In a way, violence to me, is seen as a 'man's domain'. The fact that we as a society cannot accept women in a combat role kinda backs up my idea of violence being a man's thing. Does that make us more, or less 'enlightened' as a society?.

It seems when men commit horrendous violence (like with the recent axe murders) it's seen as a case of, 'wow, what a sicko'. In situations where a woman may have committed some atrocious act the first question raised is 'what extenuating circumstances caused the incident?'. You'll even see that question raised in the initial report.

I think it starts back at the 'hunter gatherer' set up, and really our attitude towards men and women committing violence hasn't changed since then.

Pelican,

' I have never seen any feminists on OLO or elsewhere advocating that women are absolved of responsibility if they commit a violent act.'

My argument is with the focus of the government's domestic violence campaign. If they were interesting in stopping violence, they would have included some proportion of men being hit by womnen.

By omission, it is inferred this either simply does not happen, or is not a problem. It's obviously not even seen as a problem for women who have contributed to their own environment of violence by hitting first and being injured by the retaliation. It is effectively a statement that women bare no responsibility in violent domestic disputes regardless of the circumstances. Alternitively it is a statement that women never hit their partners.

Just where have I denied violence against women exists or is a problem? Also why should I 'offer sympathy or condolences to the issue of battered women', when the women's lobby group who designed the government's campaign felt no need to acknowledge any male victims of violence, or even accept that women ever contribute to the cycle of violence in the home?

StG,

'...extenuating circumstances caused the incident?'. You'll even see that question raised in the initial report.'

Yeah I see that in the news too. They pre-empt the viewers astonishment that a woman has been 'bad' and look together for a mitigating factor. With men, well, it's just another man acting his gender. The DV ads help to reinforce this prejudice.

Dear RObert,

Thanks for recommending the book,
"When she was Bad," by Patricia Pearson.
I'm going to try to buy it from a book shop,
because I tried accessing my local library's
catalogue on-line - and low and behold they
don't have it. Much to my surprise they don't
have anything on the subject of, "Domestic
violence against men," or "Male abuse,"
or "Violence-against-men."

I think that proves the point this thread is
making.

You may be interested in the following website:

http://dad4justice.blogspot.com/2007/11/australia-do-we-ignore-violence-against.html

Usual suspect, believe it or not I do get the gist of your argument. My reference to 'sympathy' was merely to highlight that we, male and female, are human beings first and foremost and as such a modicum of empathy (if not sympathy) is not too much to ask for any victims of violence regardless of politics.

I suspect that the DV Ads are the result of years of experience with a growing problem of abused women. I imagine that similar campaigns would be mounted if there was a stream of battered men turning up at shelters or emergency wards. While I respect your view that women have to take responsibility for throwing the first punch (if this is the case) I do not accept that a the full force of a person much bigger and stronger uses this as an entitlement to bash a person to within an inch of their life. If you don't believe this happens, spend some time in casualty or in a women's shelter.

It would be the same as a woman wielding a fist to a small child who may have punched her in the leg and then sent that child through a plate glass window.

Lets keep some perspective on this. Lets look at reducing incidence of violence overall and work together rather than in opposition.

Foxy, my pleasure. It is available online but the price is a lot more than I paid http://www.play4me.com.au/product/when_she_was_bad_864866_457249.html

I've seen mixed comments about Pearson's feminist credentials, most of the write up's tout her as a feminist author but those who don't like what she is saying claim that she is not a feminist. Her main focus seemed to be about the impact on women of the denial of female violence or responsibility. That even when female violence is in front of us many seem to hold the woman less responsible for her actions than we would hold a man. She looks at the impacts on the womens movement of this.

Pelican from what I've seen the rates of serious injury run at around two to one (possibly 80/20 depending on who you believe). Women do suffer the majority of serious injury and the vast majority of deaths resulting from DV. I've also seen material (not much of it) which found a link between women hitting men and the likelyhood of women being seriously injured. It did not appear to matter if they initiated the violence or were hitting back, if the findings were valid a woman who hit's a man is much more likely to get seriously injured than one who does not.

It should be noted that serious injury represents only a small portion of the DV covered in government campaigns.

I'm of the view that the best ways to minimise the serious injuries is to reduce the lead up violence. That means stopping all of the DV we can. Hitting can be a means of escalating a conflict for those who want to leave a partner with nowhere to go. Someone who both believes it's OK to hit because of their gender and who knows that the other party is in deep if he responds physically has a lot of power and little to hold them back.

R0bert

Well posted Pelican and Robert.

There is a lot of anger re the ads focussing on female victims. As Pelican points out this is because serious consequences tend to affect women more often than men.

Just like the current campaign, it's run in Qld, about Work Place Health and Safety. It is about coming home alive and in one piece from work. There are a number of stories. All of them, all, depict MEN coming home safely from work. Not one single woman.

This does not mean that a woman never gets injured at work, it just shows the reality that serious injury and death at work affects MEN more often than women. So it is focussed at men.

If we are to be serious in condemning violence than that should also include violence that is perpetrated on children.

Violence against children, men or women, Australia says No.