Actually dwg,

The Aust Bureau of Stats, personal safety survey released in late 2006 puts the figure of intimate partner violece at Male = 54% and Female = 46%.
It is so close to 50/50, that it's not funny.
But hey, at the end of the day, percentages and who did what are not the issue. We need to stop the violence and deal with it appropriately and have it 100% non-gender focussed.

But just to change the subject a little, I would like to draw your attention to something else that makes the topic we are discussing pale into insignificance.
Please Google Lord Christopher Monckton and read about what is going to happen by the end of this year. I have also included a link to a radio interview between Alan Jones and Lord Monckton that was about this same topic.

We need to be doing all we can to force Rudd to not sign the Copenhagen treaty otherwise we will have a whole lot more to worry about than issues to do with DV and family law.

http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998

You can delete this, you can call me a freak or what ever you like, but the sheer truth in this, is that it IS about to happen and if we do nothing, then when our freedom is gone for good, all you who did nothing will rue the day you made that decision.

Paw - I've just read the Safety Survey released Aug 2006 and I don't see how you derived the figures you've posted.
There was this on p.9 :

In the 12 months prior to the survey period, 10% (779,800) of men and 4.7% (363,000) of women experienced physical violence.

An estimated 35% (5,275,400) of men and women have experienced physical assault since the age of 15.

The overall experiences of physical assault for men and women, in the 12 month period prior to the survey were different.

- Of those men who were physically assaulted, 65% (316,700) were physically assaulted by a male stranger compared to 15% (35,500) of women who were physically assaulted by a male stranger.

- Of those women who were physically assaulted, 31% (73,800) were physically assaulted by a current and/or previous partner compared to 4.4% (21,200) of men who were physically assaulted by a current and/or previous partner.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/056A404DAA576AE6CA2571D00080E985/$File/49060_2005%20%28reissue%29.pdf

I want to understand how you arrived at the figures you quoted.

In any case, I'd have thought that concerns about men's safety would refer to the numbers of men assaulted and killed by friends, acquaintances and strangers, which is much higher and lethal than any assaults by female perpetrators.

Can everyone stop dragging this all back to gender?

The CHILDREN are the concern for us so-called adults, now violence is occurring at an ever increasing rate, and it needs to stop.

Now alcohol is definitely a major contributor, but The Missus on the other thread pointed out that there is some correlation between sugar at a young age and alcohol in later years, That could be a reallity as the indigenous suffer from sugar problems and also have major trouble with alcohol.

Now at our mens group that I go to every Thursday we had two visitors that came to the group and one was saying how in one of the Indigenous communities since becoming a "dry" community they have begun removing security fences and replacing them with the picket fences and how violence has virtually ceased, then why cant this be implimented across all communities?

If pubs were made close and grog was kept from these communities then that would at least make people take notice in communities that have high violence rates.

Can we all start to find answers to this ever increasing violence?
Can we all search for causes for all this violence?
Is it Depression, Frustation, Poverty, Government Mental and Psychological Torture, Break Down of the Family Unit, Inequity and Inequality?
All I know that we all need to come together for the betterment of society for the CHILDREN

Thanks from
Dave

Dave,

IMO:

While alcohol and other things - drugs; depression and whatnot seem to be factors in reducing inhibitions and making for poorer decision making, the one socio-cultural factor across mainstream society is that violence is valued.

We have some sort of acceptance that aggression and exploitation brings rewards, and for some people in society it seems to work in their favour. Bullies seem to do ok - in business, politics, industry and workplaces. Trouble is that it is like dominos - it ripples down from the most dominant (wealthy; powerful) to the least able to compete in terms of aggression (women and men lower down on the ladder; children).

IMO we have to ensure safety for those least able to secure it; but we need to also stop as a society rewarding exploitation; admiring people who are just bullies and so on - like opposing pornography; reducing consumerism; watching pollies and assessing on citizenship and character to whatever extent we can.

As to your suggestions - it's good to see some! - I reckon that if some smaller communities can give up the grog and that seems to be helping; then we can all do the same. Can't hurt.
I am no wowser but I would support any campaign to reduce alcohol use. Wish we could reduce drug use too.

pynchme:"violence is valued."

Rubbish. Certain types of violence, such as warfare, some sports, policing are regarded as desirable for the state to support, but violence within the general populace is neither valued nor encouraged. Violence perpetrated by women against men is perhaps the one exception: it is implicitly condoned as long as violence is treated in the genderised way that has evolved thanks to Feminism.

Furthermore, the conctant broadening of definitions in the pursuit of easier ways of justifying funding has meant that normal human behaviours, especially those normally associated with masculinity, are now categorised as "violent", meaning that normal men can be portrayed as somehow aberrant simply for obeying the dictates of the genetic heritage. Of course, no feminine traits are ever protrayed that way - even to think such a thing is "violence" or "misogynist" or one of the thousand other pejoratives that mean "I'm protecting my meal ticket".

As The Missus said elsewhere, the politics of fear is easy.

pynchme:"opposing pornography;"

On what grounds? That wowserish Dreary Dowagers feel uncomfortable? Here's a link that might allay your fear of all those porn-crazed men:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26439873-23272,00.html

The study contained 20 participants, so I realise it's a little more rigorous than the stuff you usually prefer.

Sometimes I despair.

There are large problems with research, especially when is comes to DV.

One particular method, was only to collect data for female victims, and not to include data on male victims. So advocates can then say things like, "there are no male victims of DV."

Another problem is the supposition that men are perpetrators and women are victims, this gets re-inforced by the types of questions asked, where men and women are being researched, but different questions are asked of each gender.

Everytime I read the word violence, my mind thinks of physical violence, and not the expanded feminist definition.

DV advocates relie on this trick of perception. They can truthfully say that women are more at risk of being injured or murdered than men.

They then fall back onto the 1 in 3 research, but the truth is that the vast majority of DV vicitms identified under the expanded feminist definition, are never at risk of physical violence and much less of being murdered.

Feminist push the idea that DV is about power and control, and is repetitive, yet the research data includes one off incidences of violence.

So it all becomes rather murky, and clouded. Men and women are rarely asked the same questions, by researchers which makes the following study unique.

"Synopsis of "Women emerge as aggressors" in Alberta study."

http://www.equaljustice.ca/cgi-bin/forum.cgi/noframes/read/9005