At the risk of wandering into rugby League bashing territory, 'new evidence' has come to light in the Greg Inglis case.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/leaquehq/girlfriend-puts-new-slant-on-inglis-row/2009/08/13/1249756400913.html

'The signed statement ... is understood to refer to Inglis trying to disarm Ms Robinson while she was in the process of self-harm.'

Of course, that could be some very useful PR spin, but I want to use it for a different discussion.

Having been in that situation myself, I know how hard it can be. With the latest government funded 'To Violence against women, Australia says no', we've missed a trick.

Maybe some are happy with men taking responsibility for all domestic disputes because they are more likely to be more physically powerful, but I think the campaign and assumptions are unfair on a lot of men.

Any man who's had a drunk, abusive, violent female partner to deal with knows it's no picnic. Couples have problems, sometimes they try to fight through them to better times. But when we have Zero Tolerance for one partner, and no responsibility for the (admittedly often physically weaker) other it does nothing but hinder this process.

Men are given sole responsibility for all domestic disputes due to the expectation they are physically stronger. But they are human. They aren't counsellors, they aren't saints ready to cop a beating and stay cool and calm and protect themselves from injury while not using too much force, while still protecting a hysterical partner threatening self harm.

Walk away you say!

Tell i'm he's dreamin'. This is someone you love, who will attack you if you stay, and threaten to top themselves if you leave. No matter how physically powerful you are assumed to be, you can feel bloody helpless in this position.

Get some help you say!

How confident would you feel turning up to any government sponsored domestic violence initiative after those adverts?

People deplore any woman 'standing by their man', but what if it's been the man standing by his woman for so long that has caused this mess?

H,
Ting! "no sale"
In truth there were/are several options open to him that don't involve the government or their agencies. Half a brain and a telephone book would have told him that.

At some point we must all face up to our issues instead of finding excuses not to ....it's called being an adult.

Neither am I sitting here with a rope making a noose singing 'hang down your head Greg Inglis' with references to wide Oak trees.

We simply don't know enough and therefore specific speculation is pointless.

And you aren't interested in 'theoretical conversation' I wonder what is your point/motive/objective.

I suspect it's the usual "poor male bugger me"

Houellebecq, how about one of your excellent summaries of the discussion to follow? We've played this one so often it should be an easy task.

I agree with most of what you have written (altough I'd be cautious about reading too much into what's known of the Inglis case yet. It's ugly that incidents like that go so public without evidence being considered and if the surmising is true then it's far better if some healing and help can go on away from the public spotlight. Difficult after the initial allegations have been all over the media.

Some here, both women and men have suffered very personally in DV situations, it's almost always a very emotive issue. I do recall one discussion (but I can't think which) where we seemed to get past the worst of the gender war stuff and started listening talking.

At the serious harm end of DV women do suffer greater physical injury. I've not had to live with the constant fear of serious harm as a result of a stronger partner but I accept that as an issue male victims don't generally have to face. I had periods of concern that a weapon might be used but not the day in day out fear that many women report facing. My fears were about the harm done to mine and my son's life if I left, about trying to find a way to change the situation and failing.

I hope that you are not just prodding at the carcase out of curiosity, trying to stir things up.

R0bert

Houel these rock and hard place situations are just life. Sometimes we remain trapped with no easy solution. Especially if we believe that without our sacrifice others will suffer, even if it means the suffering of the person harming you.

I’ve had male and female friends who I knew were being beaten up and now and again I got to witness it. Help scares them; they could lose their kids if they speak out. Every time was the last time.

They’re broken, it is near impossible to convince them they or the partner they chose needs fixing.

I would prefer a more non gender specific approach to any advertising campaign.

If a man wasn’t inclined to seek help before then he wasn’t going to anyway.

Haha examinator,

So inconsistent.

'It is too easy to use the 'caveat emptor' stance and then condemn...holus bolus. On one hand Throw a handful of money then on the other criticise without being prepared their NEEDS. (the same flawed principal is applied to our indigenous peoples).'

pontificator.

'We are all culpable for the mess and scapegoating it to the least powerful...'

pontificator.

So which is it? Should people just be responsible for themselves, or should we rely on the government to put nice little adverts like 'To Violence against Women. Australia says NO'?

And then when men are violent, in the pontificators mind, away goes those earlier notions of caring for those poor souls who are in a bad place, in need of help rather than the judgemental eye. Oh such a rubbery man you are!

'Is it sneering to acknowledge that not all people have the same knowledge experience which can (not exclusively) be as a result of conditions and lack of opportunity out of their control.'

pontificator.

Sneering at these men and watering the argument down to something simple these brutes can understand ('Australia says no') as you go.

It might be trite in your mind but unless we aim higher we are doomed to repeat the past...which is what these men are probably doing. Better to treat a complex problem with simple slogans isn't it? Aye? (Sorry I couldn't fit in a reference to humanity being poo)

robert,

This stuff is just for you man. It will help you patch up with SJF too.

TPP, "would prefer a more non gender specific approach to any advertising campaign."

I second that, it was unacceptable stereotyping for a political agenda.