R0bert
I’ve finally had a look at some of the DV studies you linked to, which indicate that women are just as violent as men (or more violent) in intimate relationships.

Although the studies are though-provoking, I have difficulty understanding how the DV percentages are so at odds with gender violence crimes in the wider society. I can’t understand how women and men can be equally violent in intimate relationships, while most studies have consistently shown that:
• femicides committed by men outnumber homicides committed by women by 3 to 1
• 3 out of 5 femicides are committed by intimate partners
• most femicides arise out of a history of domestic violence.

Added to this are statistics showing that men commit ten times as many sexual assaults as women and have four times the number of criminal convictions. Surely there ought to be more of a numerical gender correlation between femicide, rape, overall crime rates and domestic violence.

This essay from the University of NSW assesses some of the problems in the methodology used in studies that show equal amounts of DV between the genders: http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/topics/topics_pdf_files/Men_as_Victims.pdf

The main problems the essay highlights in these studies are:
• They rely on self-disclosure, which can be socially prejudiced and unreliable.
• The absence of context – there is no distinction between offensive and defensive violence.
• They don’t include whether or not the parties condone the violence or are intimidated by it.
• They make little to no distinction between frequent and infrequent violence, or extreme and mild violence.
• They make little distinction between the average differences in height, weight and strength between men and women.
• The 12-month time frame is too limited to assess the full history of violence within a relationship.

If these factors were included more, we could get a much more accurate assessment of the role of violence in intimate relationships. We could also obtain a clearer idea of whether there is a significant difference in the reasons why men and women commit domestic violence.

the 'fact' is the most important...and the legal systems fundamental duty to extract this...yes even with manipulative lying and deceit for benefit skillfully applied with words while projecting appropriate body language in it...and I think this is the fundamental failure which has caused dv jurisdiction to become quite abused...

talking about facts...last week as witness in court and while waiting this middle-aged man came from 'legal-aid' room occupied by female solicitor...sat next to me and started talking...had dv hearing that afternoon laid by chinese internet bride whom lived with him for 2 weeks...his reason was he was told by 'lawyers' that if he was in a relationship with woman...then chances of meaningful care in family court, due soon, was good for his 8yrs child...

asked him what exactly was the charges...he didnt know...asked what did the legal aid lawyer say...just court procedure...and consenting without pleading to avo...so evidence process not necessary...he showed the charge sheet...verbal and demanding sex...which he denied...

what he didnt know was child safest with biological father single parent family...should be better position in family court...nor skill at judging true intention of his bride apparently...who agreed to help care for his child...just words without any acts to go by...nutss

asked what his biggest mistake was...'beleiving her'...and his desperate need to improve his people judging skills...as he had just put his child at risk...I had to leave so hope the hearing went in his favour...I suggested that he demand from magistrate that the charges be pleaded with specificity as they were too vague to respond...and a good legal book on 'proof' to read before the next hearing...

and I agree...if he had good skills at the above...he certainly would not have been in that position...nor put his child at risk by ignorance...

essentially...court action must ensure that there is no end financial/property benefit linked to dv law application otherwise the abuse of jurisdiction is set to continue...

Sam
Ps~my given name is sri...and not come across a female with it before...just men...so did feel odd to read it in unbalanced self-interest feminine context...the bain of our society...

There is lots of terrible comments about the other gender, and very few suggestions on how the system might be reformed to counteract the exploitation. At the end of the day, the asset allocations are supposed to be made to advantage the kids. Whoever gets custody gets the bulk of the assets. Whilstever the kids are at home, then that is reasonably fair. It also takes into account that whoever has the kids will generally have a dampened earning capacity, due to either having to work shorter hours, OR having to pay for chldcare. Again, this is reasonable fair.

What ISNT fair, is that once this asset split occurs, it is permanent. The wife (or husband) shouldnt get 70-80% of the assets FOREVER. An alternative arrangement is a trust-type arrangement. The fmaily home gets put into a trust that exists whilever a child is living at home. To prevent exploitation, this can continue only until the youngest reaches a certain age (say 25-30, whatever is deemed reasonable). Once the youngest child has left home, the trust ends and a fair property split ensues. This can be decided on at the time of the original split. Eg wife (with custody) gets to live in the house whilever the kids are there, then perhaps she also will need to find somewhere else to live. Ideally the asset gets sold at that point, and there is simply a monetary split.

This is in recognition of the fact that women SHOULD be able to fend for themselves. When there are kids involved, different story and the kids should have the benefit of both parents assets. Custodial parent might get a bit of a bonus from being able to use an asset that technically doesnt belong to her, but when you consider the extra unpaid work that that parent would do, then its probably fair.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka
The person who determined that the Family Law system was unconstitutional had found that someone had the constitutional rights to ask for a jury.

They also found that when juries are removed from a legal system, the system normally becomes dictatorial, corrupt, and driven by money, which is exactly what has happened to the Family Law system

Legislation currently being proposed for Domestic Violence in Victoria says that the accused cannot represent themselves, and now has to hire a layer.

But the ability to ultimately represent yourself in your own defence is one of the main principals of our legal system, so that the legislation being proposed for Victoria is a further erosion of not just constitutional or legal rights, but also of human rights.

Sri and Frank are probably fictitious, but the outcome is extremely common and very real. With 50,000 divorces each and every year, and 90% of the time the children will now live with the mother, the father is removed from the children’s lives, and the father has to pay money to the mother without any say in how the money is spent.

That is the normal outcome regardless of the details of the divorce. It is a highly feminist system, but I doubt very much whether this system suits children, men, or women in the longer term.

Hamlet,
I have some dramatic lyrics for you. Its called “Dog Eat Dog” by Joni Mitchell

http://www.musicbabylon.com/artist/Joni_Mitchell/Dog_Eat_Dog/132062-dog_eat_dog-lyrics.htm

It was written in 1985, and isn’t it amazing how some things never change.

MLK,
Of course any type of anecdotal evidence is representative of all men right throughout Australia.

But it is interesting how after a 2003 nationwide survey carried out by Relationships Australia titled “Relationship Indicators Survey”, they established a list of “Issues Negatively Influencing Partnership Relationships”.

There are 18 issues on that list, with violence at the very bottom of the list at 2%, or the least likely issue of all.

MLK thanks both for reading the material I referenced and providing the link you did.

I've not seen that particular paper before although the arguments against CTS are similar to those used by Michael Flood in a paper he has attacking the findings of the Melbourne study I referenced. My overall impression is that they go to considerable effort to attack CTS without any apparent effort to address the significant issues in the studies used to support the view that DV is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. The alternate proposals appear to revolve around the introduction of assumptions about the nature of men, women and power into the collection and interpretation of the data.

The Mulroney and Chan paper appears to rely heavily on a few assumpions
- feminist ideology regarding power in the community is equally valid in the family home.
- if there is mutual abuse then the male is the likely perpetrator and the female is defending herself. I'm not absolutely sure they assume that but it was the impression I gained.
- that males are likely to overstate their partners violence and understate their own and female will do the reverse.

The Melbourne study (Headey, Scott and de Vauss) discusses a number of the points raised in opposition to CTS.

I oppose the use of ideology to underpin research as it distorts the results in a manner the casual reader may not realise. When they read that males are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of DV most readers will not understand that conclusion is based on a feminst view of gender power which dismisses most female violence as standing up to oppression or self defence. They will interpret it as meaning that men are much more likely to use physical violence in a relationship than women.

Context and intent are important but only important if we use the specific context and intent the violence occurs in not generalised ideological viewpoints.

R0bert

Hello HRS,
What were the top 5 "NO - NO's" in the Relationships Australia Survey of Negatives affecting domestic bliss ?