Part 2

I was looking for numbers/rates relevant to Australia and found a PHD paper at http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1045/2/Bradfield_ch1.pdf which is looking at the treatment of women by the legal system who kill abusive partners. It appears to be written based on support for the idea that DV is highly genderised from what I've read so far.

Chapter one claims that 88.6% of homicides are committed by men and that when women do kill it's normally a family member who is the victim. AIC research refered to in the paper claims that male offenders killed their partners in 77.4% of homocides between current or former spouses. Genderised but not so much that we should completely ignore the other 22.6%.

The paper points out that other factors come into this as well, remote indiginous communities are more dangerous for spousal homocide (and deaths may be underreported) and that migrant males are more likely to kill female partners than australian born males (but that trend does not show for migrant females).
Philipino women in Australia are at 6 times greater risk than other women.

I don't like much of the commentary the author adds, it relies to much in my view on the genderised paradimes of DV at lower levels. The author looks at previous DV as a factor but of the stuff I've read so far only seems to consider a history of male violence in the relationship - that may be addressed elsewhere but I did not get that impression.

R0bert

Thanks for the link Robert.

Still concerning that in that same report there is evidence that domestic violence is decreasing, but that the number of women being killed by partners is increasing. Though the number of men killed at the hand of their spouses is not.

Read up on the reasons 'Why men kill'.

No matter which way anybody wants to twist, facts like '1/5 of all homicides are spousal homicides'. 'Women are more likely to be the victim than the offender'. 'The number of female victims is increasing' as opposed to 'male victims' and the overall incidence of DV. All unfortunate facts that still point to the experiences of people who meet the ambulances at ED and in ICU's. There are female victims most often at the hand of intimates, male victims at the hand of other men.

This in no way dimishes that there are other serious victims of crimes. It does not ignore other victims. But what is the agenda to dimish and downplay the effects of a large number of victims? 'An average of 3 killings per fortnight' is an alarming number in anybody's book surely.

Violence is genderised. Many more men resort to serious physical violence than do women. What is so hard to accept about that fact?

The violence perpetrated by a number of men comes at a huge public and private cost.

The gender of a dead body as the result of violence remains a dead body. The genders of the perpetrator and victim are facts that cannot be altered just because it doesn't suit any persons' agenda. Doesn't matter who reports on that with whatever agenda.

There is this core of men who insist that whatever applies to some men must apply to ALL men. Why is that? Not all Women think so. Feminist or otherwise. I've in my 50 years not met an all men hating woman. Regardless what her experiences have been with any individual man.

Anansi:"An average of 3 killings per fortnight' is an alarming number in anybody's book surely."

Yes it is and it deserves our intense consideration. Men are killing themselves at an average of 3 per DAY, yet prevention of suicide is given not even a fraction of the funding or publicity that the prevention of DV is given.

Whilst I don't for a second suggest condoning DV, the topic is given hugely more weight in Government policies than it warrants in comparison to other very serious problems. That is largely because the topic has been genderised politically, making it very difficult for any politician to discuss it in any way that might be seen unfavourably by women's groups. This has lead to definitions broadened to the point of being risible, thus allowing inflation of statistics with very dubious claims vis a vis prevalence.

The subject has also been hijacked by interest groups, such as single mothers advocacy groups, who use it as a lever to secure greater funding.

Yes, serious DV is a terrible thing, but most so-called DV is not. Some is quite normal raised voices on both sides or slamming of doors and the like. Painting it all equally black without shading might be great for those wanting to push a barrow, but it doesn't help in understanding or in arriving at a fair and just balance in dealing with it.

Anansi, for the most part those arguing for violence by women against men to be addressed in campaigns are not asking for violence by men against women to be diminished or downplayed. Some fringe types do but thats not what I'm asking for nor do I think it's representative of what most others want yet the claim is put over and over again.

"But what is the agenda to dimish and downplay the effects of a large number of victims?"

Why is the agenda to diminsh and downplay the effects of serious violence on a smaller but substantial number of victims?

I think the numbers are convincing for lower level DV, I also think that the refusal of those who don't want womens violence addressed at all is the major factor in highlighting it. Why equality - it's probably true and it seems the only way to get anything is to prove that it is true.

Even if we went with a factor of 10 times the levels of violence by men against women as the reverse (I know some claim more but that seems at about the high end of the "research based claims") why don't we see the occasional male victim and female perpetrator in taxpayer funded anti-DV campaigns.

No one ever seems to answer the question as to why the answer has to be no anti-violence message to women.

R0bert

'No one ever seems to answer the question as to why the answer has to be no anti-violence message to women.
'
Exactly. I think there would be no fuss at all, if even 1 out of 7 or so depictions of violence in the campaign showed a woman instigating it. Even if she ended up being injured more, and we still had the perpetuation of womens exclusive hold on victim status, at least it would add some responsibility for women in violent domestic disputes.

Some warning to women that if you start throwing glasses around somebody will get hurt, more likely you.
Currently we have the expectation that men, being more likely physically stronger, have the responsibility to measure their response to violence by women (under no circumstances can men hit women) so that nobody gets hurt. While women bare no responsibility at all for domestic disputes. They are free to yell and push and do whatever, but if a man does the same, he's put into the same category as a guy who kills his wife or puts her in hospital. And that's not demonising men?

Anansi,

How is exclusively concentrating on domestic violence by men against women create a better outcome for women than concentrating on all domestic violence?

In the (however few in your opinion) situations where the cycle of violence is instigated and/or escalated by the female partner, leading to a male reaction which injures the female, doesn't education of these risks to the woman resulting from female behaviour in a relationship help reduce violence against women?

'Violence is genderised. Many more men resort to serious physical violence than do women. What is so hard to accept about that fact? '

Even if the fact is accepted, it has no bearing on the argument. The campaign sites pushing and yelling as violence. I could equally say why do you find it so hard to accept the fact that women are violent.

Are you at all concerned about violence in lesbian relationships which is proportionately more common than in heterosexual relationships?

"No one ever seems to answer the question as to why the answer has to be no anti-violence message to women."

It absolutely should be.

I know of someone whose ex-partner is violent. It's true, he is — but she neglected to tell the cops that she beat his door down when she was pissed and threw punches at him. It was only when he was trying to throw her out, and she resisted, kicking and screaming, down the hallway, that he lost it and beat her up.

The guy's a deadbeat, and I understand this woman's anger — he won't see his child at all or contribute to her upbringing. But she not only hurt him physically, but set in train events that would lead to only him being punished.

Domestic violence begats more violence. The message should help people solve problems productively, and encourage personal responsibility. It should be gender neutral.