The NSW Government has acknowledged that the feminist sociological construction that has seen domestic violence portrayed as being a patriarchal dominance behaviour that is carried out exclusively by men against women is false, according to website A Voice for Men"

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/patriarchy-debunked-by-nsw-govt/?fb_source=pubv1

"In a historic move reported in Australia’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper, the New South Wales[NSW] State Government and Minister Pru Goward have demonstrated integrity and courage by acknowledging the previously ignored population of male victims of domestic violence and choosing to make services available to them that were, until now, only available to women. (Sunday Telegraph (Sydney), 30 Jun 2013, p32.)

The services will include a time-limited private rental subsidy previously offered by Housing NSW to female victims and their children. Goward said the move followed evidence that around one-third of all domestic violence cases were men."

I have been unable to confirm the report to date. The online edition of The Telegraph does not carry the story.

I'm wondering why it was buried on p 32 of the print edition. Was it hoped that nobody would notice?

Maybe the loss of votes sustained by the Gillard government as a direct result of her war against men, her gender war, has made political parties sit up and take notice.

That goes some way towards balancing this recent sad loss in NSW,

<The NSW government has decided not to replace the NSW Men’s Health Plan. New South Wales was the first government in the world in 1999 to produce a men’s health policy.

The Men’s Health and Information Resource Centre at the University of Western Sydney will cease to be funded from 30 June 2013. The future of the Men’s Health Workers in the various Local Health Districts is uncertain.>

That was the decision of Jillian Skinner MP, the New South Wales Minister for Health and Minister for Medical Research. It wasn't much money, but it was being put to a very good cause. What a pity that the news seems to come as a fait accompli, no consultation with those affected.

Yes indeed boys, we live in a woman's world alright.

Antiseptic, I have never seen it written anywhere that men aren't victims of domestic violence?
Women beating up men is far less common, but everyone knows it happens.

Naturally, some women will fight back during domestic violence incidents, and men will get hurt as well.
Men on men domestic violence is also commonplace as well.
Male family members fight each other, and gay couples experience domestic violence.

All these scenarios are well known, so I don't know why you go on about some sort of conspiracy against men.

If there was a large need for help for men who are victims of domestic violence, then we would have men's refuges dotted around our communities to keep them safe.

If men are victims of domestic violence, then they are as free to access help and to lay charges against their abusers as anyone else.

Suse, you're simply offensive.

OTB, I'm sure you're right. Rudd's announcement of his cabinet this morning was highly semiotically loaded, particularly his announcement of Julie Collins's new position.

He proudly announced she would be in Cabinet as Minister for Housing and Homeless, then went on to discuss his long-term interest in those topics before saying "she will also be Minister for the Status of Women". This is a very clear statement about the relative importance the new ALP Government will give to the strident voices of people like Suse.

It is also instructive that Senator Jacinta Collins will be in charge of Mental Health and Aging, two issues that have been far less prominent in the past and have been overshadowed by the relentless self-promotion of femocrats and advodemics in sociology and psychology departments who have been supported by journalists who see themselves as political players more than reporters.

There will also be a Parliamentary Secretary for Housing and Homeless, Doug Cameron, who is not known for his support of privilege.

An excellent start.

Anti,

The portfolios of for homelessness and the status of women increasing have a pertinent connection.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-30/housing-fails-to-meet-changing-face-of-homelessness/4659026

I happen to know a couple of blokes who were treated very badly by their wives....but by the same token, my own mother stuck for years with an abusive alcoholic man who had no hope of providing for us (he was always in work but vanished his income on booze and bets every Saturday followed by a filthy temper - and then he'd beat her up to get her money from part-time work)

She found it very difficult to leave him in the sixties, so we endured years of torment.

Poirot, I didn't know 'vanish' was a verb.
I'd like to vanish my neighbour's dog. Any suggestions?

Hi Poirot, I agree, which is why I was so pleased by the Rudd Cabinet appointments.

As I have said previously, the genderised construction of domestic violence is fundamentally flawed and it has created lots of bad outcomes. There is no doubt that when things go completely pear-shaped and physical violence happens it is often the woman who ends up worst off, but there's equally no doubt that a woman can claim violence with no real justfcation and if she does the man can end up even worse off, homeless, depressed, unemployed, with no future and no interest in his plight from government or anyone else. If he rings for counselling he'll be told he has to acknowledge his violence, and if he points out he's the victim, he'll be told he's "blaming the victim" and denying his role. Meanwhile, his ex is getting every possible assistance offered.

This new portfolio is an excellent start.

Oops, what I meant to say was I have never seen Vanish used in that way. Is it common? I know things can vanish, but if someone is causing something to disappear I thought we had to say - he made it vanish - or something like that.

ybgirp,

It felt right so I wrote it.

(Btw, "pedantic" is an adjective:)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedantic

Hi ybgirp,

"I'd like to vanish my neighbor's dog. Any suggestions?"

Shoot the damn thing.
Oh, sorry you probably live in a city where the population can't be trusted with a gun.
A dog on my land near cattle lasts about as long as it takes for a 44.40 to travel from the barrel to the brain.
Oh well there is always bait

Anti while I understand the truth behind your concerns,some find a bigotry that is not there.
I proudly have taken the white ribbon oath.
And just as proudly had no personal need to do so.
Having never hit or threatened a woman.
But I am aware, as mad as the very thought is, some will say women are never in the wrong and we are lessor men for saying they do.
I have seen men who are shouted at in front of anyone, do all the house work, including cooking and cleaning.
While the wife stays anchored to the face book page.
Too of women planing from the day they wed, to get as much as they can out of their man, then leave.
Lucky both sexes ,it is minority,s that I talk about

Antiseptic, why on earth was my post offensive?
Sometimes it's hard to face the truth isn't it?

Why are you on about Rudd's front bench, as if either of the major parties give a damn about either men's or women's rights?

In any case, I very much doubt Rudd and his rabble will ever get the chance to actually govern...

'If there was a large need for help for men who are victims of domestic violence, then we would have men's refuges dotted around our communities to keep them safe.'

Hahhaa. Classic circular argument.

If there was a large need for men to do more housework, then there would be men everywhere doing a lot more housework.

If women are interested in being paid the same as men, then they are as free to access the jobs that pay very well as anyone else.

This is fun Suze.

Susie, the spin you put in your post is clearly aimed to minimise taking violence against men seriously. Including the comment "Naturally, some women will fight back during domestic violence incidents, and men will get hurt as well." which looks like you are trying to suggest that women are generally only violent in response to the males violence.

Sexist rubbish. You have constantly done whatever you can over your years to side tack and minimise discussion of violence against men in domestic situations. When confronted with evidence you retreat to what you want to believe and never ever show the guts to confront the evidence.

You may want to believe that your geneder is more virtuous than men but that does not make it so. Human beings are human beings, those who want to do wrong will use whatever they can get away with irrespective of gender.

Given the other biases in the system the male with an abusive spouse may be in a far harder position to escape than the female other than in the most extreme situations.

Your sexism is offensive. Expect to be called on it time after time.

R0bert

You're such a misogynist r0bert.

Poirot, I just read that report you linked. sorry I didn't get to it earlier. It says that women are choosing to leave relationships and finding themselves homeless. That's tragic. However, it raises a few questions.

For example, why are they leaving? Rev Garner hypothesises, but without any supporting evidence, that "One reason may well be that in fact people have now more guts, they're not going to stand being in a home situation where they're abused and violence is the norm," he said. "

On the other hand, one reason may well be that their relationship is not coping with the lack of work for men and the financial pressure that places on all parties.

Another reason may be that when they go to Centrelink they see lots of posters telling them that if their partner yells at them they're victims of violence. They don't see any that say they shouldn't start the yelling.

Another reason may be that they think they will be able to access housing support as a single parent that they can't access as a member of a couple.

Another reason may be that when they seek counselling from women's support groups they are told they are being oppressed and that they must "empower" themselves by leaving the family home or they will surely be victims of physical violence. They don't get told how to improve the family's financial situation or how to negotiate with their partner to work out how to get ahead.

Another reason may be that they acted impulsively out of a desire to hurt their partner during an argument.

Another reason may be that their partner expects them to work to help to make ends meet, which makes them feel pressured, so they leave to avoid the bad feeling.

Another reason may be that their partner is depressed because he can't find work and they don't know how to help, or he is not responsive to help, so they run rather than persist.

Funny that Rev Garner and the ABC didn't mention those other possibilities, don't you think?

Good posts, RÛbert and Antiseptic.

Of course, it's not funny at all. In fact, the reason Rev Garner is so selective in his comments is a a little further down the page and it's got nothing to do with concern for those women and children.

"But we certainly need the resources"

As usual, following the money is the key to understanding what makes people tick.

Contemptible, money-grubbing fools have been at the root of our social degradation in this country. Some in business and far more in the "caring industries", where there's a 24 hour travelling medicine show with a panacaea for everything and all it takes is "resources".

Just one more comment on that mendacious fool Garner. He says "One reason may well be that in fact people have now more guts". By "people" he means "women", implicitly excluding men from that category. This sort of disgraceful manipulative writing off of men from the map of humanity is so common it's not even noticed any more.

For those interested, a new comprehensive study on the subject of DV has just been released.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?683

"The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, or PASK, whose final installment was just published in the journal Partner Abuse, is an unparalleled three-year research project, conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centers, and including information on 17 areas of domestic violence research."

"Among PASK’s findings are that, except for sexual coercion, men and women perpetrate physical and non-physical forms of abuse at comparable rates, most domestic violence is mutual, women are as controlling as men, domestic violence by men and women is correlated with essentially the same risk factors, and male and female perpetrators are motivated for similar reasons.

“Although research confirms that women are more impacted by domestic violence,” stated Hamel, “these findings recommend important intervention and policy changes, including a need to pay more attention to female-perpetrated violence, mutual abuse, and the needs of male victims.”

Hamel also argues that men are not only disproportionately arrested in domestic violence cases, but sometimes arrested for arbitrary reasons, citing, for example, that police often arrest the bigger and stronger party in cases where the perpetrator is unclear. “Such policies are not only ineffective but violate people’s civil rights,” Hamel concludes. “People in the domestic violence field say that ‘it’s all about the victims.’ Well, the victim is not always the one hit, but sometimes the one arrested.”

Read more about the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, or visit the world’s largest domestic violence research database at http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org for free access to thousands of pages summarizing 1,700 peer-reviewed studies."

The site has a link to an interview with Hamel.

The utopian ideal would be not to replace patriarchy with matriarchy but an equitable and egalitarian society that respects the rights of human beings.

Attempting a bit of armchair psychology/anthropology: most boys were taught that men do not hit women; and while girls were told it was not nice to hit people, possibly the message was not as strong as it related to the opposite sex. This was reinforced in movies where a woman might slap a man in a moment of pique or if he behaved inappropriately. This is a cultural norm that is changing with evolving times and a stronger masculinist movement (borne primarily out of family law issues), to a point where violence of any form will be (and should be) deemed unacceptable no matter who is perpetrator/victim.

There is more violence overall in our communities and an increase in street violence and reports that suggest women are becoming more violent. Where has it all gone wrong. I don't think the growth of violence is a gender issue but something more deep seated within our society. Lack of respect for people, property and others' rights. Did this come from the growth in consumerism and the 'me me' effect or is it more complicated.

As for Rudd's front bench (and not in response to Anti's comment about the OSW) I was annoyed at media reports on this that Rudd is promoting women to the Cabinet etc. The implication being this is the only reason women get promoted ie.their gender and not their abilities. Why is gender mentioned at all. The media are partly to blame. I've yet to read a sentence like 'Rudd has appointed nine men to the Cabinet'. That may sound facetious and I understand the under-representation of women in politics, however I reckon it would be beter all-round if gender was not considered 'remarkable' in these contexts.

Pelican I agree with all you said. Rudd was clear in response to questions that in his view gender should simply not be a topic for discussion. He made the point that promotion of a gender agenda rather than a productive one is simply not constructive.

I agree completely.

Pelican well said.

R0bert

Yes Pelican, I agree that the general increase in violence in our society should not be considered a gender issue, but a societal issue.
I am pleased to see everyone agrees so far.

All violence is dreadful, and violence should be tackled as a whole, instead of this constant bickering and finger pointing from both genders.

So, if both patriarchy and matriarchy can be obliterated from our language, then all would be well.
I think we have a fair way to go on that concept yet though...

Suse,
Domestic violence is not a gendered issue, women and men abuse with the same frequency, women are more likely to initiate violence against a domestic partner but due to sexual dimorphism they often come of second best in confrontations with men.
With regard to violence more generally it's men and boys who are overwhelmingly the victims of violent crime and homicide, in war men make up over 80% of the casualties, sometimes as in WWI it's near 100%.
You know this is the truth of the matter but you still stick to old fashioned ideas like gender theory, why?

Well said, Pelican.

pelican, "There is more violence overall in our communities and an increase in street violence"

Is that an increase in violence, or an increase in reporting of violence (combined with some broadening of definitions, sometines the legal definitions as well)?

Also consider the effect of media sensationalism and preoccupation with certain crimes on the public's perception of the type and frequency of violent offences. To give an example, the public probably believes that firearms offences are common. But they are not. They are uncommon and have been trending down in Australia long before Howard's 'buy back' for example. On the other hand, home burglaries have been on the increase and what is worrying is that the clearance rate is low. By clearance rate I mean arrest of offenders.

Regarding violence, emphasis on gender only complicates and splits the available research and other resources.

I generally agree with the sentiments you expresed earlier.

Suseonline, thanks for all your posts here on this topic. You clearly have a balanced viewpoint, and you express it without personal abuse and defensive aggression. Keep up the good work please.

Thanks PJack : )
I am a glutton for punishment I think....

Suse
We always seem at odds but really we are just two women coming at a problem from a different angle.

The feminist movement has achieved many positives for women (ignoring for a moment some of the not so good) but the way forward IMO is to end the patriarchy/matriarchy debate and just get on with a holistic approach.

I don't dispute we have a way to go on gender in some areas which I have written about elsewhere eg. attitudes to rape, women's sexuality. The question we should be asking is how to approach these problems. I don't necessarily accept governments always have to play a starring role other than ensuring a strong judiciary and rule of law and of course assistance in the form of information, shelters, counselling etc.

It does not mean we as a society stop discussing some of these issues.

My simplistic view is gender discussions should not be divisive. This is not the same as saying, there is no sexism or there are no misogynists or misandrists. You only have to read some of the men's sites to see there are some pretty nasty views and generalisations about women. I get the impression much of it is influenced by personal marital experiences and like most people, tend to see things only from their POV. I've met some women with similar views about men after a breakup ie.'all men are b*ds' response. Like religion these are in the domain of personal issues.

My point is how this discussion is to be reflected in policy, what role governments should play and how it is articulated.

A holistic approach benefits everyone equally and would reflect a high standard of respect, care and attention to men, women and children.

Pelly,

Very good point (It is so refreshing to have you posting here regularly again...along with Suse and Lexi)

I'm supposing that traditional societies operated holistically - for the good of the tribe/community. It doesn't work so well for some reason in advanced societies where the use of technology blurs the gender lines.

I'm wondering, in that case, if the paradox can ever be overcome?

pelican,

'All can be forgotten', 'never you mind', 'suck it up' and 'move right along' would be very nice for the middle class feminist elite who have managed quite comfortable niches and even pyramids for themselves, and dip from the bucket of taxpayers money. They they can continue to beaver away feathering their own nests and manipulatiing policy behind the scenes as they have done for years.

NO! There has to be a sunset on the victim industries that have been a drain on the public purse in the decades since the Whitlam government, and increasing in size and cost every year.

There must be independent comprehensive AUDITS, not politically suspect 'reviews' headed by professionals and involving interests who are themselves dependent on the victim industries they are briefed to examine. The audits must also examine the objectives, measuring of attainments and that value for (taxpayers') money is always being obtained. The audit reports must be made available to the public and that includes preliminary and part-reports where necessary.

It is simply not good enough that the direct and indirect costs to the taxpayer of (say) 'multiculturalism' are not known and cannot even be estimated with any confidence. Yet the cost must be many millions annually. But for what and how does the taxpayer know that the best value for money is being obtained, or even if measurable objectives can be drafted?

Would you open your bank account for some vague motherhood purpose and without even an end date for payments?

Thanks Pelican and Poirot,
You are certainly some of the few logical thinkers on this site : )
Pelican you are right of course, and I agree with your analysis of the current gender related problems in our society.

Maybe if I had been badly hurt emotionally or financially by an ex partner, like some people obviously have on this site, I may react the same way as them.

I will, however, still stand up for what I believe is true, and not be put off from expressing my opinions on this opinion forum...as we all should do.

I think I have said pretty much all I want to say on this thread by now, so I will look forward to seeing you all on another thread.
Cheers,
Suse.

Thanks Suse and Poirot
In the end we are all after the same thing. Please do keep putting your views forward. The object of expressing opinions on this site is not to persuade but to offer different ways of looking at things. :)

otb
Agreed. Audits are important part of government processes. The difficulty comes sometimes with how to measure success. In the case of some 'feel good' agencies the measures might be simply that there are more women in traditional male roles. The difficulty is in proving whether a particular agency had anything to do with that achievement. Naturally most will claim those successes.

In the early days agencies like OSW were part of the machinery of raising awareness which probably served a purpose (not for stay-at-home mums necessarily :)) but now that purpose has been served I don't see a place for agencies like OSW. There is already a human rights and discrimination Commissioner, Fair Work Australia and other bodies to which people can approach if they think they are being unfairly treated or discriminated. Other than providing a spokesperson who is wheeled out from time to time on media to talk about gender, I cannot see what new on-the-ground work is being accomplished by OSW that is not already entrenched now in our cultural norms.

pelican,

Thank you for the considered reply. You most likely realise and I have said it before, that I don't really mind what policy government comes up with provided that:

- there is proper consultation, preferably direct, when it is framed ie should be based on evidence; and

- there must be measures for attainment that provide timely public reporting on value for money obtained and success in meeting the pre-determined goals.

No, I do not believe that government should apply my taxes to policy where the outcomes cannot be measured (or, as activists prefer, ought not be measured).

The government does not have any money itself. All government money comes from applying State force to take money from those who have laboured to earn it. Now I don't mind that either, provided it is to meet identified needs, it is not just regulation for the sake of it (as many new laws seem to be) and as said earlier, there are numerical measures for success.

I would like to see a 'Sunset Clause' on all legislation that provides for automatic review along the lines suggested above.

The growth of agencies outside of the usual departments is a worrying trend.

Antiseptic,

This thread has wandered away from the OP, sorry.

On the bright side, this is probably a clipping of the article you were looking for,

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/storage/pdfs/Men_Get_Domestic_Support.pdf