Hi R0bert - I'm appreciating the dialogue with you too. I have a link for you on violence in lesbian relationships - it's interesting reading. I'll post it when I can.

Anansi - great posts thank you. Great to see some posts by someone else who understands the issues.

Btw Veronika - the point about DV isn't so much the one off bash up (though of course that is assault, and the results might be dreadful); DV is characterized by a long, slow process of terror - of belittling; of frightening the less powerful person; isolating them from help and from the resources to get themselves help (like money; use of a vehicle or phone, and so on). The vast majority of Dv is about controlling the partner by exercising undue power over them.

Often the rules that the victim breaks are petty, created on the spot and capriciously enforced - for example, I knew of a woman (baby in tow) who was subjected to a long, slow work up to a full blown flogging because her spouse objected to the shape of the boiled pumpkin on his plate. is story was that he was "provoked". Or there is the story of the man who beat every female in his house because he lost his own poclet comb. On another occasion it was a key. These examples are not even unusual. The character of them as a whole however is quite different to other types of assault.

For everyone who thinks that DV should be swept under the carpet again, which generalizing it to "all violence" would do... Can any of you say what was happening for victims of violence (female or male) before the first shelters were opened by women in Australia in the 1970s?

That is - what was the (male) dominant society doing for ANY victim of domestic assault before feminists raised it as an issue and showed how it is different from assault by a stranger?

cont'd

cont'd

What were the courts doing? The police? The neighbours? The parents and in-laws ? The doctors and teachers and anyone else who might have noticed a bruise or a black eye or unusual absences... ? When we bury the effects for the majority - we push it back into the social scenery, where awful things become invisible even when they are in plain view. We are talking about systems that help DV to be perpetrated. Whatever victims we are talking about - we cannot afford to hide the effects on 85% of them.

http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/women_and_politics/suffr7.htm

Pynchme,

I take your point about long-term abuse. I also understand that throwing the dust cloth off female violence can lead to some violent men claiming provocation in defence of their own violence. But if it's true, if it happens, if men are getting physically hurt by women, then how can we ignore it? How can we justify — as feminists, who believe in equality — that some men are being harmed and haven't got the resources to seek help?

You say: "For everyone who thinks that DV should be swept under the carpet again, which generalizing it to "all violence" would do..."

Would generalising it to all violence sweep it under the carpet again? Why can't we trust the general public with the message: "Domestic violence happens. We usually think of it as male on female, and that happens, but women can also be violent. If you're a victim, go here for help." Or whatever. I don't think we need to generalise the message; in fact, we need to expand the message.

As it is, isn't the status quo sweeping the issue of female on male domestic violence under the carpet?

It is because feminism has excelled in uncovering domestic violence that we should be doing something to assist the men who are victims from it too. That will only happen when we proclaim from the rooftops that some women are violent to their partners.

Pynchme, when I talk about DV I'm talking about all abusive behaviour in a domestic situation which is as I understand it pretty much the message in the anti-DV camapigns (except that it is depicted as 100% genderised in those campaigns).

I think that power in the home comes in a lot of forms of which physical strength is but one. Power can come in pretty much any form where you have an edge or advantage over the other person. To focus on just physical strength does not do justice to the complexities of relationships. Physical strength is only significant where you are willing to use it against a partner or where the partner thinks that you are willing to use it against them.

Is there any reason why someone with a gift for cutting words and manipulative behaviour can't do the following to a stronger partner they know can't hit them?

"The long slow process of terror - of belittling; of frightening the less powerful person; isolating them from help and from the resources to get themselves help (like money; use of a vehicle or phone, and so on). The vast majority of Dv is about controlling the partner by exercising undue power over them."

I think that one of the problems with the DV research that shows DV to be genderised is that definitions for DV based on genderised assumptions (power in domestic situations, physical strength etc) and then gathers stats on that basis but does not spell out the underlying assumptions when results are presented to the public.

I appreciate many of the advances which have come from the work of feminism but sometimes that does not go far enough. Some are still working just to help women without seemingly thinking through the broader context and I think DV is one of those issues. Bringing violence against women to the fore has been very important, it's time for the next stage of working to reduce all violence.

Veronika, thanks for your comments.

R0bert

Btw, Pynchme is an American activist whose career probably depends on feminism continuing to exist. Activists like Pynchme often become involved in Australian domestic affairs by supporting NGOs here in Australia (and install/support/fund extremists in them, like our Bravehearts organisation).

Here are sockpuppets that actually mean something in terms of Australian sovereignty with implciations for our democratic process rather than the petty squabbles CJ Morgan finds is a good use of his time.

Steel Pynchme is discussing the issues politely with me and at least giving some reasons why inclusion of violence against men by women in anti-DV campaigns is so strongly opposed by some. I don't happen to agree with Pynchme in that but an opinions site where we agreed with everybody would be pretty boring.

Nothing I've read has lead me to think that Pynchme is basically dishonest or hates men so I think there is value in having the discussion. If nothing else others may start to pay attention to the difference between what they hear about DV and what the realities are.

I suspect that a lot who've heard all those stats about the overwhelming majority of DV being committed by men don't realise that the definitions of DV used to get those stats are genderised. Discussions liek this might help some to realise that and look a bit deeper.

Swapping insults across the fence with activists (if Pynchme is one) does not broaden anybodies thinking, extend compassion or change anybodies mind.

R0bert