Formersnag.

It has to be that easy. If it is not it becomes a power struggle. Who can say that femananazi is any worse than hillsongananazi, cathonanazis, buddananazis, athienanazis or any other form of radical 'nazis' you may care to make up.

As soon as the issue becomes polarised no solution is possible.

The separation of church and state is for a very good reason. No religion should have power over another. Maybe we could all join Howard and Costello at the Breakfast Meetings. Maybe we could all join Opus Dai. Did I hear you complaining about women with a higher education? Shame. They should be burnt at the stake.

Domestic violence has to be seen as a problem for everyone. If the feminist want to campaign to stop the mutilation of girls ( and many other issues) for religious/cultural reasons they have my support. That is domestic violence every bit as much as man hitting woman or woman hitting man. It I impossible to want to end one form of domestic violence with being inclusive of all. These things are above religion or culture. They are about humanity.

The reason why the solution to any problem has to be inclusive is because even if a solution is the best possible solution it cannot last unless it is freely chosen.

Formersnag, your last post came as a complete surprise to me. You made all sorts of comments about the 'radical' views of suzyonline and others and out of nowhere comes a post that makes suzyonline's comments look positively middle of the road.

Vote Family First, go to church and demonise those who have different views? Is that it? Is that all you have to offer?

You have just joined those I consider have no relevance in a debate of this type because you can only cause division when real solutions require working together.

Just when I thought there was hope here up comes the same old rubbish.

Formersnag, sorry old boy, but you are a lost cause in this debate. Someone as bitter about women as you will never change. Even your chat about the wonders of your mad religions contained venom about women.

For the record 'Neversnag', I never even hinted that I believed that women perpetrated 50% of domestic violence, because that statement is just a load of c##p!
It is just the sort of thing you would say to rev up the crowd- ...violence is violence, NO MATTER WHO DOES IT.

Thanks for everyone else's encouraging words (even Anticeptic- I think..:).

I agree with Davy in that alcohol is definitely a major precursor to domestic violence. I don't remember dealing with very many domestic violence victims who were injured by sober people.

The current measures being directed at some Aboriginal communities where alcohol has been restricted appeared to have worked well.
Maybe this would also work in the wider community?
It would certainly be hard to police though.

Suzie and other spot on about formersnag.

I don't think that you should have to agree with the 50% thing but before you write it off work out what definition you plan to use for domestic violence. If your definition involves using physical force against a partner and you don't want to assume that men lie lot's more than women do take some time and look at a wider range of stats.

Women do get hurt more because of the physical strength disparity. Studies which ask about assault and ask both men and women without building in assumptions about gender have for a long time indicated similar rates of physical violence in DV situations by both men and women. Critics will point out that the CTS scale which much of that work is based on has lot's of flaws (which it did in the early days) but go very silent when called to debate that. Those same critics seem to have little concern with the flaws introduced into their prefered studies by community attitudes and perceptions of DV, the places they collect data (women's refuges won't tend to give a balanced view of violence against men nor will other services set up and advertised to help women).

If when you talk about DV you mean a choice to initiate physical conflict then the 50% figure is close to the mark, if you are talking about serious injury then it's a different story.

As you and others have already pointed out there are a wide range of other factors at play and social disadvantage is a term which cover a lot of them.

If by DV you mean the range of behaviours listed on the back of buses and in anti-DV campaigns (checking a partners phone messages and numbers called, controlling access to money, controlling access to friends, putting them down etc) then there does not seem to be much serious work at all. I suspect that most findings in that space are based on the assertion that men are more controlling than women.

R0bert

Well with one exception we seem to be reaching a little bit of concensus here, at least more than i have seen before in my short time on this forum. Perhaps its the christmas spirit. Lets not waste it.
SUZI. As robert has pointed out there are many different types of DV. This has been stated by many womens groups and while physical violence is the most stark and visible aspect of it, in many ways it is only the tip of the iceberg. While it must be said that more men than women commit actual physical violence, women are just as bad as men at committing emotional violence which often leaves scars which last a lifetime,and i suppose i and my daughter are two victims of such abuse which was perpetrated by my ex and completely ignored by a system which she used to her full advantage.
Both men and women have some real horror stories to tell and unfortunately it is our individual experiences which always seem to polarise these discussions. Would be nice if we could rid ouselves of the more extreme views on both sides and work together to address these problems of child abuse and DV.

You may say i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one.
John Lennon.

Just a short question. As the target of many knife attacks that never succeeded does that mean I was not a victim of domestic violence because I am not dead? And If my alky ex wife had killed me would she have been able to shed a few tears, tell BS stories about being abused and get away with murder?

Formersnag,
Your a Dic/head,
"suzeonline, nor any others, did NOT admit that DV has a 50/50 split or anything remotely like that, only that female violence, IF, it exists, should also be condemned."

The expression 50/50 has nothing what so ever to do with stats it is an expression of agreement concedeing that all violence must go

That is what Suze gave us by acknowledging all violence must stop and that alcohol was a big contributer
No wonder we can't get women to unite with men on a common front to stop all violence.
Suze I hope that you understood the meaning of the expression and still want to support a united front against all violence. The men are not going to be able to make this journey on their own and by confronting all violence it can only lead to a better world for the kids
Alcohol seems to be the big common element in all this violence and seems like a good place to start the fight

Thanks from
Dave