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