(perhaps because of where I'm writing from my last post seems to have been written AFTER yours. It wasn't.)

I really think that the proposal you put forward was great. Not only does it highlight the problem, but provides for solutions. I just hope that some of those letters you write are to relevant groups and organisations etc. putting forward this eminently feasible idea, yeah?

If Colonel Blimp and DB can meet up off-line to rubbish other OLO contributers, maybe you and Robert should make contact off-OLO and see if the two of you could work better together on addressing this question that you can seperately?

However, if a person is unlucky enough to be teamed up with one of the "sociopath"-type partners, the message that all their problems can be solved through meaningful dialogue or whatever means one envisages showcasing, might make them even more reluctant to come forward as they would take their failure to effect change as their own fault, perhaps?

Romany, I might e pre-judging them too harshly (or being defeatist) but past experience with trying to discuss these issues with people in the industry tells me I don't need the hurt. Those I have spoken to are so tied up in the paradime of DV being a male thing that you don't get listened to, more likely it will be assumed that you are an abuser.

I've focussed my efforts here because I get a chance to put my case, because many of those I deal with here are more intellectually honest so there is a chance that a well put case will get a hearing, because of those who read but don't write who might take away some understanding of the other side of the issue. It also helps that I can maintain anonimity here.

Early on I tried writing to pollies and other stuff and discovered that their lack of interest (away from election times) is something I'd rather not get too many reminders of. I've talked to enough people involved in the industry to be convinced that they are not the ones to be talking to.

I'd rather talk to people such as yourself, Celivia and Fractelle who have seen the otherside but are still willing to be fair, who try to understand and who will if the evidence is convincing be willing to change viewpoints.

R0bert

Antiseptic, your suggestion would actually be an excellent advertising campaign.

I would say that a series of advertising like that would actually make people wait for the next 'episode' so the speak. Wouldn't it make for some great conversation out on the street/work and at home? I suggest that more people would be able to come forward and examine their own experiences. Good and bad.

Give your idea to an advertising company and make sure you get a percentage of the earnings!!

Robert, to get any change you have to keep on chip, chipping. It is like erosion: constant, but eventually even rocks get worn down.

Anansi, if you want to cut a diamond you have to cut it at the right place :) . I've played a bit with stone carving and I intend to do more. Chipping at the hardest spots blunts the tools and may damage the rest of the stone.

I'd rather put my efforts where they have some chance of success, talking to the millitants in the DV industry is a bit like trying to convince our most intractible anti-feminist that feminisms not as he imagines it to be.

I'd like it so that when people see a definition of DV that describes a small proportion of spousal violence and then see that followed up by a statistic about the number of women who experience violence from a spousal partner they will ask "Are they describing the same thing and if not why are they trying to link the two?" or "if they are telling me about that why are they not telling me how many men or how many children experience similar violence?".

I'd like it if when we see an article that is completely genderised we ask why and would the message loose anything valuable if it was not completely genderised? I think many have gotten so used to the generised message that they no longer ask those questions, we don't stop and ask outselves how we would feel if the same treatment was given to another group.

I'll be pleased when people hear a genderised speech, see a genderised add or read a genderised webpage and ask themselves if they are seeing a genuine attempt to reduce all violence or rather a shot in someones cherished gender war.

R0bert

R0bert: "talking to the millitants in the DV industry"

You can never change the mind of the militant. You are targeting the wrong people, they (your militants) see many people who ARE difficult and who ARE pursuing vendettas. Gets hard to see the forest for the trees sometimes.

Persistence pays, target your local MP's (and other high ranking citizens), always remain polite, put everything in writing. This is advice I have followed myself and given to people who approached me about about government policies I couldn't change when I was a public servant. Many people in pressured jobs such as family services, policing, immigration etc, resort to a hard line in order to both protect themselves and to take the easy way out as in never admitting to being wrong - they are drones just doing a job and trying not to burn out. I did burn out, but I also managed to help a few people. My choice, no regrets: that's often the way it is in stressful jobs.

Have a standard template letter, and simply update it every couple of weeks, as in "I haven't heard back", or "thought I'd ensure you had received my last letter"; believe me the squeaky wheel does eventually get oiled. How do you think women managed to get the vote? Not by giving up the first time someone told us to go home and look after our husbands.

Romany, Anansi, Celivia and others thank you for giving me the strength to keep contributing here - your frank honesty is inspirational to all who read these pages.

Romany, Anansi, thanks for the kind words regarding my suggestion. Sadly, as long as the current obsession with the Duluth model remains in force, there is little chance of such a campaign getting funding. As Fractelle said, the principal attraction is the ease of administration of a "hardline" approach, which means that poorly-trained people can be placed in jobs such as police, DOCS, etc that should be more sensitively managed. A "hardline" outcome is also easily measured - it either happens or it doesn't, which makes performance targets easy to set and monitor. The people who are the supposed beneficiaries of the interventions are the least important in this type of approach.

Fractelle, I write to MPs regularly. On average I receive a response to perhaps 10% of my correspondence, usually of the form "Thanks for your interest" and nothing more. Those in politics have very clearly already decided that the Duluth model is what we will have and that's that. It's purely and simply expedience, since any protestor can be dismissed as "disaffected" or "misogynist" and hence ignored. Additionally, there are treaty obligations arising from the mistreatment of women in some third-world countries that mean discriminating against men is easier than formulating treaty-compliant laws that treat all parties equally. Politicians are human and will take the easier path if available.

Nonetheless, I'll keep bashing away at the wall. Sooner or later a crack must appear, since the current arrangements are neither effective nor sustainable.