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!