<The progressive viewpoint – the one advocated by feminists – is that only by addressing the two main underlying causes of GV/DV – the glamorisation of (particularly male) violence and women’s financial dependence on men – can any long-term solutions be found.>

One of the main causes of DV towards women is that women enter into relationships and stay in relationships which are abusive. Generally men do not become violent towards a partner overnight. There is usually a long history of verbal abuse, threats, intimidation and other forms of aggression before it erupts into violence. Women enter into relationships with men who have a history of aggression and violence and wonder why they end up being beaten. Women are afraid to leave relationships because they are victims of peer pressure to stay in them. This is what they are truly victims of. Their fear of their peers and their fear of loneliness is greater than there fear of being beaten up.

It is easier to go on a witch hunt against all men than it is to admit your real fear and anger which is probably meant for your own mother. Women seem angry that domestic violence occurs as if they have some god-given right to peaceful relationships. No one has a right to any relationship (it is offered as a gift) nor do they have a right to dictate how their partner behaves in that relationship. They do however, have a right to leave a relationship whenever they feel like it. The fact that they are too afraid of the reaction from those who have emotional power over them is hardly men’s fault.

Phanto,

I believe that every human has a right to peaceable relationships. Your post just caps off the constant stream of lies put forth by other male posters here; yours is the 'blame the victim' facet of the same abuse supportive attitudes.

You say, "They do however, have a right to leave a relationship whenever they feel like it."

It's harder to leave when one is pregnant and/or got little children in tow. Especially if the woman on the run has no access to money.

Btw, your statement that women have a 'right' to leave a relationship (just as the men who are abused do, presumably) doesn't fit with the fact that women are at greatest risk of violence when they leave.

<Your post just caps off the constant stream of lies>
They are not lies they are opinions.

<It's harder to leave when one is pregnant and/or got little children in tow. Especially if the woman on the run has no access to money.>
Of course it is but it is not impossible.

<women are at greatest risk of violence when they leave>
Then why leave at all?

The problem with this discussion is that every situation is different and each relationship is different and the motivations for each individual in a relationship is different. Trying to make generalised opinions about all DV or all men or all women is not going to work. I may have in mind a woman without kids who has a highly paid professional job and you may have in mind a woman living in poverty in a patriarchal third world refugee camp.

To get behind the motivations as to why each individual stays or leaves an abusive relationship is very difficult. However, some generalisations may still be valid. Just because I said that one of the main causes why women stay is peer pressure it does not automatically follow that no woman will find it difficult to leave for the reasons you suggested.

There is no definitive answer to this problem but ignoring some of the answers is not helpful either.

Deceitful? SJF

I guess questionaries that ask women "When was the last time he hit you?"

Or men "When was the last time you hit her?"

aren't biased.

Very rarely men and women are asked the same questions.

As part of the DV screening for pregnant women, they are asked about DV, but the male partners are never asked if they have experienced DV.
Midwives report that male partners have asked if they are going to be asked the same questions.

Now SJf you wrote <of his own (deeply flawed) research. I quote>

So you can dish it out, but not take it.

Deceitful arguements?

< Publication of the "other side" of the violence study provides a sharp illustration of how social science is manipulated to fit a particular agenda.

"It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story," says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research shows similar patterns of violence against men.

"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.>
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

I rest my case!

SJF:"I don't expect you to even remotely understand what I am talking about"

Well, perhaps you could try making sense? I understand you have a long history of spouting gobbledegook, so a sudden transition to rationality isn't going to be easy. Why not ask for a grant? Call it "capacity building". Should be good for a decent lump of dosh.

Phanto

‘Women seem angry that domestic violence occurs as if they have some god-given right to peaceful relationships.’

What a priceless Freudian slip!

Could I have your permission to use this statement for a domestic violence poster? Or how about a TV ad with a script that goes something like this …

(Close-up image of a woman with two black eyes and a couple of missing teeth.)

(Whiny voiceover – female:) ‘I thought I had a god-given right to a peaceful relationship.’

(Booming voiceover – male:) ‘No … you don’t. Peaceful relationships for women? Australia says NO.’

(Blank screen. Caption appears:) ‘No woman was harmed during the making of this ad. This is a paid professional actress pretending to be a battered woman.’

Pynchme

'I have been wondering whether responding is worth my time and effort.'

I know that this is a rhetorical statement, but it's worth a response.

I've found over time - as do most of us - that the best you can do is to get to know who the genuine posters are, because every commentary thread throws up at least a couple of posts that offer some useful insight into an issue.

On the other hand, there are the serial vexacious posters. If a person seriously miscontrues what I say in a post, I give them the benefit of the doubt once or twice. If they continue to misconstrue what I say, then I know that it is deliberate. These posters are best ignored, except to treat as mosquitoes that you have to swot now and again.

And, I suppose, those vexacious mosquitoes will do a bit more buzzing here in reaction to this post. If so, then be aware I've asked Santa for a new fly swotter.

And on that note ... Merry Christmas to all the GENUINE posters here. (You know who you are.) Thanks for some great discussions.