I couldn't agree more.I know of several cases where the female is the first to attack.When the man tries to defend himself or hits back,the police are called and the man is given a DVO against him.I have seen women throw knives and kick sensitive areas but it's always the man who
is villified for striking his wife.This problem needs to be addressed and quickly.

A great article, and surprising to see this on OLO, with it's normal feminist bias. I think the government has shown it's hand already though. To violence against men. Australia says yes.

I could not agree more with the author of this thread....as a 63 yo female, I enjoyed being a female, stay at home mum, homemaker and wife. At no time did I feel that my role in life was denigrated. Many females today are so busy fighting their natural instincts and trying to prove themselves to be as good as or better than men, instead of discerning the DIFFERENCES between men and women. To those females who are trying to compete with men, I say 'stop wasting your time'. My sympathies lie with the male subjects of domestic violence. I become slightly resentful when I see that working women who have a husband, and a family feel the need to pay child minding organisations to look after their children.....why have children if you are going to pay someone to look after them. I am totally convinced that the shocking behaviour of some children/teenagers that we are witnessing through various news media today, is the result of a lack of a simple, loving family environment....there is a time right for everything.....women can receive education through OUA if they feel the need, and study whilst the children are at school....purchase a simple affordable home, furnish it with love, good food and plenty of humour, and maybe at least some of our societal problems could be eradicated.

I could not agree more with the author of this thread....as a 63 yo female, I enjoyed being a female, stay at home mum, homemaker and wife. At no time did I feel that my role in life was denigrated. Many females today are so busy fighting their natural instincts and trying to prove themselves to be as good as or better than men, instead of discerning the DIFFERENCES between men and women. To those females who are trying to compete with men, I say 'stop wasting your time'. My sympathies lie with the male subjects of domestic violence. I become slightly resentful when I see that working women who have a husband, and a family feel the need to pay child minding organisations to look after their children.....why have children if you are going to pay someone to look after them. I am totally convinced that the shocking behaviour of some children/teenagers that we are witnessing through various news media today, is the result of a lack of a simple, loving family environment....there is a time right for everything.....women can receive education through OUA if they feel the need, and study whilst the children are at school....purchase a simple affordable home, furnish it with love, good food and plenty of humour, and maybe at least some of our societal problems could be eradicated.
Noisy Scrub Bird

Excellent article. Unfortunately it did not comment on the prevelance of mutual DV (where both parties physically assault the other) which in most population based studies seems to represent a significant proportion of the DV population. Nor did it mention that some studies have shown that women who hit their male partners are more likely to suffer serious injury than those who don't. That applies regardless of who initiates the violence so the message to women not to hit is beneficial not just to their partners but to women as well.

Perhaps to forstall the critics it would have been better to point out that women do suffer a significantly higher rate of serious injury (a small proportion of what is treated as DV by government campiagns).

Some additional reading for those interested
- http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html - Background info by Richard Gelles
- http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941 Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence
- http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html DV Factoids by Richard Gelles
- http://www.mediaradar.org/ja_sex_differences.php Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review
- http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf Summary info on the Dunedin study
- http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf CTS evaluation - (someone will probably claim that CTS is unreliable)
- http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf DOMINANCE AND SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE BY MALE AND FEMALE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN 32 NATIONS - Murray Straus
- http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm Australian research
- http://www.law.ku.edu/journal/articles/v12n2/detschelt.pdf Recognizing Domestic Violence Directed Towards Men: Overcoming Societal Perceptions, Conducting Accurate Studies, and Enacting Responsible Legislation
- http://www.mediaradar.org/research.php#waj an advocacy site - more strident in it's tone than many will like but it does reference some great material
- http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp - how Qld Health portrays the issue and one of the reasons we need articles such as Roger's article.

R0bert

Some of what is said here is true enough, and a certain percentage of people will be hard done by, by any legal or dispute resolution apparatus.

Meanwhile has anyone ever noticed that a mans fist is much much larger than a womans, and that men are generally larger and stronger too.

Wife bashing hads always been a universal sport, and still is.

Once upon a time it was condoned by the system by the fact that it was considered "inappropriate" for the authorities to intervene in domestics, a man's home was his castle, and he was the ruler there. Once upon a time it was also considered impossible for a married man to rape or sexually abuse his wife. She wasnt allowed to say NO to a man demanding the exercise of his conjugal "rights".

Meanwhile (again) there is a world-wide epidemic of violent sexual abuse against females of all ages. Anybody who denies this is living in cloud-cuckoo land, a Saturday Evening Post, Norman Rockwell fantasy.

Google SEXUAL ASSAULT:THE SILENT VIOLENT EPIDEMIC

This abuse of women is very much related to the flood of ever-worsening pornography; the sexual slave trade in much of the world (including here in OZ), and the associated huge "sex"-holiday industry in many parts of the world.

There he goes again!!

R0bert's off on his pet project - promoting the thoroughly discredited Conflicts Tactics Scale.

For heaven's sake. Give it a break, R0bert! The only reason this academic rubbish has been given so much traction is because it has received a lot of support, financial and otherwise, by the menz rights advocacy backlash industry.

For anyone else who'd like to get some balance on this, there are several academic articles that discredit the CTS, if you can Google your way past all the right-wing anti-feminist MRA rubbish on the Web(virtually all of which R0bert was kind enough to provide for us).

Also, over the last three years, I have been a major support for a close friend whose ex-husband brought false DV and child abuse charges against her after she left him. I can assure everyone here that she received absolutely no special privileges whatever for being female. And until the police and Child Protection Agency finally woke up to him, his complaints were never ridiculed or ignored. She was also out of pocket $50,000 in legal fees before finally proving her innocence.

Ho Hum, "Meanwhile has anyone ever noticed that a mans fist is much much larger than a womans, and that men are generally larger and stronger too."

For that to be relevant you'd have to be proposing that the solution for a man with a violent spouse is to thunp her hard. Having a bigger fist or being larger or stronger is not very relevant if you want to stop being hit without hitting.

Nor is it very helpful when the act of defending yourself will be seen as an assault because you happen to be male. The current genderised approach to DV leaves men with few options, leave and risk loosing home, kids, future earnings etc, stay and put up with it or hit back and risk the first lot as well as being branded as violent.

Far better for support services and authorities to start taking female intitated violence seriously so that men with abusive partners get some support rather than being left thinking they have to sort it out themselves.

The other group that does not seem to get address in violence against women type campaigns which focus on male perpetrators is gay women with violent partners.

As for your claims about porn and sexual violence there are plenty of porn related threads around OLO, perhaps you can post some evidence for your claims on one of those threads.

R0bert

Is there anti male bias out there?

SURE IS....

I found it at my local police station in the form of a pamphlet:

"If he is violent, it is NEVER 'your' fault"

rather says it all.

SJF,

'The only reason this academic rubbish has been given so much traction is because it has received a lot of support, financial and otherwise, by the menz rights advocacy backlash industry.'

Hmmm. I wonder why the same never seems to apply according to you when something is supported by a feminist organisation...

Boaz is EXACTLY RIGHT.

It is NEVER EVER the fault of the person who is being bashed.

It is always and only the "fault" or responsibility of the basher, regardless of the verbal provocation.
The basher pretending to be the "victim"----she MADE me do it.

Verbal abuse never ever really hurts anyone. It can be quite offensive and humiliating, to say the least, but it NEVER fundamentally hurts anyone.

We are all, each and every one us, responsible for our actions and reactions.

There is NO one to blame. Realising this is the foundation of human maturity.

And besides which according to the patriarchal script that Boaz subscribes too, men are supposed to be the "superior" sex with a capacity for self-control and self-restraint. To be in control and not the "victims" of their emotions.
The head of the family who must be obeyed. Part of "god's" prescription or plan for the relatios between the sexes---or so the "scriptures" tell us.
But whose interpretation of the "scripture"?

Roger, thank you. You show such guts & resolve to expose the truth on DV that the mass media hide. DV is a feminist controlled industry and as such has no interest in stopping DV for obvious reasons.
If all male related DV ceased in Aust today all the hidden abuse by women would not only continue but increase.

I found this article very validating. I am a woman who grew up in a home that was characterised by DV where my mother, due to mental illness, was the main perpetrator. This was misunderstood by my father whose ethnic background put forward strong patriarchal control imperatives. The cycle of violence that resulted from this convergence of issues and misunderstandings was shocking and brutal.

I grew up thinking that somehow my experience was marginal to what DV meant, since it did not conform to the media stereotype of the thankless brute beating up on the mousey wife. I think that issues of historical sanctioning of patriarchal violence is something that needs to be recognised as we move as a society to better address DV. But it is the overriding dysfunctionality of families that occurs that is the real issue. Addressing issues of mental illness, and the idea that aggression and violence are a legitimate means of control are the real issue. It's not a gender war (what about sons that are hit by their fathers?). It's a complex social problem.

Finally, the witnesses of DV are still not fully recognised as its victims.

Whilst I do not consider myself to be a feminist, I can't believe this load of utter rubbish. Of course Australia is not saying 'yes' to violence against men. What complete and utter tripe!

Like most of my fellow Australians I would feel for anybody in an abusive situation, whether male or female, whether the abuse is physical, verbal, emotional, whatever.

However, the fact remains that generally men ARE physically stronger than women. It has nothing to do with feminism. Far from being criticised, the government should be commended for this campaign.

Like hello ... there is a reason why most of the serious injuries are sustained by women and not men. Well, duh!!

As a woman who has suffered the powerlessness of an attempted sexual assault, I can certainly attest to that. Although I fought physically with everything in me, as I began to tire it became obvious that my strength was no match for my assailant and could not prevail in the situation. In the end, it was only providence and my wits that saved me from what has been described as a murder of the soul, where the victim has to get up afterwards and go on with life. I would rather have died.

If I ever attempted to strike my partner, he would simply block me. I would have to assault him in his sleep to do any serious damage, and although wonderful he is not especially muscular.

My heartfelt sympathy to any woman who lives with the constant nightmare of fear, pain, degradation and shame of physical abuse and has to suffer the kind of appalling prejudice expressed in this article and many of the comments.

Just be sure and watch out for all those rabid female rapists, you bunch of panty-waisted 'men'. Try not to be too scared when you walk down a street alone at night.

As for the superior, self-righteous, hard, cold-hearted, judgmental 'women' who have posted, I have nothing but disgust and contempt.

Ho Humm!

It is true that men generally are bigger than women.

However wife bashing was never a national sport. Here you are using the esculaton tactic to jusitfy your own bias.

Lets look at how figures get widely exagagerated. It is often claimed that 1 in 4 women experience sexual assault, however the latest reader survey in the Women's weekly puts the figure at about 8 in 100.

Excellent article — timely and fair. I just can't see how making gender (and indeed age, to factor in child abuse) irrelevant when dealing with dv won't help all who suffer.

I know one bloke who is occasionally violent toward his wife and his kids. They're both dear friends of mine, even though it sh!ts me that he's such a d!ckhead. So typical — he loathes himself after a loss of temper, yet it's taken him ages to accept he needs therapy. Although he has. I reckon his violence makes him feel insecure about his masculinity. I really believe that if he knew women were violent too, it would make him feel better about seeking help. I mean, it's just a theory, but I really reckon it.

I've had two girlfriends with violent male partners. (One I've just discussed.) I also know one lesbian couple with a violent partner and one ex-boyfriend who had a violent ex-girlfriend. So, in terms of the gender of the perp, my personal experiences of DV stand at 50/50.

I think monikasar put it best: "It's not a gender war. It's a complex social problem."

Noisy Scrub Bird,

You point out there are differences between men and women. Strange how you don't seem to accept that women can also be different from each other. Some like to stay home and look after children, whereas for others that would cause misery, loneliness and cause enormous loss of confidence - to the benefit of nobody. Similarly, it would suit some men and not others.

Everyone is different. Accept it and stop trying to blame the ills of society on other women just because they are not like you.

Not a bad piece, and I suspect it's pretty much on the money.
I still think violence against women, by men, is more common, not only in frequency but also severity, but I can certainly believe there are frequent occurrences of the opposite situation.
I've no doubt our system doesn't really accommodate men who have suffered at the hands of violent female spouses.

I guess the real problem for those who seek to raise awareness here, are those on the fringe who tend to grab attention - either the genuine misogynists, or those embittered by their experiences with the opposite gender, who attack anything that resembles feminism even when it's reasonable (I'm not saying there aren't problems with feminism, but if you're one of those people who think 'all' feminists are bad, then I suspect you have issues).

This is a subject which needs genuine attention, so I'd urge those with an axe to grind to just put it down for a while, and perhaps focus on constructive ideas instead of hate-mongering.

I have to agree with the first poster and am glad they said it before the feminists got in the thread who can't shake free of the government and feminist propaganda.

The assertion, for example, about women being hurt more to justify that they should receive special, unique attention is sexist. If they are to be hurt more by domestic violence, it's in their personal interest to not start fights or provoke them. For comparison, what do short and thin men do when they see a six foot footballer walk by or who insults/becomes aggresive in an argument with them? They certainly DO NOT escalate and assault and claim that it was 'nothing', that it didn't hurt and the footballer should be able to 'take it' (it's would be hilarious to witness though for it shows up these feminists). Why do weak men do this? Because they know that the situation could escalate and they would be in danger. They are not so stupid or audacious as to hide behind their weakness, much as many obnoxious feminists and women do. Not all men are the strong archetype either and they can be weaker than women. Another blanket assumption by all government and feminist propaganda.

We've all heard of the cases whereby many women stay with their abusive partners also. If they do not elect to take action for their own safety, that's their own fault and they get no sympathy from me (i don't approve of the violence either). These cases however are often used by the government and feminists to show how extreme the abuse is and for shock value, knowing full well the woman has the power to take preventative action to end it herself but did not do so.

It's not a gender issue at all, and should never have been one. It's about violence. There doesn't need to be a distinction or gender divide either, which is why the Office for Women (see Despoja's recent maternity article for further example of sexism in lawmaking/political system) and the federal minister for women's interests need to be removed.

Isnt it ironic how something like this gets turned into a competition.

This speaks to the general nature of gender politics where everyone gets defensive and no one can express their issues without the opposite sex trying to turn it into something about themselves. When this happens people get irrational and start advocating non sense like size mitigates an act of initiated aggression. Hahaha... a small(er) person gets the better of a bigger one and thats a defence. Tell that to the judge. Also, smaller people tend to use weapons. This could easily be spun into a defence by the so inclined.

No wounder its getting worse out there and more and more people are sort of opting out of the relationship/family matrix.

The article was balanced, made a uniquely tangible effort not to give offense, unusually honest in revealing the feelings and concerns of men and a refreshing surprise given the generally vapid and banal offerings regarding gender politics. The article was somewhat guilty of veiled political advocacy, still, paling in comparison to offerings of OLO's usual suspects.

I couldnt' agree with you more regarding gender wars, this article was not reducing the impact of DV on women but highlighting the need to recognise support for male victims of DV.

Let's get over the gender wars, and start looking and domestic violence from the idea of supporting all victims no matter the gender. Counselling and support is vital in both scenarios for the perpetrator as well to (hopefully) prevent further abuse (whether it be anger management, financial counselling - whatever is relevant to each particular situation).

People forget that violence is not always physical but can be mental and the impact is equally felt by men and women.

Let's not forget any victim of abuse whether it be man, woman, child or animal.

By the same token,neither male or female should lasiviate in their victim status.

laciniate? "cut into narrow, irregular lobes; slashed; jagged."?

Not again on OLO, hasn't this topic been done so many times before, with the same old arguments and the same old attacks and defences around three times per year?

All so damned pointless, becuase the two sides will never be in agreement.

One aspect that the writer failed to mention is the use by women of false accusations of violence against men, which is promoted and encouraged within the Family Law industry by the assumption that violence is exclusively perpetrated by men. I've been the victim of such false allegations and there is literally no path open for redress unless one wishes to go through a long and expensive civil litigation process. The effect of such allegations is devastating for the one accused, as the legal process is specifically designed on the assumption that such allegations will be found to be true or will not be contested. There is great pressure on the one accused to "consent without admission" to a DVO/AVO (thus neatly avoiding any onus of proof), while the accuser is given special consideration, including police escorts to a "sanctuary" within the Courthouse so she won't have to face the person she is lying about. That process, along with the corruption of the CSA is what alerted me to the toxic nature of modern "feminism" as it is practised within our bureaucracies.

I do, however agree with all the writer has said - a very good analysis.

A well-written article.

I'm not so sure about the "mostly fair-minded older sisters" part though. The article detailed how men were getting a poor deal because of the efforts of these 'sisters'. If that is true, how could they be fair minded?

I think you make the mistake that these people are somehow professionals who want to make a better society for all. That is not true. Feminists are advocates, they are not interesed in brokering a fair deal, they are not an impartial arbitar af social policy: they are totally and soley interested in getting the best possible deal for women.

This sort of activism has done us all a great deal of harm. When the family court sees itself not as a professional arbitar but as an agent of social change championing the rights of 'oppressed' groups, we have a problem. Suddenly, all men are wife beaters, child molesters (some just haven't offended yet)and generally a threat to women and children. Women can't lie and men need to prove their innocence.

When school retention rates were 60:40 in favour of boys it was discrimination, yet when the numbers were reversed it was called equality. How is this fair-minded?

My fear is that things will only get worse. With large budget surpluses, we will soon see a clamouring for publicly funded organisations championing 'social justice'. I am bracing myself for a return to the 'all men are rapists' political correctness of the 90s.

As quite a few posters have already said: why use this subject to perpetuate gender wars? Its so pointless.

The men who do so on this forum at least, are all self-confessed "victims". While anecdotal evidence or personal experience can be and often is, a useful tool to highlight or validate a point it is a two-edged sword. There is a danger that one can use one's own experiences as the definitive experience and apply them as a blanket explanation or definition for all the thousands of other cases. There is also the danger that one hasn't as yet come to terms with one's own experiences and so runs the risk of not thinking or reasoning objectively.

It is only natural that anyone who has been on the receiving end of domestic violence - male or female - has shared experiences, or pays great attention to the reports and experiences of others of their sex who have been through the same thing. This is also a natural part of the healing process but again one runs the danger of generalising. If a member of one gender concentrates or shares only with the members of that gender it can lead to the perpetuation of these rigidly gendered viewpoints. In many cases it can lead to extreme bias which is easily bolstered and fed into by the plethora of websites that seem to exist (once again, for either gender)in order to perpetuate a one-sided outlook.

I have yet to see anyone on these threads a) deny that women too are perpetrators, b) belittle anyone's experiences c)ridicule or belittle any man who has experienced domestic violence. Yet each time an article on the subject appears accusations of this kind of behaviour are used to castigate the entire female sex.

And, as a previous poster pointed out yet again, the plight of the children who are the unwitting participants in these dramas is not highlighted enough in these pointless re-hashes of personal hurt and anger.

A problem facing courts, certain governments and feminists in future years will be to define who is male and who is female.

Like feminism itself, the current DV legislation is totally gender biased, and a male is assumed to be automatically guilty. However this is all based on whether a person has an “M” or a “F” beside their name on their birth certificate form, which is somewhat superficial.

Research into genetics has not been able to accurately find the factor that determines who is male and who is female, as there is so much variation in chromosomes, and gender testing has been dropped from most major sporting events, including the Olympics.

So the courts, certain governments and feminists will have to come up with a formula that defines who is male and who is female, before they continue with their bias, prejudice and discrimination.

I am pleased that Romany mentioned children because that was a reminder that domestic violence should not be restricted to physical violence alone with other types being as prevalent and might produce more long-lasting harm to the partner and/or children.

To take an example, the family terrorist as described by Erin Pizzey is not uncommon. See here:

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-10.htm

Further, parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is even more common, to the extent where many grandparents do not see their children even where the couple are still together. This is because one partner objects to the other enough to ensure that not only is s/he sidelined, but his/her relatives are ostracised from having contact with the children.

Where harm is not sustained physically it can be very hard to convince counsellors and Courts that it has occurred, especially where the process is long and drawn out as would occur in many instances of parental alienation and where a clever perpetrator can easily pose as the victim. For example, mothers are aware that if they themselves appear anxious about another person or situation the child will also be frightful, thus learning to avoid the situation. So the quivering lip and assurance 'You don't really have to go to Grandma's birthday party if you don't want to.' can easily set in motion a self-fulling prophesy, confirmed where convenient with 'You don't usually like to go to their birthdays and you because you don't like them and we can do something that is more fun'.

An issue that needs to be addressed. It is just so sad that it turns into gender wars again. And extremely concerning is the notion that a woman could have been 'asking for it' and shouldn't provoke her partner, he was after all just defending himself.

Maybe the imam from Lakemba was right about men after all, they can't really control themselves when provoked/seduced by a woman.

A man can take out a DVO against his partner. So, stop whining, guys. What needs to be addressed is that it is OK for men to seek help when they are faced with emotional, psychological abuse.

Women most certainly can be violent. Fortunately for men it rarely results in broken ribs, pelvises, eye sockets, jaws and death. Hurt feelings do not require the attention of an orthopaedic surgeon or undertaker.

On which note: with a killing in DV you are in luck as a male, it is seen as manslaughter and you're back on the streets after a few years. But as a female perpetrator you get murder and life.

With some posters there seems to be an implication that women need to be responsible for the violence perpetrated on her and take action and not act the victim. That means that men too need to take responsibility for their actions when they are victims of DV.

With the whole DVO issue that I find concerning is that there is little follow-up or consequences with applying for one. I know of one woman who uses this as THE way to solve relationship 'issues'. There doesn't seem to be a limit on how often any one person can call the police.

This means that the seriousness of a DVO must be rather watered down. Every DVO must be accorded with extreme seriousness and follow-up, because unfortunately, it is used as a weapon, by both women AND men to attain leverage for personal gain.

yvonne, Saturday, 3 May 2008 5:40:42 PM referred to DVOs.

It would be unethical and irresponsible to use DVO to threaten the other party or to get the upper hand in negotiation, as is done in divorces. But plainly as you relate there are people who do that with impunity ans some say that lawyers encourage the use of DVO to 'soften up' the other party.

As a person who is involved in international competition shooting, I can tell you that our male members are very hard done by where a DVO is applied for because it is a kangaroo court where they immediately lose their licences and firearms are confiscated, to be trashed without recompense if the case gets up. The immediate loss could involve tens of thousands of dollars. But even where the case is frivolous and is not upheld, their licence is not reinstated and they have to apply for a licence all over again. This is a sad outcome given that in order to get a licence in the first place they have had to be of very good character, free of criminal convictions.

It is easy to see why so many lawyers and women’s' advocates recommend the DVO as the best weapon to knee-cap men to get the best out of their divorce.

I share your concern that the discussion should do the article justice and not split on gender lines. The best way of doing this would be to recognise from the outset the inappropriateness and unfairness of labelling violence as a 'male' problem as has been done in the Australia Says No campaign.

As well, the broader definition of violence must be applied, because physical violence is just a subset of a much larger and more uniformly widespread problem, where women and girls as just a well represented as men and boys.

I agree Cornflower.

DVO's are serious and are misused.

I know for a fact that physical violence against women has dreadful consequences. I work in a small public hospital and the general public would be quite shocked how often women come in with injuries, real and obvious, as the result from DV. When I first started working in public health 30 years ago this was a shocking eye opener to me. I had no idea this happens in our nice suburbs.

Many women will hide physical abuse from friends and family. It is astonishing how few end up pressing charges. The men are invariably so remorseful and profess undying love.

That does not take away the reality or indeed condones the fact that men are also victims of violence of a different kind. Not the threat of death or severe physical injury, but the threat of false accusations, the threat of emotional blackmail. Especially where children are involved. Both parties are equally brutal in using their children as a way of 'getting back'.

The threat of DV is used in divorce. What men do need to acknowledge, instead of immediately getting on to the anti-feminist tirade, is that this tool is happily used by male lawyers.

17 years ago when I was trying to extricate myself from a marriage (no there was no other party involved) a male lawyer suggested I lodge a DVO. I was shocked that a man could use this as a leverage against another man knowing full well the serious consequences of such an action.

Needless to say I changed lawyers.

It is easy for men to blame feminists as a sinister anti-man conspiracy, but they are not the enemy. It is not the feminists lodging frivolous DVO's.

Lodging any DVO should have real consequences for both parties. The alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator. Just lodging one is ridiculous and not enough. It should entail some mandatory steps and safe guards to resolve this. From consistent counselling over a set period of time to reviews and assessment of the well being of any children.

Sorry Steel,I left one letter out"C".Lasciviate from the word lascivious meaning lustful."Leave thou lascivious wassaills."I forget which play.Perhaps Hamlet.

There is a difference when people know they can take advantage of others and using the law against them and knowing that there's a real victim in the home.

Yvonne: "What men do need to acknowledge, instead of immediately getting on to the anti-feminist tirade, is that this tool is happily used by male lawyers."

Of course it is; any lawyer will use whatever weapons are at hand to serve his/her case. I also agree that the DVO is a necessary tool to prevent the worst cases of abuse. What you're not saying, however, is that the DVO is a very gendered tool, designed to allow women to prevent men from having contact with them. When I went through the circus for nearly 8 months (as I refused to "consent without admission") I saw not a single woman in the defendant's chair. Not a single one in the whole time and yet the Court was full of men lining up to say "yes, I consent to the order without admission" on the well-meaning advice of their lawyers who are aware of the cost and likely outcome of fighting false accusations and also that the Court looks unfavourably on those men who "show no remorse".

Tell me, if it is open to both men and women and if lawyers for both parties are free to use the claim, why were there no women in the dock? My suspicion is that it is because it is very much a "woman's law", written by "feminists" as a result of political agitation by other "feminists". The gender of those "feminists" is irrelevant.

Yvonne: "It is not the feminists lodging frivolous DVO's."

The toxic "feminism" of the bureaucrats and pseudo-academics who are riding on the backs of the genuine victims to make a career is entirely responsible.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph and would only add that the process needs to be much more rapidly resolved. At present, making a claim is sufficient for an interim DVO to be made, which can literally take years to be removed by a Court. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Welcome back SJF. I'm happy to continue to refer to research undertaken using CTS because noting I've seen has convinced me that it is discredited. Especially when compared to the methods used to support the widely publicised views of DV whichseem to rely on the assumption of some feminist theories about power which I don't happen to agree with or which make no genuine attempt to determine the rates of female initiated violence. I've read one of Flood's attacks on CTS and some other material and found it to beless than impressive.

If you are so bothered by CTS how do you feel about the Qld Health page I referenced, is that a fair portrayal of the issue? Those saying some acknowledgement of female initiated DV needs to be made seem to attract a lot more ire than others clearly going far beyond the bounds of any credible research such as the claims on the Qld Health site. Why is that.

Even if we don't agree about the genderisation of DV would you agree that some effert should be put into addressing DV where initiator is female? Would it be reasonable that when the government runs a anti-DV campaigns that some of the perpetrators to be shown as female (with male or female partners)? That some attempt is made to address female initiated violence.

61, I suspect that like others your own experience has blinded you to the other side of the issue of violence. I'm not a skilled fighter, my ability to reliably block punches and thrown objects is not something I'd like to have to rely upon. It's also likely that in attempting to block blows that I would leave bruises on the arm that was behind a punch. Frankly the idea that it's better to tell men to rely on their size or fighting skills than to tell women not to initiate violence disgusts me.

R0bert

Hamlet, I agree that it is tiresome. I have noticed though that there tends to be a bit of a change in dialogue, I even agree with Romany in most part.

Perhaps some are getting better at articulating their points.

Ho Hummmm, wrote the bashing females is a national sport, In a recent article in the Heraldsun, there were 47 murders in Vic, 15 were the caused by either wife, husband, etc. 15 deaths as a result of DV equates to 1 in 266,666 of a population of around 4 million.

Hardly a culture of violence, or a epidemic of violence.

Yvonne wrote, <On which note: with a killing in DV you are in luck as a male, it is seen as manslaughter and you're back on the streets after a few years. But as a female perpetrator you get murder and life. >

In the state of victoria a bloke who killed his wife was convicted on manslaughter, he got at least 10-12 years, hardly the few years that Yvonne claims.

A woman, who lay in wait with a rifle and admitted to deciding that her husband did not deserve to live and shot and killed him, was found not guilty.

So the law is tougher on women? Yeah it must be really tough when a woman admits to killing her husband and is found not guilty.

In Victoria the law as to provocation has been changed, to exclude men from using that defense, yet women can still use it as a defense.

Disgusted with Government administrations (especially Queensland from Cooktown) and; disgusted with Community on issues of anti-discrimination and their awareness of the causal elements that lead to community violence and violence within and outside of the family.

The way to care for children is through their mothers/and parents and the ways to care for parents is to help loop them back into community. (See 1978 Declaration on Children)!

Given the Queensland Government hosted, endorsed and introduced the “Community Engagement” UN Declaration during 2005, I feel it is the first to neglect the Declaration when it comes to practising and helping to visibly educate its own administration staff of its meaning, depth and relevance. This is evident through many departments including Local Governments, Communities, through Health and in all legal support areas, including the Ombudsmans office and Anti-Discrimination.

The principals; Integrity, Inclusion,Deliberation, Influence, especially the bit where ‘people may have input in designing how they participate, when policies and services reflect their involvement and when their impact is apparent' falls way short of demand in rural and isolated areas.

Government is supposed to be a “two-way” process, yet in Cooktown, ALL services run on a regional and State cost-saving agenda, regardless of legitimate need, a dire need to help raise greater awareness and enhance the role and leadership among civilians, from in community.

In Queensland there is an over reliance of POLICE, enforcement laws and services, where there is poverty and a lack of real human resource community infrastructure.

In a political backwater like Cooktown, where there are known ‘serious’ cultural issues, and differences, there is a administrative culture of avoidance that leads to wider abuses within Community, and especially, the abuse of women.

Regarding the local government elections, leaders need to do a lot more than work about their electrol funding. They need to take better care of citizens who believe in “CITIZENSHIP” and want to make a difference. Politic’s is not a “GAME” and until Federal and State Member’s take the 'life-quality' of people participation more seriously, Australia will only ever be a culture of bullies and rednecks.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

"Verbal abuse never ever really hurts anyone. It can be quite offensive and humiliating, to say the least, but it NEVER fundamentally hurts anyone."

Ho Hum,

While I'm not trying to get between BOAZ and yourself, how on earth can you say that being humiliated isn't being fundamentally hurt? What does being fundamentally hurt mean? Being shot dead? As they say, "truth is the first casualty of war" and in your quest to best Boaz, you've pretended the obvious is not true. Being humiliated IS a form of hurt. That, by the way, is not meant as a justification for hitting a woman.

Romany,

'I have yet to see anyone on these threads a) deny that women too are perpetrators, b) belittle anyone's experiences c)ridicule or belittle any man who has experienced domestic violence.'

You missed 61's comments
', you bunch of panty-waisted 'men'. Try not to be too scared when you walk down a street alone at night.
'

Yvonne,

'And extremely concerning is the notion that a woman could have been 'asking for it' and shouldn't provoke her partner, he was after all just defending himself.
'
You're twisting people's words here, and quite unfairly. This is a convenient feminist excuse for downplaying any female responsibility in domestic disputes. A well worn tool. Further, shouting and pushing are given as examples of DV in the government adverts, but if a woman does same, it doesn't seem to count. I'm so sick of this expanding definition of DV (and only for men perpretrators). It is similar for rape. Rape now includes coercing someone into sex, rather than physically forcing yourself on someone.

'On which note: with a killing in DV you are in luck as a male, it is seen as manslaughter and you're back on the streets after a few years. But as a female perpetrator you get murder and life.
'
That's an outrageous claim! You're losing credibility fast.

To all men, there are no women who are claiming that women are not capable of violence or never initiate violence.

Emotional and psychological abuse is harmful. Yes, men are victims of this, but so are women. This is not a weapon only used by women or even predominantly by women.

There certainly is room for a campaign on this. This is not only applicable to male female relationships, but also between parents and children.

The issue is that injuries, physical injuries, caused through DV result in costs to the tax paying community. Hospital admissions cost and if possibly preventable that is good. Not to mention the costs involved if also a charge of assault or battery follows.

It is women who are admitted to hospitals with physical injuries through DV. Not men.

If there is any beef, it should be about DVO's, that is lodging an order for protection against a physically violent partner, which surely nobody is suggesting should be removed, then it is that there needs to be rigorous follow-up steps immediately. It is quite insane that there is not considering the implication is that there is somebody in fear of their life. Especially if there are also children involved.

This not only protects against frivolous lodging of these orders, but will also accord much better protection for the alleged victim.

Many of the women killed or seriously injured had orders out against their partners. The DVO did not provide any protection. Not only is there a dead or injured woman, there is also a man with a serious criminal record which possibly could have been prevented. I won't even go into the consequences for any children involved.

yvonne, "It is women who are admitted to hospitals with physical injuries through DV. Not men." - not true.

What is true that women suffer substantially higher rates of serious injury. Most of the work I've seen on this suggests around a two to one ratio. I've not seen anything I regard as conslusive on this but I have seen enough to know that some men do suffer serious injury. A lower rate of serious injury does not provide an excuse to ignore the male victims.

Children in single parent households suffer substantiated neglect and abuse at far higher rates than children who live with both natural parents but I find it difficult to imagine government focusing their entire child protection efforts on children in single parent families and telling kids from other families that because you are less likely to be abused that the abuse they suffer does not matter. That seems to be what a lot of the nay sayers are saying when it comes to DV, we think men suffer injury at lower rates so you get nothing when it comes to the anti-DV message.

I've mentioned previously that some research is showing that women who hit men (either as initiators of the violence or whilst retaliating) are more likely to suffer serious injury than the non hitters - that's not saying the a woman who is the victim of violence is responsible for it but it does provide a good reason to use a different strategy than hittng back.

We need to work at stopping all the DV we can rather than looking for excuses not to address violence where women perpetrate it.

R0bert

Robert,

'We need to work at stopping all the DV we can rather than looking for excuses not to address violence where women perpetrate it.'

I think this is the crux of the issue. I'm not sure of the motives, but I think it's a combination of things.

Yvonne has highlighted one reason, when she twists any discussion of a woman perpretrating violence into being a 'notion that a woman could have been 'asking for it' '. I think this was probably the justification for the government's adverts not mentioning any violence perpertrated by women, as if that would suddenly give men who bash women some sort of excuse. I'm pretty cynical, so I think it's a deliberate tactic to protect women's exclusive hold on victim status. I also think it's a double standard to be so scared of condoning men's retaliation because they 'punch harder', but yet totally ok to condone women eventually shooting their abusive partners, and letting them off scott free as I have seen quite a few times. Do we condone retaliation or not? I have already noted the other double standard where pushing and shouting abuse is DV if a man does it, but not extreme enough to be DV if a woman does it.

I think the other reason is just simple prejudice of thinking men are always in the position of power, and not being able to see women as violent.

'What is true that women suffer substantially higher rates of serious injury. Most of the work I've seen on this suggests around a two to one ratio.' Robert

I'm sorry Robert, but I'd have to see actual evidence. My daily observation working in a public hospital is that I've seen men come in with assault injuries-perpetrated by other men. I have not seen a single female inflicted injury on a man this past year. I have in 20 odd years seen ONE man with serious knife wounds-his wife didn't survive that fight.

There simply cannot be any excuse for assault. On the street, man to man, if a man uses greater force against an assailant he is in serious trouble. You must be able to show you were afraid for your life.

For a man to say that he is afraid of his life, though absolutely possible, when attacked by a woman is not likely to be nearly to the extent that some men seem to imply. A woman is a smaller opponent.

These threads so often seem to degenerate into the 'nasty women who want to hold onto victim status'. Neglected children from single mothers are than also dragged in to add 'weight' to the fact that women have never had it so good and are only becoming more nasty by the day, so what are some of you saying? It is OK to batter women because there are so many nasty females around?

Come and spend one month in any emergency department in a public hospital. It is an eye-opener. Not only re DV. Apply to work as a volunteer. Some of you men can than support the male victims of DV. You just might find that you are supporting male perpetrators deal with their remorse, fear and self-loathing.

There was an article a few years ago about research conducted in a SA hospital where it was found that if I remember correctly that a significant number of men presented to ED's with injuries caused by DV.

However men were very likely not to disclose how they received the injuries.

I'll see if I can find the article.

It is true that women are more likely to get injuried. Research conducted here; http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm.

There seems to be a taboo on trying to explore all the circumstances that lead to physical violence resulting in injury.

In many cases drug or alcohol are significant contributing factors. Yvonne focuses on the end result. Without a clear unbiased understanding of what led up to the injury it is much too easy just to focus on who recieves the injuries.

So, without this understanding it makes reducing the level of violence less effective. It would be much easier to be able prevent physical violence from occuring by being able to identify what the early warning signs are, for example when a situation is likely to spiral out of control, and then to educate people when it necessary to remove themselves from the situation.

Oooh yes please, let's stop violence against men. How do we get men to stop hurting men and boys (and women and girls)? Could we please get men to stop hurting each other and that way they could teach all the violent women how not to be violent.
How do these misogyinst activists cope with the everyday news of injured and dead women and children at the hands of men? How do they deal with the statistical crime data that overwhelmingly shows men are the most active perpetrators of violence in all contexts.
Why is saying 'women are violent too' the most important thing to these men? Why don't they care about men's violence to men?
If Australia was to say no to violence against men, it would have to tell men first because they hurt other men more than women get around to doing.

mog: "How do these misogyinst activists cope with the everyday news of injured and dead women and children at the hands of men? How do they deal with the statistical crime data that overwhelmingly shows men are the most active perpetrators of violence in all contexts."

I guess they cope the same way as misandrists who cannot accept that mothers feature overwhelmingly as perpetrators of child neglect, which severely harms and in some cases kills, thousands of children every year. The incidence of child neglect is increasing every year.

What about dropping the gender wars for a moment to come up with some solutions to the blight that is household violence, of which physical violence against women, awful that it is, is only one part of the whole? Women and men feature equally enough in household abuse, even if they they have their own areas of 'specialty'. Specifically, who will speak for the children who are suffering in silence, or are the points to be won in the gender wars on OLO too precious to be forgotten for a frank and constructive discussion of just one article?

hey corny when you lose an argument go for sentimental references to loving the children aww sounds like the opposition leader on a usual day

yvonne, a number of the studies I referenced early on are relevant

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941 Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence

"Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5). "

Again summary info
http://www.mediaradar.org/ja_sex_differences.php
"62% of all injured persons were female and 38% male"

Some coverage in http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm Australian research "2 Men and women report experiencing about the same levels of pain and need for medical attention resulting from domestic violence" - the authors of the study did not believe their own results

"We have much less confidence in the second result, finding it hard to credit that women injure men as seriously as men injure women. We hope that our measures of the severity of injury and pain were a reasonable first attempt. Nevertheless, in future work it will be important to compare subjective assessments of severity to more reliable and objective measures."

I've just noticed that Gelles comes to a far different view in his DV Factoids page http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html "women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men."

I've still not seen a valid reason to to tell women not to assault partners. I also don't see how the argument about the level of serious injury is show stopper in the context of government campaigns that consider intrusive questioning by a partner as DV (and still only have male perpetrators and female victims).

Did you have a look at the Qld Health website or a browse back through what was covered in the brochure the government sent out for the Violence against women: Australia say no campaign?

Those campaigns use very broad definitions of DV but these discussions seem to keep coming back to the rate of serious injury.

R0bert

All this discussion should be related to the increasing problems of violence OUTSIDE the home, regularly appearing in the press as road rage, customer rage, gatecrasher rage, drunken street rage, computer rage, surf-rage, violent assaults of social workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, desk staff - as if all these were separate sorts of rage rather than that some people don't have self-control if frustrated anywhere.

We could be doing everything we can to cut RAGE anywhere. It is a myth that expressing your frustration in violent rage is cathartic. And it would be good training if in all computer games the heroes (you) could use their brains rather than violence as the first resource.

ozideas,

You write
/All this discussion should be related to the increasing problems of violence OUTSIDE the home, regularly appearing in the press as road rage, customer rage, gatecrasher rage, drunken street rage, computer rage, surf-rage, violent assaults of social workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, desk staff - as if all these were separate sorts of rage rather than that some people don't have self-control if frustrated anywhere.'

Funny how we were promised when kids stopped being disciplined by corporal punishment that violence would decrease. Only those in total denial could now claim this. More rage and violence is occurring everyday thanks to Dr Spock and his supporters. More fruit of hopelessly flawed secular humanism.

Robert: 'Those campaigns use very broad definitions of DV but these discussions seem to keep coming back to the rate of serious injury."

I take it you mean serious physical injury. It is not only the OLO discussions, although the definitions given by public bodies are usually broad, there is always the catch-all statement following that dwells on physical violence and attributes most 'violence' to men. An example is given below:

"Definition

Domestic Violence occurs when a family member uses violent and/or abusive behaviour to control another family member or members.

Domestic Violence can include physical, verbal, emotional, economic or sexual abuse. For example: hitting, kicking, punching, choking, damaging property, yelling, insults, threats, bullying, withholding and controlling finances, unwanted sexual acts, forced sex.

Women and children are the majority of those who are subjected to abusive and violent behaviours in the home from their male partners, or fathers and stepfathers."

Over time, the available definitions have come to include more examples of physical violence and fewer examples of non-physical violence. Usually there is no attempt at costing harm from non-physical violence. In my view that has more to do with politics of domestic violence than anything else and it does a great disservice to those who suffer abuse but do not have the bruises to prove it. Many of these are children, the cause is neglect and the perpetrators are often women.

It is worrying that whilst sexual abuse of children might score a mention, the very serious problems of child neglect and parental alienation do not, yet arguably both are examples of types of domestic violence that are endemic in the community.

The use of false claims of violence is in itself a form of DV, intended to force the victim to do what the initiator of the false claim wants, which is usually full control over finances and children in the context of a marital breakdown. I was threatened several times with such an order before it was taken out, always in the context of an argument over her wanting more money from me after we'd split up. The sequence was usually something like this:

Her: "One of the kids needs [something]
Me: "Don't they already have [something]?"
Her(getting cranky): "I bought that"
Me: "Is it worn out? I'll look into it"
Her: "You won't do it, give me the money and I'll get it"
Me: "I've already paid CS this month, you could use that"
and so on, until
Her: "You're raising your voice, that's violent"
Me (getting frustrated after spending 10 minutes discussing why she wants more money): "So are you"
Her: "you can't shout at me and get away with it. If you can't control yourself I'll get a DVO. You need to do an anger management course."

and so it goes.

Violence is abhorrent, whoever commits it. Controlling behaviour is a far more common female trait than a male one from my experience, yet males are the ones routinely accused via advertising and so on. I never once have sought to make a woman dress a particular way, which is an example given of "controlling behaviour", yet I've been told on any number of occasions to go and change because my shirt or some other item wasn't acceptable to the woman in my life. Ditto with money, where the female partner has always taken control of the household spending and the bank account as a matter of right. My own mother was even more controlling of my father, which was typical of the general situation in those days.

The list goes on, with men being accused as "violent" for doing things that women have always done. Meanwhile, no one mentions the women's role at all.

Yvonne,

'There simply cannot be any excuse for assault'

Agreed.

'A woman is a smaller opponent'

Sounds like an excuse to me...

'what are some of you saying? It is OK to batter women because there are so many nasty females around?'

That's a deliberate misinterpretation. Why are women so threatened by discussion of women assaulting men? Nobody has attempted to down play or condone violence against women by men, and that's not even the topic of discussion. What is the fear behind it? Do you think if we start talking about women assaulting men, suddenly nobody will pay any attention to all the men who assault women?

mog,

'misogynist activists cope with the everyday news of injured and dead women and children at the hands of men? '

With great difficulty. Obviously with a lot more difficulty than you cope with men being injured which is the topic of the article. It is no more misogynist to highlight violence against men than it is Misandrist to highlight violence against women. By your definition all feminists must be man haters.

'Why is saying 'women are violent too' the most important thing to these men? Why don't they care about men's violence to men?'

It's nothing to do with importance, it's because it is not recognised, and the reality is not accepted. As proven by yourself and other poster's attitudes. Men's violence against men is understood, well documented and widely accepted as a problem. So is violence by men against women. Nobody will accept that violence by women against men exists, or if it exists it supposedly isn't a problem as 'women are smaller'.

You women want it both ways. You castigate the male 'Usual Suspects' posters for talking about the hidden prevalence of female violence against men in feminist articles on OLO about male violence, yet in the only article discussing violence against men you do exactly the same thing. The anger in Mog and Yvonne's, 61's arguments has proven that violence by women against men, regardless of how prevalent, is a taboo topic. Which backs up this article beautifully.

Usual Suspect, thanks for the last post. It summed up much of what I wanted to write.
The only point of divergance I can think of is that I'd leave Yvonne off the list. I've swapped enough posts with her over a long enough period to have a lot of respect for her.

We don't always agree and I don't always like her phrasing but I think that is genuine disagreement over the evidence not a refusal to try and see the other side or contempt for others.

The other point I'd add is that while we continue to send men mixed messages about violence it will continue to be difficult to stop violence. While we tell men that if they are the victim they have to sort it out for themselves then men will sort it out for themselves. While many women favor "bad boys" over nice guys we will have an abundance of bad boys.

I will note that publicity I've seen about some of the work being done to combat binge drinking does seem to target that last point to some extent.

R0bert

Thanks Robert.

I'm pretty sure I've said on a number of occasions that women can be violent too. Why that should be so revelatory I don't know. We are human beings, just like men, after all.

My understanding of the issue is that there is a call for a wider definition of violence Such as emotional/psychological abuse.

Psychological abuse is not only open to men though. I doubt that a particular gender is more talented in that area than the other.

The DV campaign is focused on physical assault. The kind that end up in physical injuries, the kind that result in the lodging of DVO's.

It really is almost irrelevant who suffers more, the issue is that nothing really ends up being done to resolve existing violence and prevent further violence.

DVO's most certainly are also lodged for leverage sake. Like a counter punch to compensate for a feeling of powerlessness. More often by women, but also by men. This dilutes the seriousness and therefore the protection a DVO should provide for a person. Both parties. The victim and the perpetrator.

There MUST be consequences when a DVO is lodged.

Perhaps we should start addressing DV by legislating that it is not OK to hit children when they are ‘provocative’ of parental authority. Violence is NEVER OK.

Sorry, Runner, I disagree with you. With corporal punishment we teach children that somebody who is bigger, stronger and wishes to exert authority will need to use physical violence, it is acceptable and justifiable.

It is contrary to teaching respect, it is about exerting power.

Just scanning the comments here, few people have actually concentrated on the article itself and its many flaws. There is so much wrong with this essay, it’s impossible to list all the ways within the OLO word-length and posting restrictions. Here are just a few … with further posts to follow.

‘Not only can men accused of domestic violence be expelled from their own houses but domestic violence, in New South Wales, is to be made into a specific crime - presumably, one that carries greater odium and stigma than mere assault.’

Why ‘men’? Exactly the same goes for women who are accused of domestic violence. I know, because I am personally familiar with two cases in which this has happened. The law is clear on procedures for treating DV complaints – regardless of gender.

‘Domestic violence policy and service provision in Australia is overwhelmingly dominated by the “Duluth method” which claims that domestic violence is something that men do to women because of the patriarchal society in which we live and the political, social and cultural control that men exercise over women.’

No, domestic violence policy and service provision in Australia are based on demand. The overwhelming number of serious DV cases in Australia are something that men do to women.

‘… if men were “privileged”, we would expect them to have preferred access to higher education. Yet there are more women enrolled in Australian universities than there are men. In respect of school retention rates, the gap is in double figures - about 69 per cent for boys compared to over 80 per cent for girls at the national level.’

Statistics such as these are often used to portray women as now being the privileged sex and men being the gender underdogs. This is a distorted statistic because the vast majority of trades (many of which are paid more than graduate professions) are dominated by men – and do not require a university degree. Many apprenticeships do not require completion of Grade 12, which greatly explains the lower school retention rates among boys.

‘The changes being introduced to the child support system, in particular, are based on a recognition that Australian society has changed drastically in a period of just two decades since the original scheme was introduced.’

The ‘two decades’ referred to here are typical of the deliberate misinformation spread particularly by men's and father's rights groups that the Family Law reforms of the 1970s were driven by feminism. This is not the case. These reforms merely introduced no-fault divorce and a 1-year separation as grounds for divorce. The child custody laws existent until recently in Australia – which gave priority to mothers – were first designed and implemented in most Western countries during the 1920s and were totally based on the traditional patriarchal assumption of mother as primary carer.

Unless children are in moral or physical danger from their fathers, the new 50-50 child care arrangement is actually quite positive for women (although many women still feel emotionally attached to the traditional view of motherhood). On the contrary one of the main complaints that has always been made by feminism is that social pressure forces women to adopt the greater burden of child care and that men too often shirk their parental responsibilities because they have been traditionally conditioned to concentrate on their careers.

‘While cases reported to police and emergency services do mostly involve female victims at the hands of male perpetrators, the more rigorous population-based studies into the incidence and nature of domestic violence in English-speaking countries tend to present a far more gender-neutral picture of family violence.’

These studies are almost entirely based on the Conflicts Tactics Scale, which is in turn based on extremely unreliable, distorted and biased methodology. Though largely discredited, CTS studies have been considerably amplified by the mens rights movement and by some research institutions who bafflingly continue to conduct studies based on CTS methods. I would very much like to see some research done on why this discredited and misleading research method has been allowed to continue and why it is still viewed as a definitive DV information source.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf

The Conflict Tactics Scales and Its Critics: An Evaluation and New Data on Validity and Reliability

"The first study reporting data on intrafamily physical violence obtained by means of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) was published in 1973 (Straus, 1973). By January 1989 this instrument 1iad been employed in more than two hundred papers and five books. It is also being used for assessment in clinical work. As might be expected, the largest number of publications are by scholars associated with the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, where the instrument was developed. However, almost 100 empirical studies by other investigators have been located. There is also a substantial literature criticizing the CTS, including at least nine books and articles that devote major sections to the CTS. Feminists have been particilarly critical of the instrument for allegedly understating victimization of women and overslating violence by women. Despite these long-standing criticisms, the CTS continues to be the most widely used instrument for research on intrafamily violence, including use by some feminist critics such as Okun (1986), who employ the CTS for want of a better alternative. Thus, for better or for worse, much of the "knowledge" generated by the large volume of research on "partner violence" is based on (or critics would say, "biased by") use of the CTS.

In view of both the wide use and the criticism of the CTS, it is important to have a comprehensive assessment of this instrument. Researchers need to know how to make the most effective use of the CTS, which is not always obvious, and they need to know the limitations of the data generated by the CTS.'"

R0bert

SJF is critical of the CTS scale, perhaps with reason, yet SJF remains silent on the use of advocacy research which is much more misleading.

I find this sentence interesting, "Feminists have been particilarly critical of the instrument for allegedly understating victimization of women and overslating violence by women."

This may possibly be true, but what also may be true is that feminists are confronted with aspects of female behaviour that they do not like to be confronted with. It is much more comfortable to focus on the negative male behaviour, than it is to look at negative aspects of female behaviour.

The much quoted WSS used a tool which looked very similar to the CTS tool.

SJF,

That's the most rational post I've ever seen you post. I really wish you used the same kind of analysis on the feminist articles, or not pass off the posters who do as misogynist.

'... the vast majority of trades are dominated by men –'

Yep. Though I really don't see young women lining up to be labourers. Gender differences are always evidence of inequality if women are under-represented. So when more men went to UNI, it was discrimination. Now more women go to UNI, it's due to men's choices.

'social pressure forces women to adopt the greater burden of child care and that men too often shirk their parental responsibilities '

That's quite offensive really. Imagine saying women shirk their financial responsibilities for their families. I'm sure you don't think single mothers who work shirk their parental responsibilities.

I'm not interested in the CTS debate between you and robert. All I see is adverts on TV with pushing and yelling being defined as domestic violence. I don't understand why this definition doesn't apply to women.

Directing the adverts at men only puts all the responsibility on men for violent disputes between couples. It also creates a distorted image of men as sole aggressors and ignores the complexity of the situation. It implies women in domestic disputes are at liberty to put their full force into the argument, and lose control of themselves emotionally and physically.

If a woman pushes, slaps, punches, kicks, scratches, throws glasses and knives at a man, he must use exactly the correct amount of force to defend himself without harming her in any way. To do this he must stay emotionally cool regardless of the turmoil inside, the anger, the adrenaline, the reflex to protect himself moderated to exactly the right measure to achieve the safety of both people.

All I want is to employ the same standards and expectations for men and women, and a lot of pain for both parties can be avoided.

SJF
I’d like to know how a feminist defines a male, and how a feminist defines a female.

It does seem that feminist want to define men as evil, and to support this, they say that men carry out domestic violence.

Possible the most disgusting display of discrimination and brainwashing ever seen on Australian TV was the “Australia Say No campaign”, where the ads were shown in increasing numbers as Father’s Day approached.

On some stations the ads were shown up to 4 times per hour just before Fathers Day, obviously in an attempt to turn children away from their fathers.

Next feminist will be saying that they believe in love, peace and equality.

Great post Usual Suspect. It pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter including your assessment of SJF.

“All I want is to employ the same standards and expectations for men and women, and a lot of pain for both parties can be avoided.”

Most men would agree, but the crux of this particular paradox is that most men also believe that punitive measures taken against women, disadvantage children. This allows some women to behave in ways that are unacceptable for men, and it similarly excuses feminists, at least to a degree, of being responsible for all anti-male propaganda. Some of it is clearly caused by a “patriarchy” that wants to protect women from themselves and other men (and at any cost), but in doing so it often fails to protect children for the very same reasons. Men unfortunately fall out of scope.

Usual Suspect and Seeker, thanks for your great posts.
Seeker it's especially welcome to have someone else acknowledging that part of the problem is patriarcal views.

"social pressure forces women to adopt the greater burden of child care " Those who see this as an issue please come and join the discussion on the "It is time to pay mums" thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7292 and argue the case for parenting leave rather than maternity leave. Thats an issue I've been advocating about for some time and continue to be amazed that that some who object to women being shouldered with the bulk of child care still advocate for systems which entrench that.

R0bert

When it comes to violence, surveys like the WSS only interviewed women, and secondly the only questions asked are if women have experienced violence.

Nobody asks women if they have perpetrated any acts of violence and people like SJF try to discount men who report violence.

So in reality the WSS only asked a quarter of the questions that are necessary.

The theory behind DV is that it is a cycle of violence, yet one off instances of violence get counted as well. So in reality the indicators are malleable depending on what the particular hypothesis is and if the indicators support the hypothesis. Indicators that don't support the hypothesis are ignored.

Robert,

"social pressure forces women to adopt the greater burden of child care "

There is an interesting bit of research into what is known as maternal gatekeeping. As far as I can find there has not been any follow up research. Wonder Why?

The research showed that up to, 30% of mothers regulate the fathers interaction with children.

Usual suspect, robert, seeker.

I think that some very good and effects rebuttals have been made and now SJF looses interest.

Unbelievable.

What are the DV stats on the numbers of men and women hospitalised per year ? As many men as women ? More men than women ? Yeah, right.

Are you people fair dinkum ?

Joe

i've just started a website (which is still in it's early stages) with the intention of supporting women & their children who are victim's of domestic violence. however after reading this article, i am seriously thinking of re-wording it to support male victims and their children as well. if anyone can help or has any suggestions, feel free to check out my website and write to me with your stories.
this applies to you girls as well, i need testimonials for my website
and won't advertise the site until i've established a p.o.box and a/c
etc; i would be honoured for you to share your stories with me.
tina xo
crystalangels.org

Dear Tina, I tried to contact you by email to offer some help but your email address is not a valid one.
How can I contact you?

I'm not sure what happened but my web address is www.crystalangels.org
my email address is; info@crystalangels.org
let me know if this doesn't work

thanks for your reply
tina xo

Thank you, Tina, I successfully sent the email this time.

I think that one of your email links on your website doesn't work- the other ones do, I just checked them.

The one that doesn't work is the one under the "How to Help" heading. which is the one that I previously used and an error window came up.

Joe, has anybody claimed that more men are hospitalised than women? Not that I've noticed - looks like you are using a strawman argument. What is being said is that ignoring male victims (and female victims where their abuser is also female) is not only wrong for those abused it also adds to the overall problem.

A smaller number does not mean none.

Tina, thats encouraging. We need to try and take the gender point scoring out of this and try and reduce violence not just violence against some. It's not just this article, have you looked at the stats on substantiated child abuse and neglect? Try The Abused Child Trust as a starter http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/facts.htm and look at who perpetrates abuse. It's not about gender, in the case of child abuse it seems to be about the time kids are in peoples care and the likelyhood that the carers are under stress.

R0bert

OK, Robert, what ARE the figures ? And yes, there is some vague relationship between the prevalence of violence of men against women relative to the violence of women against men - ten times as much ? 5.2 times as much ? 1.02 times as much ? Just as much ? More than ?

Sorry, I'm not in the right company: I have a notion that women cop more domestic violence than men. So sorry, wrong page. I'll leave it to you right-wingers who want to whinge about the rights of men in a woman-dominated age. Bunch of winkers.

Joe

thanks RObert, i need all the help i can get. i'm currently doing a DV course but need as much info as possible. any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

cheers
tina

Tina, whilst the tone of the site and some of the material is too strident and possibly lacking in balance some of the material in the Radar site is good. http://www.mediaradar.org/research.php#waj

Check the material I posted at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7309#112339

You should take note of SJF's concerns about the methodology involved used in the CTS based research ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7309#112344 ) but also read the material I referenced from Straus discussing the criticisms which have been raised about CTS.

You could also consider how much effort goes into the alternative research to try and eliminate bias. My impression is that they often deliberately build in bias based on beliefs about gender power issues.

I don't think SJF's concerns are valid especially when compared to the alternate research but thats a viewpoint and others disagree.

There is some summary info at http://www.safe4all.org/essays/2page.html - advocay based but it seems good for coverage of the other side of the story.

There is some great material at The National Child Protection Clearinghouse http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/reports.html although I don't always agree with the added in comments.

Also some horrid but useful material at The NSW Child Death Review Team site http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/kids/resources/publications/childdeathreview.cfm

In particular http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/uploads/documents/CDRT_annual_2007.pdf and in relation to the male/female risk to children issue (a spin off from this topic) see the page labeled P51 "Victim-perpetrator relationship"

There is an article I came across which I found interetsting but have not really followed up on "Child Sexual Abuse, Real and Unreal"
http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=315 - I've got no basis for judging the reliability of the material but it is probably worth a read.

There is a Selected Bibliography on DV at http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/bibs/bibgen/bibgen.html

An Overview of Child Abuse Protection in Australia at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/Child_Abuse.htm

I've not seen anything I considered worthwhile about rates of non physical DV and the harm caused.

I hope that helps. Please make your own judgments about the material, some I have a high level of confidence in, others I disagree with parts and others I have no means to judge.

R0bert

Joe, the figures will depend on who you believe. If you look at the material I posted earlier it ranged from Qld Healths claims

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship.

Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women." I assume that the percentage they quote is based on the idea that it's all about power and as some assume most of the power lies with men then it's difficult for women to abuse it hence when women physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse a male partner it's not DV.

I've not seen any papers that I considered worthwhile on the prevelance of non physical DV.

In regard to the physical abuse my impression is that the material which does not rely on assumptions about power the numbers are similar with most showing women initiating physical assaults slightly more often.

In regard to serious injury most of the material I've seen suggests that it's hard to get reliable figures but something like women getting serious physical injuries from DV at about twice the rate that men do.

I don't recall the rates on death from DV, my impression is that it is rare and generally associated with other factors such as marriage breakup with women accounting for a significantly greater number of the victims than men.

Tina, it's probably worth taking the effort to familiarise yourself with the arguments. If you start supporting male victims you are likely to cop flack. It can get nasty.

The main objector to CTS that I've paid attention is Michael Flood. A search on the web for his name combined with CTS will yield a range of material. He used to post on OLO http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=7830 Some of his material is covered at http://www.aija.org.au/fv06/Presentations/Flood%20-%20Men%20v%20Women%20ppt.ppt#6

I did find an encouraging comment which I think was by him in an article at http://www.europrofem.org/contri/2_04_en/en-viol/08en_vio.htm where he says

The word limit stops me quoting but its the second last paragraph.

R0bert

Robert,

I really don't know what planet you are on. In the Australian today (or you don't believe that fascist, colonialist, racist Murdoch rag?) a survey from two highly reputable SA universities found that women were far more likely to suffer domestic violence than men (any surprises there ?), that violence amongst Indigenous people was vastly worse than amongst non-Indigenous people, that rural and remote people, male and female, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, suffered up to seven times as much DV as urban people.

Lat week in the Australian, it was pointed out in one article that the annual murder rate across Australia was about 1.3 per 100,000, or one in 77,000. Amongst Indigenous women in the north-west of SA, and nearby areas in WA and the NT, the rate (five killed in one year out of 3,000 females of all ages) was one in six hundred, 128 times as much. Indigenous men were also about ten times more likely to die violently than non-Indigenous men, i.e. Indigenous women were about 12.8 times as likely to die from violence as Indigenous men, and Indigenous people generally were vastly more likely to die from violent causes than non-Indigenous people.

Over the last three years, almost all women murdered in the Northern Territory have been Indigenous, and their murderers have been Indigenous men. I don't think a single Indigenous man has been murdered over the last three years by an Indigenous woman in the Northern Territory.

Do you want to keep pushing this bullshot that there is some sort of equity in DV and in violent death between women and men ?

Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting - women and Indigenous people don't feel pain like non-Indigenous men. That's why we have to be so mindful of the feelings of men, especially non-Indigenous men.

Joe

Joe - having read a number of R0bert's posts, I've never seen anywhere where he's indicated equity in violent deaths. In fact, he states:

"women accounting for a significantly greater number of the victims than men."

Frankly, I tend to agree with you that DV, by and large, is men injuring women.
I say that not because of the minor incidents, but because the major injuries and deaths, tend to be the fault of men.
I ain't one of those people who tend to think women are just as guilty - in fact, many of the more heated debates I've had here on OLO are directed toward misogynists who pretend their issues are just with feminism (I don't have an issue with genuine criticism of feminism either, but there are some instances where it's quite easy to demonstrate that they are indeed just embittered types with an axe to grind against women). I can provide links if need be.

Though I don't think R0bert's posts are indicative of this mindset. I accept R0bert he has a point, in that some instances of DV at the hands of females must occur.
I dunno how accurate most of these surveys are, and I doubt it's anywhere near an even frequency, but I've no doubt it happens, and when it does, I suspect men are without any kind of outlet, because they're not treated seriously, or are treated with scorn or suspicion.
I can only imagine how powerless it must make a man feel if they're put in that position - not only suffering DV, but also dealing with the stigma of being in that situation and knowing nobody really gives a damn.

Though I must admit, I do find it hard to envision, but intellectually I guess I can accept that by sheer weight of numbers, it must happen.

TurnRightThenLeft, thanks for your comments.

It is very destructive to have a partner who hits and not be able to get support to have it stopped. Been there, done that and it was a nightmare. It seems like there is no where to turn. There are some resources available but they are generally promoted as being support for female victims of DV even if they do provide support for men.

Joe, the rates for indiginous family violence do appear horrible. Some of the material I referenced for Tina includes discussion of the extremely increased rates of substantiated child abuse and violent deaths faced by indiginous children. The discussion from this thread is not specifically about indiginous issues, it's about the genderised way DV is portrayed across the whole community and the utter lack of support for male victims of DV. It's about the way DV is portrayed to cover a very wide range of activities (from asking unwanted questions and up) and treated as a male issue but when pushed it always seem to come back to what is a very small proportion of DV, that section involving serious injury or death.

I've pointed out elsewhere that some of the research shows that women who hit men are at far higher risk of serious injury than those who don't regardless of who initiates the violence. Isn't that sufficient reason to include women in the message not to hit? Isn't that reason to give men some support if they have a violent spouse even if you don't care about the male victims?

You seem to have issues which go way past anything I've written or referenced. Perhaps rather than wondering what planet I'm on you could spend some time considering why you react the way you do to the idea of trying to stop all family violence rather than just male initiated family violence.

R0bert

Tina,

best of luck with your course, if you are young then hopefully you will see some much needed changes to the way DV is seen and managed.

here are some more links

http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm
"Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey 67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts"

<Although the original researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now.

When the original Alberta study was published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science in 1989, it was taken up by feminist groups as evidence of the epidemic of violence against women.>

'Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: how women batter men and the role of the feminist state', (link to site) Linda Kelly from the Florida State University Law Review, Vol 30:791.
http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/kelly03.pdf

'Domestic violence and the male victim', Ann Lewis & Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Nuance, 3, December 2001, pp 1-15.

'Domestic Violence Policies: Where Did We Go Wrong?, Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Nuance, 3, December 2001, pp 45-69.
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13076/20021019/www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/saran2.pdf

I often ask myself what would a hidden camera see in the cases of DV?

Loudmouth Joe,

There is a strong causative link between alcohol abuse and violence, alcohol abuse in indigenous communities is a huge problem, having lived and worked in the territory I have witnessed violence being perpetrated by both genders when they are intoxicated.

R0bert: "I did find an encouraging comment which I think was by him in an article at http://www.europrofem.org/contri/2_04_en/en-viol/08en_vio.htm where he says"

It's a very old quote. Flood has discovered that his talents, such as they are, get him further if he espouses the prevailing dogma, so that's what he reproduces. Not much original has ever crossed his mind from what I've seen of his output.

thanks JamesH. appreciate it. :)

Tina, well done addressing this issue for both women and men.

RObert, I agree with you that it is VERY difficult, if not impossible, for men to get assistance when a man is the victim of violence. It is especially horrible when there are children involved.

I've helped a couple of men who had to deal with this. In both cases the women had actually lodged DVO's against the men, but nevertheless pursued the men to their other address to 'discuss issues'. I advised to contact the police immediately to report this while the woman was there. It wasn't done. Too embarrassing. In both cases the men felt helpless.

That's why I remain strongly convinced that when the threat of violence occurs and a DVO is lodged, regardless of who lodges the order, a whole train should be set into motion. It is only this way that greater violence is more likely prevented and both parties are assisted.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever that DV can occur in a relationship, a DVO is lodged and there are no consequences that could resolve this. Compulsory regular follow-up over a period of time is required. The cost of DV warrants this.

This issue is so weighted in favour of women, because though the men I knew were indeed victims of physical violence, neither could claim that they were in fear of their lives. And that's at the nub of the present DV debate.

Personally, I feel that DV should no longer be so limited. As I've posted previously, violence in the home should also be extended towards children. If it not alright to smack the wife or husband around, than similarly it's not alright to hit the kids.

Violence is about exerting power over another and intimidating another to behave in a particular way desired by the perpetrator. It is never alright.

yvonne, I'm in agreement with all of that last post except some reservations around "neither could claim that they were in fear of their lives. And that's at the nub of the present DV debate."

The definitions and examples used in the various campaigns (and in the use of DVO's etc) go well beyond fear of lives. I've got a copy of the government brochure somewhere but can't lay my hands on it at the moment but it included things like intrusive questioning. The stats which get quoted for the frequency of DV include a wide range of non-life threatening behaviours.

I doubt that the vast bulk of DV incidents could reasonably cause genuine fear for someones life. For most the bigger issues are about the lack of control over our own lives.

The emotional issues for men and women with a violent spouse may be different but both can be significant. For a man he faces the possibility that he will be blamed for the violence regardless of his own actions. A man faces the risk that if he leaves he will loose acess to kids, property and income based on his gender rather than his actions or parenting skills. Men face the struggle associated with having no way of stopping the violence (other than perhaps giving in to whatever demands are made). He can't hit back, authorities often won't help and far to many people dismiss the violence against him as unimportant.

Women come out far worse at the far end of the scale of violence but men suicide far more often - is emotional violence a factor in that?

Tina,
I just came across another resource site (I've referenced material from the site but not seen the resource info) http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/info_dom.htm

R0bert