureau of Statistics published their data resulting from their 2005 Personal Safety Survey -http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/A14E86B98435CC54CA2571C50074B17C/$File/4906055003_2005.pdf

Despite a sexist imbalance of participation - twice as many women were surveyed than men - the evidence of the truth began to emerge at last.

The survey revealed -

1. Men are more than twice as likely as women to be the victims of violence and are being physically or sexually assaulted or threatened at the rate of up to 2 incidents per second in Australia!

2. Women are not the victims of family (domestic) violence as often as the quoted 1 in 4, nor even 1 in 8, nor even 1 in 10, but actually 1 in 100!

3. Women are not being raped every 26 seconds, nor even every 90 seconds, as feminists frequently claim, but are in fact experiencing sexual assault - not necessarily rape - including both reported and ALL unreported incidents, at a rate of less than 1 per 5 minutes. This is a rate 91% less than that which feminists have previously claimed.

4. The ratio of female to male family (domestic) violence victims in a home is not 99:1, nor 9:1, nor even 5:1, but is actually closer to 2:1.

Continued...

Part 2

The statements above are all calculated from the ABS survey data without corruption. They are the figures. Go check them out.

So, why is Harper still gas-bagging about his corrupted data from 2004? Why is he not stating the facts from the ABS 2005 survey? Why does he not promote serious factual policies to eliminate violence towards men, when men are the most seriously affected group in Australia?

And of course, why has Goddess got her knickers in such a tight knot about others' reasonable comments? Is she a violent woman?

I could give you the answers to all these questions and more, but you probably wouldn't like them, so I won't. You'll have to go figure them out for yourselves.

Good luck folks.

Your point being Maximus? The level of violence supported by your stats is acceptable?

Don't worry about the violence against women. Only a quarter as bad as you think. Focus on the violence against men?

Well let's. There are many admissions to hospitals of men with physical injuries of any magnitude. Perpetrated by men on men.

Face up to it guys. You can make this into a gender bashing debate if you want, but perpetrating physical violence seems to be largely a male problem.

I've been thinking about the title and my own last post when I effectively provided support to the idea that "cave men" were violent thugs beating up on cave women.

How much do we really know about the behaviours of "cave men" or "neanderthals"? Were the title and the attempted slur against HRS really some kind of generalised racist slurs against technologicaly primitive peoples?

A socially acceptable version maybe of jibes at black fella's who obviously could never teach us modern types anything of value about how to live with each other or the land.

Could it be that the attitudes expressed are based on Hollywood portrayals of those peoples rather than on fact just as the perceptions about DV are based on a particular propaganda spin rather than a thoughtful understanding of DV and how it effects people?

R0bert

Yvonne, what's a 'gender bashing debate'? I note from your first post:
°°If some of you misogynists would just take a cold shower..°°
But I see no evidence of misogyny in any of the posts. Who exactly do you think is a misogynist here, and why?

Maximus - "Men are more than twice as likely as women to be the victims of violence and are being physically or sexually assualted or threatened at the rate of up to 2incidents per second in Australia"

Who is perpetrating all this violence towards men. Is it other men?
Surely its not women sexually assualting men en masse. Kind of proves the argument that men are more violent. Women are raped at the rate of 1 every 5minutes. Men would also be doing this too wouldnt they? Unless women are being raped by women.

Women can certainly be abusive and cruel to their children. Why does the innoncent father not put a stop to her abuse. Answer, because in a lot of these cases the woman is left with all the responsibility of child care while the father doesnt do his equal share and I'm not talking about earning money here. I'm talking about hands on child care. Or the man cant handle the pressure that a baby puts on a relationship and pisses off without attempting to help with the care of the children. If the father was doing his job in watching over the children he would help the mother or get help for her to stop the abuse so where is he when this is happening during the marriage.
Suddenly when the marriage fails the father suddenly wants the children in his care(custody). Trouble is he never did any of the hard slog of hands on child CARE when he was in the marriage and now he wants CARE of his children. Huh?

Of course there will be exceptions to this but not in the majority of cases. I do not address this to the exceptions who do help with the physical care of their children before the marriage breaks up.

The article clearly assumes that using violence against women is worse than using violence against men.

From what I understand all children have both a mother and a father (oh, except the baby Jesus, of course). So I consider both men and women to be equally responsible for raising non-violent children and teenagers.

Cornflower,

Have you seen the report released by Vichealth “The Health costs of violence”

http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/assets/contentFiles/CAS-Short_summary.pdf

I would regard the report itself is a significant health hazard. The majority of the report is based on emotions and fears, which are subjective, intangible, and easily manipulated.

The actual data in the report is highly questionable in many areas, but overall the report is an exercise in physiological manipulation to make women feel fearful of men. Throughout the report it only portrays males negatively, and does not portray males positively in any way.

For example:-

“He used to threaten me constantly that he would send me back to Poland without the children if I did not do what he wanted. The lawyer the refuge found for me has told me that he can’t do that and that’s made a big difference to me. I can now plan for a good future for me and the children.”

That is a typical way men are portrayed in the report. Men are only portrayed as being violent and threatening to women, which of course makes women feel fearful and anxious of men.

If they are successful in making women feel more fearful and anxious of men, then the next time they carry out a study, they can now report that women have even higher levels of anxiety and fear of men.

So the system becomes self-perpetuating. It feeds the domestic violence industry, it feeds the divorce industry, and I would think it also feeds the psychologist industry.

Both the male gender and the female gender are worse off. Males have to bear the brunt of being portrayed so negatively in reports such as this. Females are manipulated into feeling more fearful, which then increases their levels of anxiety, and will probably lead to a range of anxiety related illnesses in future years.

The report itself is a health hazard, and doctors should begin to realize what is going on.

yvonne,

I also know a man whose wife poured petrol on him and set him alight, I have seen men who have been shot, stabbed and bashed with weapons or injuries inflicted to their genitals.

There is no doubt that when severe injuries are inflicted, men tend to do the most damage.

Drugs and alcohol pay a big part in this. Mental Illness does as well.

I remember one day reading a story about a male who had an acquired brain injury, who wound up in institutionalized care, because of his violence.

Sure in this society physical violence seems the mostly a male problem, so is drug and alcohol use, suicide or dying in a motor vechile accident. etc etc.

If we are going to talk about DV then DV covers a whole range of abusive behaviours, such as manipulation, psychological and emotional abuse, financial and sexual as well.

As usual when Dv is debated it always degenerates down to physical violence level.

And despite the rethoric of the epidemic of violence against women, the emergency departments are full of women who have experienced physical violence, the person in the ED who has been the victim of violence is most likely to be a young male.

So in reality there is an epidemic of violence against men.

The morturies are not full of women killed by DV, in fact there are not enough cadavers to go around all the morturies in Australia in a year.

In fact the body on the slab is most likely to be male.

Typically what happens in these debates is that the problem gets expanded outside the original arguement. Todd for examples took the incident where three people get shot in the melbourne CBD and includes this in his propaganda on DV. The shooting was a rare and extrodinary event.

Drugs and alcohol are factors in this shooting.

No-one should ever physically attack anyone else - and this goes for parents hitting children.
No-one should ever manipulate, intimidate or bully anyone else - you know, the old rifle on top of the cupboard thing. It never comes down, but everyone knows its there.
No-one should ever emotionally or psychologically abuse someone else.
However, we are all human and we all behave badly sometimes, especially when we are hurt, angry or afraid. The difference is that I am 5'1" and weigh 60 kilos. My husband is 5'11" and weighs 100 kilos. If I lose it and attempt to physically attack my husband (not that I ever have) he can simply hold me at arms length. If he loses it and attacks me physically ( not that he ever has) I would be in fear of my life. Yes, there are big women and small men, and then the situation would be reversed. Yes, if I had a weapon, it might also be different, but weapons generally take some premeditation whereas punches are easily and instantly thrown.
No-one is disputing that women can behave as badly as men, of course they can, its simply that the strength and size differential makes domestic violence by men against women have much more serious consequences. Isn't that what the article is really all about? Its not a women-are-good, men-are-bad thing, surely? Its simply a men-are-bigger-and-stronger-and -so-can inflict-more-damage-and-fear, isn't it?
How many men have ever felt fear rising as they walk alone on a street after dark and hear female footsteps behind them? Yet every single woman has had that feeling when she hears male footsteps in a dark and lonely place. Not because all men are bad, but because some men are and they are mostly stronger than she is.

ena, makes one wonder why a 5'1" and 60 kilos would take an argument to the predictable conclusion against a 5'11" and 100 kilos.
Me, I'm 6'2 and 240lbs. and I know better to poke sticks at bears, I don't stick my head in alligators mouths or search out poisonous snakes. And I sure as hell don't walk through the park at night. And even men are wary of footsteps behind them. I doubt many have the ability to distinguish between male and female foot steps alone at night. I have no sympathy for people that instigate and direct a vicious verbal assault under the guise that it is non violent and end up with a beating. This is not excusing any aspect of DV. It's a simple fact that if you ask long and hard enough you'll get it sooner or later. I also don't have any sympathy for men or women who will not walk away from a situation for which they know from experience ends in tears and bruises. Like prison numbers bound to recidivism so too are the numbers for DV. In 14 years of emergency nursing it got so that those of us on shift the end of the month could predict and would actually look out for certain repeat patients coming in drunk or hung over and with the usual complement of bruises, men and women.

My impression is this 'shock, horror' article is part of the usual scare campaign to secure and hopefully increase government funding.

As may be seen from the reaction to it from OLO respondents, it was not framed to foster attitudinal change in a positive way. If anything it could frustrate the good work being done by a whole range of professionals to gain cooperation from all affected parties.

It would be preferable if all media statements came from the responsible minister rather than from bureaucrats, but all political parties abuse that Westminster tradition.

Gosh aqvariovs, you must be a very finely evolved person if you have never lost it when you shouldn't have. If you have never gone off the deep end verbally and said things you would later regret. Most human beings have the best of intentions but end up falling short of them. My husband and I have had some horrible, screaming, yelling, door slamming fights through our 30 odd years and -to his eternal credit - I have always felt absolutely physically safe with him even when I have behaved, I am sure, in a most irritating fashion. Mind you, from my perspective, he can be equally badly behaved and irritating, without, of course, having much to fear from me. A relationship is only a real relationship when both partners - big and small - feel safe enough to be absolutely themselves with one another- warts and all.
Are you really suggesting that women should hold their tongue and not express their anger and hurt for fear their male partner might hurt them? Wouldn't you call that intimidation and emotional abuse? What kind of relationship would two people have if one has to pretend not to have bad feelings for fear that the other might attack them if she expresses them badly - something all ordinary people are wont to do? I expect the men ( and women) in my life to be adult enough to never resort to physical violence. Only when I can trust them to do that, can I trust them at all.

Dear ena, I expect the men ( and women) in my life to be adult enough to never resort to verbal abuse. Only when I can trust them to do that, can I trust them at all.

ena, while I largely agree with you it's not quite as simple as "If I lose it and attempt to physically attack my husband (not that I ever have) he can simply hold me at arms length."

Have you ever tried to hold another adult at arms length who is determined to physically assault you?
- You won't always get warning that a punch is coming.
- You won't always be in a position to try - I've been punched repeatedly while driving a car.
- It's very difficult to do without risk of harm to the other party or the risk of leaving "incriminating" bruises on the other party.
- Restraint can be classed as assault in it's own right.
- Arms length is generally closer than kicking range.
- Leverage can mean that a weaker person is stronger than you at arms length.

As aqvarivs points out those of us with a distaste for fighting get to experience that fear when walking at night. Maybe a lot less fear of rape than women but judging from media reports most of the people who have been murdered on the streets of Brisbane recently seem to be men (and mostly killed by other men). Our size makes little difference if we are outnumbered or the attacker is a skilled fighter or carries a weapon.

I'm assuming that the author of this piece is not suggesting that women dying as a direct result of major DV assault is numerically a significant killer compared to other causes. If there is a case to support the idea it would have to be the cumulative health effects of all types of DV from emotional abuse right through to serious physical assault. The only type of DV where there is evidence that women suffer more is at the extreme end of the scale of physical abuse, where men's additional strength tips the scales.

If so it seems reasonable to suggest that for the most part the effects on health will be similar (except in extreme physical assault cases). Men die younger than women.

R0bert

ena

Having read a number of your posts I sense you are making the same mistake as I did originally in interpreting the violence statistics quoted from surveys.

Originally like almost everyone else in the community I imagined that the figures being quoted referred to serious assaults occasioning actual bodily harm - things like bruises, black eyes and maybe sore ribs or worse. Certainly the examples given in the media and in this article lead one to think of beatings requiring hospital attendance.

However the 'statistics' giving high incidence of male DV come from definitions that are deliberately very broad so as to give a high number and usually the person, who is self-reporting, is being asked to comment on a long period or lifetime.

Reading you post about you and your husband yelling at each other, slamming doors and so on, do you realise that would have been recorded as 30 years of spousal DV abuse of you? Because the definitions are so broad as to record such incidents as violence. Whereas on the other hand there would be no record of your 30 years DV against your husband because the survey would not have asked that question.

Mark Twain said there were lies, damned lies and statistics. I can see why men get so frustrated with the media and commentators - who should know better - quoting statistics without advising the public of definitions and limitations.

Ena, according to the OSW and other who can make statistics do whatever is good for their careers and bureaucratic empires, you only think you are happy, you need removal from your serial abuser to a refuge and you require re-education to understand that you were living with a serial DV abuser.

That is not silly, read the definitions of DV and methodology they use to get their numbers and see for yourself.

I would agree Cornflower,

In their report, VIChealth gives a list of “Health outcomes contributing to the disease burden of intimate partner violence in Victorian women”

In this 0.6 % are attributed to “physical injuries” (not 60% or 6%, but 0.6%)

Anything and everything is attributed to “partner violence”.

Cervical cancer is attributed to “partner violence” and is 1%
Eating disorders is attributed to “partner violence” and is 1%
Illicite drug use 6%, alcohol 6%, and tobacco 10% are all attributed to “partner violence”
Even femicide is somehow attributed to “partner violence, and is 2%

Anything imaginable is being attributed to “partner violence”, and of course, this “partner violence” is men committing violence on women.

But how many actual physical injuries of women are there, 0.6%

The report is probably the most shameful report every produced by any health organisation in Australia.

HRS,

When I read these figures you've just quoted from the report, I didn't believe it! Physical violence only 0.6%! But then I went and looked at it myself:

http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/Content.aspx?topicID=115

On pages 11 and 27 you can find these absolutely ridiculous results.

The authors boast:
"This study is the first in the world to estimate the disease burden resulting from intimate partner violence." (p. 9)

However in the very next line:
"While our work has focussed on the impact of violence on women, intimate partner violence diminishes and affects us all..". Only focusses on women. Fantastic work. World class.

The report states:
"This publication was made possible with the input, effort and expertise of a number of organisations and individuals." (p. 7)
Only 1 out of the 9 represents men! Not very biased, no..

Back to the statistics.
A full 94% of health problems in Victorian women attributed to 'intimate partner violence' involve depression, anxiety, suicide, tobacco, alcohol and substance use. 'Intimate partner violence' defined, of course, as follows:
"Intimate partner violence can occur on a continuum of economic, psychological and emotional abuse, through to physical and sexual violence." (p. 5)

NOW, I want to know the impact of "intimate partner violence" (as defined above) on men, and to what extent these problems in their relationships have led to depression, anxiety, suicide, tobacco, alcohol and substance use.

Would anyone like to guess?

What is also interesting is the apparent differences in the definition of domestic violence. One might have expected that where statistics are drawn from another source the definition of domestic violence used by it would be quoted, comparisons made and limitations described.

I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

"`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' "

I think VIChealth are using whatever terms and definitions they like. For example “cervical cancer” is defined as “intimate partner violence”.

The term Femicide is also defined as being “intimate partner violence”, but the more classical definition of femicide is the killing of females because they are female, such as the apparent and atrocious killing of new born baby girls in some countries, or the abortion of unborn baby girls because they are female.

However Vichealth’s definition of femicide seems to be the killing of females. But in most situations there are many more injuries to people than deaths, so there should be many more physical injuries of women compared to murders.

Not so in VIChealth’s estimation, where there are 0.6% of women with physical injuries, compared to 2% that have been murdered.

Of the women that have been victims of “intimate partner violence”, only 0.6% of these women have a physical injury, but VIChealth also says that 1 in 5 women have been the victims of violence from an intimate partner in their life.

So this means that 0.6% must be divided by 5 to find the actual number of women in the community who have received an actual physical injury due to violence from an intimate partner. This now brings the % down to 0.12%.

The report was developed with taxpayer money, and by far the most warped report I have ever seen.

It is not a report, but a thinly disguised attempt to denigrate the male gender as much as possible

I do not think anyone wants to denigrate either gender, rather foster an attitude of no violence is acceptable.
Perhaps this article should have been titled cave people walk the earth.

Goddess, spot on (apart from the bit where I don't know the social habits of cave people).

That is a major part of what the nay-sayers to the article are saying. Some go further but for myself I strongly believe DV needs to stop being used as a male bashing tool and we need to start saying no to all DV (and other violence) regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or victim.

R0bert

Robert,
Most of what people think about cave men comes from Hollywood or comes from cartoons, but there would be 2 important misconceptions about the so called cave men.

One is that they lived in caves, but they rarely did. There are not that many caves in most areas, and most caves are not greatly habitable, or they are not suitably located near water supplies or food supplies.

In reality, cave men actually lived in man made villages (and not caves), and they would have been quite social and well organised.

And if cave men treated women badly, then there wouldn’t be women around now, because women would have died out many years ago due to injury, ulcers etc.

I don’t think present day men treat women badly either. A very small percentage might, but the vast majority do not.

Instead I now think it is the other way around, and the male gender is now being treated badly due to the consistent negative portrayal of men that often comes from feminists, and often comes about by the misrepresentation of men in such warped and disgraceful reports as the report from VIChealth.

The report from VIChealth is an insult to men, but if someone reads the finer details of the report, then the report is also an insult to the intelligence of women.

I'm afraid HRS your point will be lost on feminist for they don't allow for caring, loving fathers who raise their girls to grow into independent and responsible human beings. That would be anathema to their political course which is to belittle men, making women "seem" superior. The face behind the mask of feminism is a plastic representation of media hyped perfection. Motherhood puts stretch marks on all the places that represent womens sense of beauty. Therefore motherhood is bad. It's more noble being anorexic or bulimic than a mother. Talk about a twisted sense of identity. I listened to two women talking today about how disfigured they were. One had a hammer toe and the other was a 36 A. The one talking loudly about her breast size was positive every one could discern that one breast was larger than the other. I wanted to tell her no one would ever see past the stupid but, it's not my place. I could see they were victims straight off.

Sorry guys, everybody gets hurt at one time or another but isn't it great that we all are individuals and most of us care for the feelings of others.
I hate people who make up for their own inadequecies by picking on the weaknesses of others.

Well, obviously boys need to be studied and re-educted to make them less bad, as inevitably they will become if left to developed untethered masculinity.

Failing that, just remove the factories of their testosterone poisining, put them in pink shirts, tell them to shut up, be still and do as they are told. Like good, well adjusted and appropriately trained and domesticated house pets.

Beyond that, introduce gender apartaid and banish the men, er l mean un-developed, defective females, who got washed in too much testosterone, in uturo. Blah, just abort male feotuses.

Boys grow into men, throw stones at them... before they turn into spouse bashers. As they all have the potential to be.

"We all have obligations to prevent violence against our mothers, daughters, sisters and our partners. Covering up or condoning such behaviour is not an option for any of us."

You forget about the single biggest contributing factor - the glorification of violence in the media - especially Hollywood and TV.
Right wing governments always pump up the volume - to justify their harsh, punitive regimes and deflect attention from the real criminals in industry and government. Any analysis of the media during rightwing administrations will demonstrate this clearly.

I think this is the 66th post on this topic. I just wanted to add my point of view that Australians seem to lurv violence. Its leaders set a violent example to the people by incarcerating small children and women in razor wire camps, and send troops to participate in as many wars they can. Its police are armed with guns everywhere they go and frequently shoot to kill civillians. The white population has committed genocide on the aboriginal civillians and even today the government will not even say sorry for this let alone make real amends.

Australians are an alcoholic society caring more for gladatorial sports than the sciences and arts. In terms of cultural values Australia seems to lag far behind Europe, and its leaders seem to be an ignorant abusive lot competing for the best liar championships.

That domestic violence is so prevalent in such a country comes as no surprise for without compassionate leadership how can the people know what is best. Government role models are cruel, cold hearted and abusive. they appear to believe this is masculine. It surprises me there are any decent happy people at all left out there in the population.

Barfenzie, that's the funniest post I've read on OLO in ages.

And it's so true.

Barfenzie, you are the most pathetic, ignorant bigot I have yet come across on OLO. Although Tapp is still in the frame. It seems you hate Aussies and Australia so why don’t you F#CK OFF somewhere else.

Your mendacious approach to Australian society is the result of either complete ignorance or a twisted ideology. Talk about cultural cringe. We thought we’d shipped the lot of you wannabees off to Europe somewhere to experience your Superior Cultures and seen the last of you.

Just for starters the “cultured Europeans” you so admire have higher domestic violence rates than here in Australia. In Portugal and Spain they are much worse as the problem is considered private. The French suffer DV at a rate of 1 in 5 and the Germans 1 in 3. This makes our 1 in 16 rate seem tame by comparison.

Second, The French are good with razor wire. As are the British and the Germans. The Europeans have fought more wars in the last couple of centuries than anybody else.

Third, Alcoholism is a fact of life in European nations The French suffer alcoholism rates of 16.6% of the population, The Germans 11.2% but Australia only 6.7% These are WHO statistics

I won’t even go into sport.

Get your facts right before you start mouthing off. What surprises me is that we ever get anything done when there are people like you around.

Goodness, Paul.
You showed em
However,the topic here is violence and how to minimise it and getting snarky about a few stats won't help.
Have you personally been the recipient of a vicious beating and the horrible aftermath of someone who did it just for fun?
Not a nice one.

Barfenzie

You seem to have hit a raw nerve with some of our more vocal posters.

But a bloody spot on post I must say.

Paul L

So up-to-date with statistics on a global scale. Were you not the poster I asked in an earlier post to provide your source? Again, credible, not a blog-bloke opinion.

Goddess,

Yes I actually have copped more than one beating in my life. Its never fun. This fact should not surprise anyone since men form, by far and away, the largest group of victims of violence.

Violence in any form is unacceptable. Please explain to me why this needs to be a gender issue? Are female victims more important? Because they are certainly not more numerous. Nor are they overly represented when per capita rates are examined.

Barfenzies argument was that Australian society was the cause of DV and that if only we were more like the “Cultured Europeans” we would have less DV. I think I showed what a gross misrepresentation of the facts this was. I hope I also got across that you actually have to have some evidence to be credible. Bigotry in all its forms is unacceptable. Who knew the cultural cringe was still alive and well and being fanned by a new generation of bigots.

Liz

No you have never asked me to provide a source. And it’s so easy for you to check. It hardly surprises me that someone who thinks Barfenzies post was spot on did no research before opening their trap. Engaging the mouth before the brain seems to be fairly common on OLO lately.

Where is your evidence or Barfenzie’s? Do you really think people should be allowed to say crazy, derogatory things about Australia, without providing any evidence? If I said things like Barfenzie did about Muslims I would be considered a racist, for good reason.

My statistics on alcoholism and domestic violence both came from the World Health Organisation, where I did some research before deciding to post. Look it up yourself. A bit of research on the topic your discussing would be a good place for you to start too

Paul, sorry if I made this sound gender biased.
I was one of five kids. The eldest one was male and profoundly developmentally retarded. He copped the worst of the beatings because he couldn't talk to beg him to stop.
Here is an interesting fact, There was no alcohol involved.
This bastard did it for the power and sheer joy it gave him.
My eldest brother has been in an institution since his teens and is being looked after brilliantly.
He learned a few words to speak. They are "Mummy" "car" and "he hit me" This is a true story.
I am proud to say I have never hit anyone in my life.
By the way, my brother is now 50.

Goddess

"My favourite hiding place was under the house."

To get me out my mother would have to ring my father at work.

So who was I hiding from, when my fhater was at work?