"It is NOT UP TO MEN to define and decide what constitutes the female experience of violence" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153$47560

True, but equally true

"It is NOT UP TO WOMEN to define and decide what constitutes the male experience of violence"

Rather we should all pay attention to what those of the other gender are telling us about their experience.

I've described my own experiences of formal suppport known yet Pynchme continues to insist that support for men experiencing DV is just fine. No it's not. Perhaps so oblivious to the harm done by the focus on gender that you can't see the impact that gender focus will have on male victims seeking help, getting past the screening process, telling the truth when asked about how they sustained an injury etc.

The only "male" post I can recall on this thread which has dismissed violence against women was one by Steel early in the thread which I commented on at the time yet the males who are asking for public support against all violence are condemed for not having any empathy for female victims as if the only way to have empathy for female victims is to consider male victims as less important. A number of us have made it clear that we know that at the extreme end of the spectrum women outnumber men as victims. We've also made it clear that we would like campaigns working to stop all violence.

Too lessen the extreme end of the DV spectrum we need to reduce the lower level behaviours, the stuff that builds to become major harm. We need to get away from the idea that any level of violence within a spousal relationship is wrong regardless of who does it or how bothered by the other parties attitudes or actions they may be.

R0bert

As long as several people here continue to blame women for the retaliatory violence perpetrated by men in domestic violence situations (the "she made me do it" excuse), there can be no progression in this discussion. These few people don't understand, or care about, their "she made me do it" excuse. And with such writings, they have genderised the issues more, much more, than anyone else.

People often blame others for their own violence, and the courts are full of such people.

I'm very happy to clear that up for you, Robert and antiseptic/austin powerless.

Hi everyone,
I had to go away for a while and found a zillion email alerts in my inbox when I came back- so much to catch up on, thanks!

I have to make a choice about the argument I most wanted to respond to since I’ve been away and decided to single out Romany’s list of agreements because I’d be interested in discussing a little more about the verbal/psychological form of DV Romany included as part of the 5th point.

“5) there are actually two different forms of domestic violence and this difference needs to be brought to public attention.”

Before I could confidently bring it to public attention though, I feel it's a good idea if we could try to agree on some kind of definition or clear description of the non-physical form of DV.
I think that this would help me form a better opinion of it and perhaps a clear definition would prevent unnecessary arguments in future debates about DV.

It’s clear that physical abuse and sexual violence as well as verbal abuse are all a part of a system of abusive behaviour, but the former two terms are pretty clear and well understood, while it’s a bit harder to draw the line between, or to recognise the difference between domestic arguments and domestic violence.

I found a description on the site I linked to and wonder if you all agree with the differences outlined below or do you suggest alterations/additions?

http://www.infoxchange.net.au/wise/DVIM/DVDynamics.htm
a) Domestic Arguments
“…neither partner becomes an identifiable victim or abuser because neither party has more power or control than the other. This can be a healthy way to resolve differences…”

b) Domestic Violence
”… occurs in relationships where conflict is the continuous result of power inequality between the partners and one partner is afraid of, and harmed by the other…”
“…presents the primary tactics and behaviours individual abusers use to establish and maintain control in their relationships. “

R0bert:

Re: Pynch: "It is NOT UP TO MEN to define and decide what constitutes the female experience of violence" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2153$47560
(that link doesn't work - where was it to take us?)

R0b: True, but equally true

R0b: "It is NOT UP TO WOMEN to define and decide what constitutes the male experience of violence"

Pynch: Show an example of where I have done that.

R0b: Rather we should all pay attention to what those of the other gender are telling us about their experience.

Pynch: Yes we should. So when are you and Antiseptic going to start ?

- and to continue: I have never said that all services are just fine; or that men don't deserve to obtain services. Quite the opposite. Please stop telling lies about what I say or dramatizing for effect. However, you haven't acknowledged the existing avenues of support that I've mentioned, nor commented on action that you and other men could take.

Instead all we get is, "Wahh wahhhhh women get everything!" (when we don't; other than a lion's share of serious injuries.).

When women started supporting each other, they had NOTHING except the condemnation of people like you to motivate them.

What's wrong with you starting a support group?

There are some men's organizations and clusters - what are they doing to raise funds amongst themselves and/or from the private sector?

You are not going to get all that you want (and that some of you deserve as far as suffering at the hands of someone abusive) by denigrating the experience of or battling to reduce services for women.

Lastly - why start with the less serious incidents of DV? What exactly do you mean by that? What - I should turn away someone who turns up needing medical attention, in favour of some bloke whose missus has slapped him?

Try to outline your proposal please so that it can be understood and so that it represents a workable course of action. Thanks.

Pynchme:"Yes we should. So when are you and Antiseptic going to start ?"

Are you serious? Both R0bert and myself have told our experiences several times, which garnered little response other than vituperation from the women, at least as an initial reaction.

However, to recap, my experience is of being falsely accused of violence in the context of a custody court case. The result of the unsupported allegation was that I was prevented from seeing my children for over 7 months by the full force of the law. That was despite the DVLO who actually served me with the interim order volunteering that she could see no grounds for any allegation of actual violence. The only reason for the DVO application was to bolster the claim of my children's mother for greater custody and hence greater entitlement to both Govt support and to child support. In the end, she was unsuccessful in both endeavours.

Is that clear enough? Would you like me to reiterate it again in a couple of pages?

Pynchme:"battling to reduce services for women."

You simply can't help misrepresenting opposing arguments, can you? I guess when you've been part of the DV industry for a while it must become second nature. No one has even suggested "reducing services for women", but you consistently try to claim they have. Get over it and try to engage on the words, not your own stupid strawmen, please.

Celivia, with respect, the Duluth model is what the DV ndustry is trying to foist upon us here in Australia today and it stinks. The assumption is made that the man is always at fault and that the woman is a helpless and hapless victim under all circumstances. having seen the way in which the thinking that lies behind this model can be twisted to produce very bad outcomes, I am not a supporter.

However, the link did provide quite a good definition of argument as opposed to DV. I'd go so far as to say that the majority of so-called DV is actually argument as that link defines it.

The fact is that people do get angry and they do raise their voices and they sometimes even hit or throw things at walls with no threat to their spouse. The trouble with the Duluth model is that if a woman decides she is getting the worse end of the discussion or simply in order to gain some other advantage, she can simply claim to feel threatened and the man is automatically carted off and given a DVO, while she is given cossetted treatment and lots of sympathetic words. That creates a massive power imbalance and the incentive to use it, which is endlessly promoted by the DV industry.

If such a power is to be given, like all great power it must be tempered with responsibility. As it stands at present, there is no penalty for a woman making a false claim of DV and no way for the accused to get a speedy hearing, largely because of the spurious cases clogging the system, I suspect. Until a way of enforcing the responsibility of the accuser is found, I will continue to oppose the laws and the models they are based on.