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.