This thread appears to be going in circles.

Dozer, if you look at my earlier posts you will find that according to the Australian Institute of Criminology "in almost 4 out of 5 intimate-partner homicides, the perpetrator was a male and the victim a female....in a little over 1 in 5 incidents, the homicides were committed by a female against a male." I know there are a lot of posts on this thread, but a little fact-checking wouldn't go astray.

TRTL says "You're right. But in the vast majority of cases it's by other men." Too true.

I find it intriguing that now the focus is on the end result.

What are the contribuiting factors that led to the end result?

Is it not possible that there is a pathway that leds to this end result?

Alcohol and drug abuse are factors and so is mental illness. I was watching Australian Story where a journalist had a relationship with a very controling man who is a suspect in a number of disappearences. It sounded like this man was more than likely a psychopath.

So of the men who murder. How many are either drug or alcohol affected? Mentally ill? or psychopaths?

Johnj

Fact checking? Circles? How about understanding subtle but important differences, and looking at something from a different angle? I always make sure I read every post on a thread before I make a response. If I checked every link, I would never leave my room.

The statistics presented by the AIC paper you link to do correspond to the US justice department statistics I link to- specifically, that homicides of intimate partners has decreased over the last few decades, and that males are more likely to kill their female partners than visa versa.
However, neither AIC link you provide gives any comparative information, over time, of male homicides of female intimate partners verses female homicides of male intimate partners. While http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti90.pdf does mention a declining trend of intimate homicides in the US, and links this to “factors such as shifts in patterns of family formation associated with declining domesticity, the improved status of women, and increases in the availability of domestic violence services,” it does not ask why, as I have, this increased availability of domestic violence services has led to a greater drop of murders of male intimate partners than it has of female intimate partners.
(The authors of the AIC report definitely could have asked this question, especially as one of the studies they link to (Dugan, Nagin, Explaining the Decline in Intimate Partner Homicide, 1997,) makes note of the “pronounced decline in the rate at which married women kill their husbands.” http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/3/187. Unless I sign up to some online journals or visit Melbourne University Baillieu Library, I won’t know what the Dugan study has to say on the matter.)
So, I provided information, which you did not, that showed that homicides of males by female intimate partners, has decreased far more dramatically than homicides of females by male intimate partners over the last few decades. Unlike you, or the report you linked to, I questioned why the introduction of domestic violence services, purportedly meant to protect women, has actually saved more male lives than female lives.

You used the statistics you linked to support the argument that, overall, men are more violent than women, (no disagreement from me, although I would point out that men, particularly young men, are more likely to be the victims of violent attacks,) and as part of a very silly argument over female elks, (not your fault.)

I provided statistics (more detailed in terms of gender comparisons over time,) to support my argument that until domestic violence, (and sexual violence and sexual discrimination more generally,) is treated in a gender neutral manner, or to put it another way, until domestic violence against men is taken seriously by the government and mainstream society, we will not solve the problem of domestic violence.

I would do some fact checking, and critical thinking, before I accused another of not checking their facts.

My apologies Dozer, I didn't read your posts properly.

That said, I don't believe US statistics are necessarily useful for examining Australian trends. The only long-term Australian homicide stats I can find are here http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 . Unfortunately these are not disagregated by gender. Given the disparity of Australian and US homicide rates (currently 1.5/100,000 versus 5/100,000) I don't think you can extrapolate from US stats to the Australian situation.

I was interested in homicide rates because there can be little issue of "unreported" homicides and they are broadly in line with convictions for assault. This flies in the face of survey data that suggests male/female violence in intimate relationships is broadly equal. This suggests a methodology issue with these studies.

Abusive (though non-violent) relationships are a different matter altogether. I certainly believe that women can be as abusive as men in a relationship.

JohnJ,
What you are not mentioning, is that only 0.002% of males carry out a murder, and if women mainly kick, scratch or throw things then it is not that effective in killing someone. However it has been found that women will carry out more poising which is also not that effective (but can lead to liver damage), and have been known to enlist someone else to do the actual murder.

In the case of child abuse, only about 5% is sexual abuse, and the most common form of child abuse is neglect.

While not accepting child sexual abuse, I tend to think that the feminist concentration on child sex abuse is being done to hide the fact that most child abuse is from neglect, and there are 10 times more women involved in that aspect of child abuse then there are men involved in child sexual abuse.