Nicky, I don't think reporting is a lot of use while public perceptions about DV are as they are. I've not seen stats for Australia but have seen material from the UK which showed that a significant proportion of men who called the police to report a DV incident where arrested (I think around 20% but can't find the material at the moment).

My impression is that police and workers in the family relationships field have been given an especially heavy dose of the DV is something men do indoctrination. I called the police once, not over physical abuse but verbal. It was after we seperated, my ex was in my home being extremely verbally abusive, following me around the home and refusing to leave.

A situation that could easily have escalated. It took almost an hour for them to call back to confirm that they were not required. In the mean time my ex had called the AFP to complain about me not handing over our son to her (it was not the agreed changeover time and I did not want him going with her while she was in that state). They rang back very quickly to find out what was going on.

As I mentioned earlier a number of counsellors made the point that she was smaller than me so her violence was not really an issue.

Reporting without confidence that your report will be treated with respect or impartiality just risks worsening the situation.

We have to change the public portrayal of DV so that it is recognised that DV is not about the gender of the perpetrator it's about violence and needs to be stopped. Until that occurs victims of female violence are between a rock and a hard place.

R0bert

Pelican, I mostly agree with your comments about the opinions of women and men on this topic. However, point out that R0bert is one male poster who doesnt deny the seriousness of the issue for female victims, despite pushing for greater recognition of male victims. I dont think I can recall seeing anything other than a level-headed attitude from him.

US, I actually agree with a lot of what you have said here (ok, pick yourself up now!). However, I dont think that there has been a deliberate attempt from the "feminist brigade" to marginalise the issue of female violence and the problem of relatiatory violence. There is no doubt that this has happened, but instead of being deliberate, I think its been an outcome of trying to ensure that badly abused women particularly those that have been emotionally abused as well, are able to muster enough self-esteem to walk out of a dangerous situation. Catering to the extreme has allowed the middle-ground to get more cloudy. I dont know of an answer to address the problem though, which doesnt put those women at the extreme end in more danger (and I am fairly sure that not even the women-haters that post here from time to time would see that as being a good outcome). I am open to ideas though, about how to address the murky middle-grounds where men may very well be getting unfairly treated, that also ensures the extreme end doesnt end up worse-off.

The problem with the advertising campaigns so far is that they are trying to address childhood indoctrinations (those from abusive backgrounds are likely to repeat such).

Country Gal,

' I think its been an outcome of trying to ensure that badly abused women particularly those that have been emotionally abused as well, are able to muster enough self-esteem to walk out of a dangerous situation. Catering to the extreme has allowed the middle-ground to get more cloudy.'

I can understand your point, and nobody wants women being abused, but I think too much legislation is based on protecting women at ANY cost to men. The definition of DV has been widened from hitting, to pushing, to yelling, to lately not allowing your spouce to use the car or ATM card. With the actions above effectively condoned for women and not men, and the expectation a man has a lot more to lose in custody and his home and CSA in the event of divorce, there is so much scope for men to be abused. It probably greatly contributes to the suicide rate. In a lot of cases women hold all the cards, and also have all the government agencies supporting them and looking for an abusive man in any situation when the opposite might well be the case.

All our laws are based on the framework of protecting women, at any cost to men. They give women the benefit of the doubt, and expect women will not abuse these laws.

The laws are there because some men have abused their power, and in effect punish all men for the actions of a few. They also ignore the fact that women have a lot more power than they used to, and are not the innocent virtuous creatures they were made to look when they had a lot less power.

Usual Suspect,

I do agree with a lot of what you say but you are misrepresenting some of my earlier statements. I do understand that male victims of DV might feel humiliated by coming forward but this does not diminish my earlier argument about the physical differences between most men and women.

I am a small framed woman of just under average height and my partner is 6'3 and larger framed. Luckily he is not a physically or emotionally abusive person but I would stand little chance if it came down to a physical fight. Naturally, as a level headed person, I would not instigate or stir the pot by inflaming a heated situation. This is what I mean I think we all when we talk about personal responsibility.

It may surprise you to know that some of the most severely battered women are not abusive or inflamatory. Often they are meek pensive women who seek to reduce any risk of being abused by restricting and limiting their behaviour into a 'safe zone'. The fact is in most cases of consistent abusive behaviour, the men do not require much instigation.

While I understand the points you are making I am not willing to deflect or diminish the truth about domestic violence towards women.

What is needed, as I said previously, is for us all to work in unison rather than in opposition to reduce the incidence of violence overall. But you choose to ignore that aspect of my comments and cherrypick statements out of context with the rest of my previous post.

The strange thing is that underneath it all we are probably arguing for the same result but coming at it from opposite ends. Maybe?

Countrygirl,

I take on board all the above comments and agree that not all men exhibit that view.

Robert

You are one of the men on here who can see the issue from both sides and accept that there are grey areas and sometimes the issue is difficult because we all view it from our own personal experiences and I guess from the viewpoint of our gender (not to be too generalising).

yvonne

I agree with you about the Workcover Ad and it would be surprising if any women felt any sense of persecution or outrage because there are no women depicted. The fact is that men do perform most of the dangerous or high risk roles in society - mining, construction and defence for example. The fact that a man is depicted does not diminish the fact that we all require adequate health and safety standards at work.

As Nicky said (I think it was Nicky), this argument should be about coming up with solutions.

pelican,

'While I understand the points you are making I am not willing to deflect or diminish the truth about domestic violence towards women. '

This is the crux of it isn't it. Any discussion of men being hit, or women instigating something is somehow translated to an attempt to diminish the 'truth'. That being only women are victims, and it's in really bad taste to discuss a man being a victim. Just why cant both be the case? Why does discussing the dynamics of a relationship where a woman holds the power diminish the other times when men hold the power?

I know the rules now. If you are to discuss the (apparently miniscule) chance a woman is in the position of power, you are really just trying to defelect the blame or diminish the suffereing of female victims of male power. This is exactly the feminist PC tactics I am talking about, and the reason the adverts were structured in a way to totally deny any male victims You are so transparent it's not funny.

Just where have I attempted to diminish the suffering of female victims of domestic violence? It seems to discuss male victims, one must start by writing a disclaimer of how terrible you feel about the female victims. So, talk about male victims is allowed, as long as you don't threaten women's exclusive entitlement to victim status.