Hi All, If I have posted this in the wrong thread sorry in advanced.

Just had what turned into a heated discussion with the missus and anyway, I thought I might get some opinions or perhaps some reliable statistics.

My wife has a couple of freinds going through custody battles and was complaining about how judges take favour of the male and proving a male is physically hurting children is very hard. For the record these 2 freinds of hers did have physical violence in their relationships.

MISTAKE #1: I suggested that judges see 100s of cases a month and most arguments resort to any lies being spun by either party.

She then suggested most relationship breakups are the fault of the men.

MISTAKE #2: (Mistake getting bigger) I suggested there are many grounds for divorce and it not always the male fault. She is only relying on her circle of freinds plus there are always 2 sides of a story to a divorce.

My wife then claims 30% of relationships involved the husband bashing the wife and/or kids and most divorces are due to physical violence.

MISTAKE #3: (Big mistake this time). Well I find that figure hard to believe and I would suggest the figure would be well below 10%. Oh and I accused her of being narrow minded and anti-male.

Anyway I am a sexist male (so I just got told). Can anyone point me to reliable statistics on this subject.

I would love to go back to my wife with some raw stats in my favour, even though she is unlikely to listen

Oh, and I dont want to sleep on the lounge everynight.

Cheers
H

Here you go. The just-released AIHW report into child abuse and neglect: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10859

The vast majority of abuse and neglect of children is perpetrated by their mother, according to both that document and other figures released by State agencies.

The ABS Personal Safety survey: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/4906.0?OpenDocument

from that report:"In the 12 months prior to the survey, there were an estimated 443,800 (5.8%) women who experienced an incident of violence compared to 808,300 (11%) men."

and: "During the 12 months prior to the survey 1.6% (126,100) of women and 0.6% (46,700) of men experienced an incident of sexual violence."

OTOH, your wife is quite right to say that most women going through contested custody matters try to claim that the father was violent. The CJ of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has recently called for the Family Law to be changed so that claims of violence may be properly examined by the Court. She made the point that over 50% of contested matters contain violence allegations, but that these rarely figure in the final orders sought, leading to the conclusion that they are probably spurious.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/family-court-in-the-dark-over-violence-says-judge-diana-bryant/story-e6frg97x-1225793355227

There is a great deal of misinformation peddled by single-mothers' advocates and by the Family Law industry, especially the ambulance-chasing Legal Aid lawyers who are so often involved in these sorts of matters. Their funding depends on the situation being "intractable" so they do whatever it takes to exacerbate the interpersonal conflicts that exist.

I hope your wife doesn't get too violent: making you sleep on the couch is a classic "controlling behaviour" used by women. Under the current definitions it is regarded as violent.

henyak,
Judging by your lines I'd suggest you look for a new wife. A woman, correction female, with this mentality will cause you grief for good.
btw she's not a teacher by any chance is she ?

henyak,
in my experience it's the hardest thing in the world to end a relationship. It sounds like the misses is making strong hints to me. There's nothing quite so liberating and empowering as ending a relationship!
I don't know the stats, but then stat's don't tell you a damn thing about individuals anyway. Take a walk around Australia, or read Montaigne, or both.
You're a long time dead, ol son!

henyak,

Not all women are like that - it was and is, your choice.

Well, divorce is a bit radical over a spat.

I like men probably because my father was poster man for perfect Dad and Husband. If a women has a more negative image perhaps she had a negative experience as a child.

Why not explore how she came about this negative attitude.

Women can be cows, me included but I treat The Mr with total respect, as he does me, because we are best mates forever. Tell her this is how you expect a relationship to be, and it is concerning she stereotypes males.

henyak,
Have you been married long? - perhaps not long enough to learn never try to win a debate with your wife. They have to believe they are right whatever the statistics might say. Just let her win the argument and let her do the research on the subject, she won't bring up the subject again if the statistics prove you were right.

Henyak, I don't believe you should leave your wife over such a silly spat either! Surely there must be good times as well?
Do look at the statistics provided by the Australian Government and then have a more informed discussion with your wife.

Antiseptic is not a good poster-boy for marital relationships though, so I wouldn't take what he says as gospel at all.
I tried to wade through the mountains of info on the website he put up as proof of women being more violent than men in society- but I couldn't actually find where it said that?

Antiseptic <" "In the 12 months prior to the survey, there were an estimated 443,800 (5.8%) women who experienced an incident of violence compared to 808,300 (11%) men."
I am sure that these figures are correct if they are put out by the Government 'septic, however the men bash each other far more often than they bash the women, so that doesn't really prove they are often the victims of female violence does it?

Antiseptic < '"During the 12 months prior to the survey 1.6% (126,100) of women and 0.6% (46,700) of men experienced an incident of sexual violence."
Again, these figures are undoubtedly true, however I have a feeling most of the sexual violence directed towards men is by other men (Gay couple violence)?
Most men are strong enough to repel a sexually violent female I would imagine (not all of course).

I have no doubts there are some terribly neglectful mothers in our society- especially with emotional neglect and physical neglect.
We need to help the children of any violent or neglectful parent, no matter what the gender of the perpetrator.

the missus,
sounds like you've hit the jackpot with your relationship. Good on you.
not many females are women. I've had my quota of experience in that department. Just like far too many males will never achieve man status so too far too many females fail to qualify as well. Once you have good men & women then there's a chance of getting a society of good people. Physical & mental abuse stem from a lack of maturity, a lack that is actually promoted by the just as immature entertainment industry. What's the last non-violent happy ending movie made ? I couldn't tell you. Everything is about violence & antisocial behaviour & wins Oscars & other awards. Then there are the feminists & those "men" & so many other whatever description you want to apply. Talk sense & you're branded ...phobic this'n ...phobic that.

Well, you have come to the right place Henyak.

Lots of men here with all the stats you could ever need to 'prove' women are rarely abused, that most of the DV occurring in the home is perpetrated by women and that men are the greatest victims of the modern age.

Feast away...

suzeonline:"couldn't actually find where it said that?"

and you'll struggle just as hard to find where I claimed it did. Henyak asked for stats on violence prevalence, which I provided. As he suspected, they showed his wife's view is quite wrong. Who'd have thought they'd also clearly demonstrate your inability to read sinple graphs and tables? I thought you were a "professional"?

Pelican, the figures I provided are all the latest data from Australian Federal Governemtn sources. Do you have any specifics you'd like to take issue with, or are you just doing the usual "I don't like it, so it must be wrong"?

Individual, you've hit the nail on the head. Goodwill is in short supply thanks to the victim industries that have been created as a result of the growth of such non-professions as social work. To quote the SA Parliamentary Select committee into Families SA: "rogue social workers on power trips account for most of the problems experienced by families coming to my office for assistance."

http://www.news.com.au/national/gunpoint-drama-in-sa-maternity-ward/story-e6frfkvr-1225819526377

(Hiya Suzie :D)

The statement left unfinished by Antiseptic is: "In the 12 months prior to the survey, there were an estimated 443,800 (5.8%) women who experienced an incident of violence compared to 808,300 (11%) men. People were three times more likely to experience violence by a man than by a woman."

The greatest threat to females' safety is from males; the greatest threat to males' safety is OTHER men. Personally I believe that overt violence from F is increasing or becoming more evident. Yet overall, violence is decreasing.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/4906.0?OpenDocument

As to neglect, that is linked to poverty and other variables. I have read that drug use is another factor in many cases. In general, children might be better housed, clothed and fed if more fathers contributed financial support.

Of other types of violence, M and F are on a par re: physical violence, however, females are responsible for at least 3/4 of child care. The only thing that is surprising is that M manage to inflict so much damage within the bounds of the contact they have (ie: 20 % or less). Child sexual abuse is of course about 90% the province of males. It accounts for about 10 percent of substantiated cases but is probably the hardest to prove.

In any case, saying that 40% of substantiated abuse is perpetrated by one sex or the other shouldn't be read as 40% of all children; or 40 % of all M or F parents. The figures are specific to substantiated cases of abuse.

There are many studies that note that magistrates will act against a parent who makes claims against the other of DV or child abuse and that lawyers often advise mothers not to raise those types of matters re: custody issues.

This research report may be useful for your enquiries:

"At the same time, we have seen that, using the broadest of their definitions of “violence”, Sheehan and Smyth (2000) found that
in an Australian context, 65% of divorced women and 55% of divorced men reported having experienced violence in their relationship." (p.121)

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport15/report15pdf/aifsreport15.pdf

Thanks for that Pynchme :)

'Septic has not proved his malicious case at all- so I am not worried that he feels he can have a dig at my professional capacity.

In actual fact 'septic, I wasn't speaking as a nurse when I commented on your biased opinions at all.

I will comment now as a nurse though.
I have said before, and I will continue to say, I have patched up many more female victims of male violence, and male versus male violence victims that I care to remember.

Which hospitals are all these male victims of female violence going to? It does happen, but it isn't that common.

Seriously though, what does it matter who is doing who to whom?
Violence is violence, and it should all be treated seriously and punished severely. We live in a violent world unfortunately.

Dear henyak,

The mistake you made was arguing with your wife
when you saw how determined she was to be
right.

As Ogden Nash wrote:

"To keep your marriage brimming,
With love in the loving cup,
Whenever you're wrong, admit it,
Whenever you're right, shut up!"

Seriously though, there are many causes for divorce,
each case is different and physical, sexual or
emotional abuse is only one of the reasons given by
divorce lawyers as to why people leave their marriages.

I came across the following website:

http://www.divorcereform.org/cau.html

it lists the oterh reasons as being:

1) Failed expectations or unmet needs.
2) Addictions or substance abuse.
3) Poor communication.
4) Financial problems (especially for young marrieds).
5) Lack of commitment to the marriage.
6) A dramatic change of priorities.
7) Infidelity.
8) lack of conflict resolution skills.

The reasons are as individual as each marriage
and the reasons why people make the commitment to
get married in the first place. Some people simply
"get tired" of each other. One example that was
giving was that the husband said he -
simply wanted to be able to fart in peace.
A woman claimed she couldn't take her husband
picking his nose any more - to each his/her - own.

Different strokes for different folks.
One size does not fit all.

Henyak
Bottom line is we all choose our partners - perhaps your wife is angry because she feels for your friend and has taken on the injustice (we all do that sometimes when friends or family are concerned).

People tend to talk about these issues with the tinted glasses of their own worst experiences and for ever more paint broad brush strokes of generalisation overall - from both sides of the gender divide.

You won't get an unbiased debate about women on OLO but Suzieonline has it right. Matters of violence, abuse or neglect should be dealt with regardless of gender. It is not a gender issue it is a people issue IMO. I just won't pretend that there are queues of men lining up in casualty like Suzie mentioned after being abused violently by their wives

pelican I don't think any of the regular male posters are claiming that "there are queues of men lining up in casualty like Suzie mentioned after being abused violently by their wives"

It's generally agreed that women suffer physical harm at greater rates than women - that's the difference from the strength factor.

There is a big difference between claiming that the severity of injury between the genders is the same and objecting to the often repeated claims that males are responsible for the overwhelming majority of physical DV. I had written more but it looked to much like a rant.

henyak for your own knowledge it's worth a look at some of the material on the RADAR site http://www.mediaradar.org/research.php#waj - they are an advocacy site so don't expect a neutral coverage of the topic but I've yet to see any collection of material which does seem to be genuinely neutral on the topic.

It's an issue which involves a lot of baggage for a lot of people and which can be very complex, researchers can to some extent count the prevalence of certain physical activities, what's harder to measure is the context in which they occur. How do we measure the harm done my years of negative comments by one partner about the other compared to physical abuse (regardless of which gender does what). It's hard to measure the non-physical impacts of physical violence on people, most DV does not result in serious physical harm but does do real harm in other ways.

The point made by Pelican and others "It is not a gender issue it is a people issue" is spot on.

R0bert

Pelican:"I just won't pretend that there are queues of men lining up in casualty like Suzie mentioned after being abused violently by their wives"

But there are long queues of children who are looking for help after being beaten or abused by their mother and there aren't any long queues of women doing so after being beaten up by their hubands. The vast majority of those who are happen to be Aboriginal and the vast majority of the non-Aboriginals are in dire poverty. The middle-class "princesses" posting here have never experienced abuse or DV and are unlikely ever to do so, but they're very keen to jump on the victim bandwagon; "look at me, look at me".

The ABS, AIC, Police and Court figures, as opposed to silly Suzie's anecdotes, show clearly that the rate of victimisation in both genders is quite low, although men are more likely to experience violence overall (about twice the rate, according to the ABS).

The original post asked about victimisation rates. Once the grrrrls realised they couldn't debate the figures (because they're both recent and the most comprehensive to date) we started seeing the straw men and the anecdotes and "I'm a nurse, I should know" and finally, "It should be about everyone", when it was "all about women" until their case fell apart. It's been the same every time a discussion like this has been held.

Quite pathetically hypocritical and completely intellectually bereft.

If the female posters here represent the "professionals" charged with finding a way to solve this problem, it's no bloody wonder we're getting nowhere fast.

RObert
You are one of the more balanced male posters on here. Thank you. We have to get away from gender and focuss on the acts.

Antiseptic
You lose a lot of your moral or considered thoughts when using terms like middle class princesses so I won't be drawn into debate with you.

No-one on here is saying that women don't abuse or neglect children - we never have. You are the one that promulgates the negative view of women without ever acknowledging that men also perpetrate violence, abuse or neglect. If you were a women arguing so vehmently about men you would be painted as a most ardent dogmatic feminist - you are the male version of the hairy armpit stereotype.

Don't lose the woods for the trees.

'septic, you have no idea whether the female posters to this site are middle-class or have been victims of domestic violence or not.
Trust me, you will be the last one to find out too.

Now that your archaic views of women are being successfully challenged, you resort to name-calling and questioning the professional integrity of some of the contributers.
All that does is serve to put yourself down as you are obviously seriously lacking in self esteem. Sad really.

Pelican, you made some very good points, but I agree there really is no point arguing with men like 'septic.
However, sometimes I just can't hold myself back!

Pelican:"You are the one that promulgates the negative view of women without ever acknowledging that men also perpetrate violence, abuse or neglect"

Don't be stupid. The links I posted are population statistics, not male or female ones. I pointed out, in response to the OP's questions, the relevant figures, which happen to show women in a much worse light than some here would like to acknowledge. These are the latest and most comprehensive figures available, drawing on sources from police to DOCS to hospital records and more. They are not anecdotes like silly Suzie prefers

Not one respondent has tried to argue the facts except pynchme, but she tried to shift the debate back onto the 60's, when the data better fitted her sense of victimhood.

The facts are really quite simple: a child born to aboriginal parents is 7 times as likely as other children to experience abuse or neglect, while a child living with a single mother is 6 times as likely to do so as a child living with both parents.

Noone has taken up my question: if the aboriginal situation warranted the drastic intervention we have seen in the NT, does the plight of children of single mothers not warrant similar drastic measures, given the similarity in the hazard presented? If not, why not?

As for "middle class princesses", I stand by the term. Years of preferential treatment have created a class of people who believe the world owes them luxury, not just a living. I have little respect for their view.

Pelican:"you are the male version of the hairy armpit stereotype."

Interesting POV, but quite wrong. My views, despite the weak-minded efforts to paint them as misogynist, are entirely egalitarian as opposed to the rather twisted form of Trotskyism embraced by the Feministas.

At least you acknowledge the inherent misandry in the feminist position.

Suzeonline:"you have no idea whether the female posters to this site are middle-class"

I just got confirmation, hon.

See a lot of cops attending the neighbours' places in the 'burbs, do you? Thought not...

Henyak
What I like about modern domestic violence services is that there is advice and support for women, men and children who experience violence and the approach is more holistic (or should that be wholistic); support for families as a whole.

While most DV services acknowledge that women and children are at most risk, the paramount concern is the safety of children first in all cases regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.

With the exception of those who wish to paint women or men as all-evil without looking within at their own baggage, it is heartening to know that most people who actually work in the area of DV perceive the violence as the issue first and foremost and are there to provide support, education, counselling and practical support as required.

If it were me, I would make up with your wife - forget gender competition; there is enough divisiveness in the world as it is - what is needed is more love.

Get off that couch and be nice to your wife. :)

Ok 'septic 'hon', you've found me out! What a clever little fellow you are.
Now let me guess about your' surrounding neighbourhood.....I was thinking maybe a single men's quarters in the middle of a male-dominated mining camp?

Your nasty words about single mother households being cesspools of child neglect need some response.

Much of the neglect and physical/sexual abuse in single mother households is caused by their boyfriends.
Many disgusting paedophiles look at single mother households as easy pickings.

I have no doubt that if children were placed more often with their Fathers (or if Fathers agreed to have custody of them more often)
there would be at least as much abuse, if not more.

Single parenting for either gender is a very lonely, frustrating job.
This situation can often lead to frayed tempers and unfortunately, lashing out at children.

Much more support is needed in these households, not condemnation.

Ah true to form. A woman does something bad, why, she just needs more help. When it's a man, well, the bastard should be locked up or denied any access to the kids.

Men are abusive by nature, but when a woman abuses, it's due to alcohol problems, loneliness, mental illness, the father not being around.

'As to neglect, that is linked to poverty and other variables. I have read that drug use is another factor in many cases. In general, children might be better housed, clothed and fed if more fathers contributed financial support.'

Yes yes there are as many excuses as there are colours of the rainbow when a woman does anything wrong. The most useful is to blame the father.

It's so simple isn't it. Man abuses, needs to be locked up or taken away from his victims. It's just a simple case of men acting their gender. Woman abuses, it's the father's fault or she needs more help.

It's just not like women to abuse, we must find lots of extenuating circumstances to protect our notions about women being incapable of doing stuff like that. It's not in their nature.

Suzeonline:"Much of the neglect and physical/sexual abuse in single mother households is caused by their boyfriends.
Many disgusting paedophiles look at single mother households as easy pickings. "

Oh, of course, Mum would never hurt the kids, it's just that Dennis Ferguson gets out a lot... Silly Suzie.

Check figure 2.2 and table A1.6 in this report http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10859. That report is a compilation of all the available data from all the States and Territories relating to allegaed and substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect as of this year.
The authors of the report offer the following disclaimer with respect to violence against children by single-mothers:"There is likely to be a number of reasons for the over-representation of single parent—female families in substantiations. For instance, lone parents are more likely to have low incomes and be financially stressed (Saunders & Adelman 2006) and suffer from social isolation (Loman 2006; Saunders & Adelman 2006)
—all factors that have been associated with child abuse and neglect (Coohey 1996)."

Strangely, they don't mention paedophile boyfriends anywhere. They're obviously just misogynists, eh?

I don't buy any of it. There is no reason for a woman, single or not, to remain in poverty today, with all of the State and charity assistance thrown at her, not to mention the money she gets from Dad. If she prioritises social life over the welfare of the kids, it is not anyone's choice but hers.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/7B5474B6858E05C3CA2573B5000DAB4E?OpenDocument

I quote:"There were 441,400 women not in the labour force who wanted a job and who were available to take up work but were not looking, according to figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)."

Poverty? What "poverty"? Try "laziness" or a sense of entitlement to a free ride...

[cont]

The rate of offending in single parent-male households was about 3.5% across the nation. I am still trying to find useful data on the rate of single parent-male households. The ABS is quite coy on the subject.

The best I could find was this ABS report from 2006 about NSW http://tiny.cc/QkQEo. If you can find better, more recent data, please feel free to post it.

I quote:"Around 82% of all single parents were females as were 85% of those with children under 15."

Combining the data: 82% of female-headed households cause 40% of substantiated claims, while the 18% of male-headed homes account for just 3.5%. Therefore, while the total number of female-headed households is a bit less than 5 times that of male-headed single parent households, the rate of abuse and neglect is about 10 times as high. Kids are twice as likely to be abused if living with Mum alone rather than Dad alone.

Do let me know if you're having trouble with the maths, won't you?

As long as we have people like silly Suzie trying to distort the picture, the poor kids are going to continue to suffer at the hands of unfit mothers.

Pelican:"What I like about modern domestic violence services is that there is advice and support for women, men and children who experience violence"

And the advice is always based on the concept that the man is the perpetrator and the woman is the victim, thereby providing no useful help for the poor bloody majority who aren't in that position and encouraging malicious women to make false allegations.

A new approach is desperately needed.

Houellebecq and 'Septic. At no time did I say that women don't neglect or abuse their children at all! Of course they do.
Do you think I haven't seen this already in many households in the community where I work? Unfortunately, I know that people of both genders abuse and neglect their children.

You just love to twist people's words around to suit your agenda.
I am just trying to say that it is not only single mother households that abuse children.
By the way you guys present it, it is ONLY these sinful women (who dare to leave the fathers of their children- or throw them out-or have been abandoned by them)who neglect and abuse their children.

These allegations from you are in no way a cry for help for the children , but rather an angry swipe at these women for your own reasons.
And no I don't want to read any more websites. I would rather think for myself and make my own observations.

What would you suggest as a way of reducing this neglect and abuse in single-mother households? Let me guess.
You may say that women should be made to stay with the fathers of their children, under any circumstances?
You may say to take all the kids off the single mothers and give them all to their natural fathers full time?
Can I suggest maybe you would be more comfortable living in a middle eastern Muslim country.

Suzeonline:"I am just trying to say that it is not only single mother households that abuse children. "

Of course it isn't, they just happen to represent a disproportionately high risk, just as Aboriginality is a correlating factor.

Children of single mothers are 6 times more likely to suffer abuse or neglect than children of intact families and at least twice as likely as children of single fathers.

Suzeonline:"no I don't want to read any more websites. I would rather think for myself and make my own observations."

LOL. Silly Suzie; "the facts don't suit me, I prefer my prejudices". Just as I said earlier...

Suzeonline:"What would you suggest as a way of reducing this neglect and abuse in single-mother households?"

Remove the systemic incentives for single mothers to prevent the father(s) of their children from having meaningful relationships with their children. Increase the penalties and the interventions if single mothers choose not to work when they are able to do so.

Change the Family Law to make allegations of violence examinable by the Court. Abolish the Duluth model of DV intervention, which was only developed because the level of education of the average US cop is abysmally low and hence his/her ability to make complex decisions is virtually non-existent. We already have strong assault laws and any law that overturns both Habeus Corpus and the onus of proof is bound to lead to very bad outcomes.

Change the Family Law to a more inquisitorial rather than adversarial model.

Abolish the current child support model and replace it with a levy on all adults, parents or not, with a system of "top-up" payments for those on high-incomes. Perhaps even make the levy reducible if a parent pays above a certain minimum directly to the benefit of the kids. Remove the adversarial aspect of the CS Acts.

Provide positive incentives for fathers to be involved with their kids. At present, only overnight stays are recorded and have any relevance to the laws.

I could go on...

'I could go on...'

And you usually do.

Suze,

All I'm sayin' is I always hear from you and pynchme that men abuse and bully those weak and less powerful than themselves when we're ever talking about abuse from men. But when we're talking about abuse from women, there is all this fluff about loneliness, poverty, drug and alcohol problems, depression... from you two ie; The attitude is always that women would never just abuse people 'because they can' like you think men do, and men are never allowed any of these excuses you trot out for women when they're the ones doing the abusing.

You say I turn your words around to say you never admit women abuse. I never said that. You always admit to it, but you and pynchme both have a vastly different attitude to men abusing than you do to women abusing;

Women abusing; A societal problem that needs to be solved by more support for women as they are victims of some external problem that is the cause of their abusive behaviour, often leading back to the men in their lives.

Men abusing; An innate problem with men and these men need to be educated or punished for their behaviour. Men's abuse is evidence of their misogyny and patriarchal attitudes, and their abusive nature.

See the difference.

Antiseptic good suggestions on how to reduce some of the causes of conflict. I'm a strong believer that a system that leave parents financially impacted by the other parents choices long after separation is a recipe for harm. Anything that can be done to reduce that linkage needs to be looked at seriously.

R0bert

'Septic < "LOL. Silly Suzie; "the facts don't suit me, I prefer my prejudices". Just as I said earlier..."

Lol silly 'septic, I could say exactly the same about your' prejudices, as I have said before.....
Maybe we are more alike than you would care to think 'septic?

In actual fact, being the child of a broken marriage myself, I am more on the side of the children. Most parents use their children as pawns in their little game of 'I hate you for what you did to me, so I will make you pay....even if the kids have to suffer.'

As I have said many times, I have to deal with the physically abused children and women in their own homes- patching them up physically, while the social workers deal with everything else.

And yes, I am dealing with many Aboriginal families too.
They are different though, because there are rarely single women on their own looking after kids in their home. Yet, on percentage, the Aboriginal children are the most abused by far.

I don't often have to patch up the men in the home environment that I work in nowadays, so maybe my views are a little biased.

One thing is for sure. I would rather deal with an angry woman, than an angry man! Sorry, but they are just usually bigger and more threatening.
I guess that will never change for me- so I am a lost cause to you guys. :)

Antiseptic: <"I quote:"There were 441,400 women not in the labour force who wanted a job and who were available to take up work but were not looking, according to figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)."

Poverty? What "poverty"? Try "laziness" or a sense of entitlement to a free ride...">

Following is the report in full. The 441,400 are one portion of, "... 1.1 million adult Australians who were not in the labour force, who said they wanted to work. Of these, 728,700 were available to start work, although most of these (94%) did not look for work."

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6239.0Main%20Features3Jul%202008%20to%20Jun%202009?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6239.0&issue=Jul%202008%20to%20Jun%202009&num=&view=

Reasons for not working included caring for children; caring for others (aged; disabled); home duties; cost; lack of alternative care for dependents; needing more training; returning to study or retraining; age; demographics, illness and so on, as well as a proportion who didn't want to work the majority of whom were over 55 yrs of age.

The report also included figures applying to a time frame of a few weeks where people said they hoped to return to work beyond the study time frame, such as at 6 months. To appreciate the situation for both men and women, please read the report.

There is no basis for victimizing single mothers.

Women are responsible for at least 75% of child care. Child abuse most often attributed to women consists of neglect. Neglect - failure to provide adequate basic necessities such as housing, clothes, food etc most often arises as a result of poverty.

Where women are responsible for fatal abuse it is most often young, inexperienced mothers as sole carers for newborns and toddlers. Older children are more frequently physically abused by men. Fatal abuse of both women and children is most often the outcome of violence by men.

It is also more likely to happen after the woman has left the relationship. Women and children have most often been killed when separated from abusive men and very often while complying with court orders.

Sue: I had a link to a study which I think I already posted somewhere; that supports your perception that mothers' boyfriends are more likely than biological fathers to sexually (and I think it said physically) abuse children, by a factor of 4 or 5 I think it was. I'll try to find that again when I have more time.

There is nothing in those proposals put by Antiseptic that act to protect or benefit anyone except a perpetrator (whether male or female) of violence.

http://www.xyonline.net/content/fact-sheet-3-how-fathers%E2%80%99-rights-movement-undermines-protections-available-victims-violence-

http://www.jirehhouse.org.au/Conference_notes/Extra%20Les%20Whittle%20Domestic%20violence%20men%20&%20Boys.pdf

Suzeonline:"I could say exactly the same about your' prejudices"

You could, but it wouldn't be true. I do my best to look at the data and come to robust conclusions that stand examination based on that data. You, OTOH, prefer not to see any data at all. see the difference?

Suzeonline:"they are just usually bigger and more threatening."

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. At a visceral level, you respond to the sight of an angry man with fear. it doesn't matter whether he is actually dangerous, he just has to be angry to induce that fear. IOW, it is an irrational response. No problem so far, we all have those. The problem occurs because legislation takes your irrational response as being more relevant than his actual behaviour. If you felt scared, it must be his fault, when in fact he may have had no intent whatever to scare you. One of the main tests for a Court is Mens Rea - did the defendant intend the act. The DV laws actively discourage examination of that.

Pynchme:"To appreciate the situation for both men and women, please read the report."

Done that, hon. It still says that there is lots of work available for single mothers (very few of whom are aged over 55, BTW) and that despite that, over 440,000 of them (out of 2,000,000) can't be bothered looking.

You can't have it both ways: if you claim that single mums are poverty-stricken and should receive handouts, then you'd best be able to show that they have done their best to relieve their situation. It's patently obvious that there is little incentive for them to do so, which suggests that poverty is not as big a problem for them as you would have us believe.

Poverty? What poverty?

I cited the latest, most comprehensive data from Government sources and you respond with Flood? Silly sausage...

As Anne Bressington, the Independent MLA from SA said? "Most of the problems facing families that come to my office are caused by rogue social workers on power trips"

Pyncme, thanks for that info, I would like to see that if you find it.
'Septic, you are actually saying that women who are faced with an angry man are irrational when they fear that man? Why is that?

The definition of domestic violence from Wikipedia states:
'Domestic violence has many forms including physical aggression (hitting, kicking, biting, shoving, restraining, throwing objects), or threats thereof; sexual abuse; emotional abuse; controlling or domineering; intimidation; stalking; passive/covert abuse[1][2] (e.g., neglect); and economic deprivation.'

So, the way I see it is that if a man verbally threatens me in some way, I can call that violence, even though he doesn't actually strike me.

This sort of intimidation violence is very difficult to prove in court of course, so many families have to wait until someone is bashed before they can get help. That is an awful situation.

I can understand why some family courts do support women in these allegations because the alternative of allowing some men unsupervised access to their family could be fatal.

Again I say that the children must be the priority where there are any accusations of domestic violence. There will be some made-up allegations, but can we take the chance they may be true

Suze

The point that Anti made that you don't get is that a man doesn;t actually have to do anything wrong, he just needs to get a little angry and be bigger than the women around him before one of them can say "I feel scared". That is enough to get an AVO. The problem is that the man is being punished and he hasn't done anything wrong. AVOs aren't design to punish, but I'm sure that many recipients feel that way.

"Again I say that the children must be the priority where there are any accusations of domestic violence."

"The children" effectively means "the parent with most custody". Once they have the AVO, they have the children and they can do almost anything they want without consequences, because punishing that parent will disadvantage the children.

"There will be some made-up allegations, but can we take the chance they may be true"

So in other words, you are prepared for thousands of men to be disadvantaged, most of whom have done nothing wrong, to protect a few women. That sort of lack of empathy for blokes explains why most of the men on OLO have a pretty dim view of this whole fiasco.

Benk, "thousands of fathers are not disadvantaged". It's difficult to perceive even abusive men as disadvantaged, as even research preceding further leniency indicates:

<"In terms of the actual outcomes achieved in the cases we studied, again there was a lack of evidence that men were being disadvantaged. Contact orders were made in 161 (91 per cent) of the cases. In only eight cases did orders provide for no personal contact between the child(ren) and the nonresidential parent (four of these orders allowed the parent to write to the child). All of these no-contact orders were made against the father, and involved extreme circumstances. The fathers in these cases had variously:

- assaulted the mother during the case;
- applied for contact whilst he was in gaol for raping the mother's sister;
- acted in a drunken, aggressive and suggestive manner towards staff at a Children's Access Program;
- had a psychological disorder and his behaviour was having an extreme
impact upon the child, which was also supported by expert reports. In this case, the father's behaviour was described in the final judgment as 'chilling';
- acted in an extremely violent manner, threatening and pursuing both
mother and teenage child. The child did not want to see the father;
- smashed up the mother's home with a sledge hammer, and threatened to
kill her and abduct the child. The child expressed a strong wish not to see the father at all;
- had problems with alcohol and drugs (for which he had previous
convictions), had a psychiatric disorder, was extremely violent, had been convicted of a number of assaults in other states, and had allegedly abused the child. The mother, however, had difficulty convincing the court that the father's problems warranted a no-contact order. He then sexually assaulted the mother in front of the child, and was convicted. Even then, there were another three interim hearings while the father was in gaol,until the court made final orders.

cont/d

Benk cont/d:

The relative lack of no-contact orders suggests that men are not being
denied contact with their children by the Family Court. These findings are supported by other research, which suggests that the principle of both parents having contact with their children often overrides considerations of the safety of the parties and, arguably, the best interests of the children.">

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/GriffLawRw/2001/8.pdf

Only about 30% of women who experience family violence report it to police. Threats and intimidation are domestic violence. http://www.relationships.com.au/resources/pdfs/rest/trvol15.pdf/
http://www.relationships.com.au/resources/pdfs/rest/trvol50.pdf/

If someone bigger who has the capacity to overpower you is shouting at you, how do you think you'd respond ?

What's a normal response ?

How do you advise women to respond ?

(Suzie g'day - haven't found that link yet but it is on my list of things to do - pynch :))

Pynchme is absolutely correct. At the end of the day, there are rarely orders made that refuse fathers contact with their children, except in exceptional circumstances of proven violence or criminal activities.

I wonder what sort of men 'Septic and Benk are talking about?

Is it really the lack of contact with children that is the problem for some men, or is it the loss of control over 'their' women and children that really upsets them? Violence often follows frustration.

The friends I know who have had the misfortune to go through the family court system ended up with a fair deal when deciding on custody arrangements with the children.

It all worked out in the end because they both wanted what was best for the kids, and everything else came second.
If only all couples could be this reasonable!

Benk <" So in other words, you are prepared for thousands of men to be disadvantaged, most of whom have done nothing wrong, to protect a few women. That sort of lack of empathy for blokes explains why most of the men on OLO have a pretty dim view of this whole fiasco."

What thousands of men are you talking about Benk?
Surely all those thousands of men can't be innocent?

Surely you aren't suggesting the courts should give all men accused of domestic violence the benefit of the doubt, if it is only a few women or children getting seriously or fatally wounded?

Even one fatal assault is too much Benk!

I only have empathy for men who are man enough to face their personal problems without the need for violence of any kind.

Pynchme and Suzie
Good efforts but you are wasting your time. It is like debating evolution or atheism with the true believers. Rational argument goes out the window and one-sided truisms become the order of the day.

Too much emotional baggage in the baby boomer generation (on both sides) - it will be up to Generation Y to sort out the gender divide. Maybe they will come to it with more an open mind with less conservative upbringings, possibly a more equitable and fairer outlook for men and women, and more importantly children.

Thanks Pelican, I think you're right about that.

I find it really hard to see the untruths that are damaging to people laid out and left without challenge. I'm getting better at leaving it be but every so often I think of some face or case or something I've read and the compulsion to respond is irresistible.

I think I'll take heed of your wise words for now,

pynch

Your're right of course Pelican! I have even said it before on this forum. However, I too find it hard to let some comments slide without responding.

I usually get to a point (which is now) where I say enough of this thread. It doesn't mean I have given up- just that I am bored with the same arguments.

See you on another thread ladies.

Pynchme

The AVO is often applied for as the couple are breaking up. Many of them are based on embellished information. In most of the other cases both sides are as bad as the other, but only she gets the advantage of the AVO. It creates a chain of events that is hard to stop. She gets the AVO, he is out of the house. This gives her custody over the kids until they go to family court, he will find it hard to get near them. During this period, all sorts of things can happen. Mum can fill the kid's heads with ideas. Dad needs to find a new house, it might not be a house with bedrooms for the kids. Dad might find maintenance payments crippling and go on the dole or overseas. He might find it hard to maintain a reationship with his kids. All of these will disadvantage him, even if he eventually gets some access.

"If someone bigger who has the capacity to overpower you is shouting at you, how do you think you'd respond"

How do you think I'd respond? Do you think that I'd run straight down to the police station and take out an AVO?

Suze

"Surely you aren't suggesting the courts should give all men accused of domestic violence the benefit of the doubt"
Sure am. I'm not prepared for men who appear to be innocent to be disadvantaged, even though it appears obvious that the DV claims about them are malicious. You needn't worry about this, you personally aren't disadvantaged by this fiasco. It must be wonderful to have these "principles" that others need to pay the price for.

Benk, The thing that I find absolutely astonishing is your assumption - despite the numbers of women and children seen in outpatients departments; womens shelters; GP surgeries and other welfare agencies - that AVOs are by default malicious fabrications. This is especially bizarre in light of research showing that only 30% of women who are physically assaulted report it to anyone.

In any case, do you think that women have the corner on malicious and unfounded allegations?

As to how you'd respond to someone bigger shouting at you - what's your guarantee that the abusive person has no intention of punching you out?

How can one know that? I would say that if one couldn't get help (and most can't; or not in time anyway) that one can only passify the angry person (which is encouragement to an abusive person isn't it - they therefore know how to control and get their demands met) or take the hit. Which would you do? What do you expect women to do?

Btw - AVOs do not belong to women alone; any citizen can sit down and talk with a magistrate and have one taken out. Anyone, including a concerned father, can make a report to DOCs rather than leave their children with an abusive woman - and reporting is preferable, surely, to having children exposed to violence and rages from ANY adult.

Benk, nice summation of the situation.

What I find truly astonishing is that when people such as myself put forward suggestions on ways to reduce conflict during that separation and post-separation period we are shouted down. It suggests to me that many women who claim to be interested in the subject are really just interested in maintaining the status quo: prepared to allow some women and children to suffer genuine violence in order to pursue political games intended to further the social dominance of women. After all, "the ends justify the means and it's not as if it's anyone we know"...

pynchme, you say you have a son. How would you feel if he was to come to you and say, " the wife got a DVO on me because she wants a divorce and she was scared I'd get mad? I can't go near her or the kids until the divorce is finalised. I've got nowhere to live, can I stay here for a while?"

You'll note, SHE wants the divorce (over 80% of divorces are initiated by the wife) and HE gets forced to move. No actual violence of any kind has occurred, no threat has been made, but she "felt scared". Do you tell your son that you support her move?

An old pillar of justice was that one *is* innocent until shown guilty and that false accusations *are* malicious and *will* be persued in their own right.

Without this protection there is no reason for people to respect the justice system.

Rusty

Pynchme

I will attempt to keep this discussion productive, by focussing on your question "what do you expect women to do?"

I would suggest that they think twice before applying for an AVO. If their man is genuinely violent,he isn't going to worry too much about a piece of paper. If he isn't genuinely violent, but she still wants to leave him, then stretching the truth to get the advantage of an AVO (however tempting) will undermine her chances of having an amicable seperation.

I would also suggest that they look at the way that they handle conflicts. In the past, society has been very quick to position women as victims and of course, you can't blame the victim. While this was well intentioned, it discouraged women from learning from their mistakes. At this point, I should point out that the arguement above shouldn't be taken to imply that everything is her fault. That is a quite artifical dichotomy. Obviously many men need to make the same changes.

Moving to society in general (here we go again), paternalistic, backward attitudes need to change. Constantly positioning women as victims, despite mountains of contradictory evidence, needs to stop. Thinking that men need to wear any inconvenience, as long as women can feel safe needs to stop. Blowing up a heated argument into a massive threat to women's safety, needs to stop.

Antiseptic: <"many women who claim to be interested in the subject are really just interested in maintaining the status quo: prepared to allow some women and children to suffer genuine violence in order to pursue political games intended to further the social dominance of women.">

Prepared to allow women and children to suffer genuine violence?

Violence committed by whom ?

What are you saying?

and

<"How would you feel [my son]if he was to come to you and say, " the wife got a DVO on me because she wants a divorce and she was scared I'd get mad? I can't go near her or the kids until the divorce is finalised. I've got nowhere to live, can I stay here for a while?"

I'd FEEL sad, but how I feel wouldn't be of much relevance to the situation.

I doubt that a woman would need to obtain an AVO on my son. However, if that happened and a divorce was in progress we would give him the best advice and support that we could. Including:

1. Going to the nearest community health centre to arrange to speak to a child and family counsellor. Many of the counsellors are male - if one prefers to speak to a male.
2. He might consider mediation - depends on whether the mother of their children wanted to enter into that process.
3. He would be most unlikely to want to live with me. He has friends and sisters that he'd probably prefer to stay with until he organized a place of his own.
4. I'd suggest to him that he sit down and have a good talk with a solicitor to see where he stands and to obtain advice appropriate to his situation and the state he lives in.
5. I wouldn't need to advise him to support his children financially; he would go out of his way to do that regardless of contact arrangements.
6. If the mother of his children didn't want to be resident parent he'd be a very capable sole parent

Speaking of which - how would you have managed if your ex had taken off and left the children with you? What would you have done about a job and childcare - how would you have organized your time and earning?

Lastly - now tell me what you would advise your daughter to do if she said that she was being thumped about and had taken out a DVO.

What if she had children?

Benk: <"I will attempt to keep this discussion productive, by focussing on your question "what do you expect women to do?"

I would suggest that they think twice before applying for an AVO. If their man is genuinely violent,he isn't going to worry too much about a piece of paper. If he isn't genuinely violent, but she still wants to leave him, then stretching the truth... ">

Never mind the "think twice" thing - research shows that women attempt to leave an abusive situation an average of 7 times before finally making the break, if they ever make it.

Many AVOs are not initiated by the person being beaten but by the police on behalf of the person who is in danger.

As to "if a man is genuinely violent". You mean violent and nasty enough to kill regardless of the consequences to himself. Someone as mean as that is going to kill without the piece of paper too.

Fortunately, many people who are gutless enough to be violent towards someone weaker nevertheless have a sufficiently keen sense of their own self preservation to not cross the line once the law has made it clear that there are some boundaries they mustn't cross.

So now tell me - a man is shouting at someone smaller. How does that someone smaller KNOW he isn't going to follow through with a hit? What should she do?

Hi All and WOW, I did not realise the reresponse I would get. I have actually been avoiding coming back here until now as I thought it might be better to avoid the subject with my wife again.

Interesting thing, I dont know how she got this attitude but I think she might only listen to the negatives from freinds of hers that have had this happen. You know the old story, everyone remembers negatives and positive are quickly forgotten (I'm sure their is a cliche about this).

For the record I am no motto husband but 2 thing I have never been is a wife basher and prejudiced (well I dont think I'm prejudiced). Although I did accidenatally punch my wife once when we were shadow boxing (playing).

Yes my relationship like most has it ups & downs and regardless of the downs divorce is against all the principals I have been raised with and the last resort. For the record I have been married for 12 years and have a 10yo girl and 7yo boy.

There was a comment about just letting your partner win the arguement. I am pretty easy going, but sometimes if you think something just does not sound right its hard keep your yap shut.

Agree a lot of abuse can stem from maturiy issues but there is one all important factor and that is alcohol. I have not done the research but listening to news headlines is enough for me to realise alcohol is a major player, but then again I suppose if you are mature enough you should know how to handle your alcohol and know when to stop drinking.

And although many will argue the stats provided (despite being official) it certainly shows my wifes figures were exagerated. Now I just have to be able to bite my tongue if the subject comes up again. Perhaps going straight to the lounge with some noise drowning headphones will give me the will power to not have an input into the subject.

Thanks again All
Henry

Henyak

by "For the record I am no motto husband but 2 thing I have never been is a wife basher" I haven't hit my wife either. On the other hand, she has never hit me, but most of the blokes who hit their wifes have also been hit. Lets not join the smug and ignorant.

Pynchme

"So now tell me - a man is shouting at someone smaller. How does that someone smaller KNOW he isn't going to follow through with a hit?" She doesn't, but that shouldn't imply that she should take out an AVO. Do you take an AVO out on everyone who ever yells at you? What about everyone who is bigger than you?

No wonder I cannot write a post without the word paternalistic, when people like you seem to think that women need protection from even being yelled at.

The sociological research of the past two
decades has revealed an astonishing amount
of family violence - between spouses,
between parents and offspring, and among
the offspring themselves.

The police detest "disturbance calls," -
usually family fights - because of the
vicious and dangerous nature of so many of
these conflicts. Surveys suggest that each
year large numbers of couples go through a
violent episode in which one spouse tries to
cause the other serious pain or injury.

Wives assault their husbands as often as husbands
assault their wives, and spouses are equally likely
to kill each other. Although wives are rarely a
match for their husbands in a fistfight, they are
more likely to use lethal weapons (notably kitchen
knives).

Each year, too, child abuse - involving such acts
as burning children with cigarettes, locking them up
in closets, tying them up for hours or days, or
breaking their bones - is alarmingly common, and
probably causes many runaways that happen each year.
And the sexual abuse of children is now recognized
as a national epidemic - is rarely a matter of
molestation by a stranger. It's usually perpetrated
by one family member on another.

One source of this violence may lie in the dynamics of
the family as an intimate environment. Close
relationships are likely to involve more conflict than
less intimate ones, since there are more occasions for
tensions to arise and more likelihood that deep
emotions will be provoked.

Another source for violence may lie outside the family,
violence is frequently a response for frustration.
Lack of a job, an employer, aggression can get re-directed
at family members.

In any event, I don't think that the extent of violence
in groups whose members are supposed to love and care
for one another is easily explained. It merely suggests that
the modern family may sometimes be under greater pressure
than it can easily bear.

Henyak you and your Missus could both be correct - depending on what sort of violence you have in mind:

Sheehan and Smyth (2000) found that the broader the definition of violence, the higher was its reported incidence and the less was the gender differentiation. Thus, when spousal violence was
defined as all actions that would be considered as an offence under criminal law, 55% of the men (n = 152) and 65% of the women (n = 244) reported its existence.

When violence was defined as “actual or threatened conduct that would cause fear about wellbeing or safety”, the percentages decreased to 24% for men and 53% for women.69

With respect to reports of injury that required medical treatment, the relevant percentages reduced further to 3% and 14%.

A significant finding in this study was that: despite the extent of the financial difficulties experienced, and their ongoing responsibility for the care of children, women who report spousal violence are more likely than women who report no spousal violence to have received a minority of the share of property. (p. 118)

Further, the more severe the reported violence, the greater was the likelihood that a minority of both the domestic assets and the total marital assets would be awarded to the female partner and the greater was the likelihood that the female partner would be in difficult financial circumstances following separation. In addition, the more severe the violence, the less likely it was that the female victims would be participating in the workforce at the time the interview
was conducted.

(p. 35)

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport15/report15pdf/aifsreport15.pdf

Benk: I would say that paternalism is telling people what they should feel and how they should act. In these cases; it's up to the other person on the end of that yelling etc to decide how they feel. Since fewer AVOs are taken out than could be (30% maybe) I doubt that spurious AVOs are frequent.

Also, if you want to narrow the criteria for DV that is ok except that it will make violence towards men almost invisible again.

Foxy

If all people shared your ability to empathise with everyone involved in these issues, we would be alot closer to solving the problem of domestic violence.

Pynchme

Throughout this thread, you have repeatedly asked both Anti and myself how we might advise women to act in various circumstances and now you think that "paternalism is telling people what they should feel and how they should act." If I'm not mistaken, you are a psychologist and spend your whole life advising people. I still believe that widening the definition of domestic violence to include less serious incidents is paternalism.

"Also, if you want to narrow the criteria for DV that is ok except that it will make violence towards men almost invisible again." Perhaps I should have said that minor incidents should be ignored, unless they are part of the escalation towards more serious violence. I accept that men are responsible for most of this serious violence. If we want to stop it, we need to understand all of the negative reciprocity that leads to it and not ignore the actions of female participants for fear of being labelled as "blaming the victim."

pynchme:"Violence committed by whom ?

What are you saying?"

You're not very clever, are you?

Pynchme:"I doubt that a woman would need to obtain an AVO on my son."

nice effort to dodge.She doesn't NEED to, but she did anyway. It's very easy to do: just go to the police and say "I told my husband I want a divorce and he got angry. I'm scared" Plod says "bingo, love, here's your AVO, we'll go and tell him to shift out straightaway."

Your response indicates that you would, by default, take her position as being justified and that you would support her action. Does your son know you think so little of him?

Pynchme:"how would you have managed if your ex had taken off and left the children with you?"

As I fought for 5 years to finally get equally-shared care, I reckon I'd have done pretty well, don't you? I'd also be many, many thousands of dollars better off, especially if I'd never had to deal with the spurious DVO matter as well as the Family Law stuff.

Pynchme:"how would you have organized your time and earning?"

I have been self-employed since 1999. What would you suggest?

Pynchme:"what you would advise your daughter to do if she said that she was being thumped about and had taken out a DVO."

I'd suggest she ask the police to charge him if she was being hit. I doubt the police would need to be asked, though, if she was being "thumped about", since physical assault is a criminal act. If, OTOH, she was merely having some loud rows with him, I'd suggest she was overreacting and that perhaps her own behaviour may be less than exemplary as well. If it looked to be a really dysfunctional relationship, I'd no doubt have already expressed that to her.

My children have seen first-hand what a vindictive mother can do to a father. I hope that my daughter would not perpetuate that.

foxy, you have the right of it. The law is one-sided while life is far more varied.

Foxy: <"Wives assault their husbands as often as husbands
assault their wives, and spouses are equally likely
to kill each other. Although wives are rarely a
match for their husbands in a fistfight, they are
more likely to use lethal weapons (notably kitchen
knives).">

Foxy I like your post and as you say, it's a complex area.
However, spouses are not equally likely to kill each other;
nor are the motives generally the same. Women (and sometimes children) are more likely to be severely assaulted and murdered after leaving or while trying to escape a violent relationship, than are males seeking to leave a relationship. Research findings around the world have consistently found this to be the case.

I refer you to pages 6-9 or so:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport15/report15pdf/aifsreport15.pdf

This study provides a more historical context of serious assault and spousal homicide, where separation is identified as a consistent risk factor for women.
http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/SpousalHomicide.pdf

Men as victims:

http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Men_as_Victims.pdf

http://www.relationships.com.au/resources/pdfs/rest/trvol50.pdf/

The Australian Institute of Criminology study analysing homicides in Australia between 1989 and1999 found that:
• 20.8% of all homicides involve intimate partners. This represents
approximately 76 homicide incidents within Australia each year.
• Over three-quarters (76.9%) of these intimate partner homicides
involved a male offender and a female victim.
• Of these homicides, 65.8% occurred between current spouses or
de-facto partners, whilst 22.6% occurred between separated/divorced spouses or de facto partners.
• 10% occurred between current or former boy/girlfriends, and
• 2% occurred within same sex relationships (Mouzos 2000, p. 115).

In almost half of spousal homicides, there is a clear history of preceding violence (Morgan 2002, p. 26).

Differences occur with respect to domestic homicides occurring within
particular communities. For example:
• Indigenous women are far more likely to be killed by their partner than non-Indigenous women. Just under half of all Indigenous homicides
occur as a result of a domestic altercation (Mouzos 2001, p. 5). See
section on Indigenous women for further information.
• Filipino women living in Australia are almost six times over-represented as victims of homicide, compared to other women (Cunneen & Stubbs 2002, p. 160).

http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Statistics_final.pdf

Benk and Antiseptic: My requests for you to offer some information on what you actually expect someone to do as an alternative to taking out an AVO, was in response to:

1. Your claims that a woman is thinking irrationally if she is fearful of someone (bigger) shouting at her.
2. Your claims that applications for AVOs are predominantly unfounded and made by women who are vindictive.

So far you've both managed to avoid giving any clear advice on how a woman can feel safe. Maybe you can give some insights on why a bloke (or anyone) would need to be shouting at a partner and whether such a person might be better advised to learn some other ways of expressing whatever it is they're trying to convey.

As far as that goes, maybe some of your menz sites could contribute something constructive by helping people, probably men since that is their main focus, to discover better ways of managing their distress or anger or whatever it is.

Pynchme:"how a woman can feel safe."

Pynchme(in an earlier post):"how I feel wouldn't be of much relevance to the situation."

I agree...

The real issue is how a woman can BE safe; how she FEELS is of little relevance.

By making her feelings more important than his actions, you end up in a situation in which some men may feel they have little to lose by making her feeling a reality and some women end up with an exaggerated sense of their own importance.

That's pretty much the state of gender policy play in Australia today.

Pynchme

I understand that some women might feel afraid when someone is shouting at her (even if she is shouting herself). While I would like to imagine a world where everyone can calmly and maturely resolve conflicts, it doesn't appear that we will see this anytime soon.

The next best option might be a world where everyone is a little less thin-skinned. Despite all of the progress that society has made, the way that we raise young women socialises them to be alot less resilient. Perhaps if we stopped over-protecting their self-esteem and stopped telling them they are victims at every opportunity, women might be better able to handle life's ups and downs.

Encouraging them to take out an AVO after every row is a big step in the wong direction.

Pynchme, I know that you didn't ask me, but I really hope that my daughter (when she is older) will need to be in real danger before she might feel afraid. If not, I would think that I had failed her as a parent. If she grows up to be manipulative enough to get an AVO that she didn't really need, I would also feel like a failed parent.

Do we really want to socialise girls to live their lives in fear?

Pynchme, I made the fatal mistake of coming back today to see how you were going on this post. I am now angry at how 'Septic and to a lesser extent, Benk, have been bullying both you and I for daring to have a different opinion to theirs.
Some choice comments they have leveled at you and I include:

"Quite pathetically hypocritical and completely intellectually bereft.
If the female posters here represent the "professionals" charged with finding a way to solve this problem, it's no bloody wonder we're getting nowhere fast."

"Silly Suzie."

"Do let me know if you're having trouble with the maths, won't you?"

"As long as we have people like silly Suzie trying to distort the picture,"

"Silly sausage..."

"It must be wonderful to have these "principles" that others need to pay the price for."

"You're not very clever, are you?"

No wonder you guys feel the way you do about women. You obviously get your kicks from putting them down. Does all this make you feel better about yourselves then?

At the end of the day, there will never be any doubt that men perpetrate most of the serious violence-related damage both to themselves and to women. Did you read the links Pynchme put up guys?
No, of course not.

Benk: I already pointed to the research that only about 30% of people who have experienced DV take out an AVO. Your statements about people being less thin skinned are cold comfort to people who are victimized by family violence.

G'day Suzie: Thanks for coming by and for posting your insightful summary. Antiseptic has pointed out that it's women who mostly seek divorce. These blokes never ask themselves what happens between the time that a woman loves a person enough to make a commitment and the time that they just want to get away from them.

I am sure they'll come back with the notion that it's financially advantageous for women to take a bloke for all he has. However, research shows repeatedly that women don't gain financially from divorce, especially when she is the resident parent of any children.
Also, few women marrying these days need a meal ticket because they have their own career prospects.

These women love men or they wouldn't want to share their lives with one in the first place. Presumably in some sense these men love women. They certainly can't hate them too much or they wouldn't be tying themselves in knots trying to work out how to forcibly stop or coerce women into staying with them. It's all a bit of a dark version of Pepe-le-Pew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBFEObtQdM&feature=related

I think it's time for some of these blokes to have a good long think about what it is they do or what attitudes they hold that drive people away from them

Silly Suzie...

Pynchme, you've still to answer the simple question: "why does her "feeling" carry more weight than his action?" after all, you've already established that you don't regard your own "feeling" as important.

I think we can take it from the rather hateful spew in that last post that you find that one a bit tough.

Pynchme:"These blokes never ask themselves what happens between the time that a woman loves a person enough to make a commitment and the time that they just want to get away from them"

Oh dear Dear, you're not much good at the human relationships stuff, are you?

Pynchme:"These women love men or they wouldn't want to share their lives with one in the first place. Presumably in some sense these men love women."

LMAO. The men are in it only because love pussy, (except yours and Suzie's hubbies, obviously; just what IS in it for them, I wonder), while the women have only the noblest of motives. You should write fairy stories. My mate has just discovered his GF is pregnant at 40, when their relationship has been foundering a little. Third child, third father...

pynchme:"they wouldn't be tying themselves in knots trying to work out how to forcibly stop or coerce women into staying with them"

That's even better. I bet you've never had someone try to coerce you into staying with them. The bum's rush, OTOH, I'm sure you have a passing familiarity with.

While I know you don't like to think, have a little go at these: what do you reckon is the rate of unemployment in this country? What do you reckon it is among divorced fathers? What about among divorced mothers?

Keep milking that bull, hon...

Suze

So you feel that Pynchme and yourself are being bullied. I cannot see why. Antiseptic’s condescending little swipes (though un-necessary) are no harsher than many of the things that you have written, especially criticising him over his marriage break-up. Perhaps you are one of these dinosaurs, who thinks that women need a higher level of protection. Times have changed. Men have changed. Women have changed. You need to change.

Pynchme

“ I already pointed to the research that only about 30% of people who have experienced DV take out an AVO.” But how was violence defined? Some researchers have used awfully low thresholds.

“Antiseptic has pointed out that it's women who mostly seek divorce.” Traditionally they have been able to leave him but keep the kids. Walking out on a spouse is a lot easier than walking away from your kids. Additionally, men tend to leave relationships by sabotaging them. Some women have a hard time letting their men go.

I still maintain that I have sympathy for genuine victims of DV. I just don’t think that widespread misuse of AVOs and spreading misunderstandings help. The stereotype of men bashing women because they feel like it and to control her has been shown to be inaccurate. People need to know how some couples turn disagreements into violent arguements. Demonising men and treating women as innocent little victims isn’t moving us closer to a resolution.

'Septic, I wouldn't consider a response to your' last delightful post is necessary. Have a wonderful day now won't you.

Benk, thanks at least for recognizing that 'Septic's 'little swipes' are un-necessary at times. I thought you seemed the more human poster of the two!

I can't remember ever criticizing him over his marriage breakup though? If you can find proof of that, I will stand corrected.
I wouldn't bother commenting on other people's relationship problems unless I had both sides of the story.

Benk <" Perhaps you are one of these dinosaurs, who thinks that women need a higher level of protection. Times have changed. Men have changed. Women have changed. You need to change."

I am no dinosaur Benk, I am a realist. I agree that times have changed , as have men and women.
No longer will most women in violent situations put up with physical abuse just to keep their family together.

The modern woman has choices now. They don't have to stay with someone they fear or don't love anymore because they wouldn't be able to manage financially alone.

Unfortunately, many men today can't tolerate this fact, because they would rather live back in the 'good old days' when it was very difficult for women to leave a marriage.

Benk<" The stereotype of men bashing women because they feel like it and to control her has been shown to be inaccurate."

Where did you get this little gem from? Yes, it is very much a control issue with many men. and some women too.

Of course not ALL men want to bash or control women, but the ones who do become physically violent are definitely showing their strength and control over her.
At the end of the day, men will always be physically stronger.

The problem with this thread has been that some posters have taken the 'she left me and now all women are conniving cows' stance and forgotten that this thread is about PHYSICAL ABUSE in relationships.

Suze

I still believe that most (if not all) domestic violence is the result of couples who cannot resolve disagreements. I could go to google and find a heap of articles on negative reciprocity and bidirectional domestic violence, but that has been done to death on OLO. On the other hand, we could just use experience and common sense.

Negative reciprocity simply means that many people tend to respond to any perceived criticism by returning the insult (with interest). Things spiral out of control and a minor disagreement has turned into a domestic violence incident. I feel sure that you would have seen something similar at some time. One implication of this is that all participants need to learn alternative ways of resolving conflicts. Telling her “you mustn’t blame yourself” will mean that she won’t change, making it hard for both of them to break the pattern. Telling him that it is all his fault shows a lack of empathy and is likely to make him feel defensive, meaning that he will not make necessary changes.

Bidirectional domestic violence means that in most domestic violence, all participants are both perpetrators and victims of violence. I’m sure that you have seen enough articles in your time here at OLO without me finding any more.

“The ones who do become physically violent are definitely showing their strength and control over her.” I agree that many heated arguments seem to be about something trivial, but are really about the balance of power in the relationship. On the other hand, your comments could be read as “these blokes just choose to hit their women to keep them subservient”. Lets not undermine the legitimacy of his need to resolve matters that concern him. It is only the way that some couples attempt to resolve these matters that needs to change.

Yes, I agree with all you said there Benk.
I have certainly seen and heard many arguments where women have contributed as much, if not more, to lead to a violent argument.

What I don't agree with is that one person decides to use physical force to bring home their point or to punish the other for not agreeing with them-- either gender that is.

Nothing a person can say or do should lead to physical violence against them under any circumstances.
Anger management courses and counseling can go a long way to helping people deal with their anger issues and the way they conduct arguments.

Yes, violence restraining orders should not be granted lightly, but on the other hand it remains difficult for law enforcement agencies to decide what is serious and what is not.

Do we have to wait for someone to come in and show some bruising or broken bones before an AVO is granted?
Is someone threatening violence enough?
If not, how will they prove that the threat is real?

What would the consequences be if the police refused to give such an order, and that person was seriously injured or killed?
Is someone who requests an AVO under false pretenses going to cause as much trouble as those that don't (or are refused one), and end up dead or injured?

These are not easy questions to answer at all really.
I am glad I don't have to make these decisions.

Hey Suzie,

I am loathe to put this here because it isn't quite in keeping with the thread.

However, it's something that's been irking me for weeks. I'm surprised none of the blokes have made a thread of it (would have myself but just a time issue).

Anyway, here's just a few links in no particular order:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/03/2809585.htm?section=australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/21/2749516.htm

http://www.efarming.com.au/News/general/27/01/2010/85470/chantelois-showing-up-political-stunt-rann.html

I don't know anything about Mike Rann or the woman. There are some issues around a fling they might have had.

The thing is - BFD - who cares? Adultery isn't illegal and they were both adults; she was a willing participant. I can't see any grounds at all for her running around taking lie detector tests and all that, whether he confirms her claims or not.

Some matters are before the police he has said, but she still turned up at some function he was to attend; has gone to his office to deliver polygraph results and keeps popping up here and there and feeding stuff to the press.

This woman is stalking and harrassing this pollie and I would think he'd have cause to take out an AVO or take some legal action to keep her away.

For some reason he has refused to take action against her or something - not sure why, but it seems to me on what we've been told of it that he would have a good case.

Bizarrely - I see one news piece where she wants him to take the polygraph test and/or admit to the affair to "restore her reputation".
In my opinion her reputation is harmed by acting like an obsessive stalker.

I think she needs a psychiatric evaluation.

Antiseptic: <"Pynchme, you've still to answer the simple question: "why does her "feeling" carry more weight than his action?" after all, you've already established that you don't regard your own "feeling" as important.">

You know full well that I said that my feelings were unimportant in deciding the outcome of your imagined scenario concerning my son in a relationship. My son's an adult; in charge of his own affairs. Welcome to my advice and support if needed.

Antiseptic: <"I bet you've never had someone try to coerce you into staying with them. The bum's rush, OTOH, I'm sure you have a passing familiarity with.">

Antiseptic, being coerced or harassed is not a compliment to someone who is trying to get away. You can't force someone to feel what they no longer feel, but being childishly and in some cases threateningly mean can repel someone even further.

Antiseptic: <"LMAO. The men are in it only because love pussy.">

Anyone can buy that. I hope you're not serious, but you transmit that you despise women so much that one can't be sure.

Antiseptic: <"My mate has just discovered his GF is pregnant at 40, when their relationship has been foundering a little. Third child, third father.">

If he's seeking your advice, it would be best if he never marries anyone and especially under those circumstances. He does have some responsibility for the child though doesn't he.

Hi Pynchme, still flogging that same 'septic horse I see :)
It's a common game on these posts!

I read through those links you posted above, and they were certainly interesting. It is ok to post them on this thread because it did involve physical abuse of a man by his supposed girlfriend's husband I guess!

Anyway, although I think we are not hearing the whole story from either of the delightful 'lovers', I wouldn't mind betting that where there's smoke there's fire.

I would suggest that there may have been an alleged affair of some sort, because otherwise wouldn't the Politician have taken out a restraining order against an apparently unbalanced woman?

At the end of the day, it is her word against his unless some smart journalist can come up with some proof of an affair either way.

I wouldn't start crucifying her just yet.
She wouldn't be the first person to cash in on an alleged affair with a politician.

I would suggest she is more than sane!