I just did a google search with the terms "violence in australia"

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=violence+in+australia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=QLR&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=violence+in+australia&pbx=1&oq=violence+in+australia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l0l198152l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=6832932f06d4e48&biw=1671&bih=947

The search returned a link to an organisation called "Enough is Enough", which I've never heard of, but I've learnt is devoted to a broad-based anti-violence campaign motivated by the founder losing his son to a violent armed robbery. It also returned a link to an AIC report from 1988 on the subject.

Apart from those two references, the rest of the top 20 responses were all to do with domestic violence, nearly all of those to do with domestic violence directed at women, including several linking to advocacy organisations. In other words, a quick google search on the genreal subject returns a highly gendered view of the subject, probably reflecting the massive imbalance in funding available to groups based on the gender of those they purport to serve. Interestingly, the WRD campaign was not represented on the first two pages, probably reflecting the complete lack of credibility the group has managed to attain through deliberate misrepresentation of otherwise reputable data.

As the prevalence of domestic violence is about 1/4 the prevalence of violence directed at men (ABS Personal Safety Survey), I'm quite appalled at the obvious lack of any commitment to address the issue of violence directed at men, which has lead to the display that Waterstreet mentioned. I'm also appalled that nobody sees fit to mention the role that escalation plays in domestic violence. If the man had been less "impressive" to susie and pericles for "taking it like a man" but had retaliated, who would have been at fault?

Pretending that black is white does not lead to any better understanding of a complex chess problem, as any child could tell you. Pretending that women are always as pure as the driven snow doesn't lead to a better understanding of the dynamics that lead to people being injured through violence, no matter how hoarse Suze's voice gets shouting encouragement to the "sista-girls".

We need a better commitment to a genuinely balanced approach from our lawmakers and academics.

I should have mentioned that the link to the Enough is Enough website is a paid ad, it doesn't appear thanks to search rankings...

You're a puzzle, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles, a false dichotomy is no argument<<

Far from insisting this is an "either/or" situation, I am suggesting that it is impossible to make black-and-white judgements based only upon your interpretation of what went on.

>>...the issue is not with her motivation<<

Why on earth not? It is not as if she is beating the crap out of him with an iron bar. She is simply reacting (in my view) to a humiliation, and is offering an appropriate and measured response, as the Geneva Convention might describe it.

Another detail we lack, of course, is their relative sizes/strength. If she were an Amazon, and he a nine-stone weakling, I might have more sympathy with your judgement. But from the little detail we have, he was clearly physically strong.

>>Do you think the police would have been called by someone if it had been him slapping her? I have no doubt whatever that they would.<<

Irrelevant. We are talking about a man being slapped by a woman. A physically weaker person using a mild form of violence on a grown man. Hold the front page. Dog bites man.

>>Do you think that she would have slapped him if she thought it was regarded as reasonable for him to defend himself?<<

Let's think about that for a moment, from a purely human perspective. Forget the "reasonable for him to defend himself" bit. Think "is he likely to hit me back?" It appears she knew him well enough to know that he was not the type to smack a lady.

But this is a worry:

>>I would run away before I defended myself against such an assault, simply because the law makes me unable to do aso without risking being charged with assault.<<

So, you'd hit a woman, if the law allowed it?

That's pathetic.

Pericles:"t is not as if she is beating the crap out of him with an iron bar. She is simply reacting (in my view) to a humiliation, and is offering an appropriate and measured response, as the Geneva Convention might describe it."

So where is the line drawn? If I suspect my wife is having an affair, is it reasonable for me to hit her 20 times? After all, I'm "simply reacting to a humiliation"...

No more false dichotomies, please.

Pericles:"Forget the "reasonable for him to defend himself" bit. Think "is he likely to hit me back?" It appears she knew him well enough to know that he was not the type to smack a lady."

So your defense of her is based not just on the idea that it's reasonable for a woman to hit a man, but that it's even more reasonable if she knows she can get away with it? Nice, I wonder how far you'd be prepared to extend that line of reasoning? For example, if I caught you with my wife, would I be entitled to beat you both? After all, I'm "humiliated".

You make it all clear in your last little bon mot:

">>I would run away before I defended myself against such an assault, simply because the law makes me unable to do aso without risking being charged with assault.<<

So, you'd hit a woman, if the law allowed it?

That's pathetic."

In your view, it seems it's unconscionable for a man to defend himself against a woman.

In other words, you agree that

"men are required to exercise control and women are assumed to be unable to do so. Men are treated like adults and women are treated like children."

Why didn't you just say so?

Sorry but while I have no intentions yet I would under some circumstances hit a woman laws or not.
At my birth women could be considered property, not all but most.
We have come far, grown, but now like it or not some act like men.
Men, huge strong men, are bashed, harsh hard, damaging, hands by their side.
It is equally dreadful.
EQUALITY.
What only in some things, ok for some true tramp to bust a man but wrong if it is the other way around.
A woman who is immensely over weight, unhappy,and well unpleasant, has adopted a man like attitude.
Harsh as any trucker she pulverizes her man, trys it with every man.
If she did with me? you betcha.
No human being should ever be bashed .
I have a special place for both male and females who miss use the relation ship with the partner they abuse, not a nice place.

You still don't seem to get it, Antiseptic.

>>If I suspect my wife is having an affair, is it reasonable for me to hit her 20 times?<<

No. You are a man. She is a woman. Men do not hit women. It's part of men being men and women being women.

Is she "entitled" to hit her man? No, of course not.

But if she does, since it it is likely to cause less damage than a man hitting a woman, it is less likely to cause offence. Which goes to proportionality, which goes to context.

Is the man "entitled" to go to the police? Yes, of course he is.

But if he does, it is likely to be treated less seriously than a man hitting a woman. That also speaks to proportionality, relative harm and social acceptance.

>>So your defense of her is based...<<

This isn't a "defence" of anyone. I'm just trying to bring a little everyday, common sense into the situation, while you are calling for lawyers at ten paces.

>>...if I caught you with my wife, would I be entitled to beat you both?<<

Let's keep this discussion away from fantasy if we can, shall we?

>>In your view, it seems it's unconscionable for a man to defend himself against a woman.<<

Not at all. I did in fact say that if the guy in the example felt unfairly treated, he could have caught her hands, and stopped the assault. I did not, however, say that it would be correct behaviour to get into a bar-room brawl with the lady. Most unseemly.

>>In other words, you agree that "men are required to exercise control and women are assumed to be unable to do so"<<

[sigh]

No. (Incidentally, who am I supposed to be agreeing with?).

Both men and women are required to exercise control in a civilized society. However, there is a different level of social acceptance in the situations where i) a woman slaps a man and ii) a man slaps a woman.

Which part of that do you have a problem with?