Apologies - been at a conference and not checked in for a while but now having caught up here I'm going to address the last remark:

"I've never understood why some people consider intimate partner violence to be somehow qualitatively different to being bashed in the street."

Having been involved in both here's what I think: no matter what our culture most of us subscribe in some way to the "my home is my refuge" idea. Home is where we can barricade the doors, or laager in the wagons to keep out the violence that may be being waged on the streets. Its the place we look forward to escaping to from outsiders. Predominantly, however, its the place we envisage in which our children will always be safe. Where we can protect them and nurture them and make the often scary world outside recede for them.

Domestic violence ensures that there is no escape. It means we are constantly in a state of tense, adrenelin-pulsing fear.It means that we can't protect our children. It ensures we feel that at the basic level of being able to protect those who depend on us we are failures. We add to our physical fear the fear that our children will lose all respect and faith not just in us but in the world.

If our kids are bullied at school, or fall over in the playground, or dread exams, or witness accidents, or fall prey to predators out on the streets, their home should be a place they want to go to feel safe. Domestic violence robs them of this basic right. As it does those who experience it from their partners.

O.K., so that is an emotional answer. Biologically speaking the purpose of adrenelin is aid us in emergency situations providing the ability for the much-vaunted fright or flight response. Out bodies cannot cope with huge amounts of this chemical flooding our systems constantly. It leads to chemical imbalances which manifest in dozens of ways. Domestic violence - whether we are participants or witnesses - ensures these imbalances proliferate.

Romany, that's NOT an "emotional" answer. What you speak is truth and fact.

Antiseptic says he can't see the difference between street and domestic violence (he's written that), and therein lies his misogyny . *But* I'm sure he's not so inane and unintelligent that he *really* can't see the difference. As usual, he's playing games in his inane posts. He thinks it's smart to call female strangers who don't share his opinions "hon", and he uses other such inane attempted put downs on other threads regularly. That's the way misogynists write. He ALWAYS resorts to personal attack, then complains when people reply in kind. His behaviour speaks for itself.

'Antiseptic says he can't see the difference between street and domestic violence (he's written that), and therein lies his misogyny .'

Seeing violence as violence regardless of the setting = misogyny.

That's a pretty big stretch.

I do however agree with Romany's explination of the difference. Though I wont again have the temerity to address her directly, after already been burned for that before. (Romany has a strict code where if she posts to another poster, one is not allowed to address those comments. Perhaps she made an exception for herself with anti in this case)

Romany:"their home should be a place they want to go to feel safe"
Which is reasonable, but so is an expectation of being able to go out at night without risking being bashed for looking the wrong way at someone. I still see no qualitative difference. Besides, we're talking about intimate partner violence, not violence directed at children. Conflating the interests of children with the interests of just one of their parents is one of the significant failures of the misandric DV campaigns.

SallyG:"He thinks it's smart to call female strangers who don't share his opinions "hon""

"Smart" hon? I use the term regularly with all sorts of women I don't know. I also call men I don't know "mate". Somehow, I don't find it surprising that few people call you "hon", however.

BTW, hon, your entire post was an ad hominem directed at me. Poor thing, you must be hurting.

Antiseptic,
Romany is correct to say that children are victims of domestic violence, too.
I can imagine how they feel when they have to witness violence against someone they love by someone else they love.
You only have to google ‘domestic violence and children’ and a myriad of links will come up to tell you that children are the victims of domestic violence, too. It’s impossible to deny this.
Why do you think we protect children from violent movies by M-rating them? DV happens between the people that they love, which is likely to harm them more than a movie about strangers.

http://www.medicineau.net.au/clinical/paediatrics/paediatric2277.html
”At Child and Family Health we see many children who are referred because of attention/concentration problems, anxiety, depression, school refusal, aggression, sleep disturbances, self harming behaviours, continence problems, and others. In working with those children and their families, in many cases, it becomes clear that these referring problems are some of the symptoms of the compounded impact of domestic abuse within the child’s family.”

If the info from the article by Michael Flood I link to is correct, then addressing DV male victims will have only a minimal effect on reducing the violence experienced by men overall, but will have a much bigger effect on violence experienced by women.

” While from victimisation surveys, one-third of violence against women was domestic, versus less than 1 percent of violence against men.”
http://www.xyonline.net/husbandbattering.shtml
So when UsualSuspect thinks that ALL violence should be addressed, not domestic violence specifically, I understand where he comes from- from a male POV.
For males it would probably more effective to address all violence as a whole.

But for women such specific campaign DOES make sense, since females are by far more the victims in their own homes than males are, the positive effect a DV violence campaign will have on their safety makes such specific campaign worthwhile.

So, a campaign about domestic violence specifically, rather than campaigning against all violence is justified when you take into account that such a large proportion of not only women, but children as well, are victimised by it.

Celivia:"a myriad of links will come up to tell you that children are the victims of domestic violence, too"

I'm not disputing that, but this thread is discussing the subject of violence against women, as Rudd stated it.

Celivia:"such a large proportion of not only women, but children as well, are victimised by it"

If you regard that proportion as large, you must think the number of male victims of violence, at nearly 3 times as large, is positively gargantuan. If the issue of violence against women is so significant as to require the massive spending and advertising, then the issue of violence against men should be worth 3 times as much in a society that is truly egalitarian?

If, OTOH, you take the position that women are more deserving of a sense of safety than men are, your comment makes perfect sense.