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.