Hi all

I think these are all excellent, insightful posts about what is essentially a hidden problem. R0bert, what did you do to resolve the situation in the car?

Perhaps it is also an under-reported problem, because the male psyche (forgive me, guys) is to cope with violence by women as best they can. It's not something very many men seem to feel able to talk about, even with their "mates", so actually reporting it would, I suspect, be quite traumatic, given that there would be a certain fear of inappropriate ridicule.

My view would be that no violence is acceptable, be it by a man or a woman. The fact that it is so under-reported could be skewing the statistical data relating to just how prevalent this is.

None of that is to diminish some of the terrible cases that are reported against women, and I guess it's true that in most cases a man would be more powerful than a woman.

Perhaps men need more support groups, and to get past the notion that they cannot communicate these things. It certainly needs more attention from the government than it gets.

Cheers
Nicky

G'day Nicky.

You're right, there is a certain amount silence when it comes to domestic violence instigated by females. I used to work with a guy that had a partner who got physical with him when she got drunk. She'd use objects. He only ever said it once. He copped a lot of stick after that.

I think the system has a lot to answer for as well. There already plenty of help groups around. Although they are really helpful I don't think they'll change the psyche of society about violence towards men by women. I'm really no expert, but from what I've come across with reports of domestic violence the man usually is the one that seems to be 'relocated' until everyone has cooled off. If 'she' is obviously the instigator, or main perpetrator of the violence should she not be the one 'relocated'?.

Does 'the system' back up society's unbalanced view of female violence?.

Just a question.

A female kills a male partner who'd been abusing her for years through serious physical and emotional violence.

A MALE kills a FEMALE partner who'd been abusing him for years through serious physical and emotional violence.

Why do those two statements have such different vibe about them?.

Nicky, I'm not certain just what I did. I think I threatened to stop the car and keep the keys. What I experienced was not the high end violence that leaves people in hospital, the physical risks were low. The emotional risks were not.

I don't see how support groups would have helped me, I didn't so much want someone to talk to, I wanted someone else to get my then wife to stop hitting. Hence my angst with government campaigns that never talk about womens violence. Even if the government thinks men hit ten times as often as men there is still space in those adds to have one of the perpetrators as female and have the message be against all violence.

As for stats being skewed. Reporting is one aspect, the other is that much of the work builds in assumptions about power in the home and works from there. I've quoted regularly from the Qld Health website previously because it's such an extreme example.

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship" http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp

There is the power part, then you follow with the result "Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women."

Once you say that men hold almost all the power and define DV in terms of power it's impossible for women to perpetrate DV.

yvonne you might be giving commendations that don't fit. I'm strongly against the heavily genderised nature of the adds. Apart from the harm to male victims (which does not seem to elicit much concern from those who have not been there) I think women get hurt more by the current genderised approach.

Women do get hurt and or killed on the job, they travel to work and those adds should have some women in the not home yet roles.

Spot on with your closing lines ...

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

R0bert

pelican,

'...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. '

Now you're getting ridiculous. If this is the general opinion of the difference in strength in men and women, it's no wonder a male victim of DV is humiliated by reporting it. There are also many weapons around the house for a woman to use.

' an entitlement to bash a person to within an inch of their life'
It's not entitlement and I never mentioned entitlement. I think you deliberately misrepresent me. I'm talking about women taking some responsibility for their actions. As Robert says,

'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.
'

I would add to that it's a lot of responsibility to put on men that they must defend themselves using just enough force to protect themselves and also not hurt their partner. The current attitudes leaves men defenseless, as women are free to totally lose control of themselves and be violent, while men must control the whole situation for both parties.

Is the population so thick that to discuss DV in any other way than Man=violent abuser, Women=powerless victim somehow gives men an excuse of 'she was asking for it'? Asking women to be involved in the solution to DV is not blaming the victim. Telling women that they sometimes have control over not escalating a dispute into violence would be a good preventative measure.

yvonne,

Good point about the 'Work Place Health and Safety'. Even if less women are injured at work, why not one or two adverts depicting a woman's danger? That's all I expect of the DV adverts. I would be happy with even one out of seven scenarios showing women abusing men.

Hi all

The argument seems to be one of equity, and I suspect that society is, to an extent, so geared towards "men against women" violence because of what must be a massive under-reporting by men who are attacked by women. Yvonne makes the (excellent) opposite point in her workplace danger analogy, of course.

So what do you guys do when you are attacked by a woman? Hit back, or restrain her (if that's possible)? We really need to find a solution to this; in at least one state, legislation was brought in that when a violent dispute erupted, the man was hauled off regardless of who was the instigator, and imprisoned. This had overwhelming results for some of the men who were later acquitted of any blame but by that time, had lost their jobs, their standing in the community, their self-esteem, and the locks had been changed on their homes. It was a really terrible state of affairs.

Maybe it's also that women can be very good at being "victims" and can also be very manipulative, including with the authorities.

I think that if you are attacked physically by a woman (and the power dynamics aren't always one-sided; in some households the woman hold the power if she makes more money, for example, and that can lead to emotional/psychological abuse as well), you must report it. It might balance the scales a little and have the extent of the problem properly recognized.

Cheers
Nicky

Some of the feminist propaganda my partner has received from the early childhood centre (Where she was asked if I hit her and was she scared of me as a routine question) actually explains some of the common dynamics between men and women.

It says women like to see their emotions reflected, and men are more likely to close off in emotional conflict. The more the argument escalates, the more the man closes off, the more hysterical the woman gets.

It basiaclly says men are inferior to woman and can only be violently aggressive or totally withdraw in conflict.

But I can imagine how this could work in domestic disputes. A woman becoming more and more hysterical, and pushing and shoving to try and get some reaction out of a withdrawing man. The dispute escalates until she is throwing things, then maybe slapping and even punching, kicking until the guy finally lashes out, switching to violent agression mode. At this stage he is guilty of domestic violence, and Australia says no to this, while she is a victim and you cant blame the victim, but I've been through that already.

Now if this is a common dynamic (leaving aside the other more one sided dynamic of controlling behaviour), surely it would be prudent to include women in the mix, so they may recognise and change their behaviour as well as men. Why do we always see things in the boundaries of men must change, and men have responsibility for the situation? Or do we really only see domestic violence as violent controlling man attacking scared women?