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