Way to go Malcolm! If you want to stop men from behaving violently then alienate them even more by declaring them to be not ‘real men’ and horror of all horrors –un-Australian.

Anyone who resorts to violent behaviour has serious issues about their own self-worth. Whatever has led them to that belief can only be made worse by bullying them into submissive behaviour. It could well be that they already do not have a strong sense of their own masculinity and all this kind of jingoism does is to make things worse. Let’s tell them they cannot play with the rest of the boys until they become ‘real men’. Let’s taunt them and deride them until they can tolerate it no further and stop their evil ways.

What a simplistic approach – as if all you need to do is bully someone enough and they will suddenly become detached from all the pain and insecurities that have dogged their lives from childhood. Who writes these reports into domestic violence? Let’s get the numbers down – it doesn’t matter how. It doesn’t matter where men take their suppressed violence as long as we get the numbers down. It doesn’t matter if they begin to beat up children or other men or act out their aggression in less violent but even more destructive ways. Let’s not bother to sit any of these men down and get to the core of why they behave violently. Who cares as long as the number of women who die becomes less? Just throw as much money as we can at it.

How about spending some of this money on educating women to dismiss rubbish like The Bachelor which encourages women into forming domestic relationships based on the attempt to replicate the romantic fantasies they see played out there? Hammer home the reality that two women are killed every week and that it is far too risky a venture to enter into for anyone who cares about their own safety. Help women take control before and not after.

The irony is that the many including Malcolm want to bring people from cultures where domestic violence is rife and acceptable. Until sections of the community are addressed where the violence rates are astronomical you can be sure the outrage is somewhat fake. What also puzzles me is the number of 'educated' women who hook up with drop kicks. Its seems like Malcolm is not all that opposed to slogans as he so decried. This is one area where things are far more complex than what many want to admit. Our society by and large is reaping the fruit of its godless ideologies.

Judith Ireland in her article in The Sydney
Morning Herald tells us that some people will
hate what the Prime Minister has to say on
domestic violence.

She's not wrong.

As Ireland points out:

Australia has a shocking record on domestic violence.
And it is time Australia began to tackle this problem
in a more open way. Words are important. The language
that the Prime Minister uses shapes the parameters of
debate. They have the power to make concepts, arguments
and information mainstream and make us less squeamish
about the roots of why one in six Australian women are
sexually or physically abused by a current or former partner.

So when our Prime Minister says it is "un-Australian" to
disrespect women - he has made the campaign to end domestic
violence that much more achievable. This debate not only needs
to be had - but ways of solving this problem will only be
achieved by bringing this matter out into the open.

I'd like to see if there are stats on just who are the offenders, Australians, Imigrants etc and how many cases involve drugs.

While there is no excuse for belting women, who are generally weaker than men, it seems to me that many women, particularly the young, make very poor choices when it comes to males. The most obvious examples of this seen daily are attractive, well dressed young women hanging on to scruffy, dirty slobs displaying ample plumbers' cracks. If these creeps don't even have the respect to make an effort for someone who has gone to a lot of trouble to look nice for them, they simply have no respect, full stop, and they are exremely poor risks for the future.

rehctub

you have no chance of getting those stats. Women in some communities know that floggings have always been part of the culture. When Malcolm speaks of unaustralian in the case of dv he must be insulting many of the first people. Like Rudd he appears to need some ' moral ' issue to cover his treachery for the last 12 months. He can hardly use gw as Rudd used that one when it was convenient. Malcolm is showing how much he about spin.

runner,

"....Like Rudd he appears to need some ' moral ' issue to cover his treachery for the last 12 months. He can hardly use gw as Rudd used that one when it was convenient. Malcolm is showing how much he about spin."

Or maybe he's reacting to the fact that 63 women have been killed in domestic violence incidents so far this year.

(Although I think the term "un-Australian" is a vacuous nothing word that's employed as some sort of lame meaningless token when Australians display their worst traits.)

' Or maybe he's reacting to the fact that 63 women have been killed in domestic violence incidents so far this year.'

Yeah Poirot and that is tragic. I have known personally some who have killed women after being let out of prison with a long line of offences. Again I doubt whether the pc brigade would allow a breakdown of the offenders profiles to be revealed. When proper targeting is done I will then believe they are really getting serious. The dramatic increase of murder in South Africa over the last couple of decades goes largely unreported. Largely due to the profile of those committing the crimes.

The distressing part of all that I've heard so far regarding the initiative is the continuation of the completely gendered version of the discussion.

No mention of the admittedly smaller numbers of men who lose their lives at the hands of intimate partners ( 2002–03 to 2011–12 166 males compared to 488 females http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/21-40/rip38.html thats 25% of intimate partner homicides. If I'm reading the numbers correctly 15 of those 166 male deaths were by a male partner.

No mention in what I've heard about the impacts of disrespecting men on men by their partners and where that leads to.

No mention that during that period refereed to in the previous reference 2186 men were the victims of homicide compared to 1205 females.

It's a vile issue but I strongly believe that those who insist on framing it entirely in gender terms are part of the problem in reducing DV. They leave men with violent partners few options by way of support, they leave those men worried that any attempts to seek help will see them labelled as the problem. They leave violent women with the knowledge that no one takes their use of violence seriously and knowing that any attempt by their partner to defend themselves leaves their partner at risk of legal consequences.

We have been over the stats on lower levels of violence over many years, that seems to be a dead end with nobody listening.

Does anybody though believe that 25% of intimate partner homicide fatalities don't rate any kind of mention (let alone the suicides resulting from intimate partner abuse in it's various forms)?

R0bert

rechtub, I can't locate recent stats giving the kind of breakdown you mentioned. A report from 1998 is the best I've found so far (there may be more recent around). http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi090.pdf

A couple of demographic issues stand out from the material I've seen. Being an aboriginal woman (wonder what impact remote community vs urban has on that) puts someone at around 20* the risk in the general community. Not working seems to be a very big factor for both perpetrators and victims.

Probably depends on how not working is defined but my understanding that most measures would have the figure at less than 10% of the adult population but in the 1998 report the percentages are over the 50% mark for perpetrators and victims of intimate partner homicide.

Under the influence of alcohol at the time is over 30% for both categories as well. A fair representation of previous criminal record as well.

There are a lot of factors involved, most of which I think the pollies either don't want to know about of consider to be political suicide to raise. Be so much better if we could have a concerted approach to stopping all non consensual violence rather than politicised campaigns that all to often either do little or make the situation worse.

R0bert

Well if you ignore the DV statistics pertaining to immigrants and Aborigines the picture doesn't look too bad, figures quoted by the Age earlier this year suggest that 84% of DV complainants in Victoria are overseas born.

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/ViolenceAust

It covers domestic, family, and sexual violence in Australia
and gives an overview of the issues.

We're told that in Australia domestic, family, and sexual
violence is found across all cultures, ages, and socio-
economic groups. But, the majority of those who experience
these forms of violence are women.

However, it is not possible to measure the true extent of the
problem as most incidents of domestic, family, and sexual
violence go unreported.

The information available as the link states on the
prevalence of domestic, family, and sexual violence in
Australia is derived from surveys.

The 2013 Australia wide survey on personal safety conducted by
the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) found that
many men and women experience at least one encounter with
violence in their life-times.

The survey showed that men are far more likely to experience
physical violence at the hands of a stranger but women
experience physical violence by someone known to them -
usually an intimate partner or family member.
Both men and women are more likely to experience physical
violence than sexual violence - but women are more likely
to experience sexual violence in their lifetime than men.

The social and economic costs of violence against women are
considerable. In 2009 the National Council to Reduce Violence
against Women and their children (NCRVWC) estimated the
violence against women and their children including both
domestic and non-domestic violence cost the Australian
economy $13.6 billion.

Conventional wisdom says 'Man should never raise a hand to a woman', and if he does its automatically his fault.

But if one investigates domestic violence and starts from the position of 'violence' or 'violence against women' then they have already cut themself off from solutions.

If you have already made the ascertation that its all the mans fault, (by focusing on the act of violence itself) then you aren't able to truly seeing things for what they are.

If you want to GET REAL on this issue, you have to go back to the beginning.

To the time when these 2 people were truly in love.
When they were attracted to one another.
When they respected one another.
When they cared about each others feelings.
When they saw potential in each other and a future.
When they accepted each other.

What happened between then and the point in which someone raised a hand?
How did this loving caring person whom his partner trusted become so angry, violent, insenstitive and heartless?

Maybe the signs were already there that the relationship had already run its course.
Maybe the best before date had already come and gone and the two should have already gone their separate ways.
It can be hard to make the right decisions at the time, usually seen more clearly in hindsight.

My theory is 'Men lash out when they feel challenged or backed into a corner' - as most people will.

- The Big Question -
What made the man feel 'backed into a corner' that they felt the need to lash out?
- This should be the focus of understanding domestic violence.

Men can have difficulties understanding women on an emotional level, and women can act in all sorts of underhanded ways when their needs aren't being met.

Things can spiral out of control.

Life's a journey of learning for everyone, some just haven't reached the minimum required standard of understanding from experience just yet, and I think we all need to have a few failed relationships in order to learn how to get it right.

Thanks for that link Foxy, the debate needs a level of sensibility which unfortunately once again the forums 'Usual Suspects' will want to tern it into some kind of race hate debate. Domestic violence in indigenous communities is at an unacceptable level, in fact one instance of DV in society is one instance too many.
Josephine Cashman the chairwoman of the Community Safety Committee of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council has made a strong statement on the need for courts to take the issue seriously when handing down sentences. For too long as a society we have played down domestic violence as being simply part of life for some, the "she needs a slap now and then to show her who's boss, and keep her in line." that should never ever have been acceptable, but unfortunate it was accepted by law enforcement, courts and society in general. Its high time we tackle the issue head on, and do something constructive to eradicate the scourge, and hopefully Turnbull is now introducing some right thinking into the debate which the Abbott government seemed to lack, even though Abbott himself appeared to be well meaning on the issue. The $100m is a move in the right direction to show the government is serious about tackling domestic violence, Turnbull has received universal praise for his governments initiative.

Real men don't belt women and real women don't manipulate and act like witches in denying fathers rights to children.

Paul1405,

You say it is 'race hate' to challenge the leftist political correctness that would have Aboriginal women and girls accorded the same protection and justice of the laws that are enjoyed by the remainder of the Australian population?

http://tinyurl.com/rape-of-ten-yr-old

It is not 'men' generically speaking who molest, rape and beat girls and women, it is offenders who break the law. Of course policy and the allocation of taxpayer money should be guided by evidence and targeted. To do otherwise would be to waste taxpayer $$ on the legion of academics, public servants and private 'consultants' who swing from the taxpayer's teat.

It is also quite appropriate for the public to demand of government that it is always proactive in ensuring that toxic political systems, values and traditions are not imported into Australia as occurred in Rotherham and other centres in the UK. -Where the (UK)Labour Party and political correctness were implicated in the protection of Kashmiri offenders and over years of serious criminal acts.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415251/lessons-rotherham-daniel-allott-jordan-allott-ben-allen

It has been admitted previously by the federal government that there are lapses and even corruption in immigration administration. The public have yet to be advised of what remedial treatments and action the government proposes to take.

Sorry, my

"You say it is 'race hate' to challenge the leftist political correctness that would have Aboriginal women and girls accorded the same protection and justice of the laws that are enjoyed by the remainder of the Australian population?"

should be,

"You say it is 'race hate' to challenge the leftist political correctness that would NOT have Aboriginal women and girls accorded the same protection and justice of the laws that are enjoyed by the remainder of the Australian population?

As an aside, this 'campaign' against domestic violence which has caused the ABC and Fairfax to drool over Turnbull is actually an Abbott policy that was due to be released the week Turnbull and Bishop knifed Abbott in the back. Not that the thing has a hope of success, of course. It's just another feel-good, empty gesture that's going to cost a mint, and bore everyone with that Battey woman who's only 'expertise' is to be a victim and be ludicrously awarded Australian of the Year for being a victim. We encourage victimhood in this country, as we laud as 'brave' any Tom, Dick or Harry who has their terminal illness advertised on Today Tonight.

Dear Paul,

The link I provided earlier certainly gives a good
overview of the issues - particularly those related
to Indigenous women - it covers domestic, family
and sexual violence in Australia - and the information
given is current (14 October 2014.

Australia has a shocking record on domestic violence.
The social and economic costs - cost the Australian economy
$13.6 billion. It is time Australia began to seriously
tackle this problem in a more open way. The amount of money
that has been granted by our new Prime Minister and his
government towards this problem is a start. Especially considering
that Mr Abbott and the Coalition cut funding to legal agencies
which left many women in dire straights - especially
Indigenous women. It's all very well to have photo opportunities
at Indigenous Communities as Mr Abbott loved doing - but
it seemed that providing much needed funding in areas that
helped resolve problems was a case of a "bridge too far."

Mr Turnbull is at least trying to build this bridge - and for
that he is to be congratulated.

Beach, I never said that at all, read my post;

<<"You say it is 'race hate' to challenge the leftist political correctness that would NOT have Aboriginal women and girls accorded the same protection and justice of the laws that are enjoyed by the remainder of the Australian population?>>
from my post "Domestic violence in indigenous communities is at an unacceptable level, in fact one instance of DV in society is one instance too many."

Robert, "The distressing part of all that I've heard so far regarding the initiative is the continuation of the completely gendered version of the discussion....We have been over the stats on lower levels of violence over many years, that seems to be a dead end with nobody listening"

Just restricting that to OLO and remembering that the same posters adhere to the same gendered line notwithstanding opposing facts, what do you sense prevents change?

General comment,
<Domestic Violence Against Men: Women More Likely To Be 'Intimate Terrorists' With Controlling Behavior In Relationships
Jun 30, 2014

Science debunks the "women are the gentler sex" myth, finding they are more likely to be "intimate terrorists," or hit their male partners in relationships.
..
The findings revealed just as many women as men could also be classed as abusive, coupled with controlling behavior with serious levels of threats, intimidation, and physical violence. Women were more likely to verbally and physically aggressive to their partners than men. “This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men. “It wasn’t just pushing and shoving,” said Bates, Medical Xpress reported. Some of the survey respondents circled boxes for things like beating up, kicking, and even threatening to use a weapon.

However, when it came to terms of high levels of control and aggression, there was no difference between men and women. There was a higher prevalence of controlling behavior seen in women than men, which was found to significantly predict physical aggression in both sexes. In other words, the more controlling behavior a woman displayed, the more likely she would an “intimate terrorist,” or physically aggressive to her partner.
..
According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, men and boys are less likely to report the violence and seek services due to several challenges such as the stigma of being a male victim. Sixteen percent of adult men who report being raped or physically assaulted are victims of a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, or date.>
http://tinyurl.com/oxwsq7t

Armchair Critic:

“My theory is 'Men lash out when they feel challenged or backed into a corner' - as most people will.”

This is very true and there are many reasons why men feel trapped. It takes a lot of one on one counselling to determine the genesis of this feeling of entrapment and each man would have a different story to tell. How likely would it be for the government to fund a program that focuses on this particular aspect of the problem?

One area where no one wants to go and where women’s groups such as that endorsed by Turnbull do not want to go is the mothering of boys. So many women absolutely possess their sons and when it comes time to break that relationship it is often fraught with violence of the son towards the mother. The mothers do not want to let go because they have often transferred the failed hopes they had for their husbands onto their sons. The only acceptable way out seems to be to get married. Mothers begrudgingly accept this and save their vehemence for the daughter in law.

What often happens is that these men marry carbon copies of their mothers in the hope that they can re-do the relationship and make it less controlling. As soon as their partner begins to exhibit controlling behaviour or possessiveness the old anger re-surfaces and they lash out in a vain attempt to find their freedom.

Of course violence is not the way to deal with the situation but understanding it makes for better approaches to the problem. Many men who are violent have calmed down immensely when they are able to see how such a dynamic works and why they feel the way they do.

This works both ways. Many women marry their violent fathers in the vain hope that they can re-do the relationship and get him to be more caring. When they try to control their partners to make them in the image of a better father it is a recipe for constant aggression on both sides.

"Science debunks the "women are the gentler sex" myth, finding they are more likely to be "intimate terrorists," or hit their male partners in relationships."

"...intimate terrorists"...no less.

How's that for incendiary rhetoric!

Why would anyone bother to come to OLO to discuss this subject in a reasonable and balanced manner?

Poirot:
Why would anyone bother to come to OLO to make a remark like yours? If it is so silly then what does that make you for responding to it?

Dear Phanto,

Perhaps by responding there lies hope set on an
end to the eras of embittered "trench warfare,"
between genders.

A response - may well be a plea for having civilised, courteous,
and meaningful discussions on the issues involved
and how to solve the problem of Australia's shocking
world record on domestic violence - which is found
across all cultures, ages, and socio-economic groups.

A response is a way of trying to make men with rigid, narrow,
stereotypical views, broaden their thinking to not just
condemnations but looking at the issues and finding
ways to solve the very complex problems involved.
Not responding and non action - does not achieve
anything constructive and allowing those kind of
comments only brings the whole discussion
process into disrepute.

cont'd ...

Poirot is absolutely correct in questioning
the comments of a certain
poster's sweeping stereotypical generalisations
that are not productive and are designed deliberately
to provoke.

Foxy:

Well I can't read his mind in the way you apparently seem able to. I can only respond to what he said.

If he wants a better forum perhaps he could contribute by making a positive suggestion about how to deal with the problem of domestic violence instead of just dismissing OLO out of hand.

We don't need to know what he thinks about the forum - just what he thinks about domestic violence.

I'm just wondering at what point are people going to be made responsible for cleaning up their own messes. Why should the tax payer keep funding these messes, we didn't cause them.

The bottom line is we do not have enough revenue to keep the wheels turning at present, so at some point people must fight their own battles, especially if poor choices were made or drugs are involved.

Dear Phanto,

And, I was merely responding to your question
directed to Poirot (she's a female by the way) -
You did ask. Also I've known Poirot on this forum
for quite some time. And, we all know the previous
poster who continually makes "incendiary
remarks" about women in each and every forum discussion.
There's quite a history there with him.

It's interesting though you did not object to
the "intimate terrorists" incendiary earlier remark
of that poster's.

Ah well.
Enough said.

Dear Rehctub,

I guess it all depends on the kind of society that
you want to live in. If you think that people
either sink or swim. And if they sink, well that's too bad,
because, welfare is not good for business. Well then
that's your belief. It smacks of
an ideology of greed, filled by an
unbridled commitment to individualism that leaves
no room for social equity, compassion, or
the idea of an egalitarian society. It sounds like
the politics of money
and power. The concept of the New Right.

However, if you are that concerned with costs it might be worth
reflecting on the fact that it already costs the Australian
economy $13.6 billion having to deal with violence against women
and children. Therefore - an investment and a campaign
to end domestic
violence and make it achievable - is a logical thing for our
new Prime Minister - to do.
Rather than inaction and spending the fortune that it's
already costing us. Allowing - the problem to escalate -
makes no sense at all.

Foxy:

“And, I was merely responding to your question
directed to Poirot (she's a female by the way) -
You did ask.”

I asked Poirot – not you. If I wanted to know why you think she said what she said I would have asked you.

“ Also I've known Poirot on this forum
for quite some time. And, we all know the previous
poster who continually makes "incendiary
remarks" about women in each and every forum discussion.
There's quite a history there with him.”

Well if that’s what you think then the best way to deal with him is to ignore him. If his opinions or his attitudes are so bad then what is the point in responding to him at all? What are you afraid of? Don’t you have enough faith in the truth winning out?

Poirot was deriding the whole forum on the basis of one remark. She is suggesting that it is pointless discussing the issue because of one term used by one person. That is an insult to everyone else who is trying their best to help the discussion along. That is not a positive response but a response of someone who should put up or shut up.

“It's interesting though you did not object to
the "intimate terrorists" incendiary earlier remark
of that poster's.”

There are thousands of things said on these forums which I do not agree with but I do not feel it worth responding to every one of them.

“Ah well.
Enough said.”

There is no need to be so dismissive.

Did anybody actually read onthebeach's post? The terms that are so bothersome to some are part of a quote from a referenced article from a site http://www.medicaldaily.com That was pretty clear in the post.

The context did not in my view suggest that the terms applied to all women, just that women are more likely to be the intimate terrorists in a partner than men. No one seems to have a problem when it's pointed out that men kill more women than women kill men so why is it so offensive to discuss other parts of the picture?

I notice that those who see the issue of DV substantially differently to the way I do don't feel any need to pick up the part of the discussion about of the points I raised, the 25% of intimate partner homicide victims who are male who don't get a mention from "anti-DV" campaigners.
The far higher overall rates of male victimisation in homicide than that experienced by women (and corresponding levels of perpetration by men but the majority of homicide victims are not homicide perpetrators).

The far higher suicide rates amongst men in a discussion that in part starts with the new PM's comments about respect and no obvious statements that respect should flow both ways.

The demographics factors appear to be significant enough that they should be part of the discussion. Lung cancer can happen in the presence of lifetime healthy choices but that does not mean there is no place to talk about the role of smoking and other factors that increase the risks significantly.

R0bert

Phanto,

"This is very true and there are many reasons why men feel trapped. It takes a lot of one on one counselling to determine the genesis of this feeling of entrapment and each man would have a different story to tell. How likely would it be for the government to fund a program that focuses on this particular aspect of the problem?"

I think its doubtful, sadly.
In turn, I think the effort will be pointless if they aren't serious about digging deep into the real nitty-gritty of this issue.

Rechub,
I think if its already costing Australian taxpayers a fortune then why not try to look at the problem.
But there really isn't any point throwing more good money away if they aren't going to do it properly.

RObert,
You mentioned stats of domestic violence against men by women, as a way to balance the argument which can sometimes be framed in a "Violence against Women" sense.

Its valid to show that DV can be perpetrated by both sides and that the issue cannot be looked at simply from a "Men are Bad" perspective.

But I think in order to really deal with the issue we have to deal with the "Gendering" aspects.

For example - Men are traditional money earners and in some ways the decision makers, as decisions many times come down to money.
They're also the traditional head of the family, protector and provider, where the woman is traditionally a nurturer.

This puts pressure on us men to be leaders and make smart decisions.
(This could be one aspect of why men feel backed into a corner and lash out)
Women aren't necessarily expected to lead.

We all know illegal drugs like ice can contribute to the incidence of DV.
But the final point I want to raise on this issue is the prescription drugs.
There's some indications that Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI drugs found in anti-depressants) are also sending people crazy.

http://ssristories.org/

Many mass shooting instances in the US were committed by people on these drugs.

I think that OTB makes several good points. The real discussion should be about aggression and not just violence. There are many types of aggression of which violence is only one. If you want to hurt someone then you are going to use the most effective tools you have – for men in relationship with a woman they will more than likely use violence because they have a distinct physical advantage. Women are more than likely to use other forms of aggression such as put-downs, sarcasm, ridicule and the like. They can also destroy a man’s valuable property that he has worked hard to acquire or make. They can ruin a man financially. They can turn his children against him.

Just because they are not violent does not mean that they have no intention of doing as much damage as men. Most women do not want the discussion extended to include aggression. They take the moral high ground because more women die as a result of men’s aggression and this is seen as some kind of proof that men are by far the most aggressive gender. They have the figures to prove it.

But there is more than one way to die. A lifetime of verbal abuse, emotional blackmail, lying, cheating, and financial stress can cause all types of health problems for men. Their quality of life can be so destroyed that they are as good as dead anyway. At the end of their life they may look back and prefer that they had met a violent death.

The numbers game is not about the damage done but simply about deaths. More people are killed rock-fishing in Australia so in terms of overall importance DV deaths is not our biggest problem by a long way. Of course one death is one too many but try telling the family of the rock fisherman that his death is less important.

Fox, "Poirot is absolutely correct in questioning the comments of a certain poster's sweeping stereotypical generalisations.."

However had you and Poirot both read the post instead of doing your usual knee-jerk reaction you might have realised that the 'certain poster' you criticised wasn't making the comments at all. It was contained within quotations viz '<>' and the URL link was given. Didn't these words mean anything to you, "According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.. (etc)". Here is the link again,

http://tinyurl.com/oxwsq7t

However all is not lost because your behaviour Fox and that of Poirot answer the question I directed at RObert - who it would appear has been very patient with both of you in the past. The question to ROBert was,
"Just restricting that to OLO and remembering that the same posters adhere to the same gendered line notwithstanding opposing facts, what do you sense prevents change?"

The answer as proved by your own behaviour and that of Poirot, Fox, is rather obvious and simple: that your blinkered prejudice prevents you from considering, or even reading, anything that challenges your feminist orthodoxy. Or more likely, challenges your opinions, full stop. Taking yourself as an example Fox, you regularly advise other posters that you do not read posts you disagree with. How rude is that? Any wonder you are stuck in a rut, endlessly repeating yourself, a fembot stuck on continuous loop.

Now feel free to bounce back with your usual fembot ad hominems.

However nothing will change the fact that the research I quoted earlier that challenges 'patriarchy' was professionally done by Dr. Elizabeth Bates from the University of Cumbria and colleagues from the University of Central Lancashire and it was reported by Lizette Borreli, a Senior Reporter at Medical Daily.

Ye Gods, is there any wonder that young women run screaming from the carping, bullying, dictatorial feminists of the previous Millenium?

Beach, and to what degree does your British "research" piece relate to the Australian experience? The whole piece is based on a survey of 1,104 British students, 706 female 398 male with an average age of 24. Hardly representative of Australia with its diverse mix of population.
The use of the emotive term "intimate terrorism" which seems to have been coined by an American sociologist in the 1990's has no relevance to the Australian debate either. Is there any more representative Australian research you can point to that may corroborate your British findings. No one denies a percentage of domestic violence victims are male, and they to deserve attention.

"No one denies a percentage of domestic violence victims are male, and they to deserve attention." Paul if they are not denying it they are using a whole range of tactics to ensure those men got no constructive attention.

- Claiming the numbers are so small as to be insignificant (You may recall ChazP's attempts on that front on this site and others have done similar)
- Just ignoring them. Note the response to my pointing out some numbers earlier
- Suggesting that we have to "solve" violence against women before we can devote resources and attention to violence facing men.
- Suggesting that it's up to men to solve that issue and is not a societal issue.

I'm not a big fan of the reuse of emotive terms and words to strengthen an argument so "intimate terrorism" does not sit all that comfortably but from my experience and that of other's who have abusive spouses I think the term is as relevant here as in the UK or USA.

I'd welcome more quantative research into "who and what" done in Australia if done outside the gender studies/feminist frameworks and which actually sought the truth. Limited amounts of that appear to have been done here and in NZ (I've linked previously to what I'm aware of) but overall there is a large volume of material covering the western world that clearly shows that when men and women are asked the same questions about their experience of receiving and perpetrating intimate partner violence show a very different pattern to that pushed by "anti-DV" spokespeople and politicians.

R0bert

otb,

"Now feel free to bounce back with your usual fembot ad hominems."

It's always hugely entertaining to see posters chide other posters for using ad hominem - by employing ad hominem to do it.

64 women killed in domestic violence incidents this year - RObert do you have the figures for men killed in domestic violence incidents in 2015?

//64 women killed in domestic violence incidents this year//

Which is probably a lot less than the number of men who have killed themselves this year. Males kill commit suicide at a far greater rate than females, but we never hear suicide being spoken about in gender terms. Instead, public health officials are worried about overall suicide rates and how they can be reduced. I think this the right approach, and I think it is the right approach to apply when dealing with domestic violence as well

Poirot not that I've seen. Nobody in the DV industry seems to care less so the figures don't seem to be available in the same way that they are regarding deaths of women. Might be sources I'm missing.
Over a long period they seem to have sat at around 25% of intimate partner homicides.

As a follow on from Tony's point there is also a massive number of male suicides where a possible link to abuse by partners never seems to make public policy discussions.

There is too much in this area that's not dealt with holistically. It's piecemeal to suit agenda's but not treated as an interconnected whole. That in my view is a significant contributor to making things worse.

In my earlier post I missed a key aspect of shutting down attention on male victims. Claiming that they are abusers with a spouse killing them to stop the abuse. Not an excuse that seems to cut it when applied in the other direction (other than with a small minority).

R0bert

RObert, I have repeated it numerous time, that domestic violence is totally unacceptable, be it perpetrated against women, children, men, the elderly the blind, whoever. In fact I deplore violence in all its forms, from premeditated murder to organised prize fighting. On the subject of DV I don't agree with those that demolish the violence against women by simply pointing and saying "well what about the violence against men!" Like if it is some kind of numbers game. Nor do I agree with people like Beach who seem to think it a feminist conspiracy, with a hidden agenda to denigrate men, the facts speak for themselves on that score, its real, its here and its growing.

phanto makes some good points about aggression (abuse). Physical violence is not the only problem in relationships, violence causing death is the extreme, but there is indeed a problem with aggressive behavior from both men and women as relationships break down. Aggression can be long term and take numerous forms, so many people experience and endure long term miserable relationships, sometimes for years, even most of their adult life, as do their children. This is all part of what is bad in our society, unfortunately there is no instant fix in sight.

The link that I gave previously stated that the
information available on the prevalence of domestic,
family and sexual violence in Australia is derived
from surveys. The 2013 Australia wide survey on
personal safety conducted by the ABS found that many
men and women experience at least one encounter
with violence in their lifetimes.

The survey showed that men are far more likely to
experience physical violence at the hands of a
stranger but women experience physical violence by
someone known to them - usually an intimate partner
or family member. Both men and women are more
likely to experience physical violence than sexual
violence = but women are more likely to experience
sexual violence in their lifetime than men.

As the Prime Minister pointed out - it is time Australia
began to tackle this problem in a more open way and
take action to find out the causes of why Australia
has a shocking record on domestic violence and
what measure can be taken to try to solve this problem.

Foxy, can I be so bold as to suggest the majority of people we are dealing with here have no respect for anyone, let alone the law. However, until we actually get some real stats on the problem, how on earth can we be expected to tackle the problem, and more importantly, why throw money into fixing something if you don't know where it broken.

As an example, if there are a large number of ethnics involved, who by their very upbringing disrespect women, what hope do we have of changing that. Would a better approach not be to deport anyone who is a serial offender, such as the with the case of Man Manis, who quite obviously had no respect for women.

Of cause my belief is we should never have allowed these types in, but that's history.

Now if a large number are also indigenous, then we have our hands tied behind our backs, simply because if we do intervene, we cause another so called stolen generation.

My beef is we have this domestic violence, single mums with multiple kids to multiple fathers, among other issues, all of which waste billions of our tax dollars and such waste is the reason our retired folk live in poverty.

Sorry, but I'm over funding this and it's not about money, it's about people contributing to society, not living off it.

Rehctub "Of cause my belief is we should never have allowed these types in, but that's history." The word you were looking for here is 'course', not 'cause', Rehctub....they don't mean the same thing at all.....just trying to be helpful.

If what you are suggesting is that we shouldn't allow criminals to migrate to Australia, I think that rule is already in place.
The suggestion by our PM is that we work harder to find the reasons for, and the best protections against, domestic violence in Australian society. As we are a multicultural society, naturally these measures will involve people from all different cultures and races.

I am hoping that the people who hurt or kill their family members will be stopped and punished severely, irrespective of where they or their ancestors originally came from.
I don't really care about their origins at all

I want to commend all the posters on OLO.
Between everyone that posts we usually cover just about every aspect of a particular issue, and although we may disagree often, the disagreement often provides further opportunity to fine-tune a better point of view.

So the governments going to throw 100 million at the problem?

Will that money be an investment or money thrown down the drain?
What sort of bang for our buck will we get?
What will be the outcome?
Harsher Punishment and Better Education or both?
How many millions will they spend coming to that likely conclusion?
Both of which are going to result in further expense.

We need them to get this right, otherwise whats the point?
It'll be throwing more good money after bad.

If they dont cover every single issue brought up on this thread topic its reasonable to assume that the money wasn't well spent because I think we here at OLO could do a better job ourselves if we simply moved from arguing the merits of a particular issue to organising ourselves into finding the right solution of a particular issue.

Armchair Critic,

"So the governments going to throw 100 million at the problem?"

"Will that money be an investment or money thrown down the drain?
What sort of bang for our buck will we get?"

"How many millions will they spend coming to that likely conclusion?
Both of which are going to result in further expense."

"It'll be throwing more good money after bad."

It should be pointed out that this money is merely being poured back in to this area - after it was removed under the Abbott regime.

It's a bit like the refugee quota - the Abbott govt cut our annual intake by one third - and then makes a "seemingly" generous gesture by upping the Syrian intake...which really takes us back to where we were before the intake was cut.

I think it's fair to say that the fella who bopped the woman at the footy the other night is a case in point...probably loaded with "alcohol", acting offensively around other patrons including children, he was asked to sit down and be quiet. His response was to punch the woman (whom he did not know personally) in the throat.

That's an automatic, almost instinctive, response - no civilised control

Armchair critic, if this Government spent this money on locking up these men at the first physically violent offense against his loved ones,
and giving them anger management education etc while in jail,
and beefing up security at the homes of his loved ones before he gets out of jail,
and puts tracking devices on the men's leg when they get out of jail,
Then maybe some lives will be saved.
And that is certainly worth the money.

This Government was quite happy to throw millions of dollars at Nauru and at the asylum seeker merry-go-round to 'stop the boats' to prevent them from drowning at sea.
Surely it can spend money on strategies for the safety of it's own citizens?

Armchair Critic,

You raised the crucial matter of measurable outcomes, which all government programs are supposed to have, along with the original goals and strategies that should be based on evidence.

I am pleased to respond because most of my contributions to the forum are about that. My theme is almost always governments getting value for the money they have extracted from taxpayers. No government has its own money. It is all taken from someone and it is limited.

That is also where I depart company with some of the posters here, who believe that the bucket is inexhaustible and that there is always someone apart form themselves who should be paying the tab.

Back to the point, no, there are no robust and effective measures of outcomes that are based on numbers and reported to the Parliament and public. That is after scores of years since Whitlam, who was responsible for many of the leaks in the bucket of public revenue.

The $$ goes to the fleas on fleas on fleas. Same as indigenous funding where despite the $millions allocated to (say) housing every year there is SFA to show for it and the costs per unit just keep escalating.

There always were laws against harming another person, whether domestically associated or otherwise. However the courts must demonstrate to offenders that their careers in violence must stop or they will be gaoled.
tbc..

continued..

Want proof?

What about the women recently beaten to death on the Gold Coast allegedly by her ex-Bikie consort. Along with other Bikies be was very recently before that given a smack on the wrist for his part in a vicious brawl in a public place on the Coast. However Labor Premier Annastasia Palaszczuk, her woman Justice and Attorney General and her woman Police Minister are hell-bent on 'deep sixing' the successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (VLAD). VLAD is an act of the Parliament of Queensland to "severely punish members of criminal organisations that commit serious offences". That is despite strong support for the VLAD from police, the public and businesses in SEQld.

Now his alleged violence is being labelled 'DV' by the Qld premier and her government. Maybe they want to conceal an inconvenient truth or two, too.

The police are not responsible for what the decisions of courts and nor so are men generically responsible for the acts of criminals. Just as 'women' are not responsible for the few who neglect, introduce to drugs and beat the daylights out of their children.

Violence is violence.

"That is also where I depart company with some of the posters here, who believe that the bucket is inexhaustible and that there is always someone apart form themselves who should be paying the tab."

And where some of the posters here depart company from otb is when he decries $100 million going to the issue of DV...but says little about the $1.2 "billion" Oz spends on detaining and abusing asylum seekers annually on Nauru and Manus.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/government-spends-12-billion-on-offshore-processing-centres-in-one-year-20150205-13708n.html

Which kind of nullifies the argument from an economic perspective.

Apparently the bucket is only exhaustible when it comes to addressing certain issues - not others.

As I said, this injection of funds redresses the funds slashed and the refuges closed down upon the advent of the Abbott govt.

The wisdom of Abbott. if it can't talk back it doesn't need funding. DV did not exist in Abbott's agenda.

A man with no scruples, no wonder he got the arce. To busy watching his backside to be bothered with reality.

No matter how many excuses you can come up with, DV wants cleaning up, with perpetrators known and punished.

Women in those situations need protection and separation.

Male recipients of DV need to grow Borls and quit winging

doog,

If as you recommend, the "Male recipients of DV [grew] Borls" what should they do?

I told you what they should do. They should stop winging. In other words I do not think it exists. And if it does I say it is their own fault.

Women in that situation are hamstrung, men on the other hand can go and live under a bridge. That is where the difference lies.
I can’t see men getting any sympathy at all, it’s more like they never grew up.

Anyone that thinks punching or mentally demeaning females is their right need imprisonment. Women are fairer and weaker, and not to be man-handled or mentally abused

doog,

Well done (sic), you are representative of some OLO posters who of course would not be taking you to task for that, and perhaps many in the community too. See here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

Women do not do that for no reason where a man does not need a reason. A man confronted with a woman in that mood would move away, unless guilty and caught out.

A good movie but that is all it is.

That Indian female had the right attitude, whatever that bloke was being chastised for he was guilty. Women are not built in a way of aggression. That man just took his punishment, and all will be good.

The only way that bloke was going to get hurt, was his dignity, Dignity does not bleed or break.

Women are always mindful of, they have no where else to go. Men need to be mindful of prison is the only option.

Doog:
"Women are always mindful of, they have no where else to go."

But they should also be mindful that they did not have to go there in the first place nor do they ever have to go there again. Every young woman needs to learn from their elders that domestic relationships are not compulsory.

Any woman who enters into a relationship where they have a thirty per cent chance of being attacked has no sense of their own well-being. They can longer say they have not been warned. The warnings are out there on a daily basis. Women need to take control of their own destiny and refuse to take risks with such ridiculous odds.

I believe all forms of Domestic Violence is utterly repugnant in our society, and for a physically superior male striking a woman is even worse if that's possible.

I don't care what the circumstances may be, if an arguing couple reach such a level of exasperation and mere words alone can't soothe their respective temper(s) - it's up to the male to simply walk away, leave the house, and in so doing allowing the 'heat' to evaporate, thus permitting all the tension and stress occasioned by the argument to subside ! If children are involved - REMEMBER THEM & THEIR WELFARE!

I've attended many DV situations, and believe me the majesty of a police uniform, more often than not, tends to compound and magnify the circumstances rather than calm it down.

Notwithstanding where the blame may lie, often it's the male who receives the most direct police attention, as they (police) consider that he's the one more likely, AND with the greatest capacity, to unleash a serious physical assault, than any female.

Remember, the police enter the premises completely 'cold', as such they have to make a split-second assessment of the event, and their primary duty is (a)the preservation of life, (b)to prevent a serious assault and, (c) a breach of the peace, should the event 'spill over' into a public street or place.

In all Domestic Violence issues, 'it takes two hands to clap' ?

Sometimes I feel so ashamed, to be a male ?

Phanto, do you not think that many friends, relatives, police and medical staff have warned women in these sort of DV relationships to get out, or not to go there in the first place? If it were that easy, we wouldn't have this problem now.

Apparently, there are some men in our society who manage to keep their true violent nature hidden, or rarely exposed, until the women are well and truly in their grasp.
Slowly, these men they love start restricting their movements, money and friends, and then they find themselves trapped because he threatens their family members or friends, or says he will kill himself or her if she leaves him.

It is hugely complex and very difficult for anyone outside of the dysfunctional relationship to understand.
If our society could make it easier and safer for her to leave, or better still, remove him from the family home, then we could maybe decrease the injuries and deaths from domestic violence.

Why is it that if Brutus kills his wife at home, there is barely a whisper raised, but if Brutus happens upon a woman he has never met before alone in her own home, and kills her, all hell breaks loose? We need to change that mindset.

Doog, I actually have a relative who, after leaving his cheating wife, has been dragged to he'll and back by what can only be described as an evil bitch of the highest standard.

In fact, this situation is living proof why our prisons have young fellows in them who have bashed such an evil woman.

First, she walked into the cop shop and told them she feared for her life, total lies of cause, but of cause she got the DVO which mentally effected this guy who wouldn't hurt a fly.

If cause she uses the kids as pawns all the time and makes sure that during his four days per fortnight (his visitation rights) that all the doctors, dentist and other expensive appointments are made for them, so he has to pay.

So I have little doubt there are many cases of DV which are or prevoked by eliv bitches like this one.

Of cause it would be extremely helpful if we had a system that recognized that broken relationships don't just effect mothers and their children.

Unfortunately Doog represents a fairly widespread mentality. One that others who claim to support equality, who claim to be opposed to DV often fail to see in their own attitudes to domestic violence against men.

Likewise unfortunately O sung wu's view represe3nt too many of the polices views.
"I don't care what the circumstances may be, if an arguing couple reach such a level of exasperation and mere words alone can't soothe their respective temper(s) - it's up to the male to simply walk away, leave the house, and in so doing allowing the 'heat' to evaporate, thus permitting all the tension and stress occasioned by the argument to subside ! If children are involved - REMEMBER THEM & THEIR WELFARE!"

Views that don't understand the complexities within the relationships and the mess that flows from often not just being able to walk. A disinterest from police, relationship counsellors, family law system etc in violence committed by women against their partners and attitudes of too many in the community like Doog means that just walking may well add to what is already an incredibly difficult situation. The male is placed in a is not only a no win situation but a brutal destruction from all directions.

Those posts demonstrate all to clearly the need for government to start speaking out clearly against all violence. To ensure that police are trained to treat both parties equally regardless of their own views of the world and paternalistic attitudes.

R0bert

Sooo......what you are saying Rehctub is that if a woman lies to the police or even tries to 'take' his kids away from him, that it is ok to bash and/or kill her? With no judge and jury? Where would you draw the line here?

I never had you figured for a bloke who thought that any woman 'deserved a good bashing' if she lied, disobeyed, or generally pi##ed off her man?
Would you feel the same way if he did that to any woman who annoyed him?
What about male relatives? No problems there either?

We have a LONG way in society to go then to get rid of the DV scourge if there are blokes who still feel this way.

Yeah..since the thread began, the number of women killed in "domestic violence" incidents has risen to 66.

So far we've heard men here lamenting that blokes get killed in domestic violence incidents too - although no-one seems to be addressing this year's woeful record on women and can't tell me the 2015 figures for female violence against men...I suggest it would probably be minuscule.

rehctub gives us an example where a woman behaves badly and tops off his recount with:

"So I have little doubt there are many cases of DV which are or prevoked by eliv bitches like this one."

I have several acquaintances who have been treated abominably in the same manner by female partners....none of them harmed that partner.

So the upshot, seems to be from OLO contributors to this subject that if 60 odd women are killed in this way this year, then we should ignore that fact, jump over to female on male violence and/or blame the women for their situation and/or that they must have asked for it.

We all know males are in far more danger of being assaulted or killed by another male - the same goes for male violence towards women.

Why has this thread concentrated on female physical violence?

Good evening to you ROBERT...

Unfortunately what you say is (generally) true. Many police appear to be disinterested or disengaged, as to the many 'why's' and 'wherefores' of trying to avoid, attending DV matters ?

Ask any copper if his preferred response 'job' is one of a reported DV matter, and they'd sooner run a mile in the opposite direction ! Rather than involving themselves in such a hazardous, complicated, and impenetrable 'mess', that most DV issues represent !

I shouldn't admit this but; there's an old 'saying' in the job when certain radio messages are received, where the only option is to respond with a 'FIDO' ? 'F...IT Drive On' in other words unavailable to respond to that job ? I'll NOT enumerate the types of Jobs that coppers try to avoid at all costs, but amongst that very small list features 'Domestic Violence' ? The 'why's' are self explanatory ?

Quite seriously, coppers WILL do their duty, make no mistake about that, DV or otherwise. But to upbraid or criticize police for seemingly not handling a DV matter well, is a little unfair. Most domestic arguments 'simmer' for days, weeks, even months until finally things erupt into wholesale domestic hostilities.

And when the coppers finally arrive, they're expected to instantly mutate into a Sigmund FRAUD, and make it all go away ? In reality that simply doesn't happen, and the coppers often 'get it wrong', the real trick is to, minimise that 'wrong' ?

Domestic Violence is a real tough one to deal with, and there's no easy answers unfortunately ?

I couldn't find any recent figures, but according to the Lifeline website in 2012 1,901 males committed suicide. That's more than 5 a day. 634 females committed suicide, which is less than two per day.

So I guess we should just ignore all those female suicides, right Poirot? At least until we've wound back the much higher male suicide rate a bit. I mean, yeah, it's tragic that women are killing themselves and all that, but since there are far fewer of them killing themselves we should just forget them and focus on how we can prevent male suicides.

Or maybe we should push the tired old battle of the sexes to one side and try to stop everyone killing themselves. Or their partners. When we're talking about people's lives maybe we can just pretend that men and women are both from Earth, not Venus or Mars, and that we're all in this together.

"So I guess we should just ignore all those female suicides, right Poirot?..."

Yeah, hi Tony Lavis.

Why are you having a go at me?

For all the good fortune in our society, it seems we're still quite a brutish lot....and though this thread is about DV, it seems most here are wishing to talk about everything except the fact that 66 women have killed this year - and that it is a blight on our society.

But carry on - suicide is an ongoing tragedy - one that probably deserves its own thread and not to be plonked here as a further diversion to the discussion of the very serious situation to which Turnbull responded.

"fact that 66 women have "been" killed this year"

//Why are you having a go at me?//

Because based on some extrapolation from the most recent statistics I could obtain, I am very confident in making an estimate that 20 or so men have been killed by their partners this year. But apparently, this is not a blight on our society. Apparently this is all hunky-dory. I dislike double standards, Poirot. And I frown upon the notion that murder is not always a terrible crime.

You are right Poirot.
Our small online community like OLO could well be representative of the larger Australian society, where, up until now, there didn't seem to be much concern about the murders of women every week by their present or ex-partners.

The same is happening here, with discussion about just about anything else except the murders caused by domestic violence.
The PM is willing to talk about the facts, and that is a good start.

Poirot:

“the very serious situation to which Turnbull responded”

Maybe it is a response out of all proportion. 66 deaths and 100 million dollars. There are many more situations in which the number of deaths is much higher but the government does nothing. I have already cited rock fishing as one at least equal in numbers. How does the government justify this money when it turns a blind eye to so many other cases where people also die?

If it is not just about the number of deaths then you should not be trying to use the number of deaths as an argument because there is no way the money spent on domestic violence is in proportion to the number of deaths. Or are you trying to suggest that women who lose their lives by domestic violence are more important than people who lose their lives by any other way?

phanto priorities are always a difficult issue but there are some things about violence related deaths that are in my view different to a lot of the other deaths. A lot of the other deaths seem to be far more difficult to tackle. A lot is spent on an ongoing basis on road safety to make cars and roads safer, on driver education etc. No idea of the spend on antismoking campaigns and other health related campaigns an area which is mostly people ignoring known risks.

The estimated cost to our society of broken and abusive relationships is also regarded as being enormous, into the billions anually from bits I've seen although I've not looked into how thats measured so don't have any feel for the credibility of the claims.

My concern with what the PM announced is an apparent continuation of the gendered approach to dealing with violence, even the issue of respect within relationships. Rather than dealing with root causes there is a determination to play the paternalistic approach.

As for the debate here its interesting to see that Poirot sees the difficulty in finding a running tally of men killed by partners this year as a tool to dismiss the issue rather recognising it as a sign of how little attention is given to those victims by the DV industry. Rather than the lack of those numbers being something to gloat about they should serve asan indicatiin of the problem. There is sufficient historical evidence to know that the numbers typically sit at around 25% of domestic homicides. Those with any genuine concern for reducing intimate partner violence should be asking why we don't hear any mention of those victims from authorities rather than celebrating the silence about them.

R0bert

Tony Lavis and RObert,

I would like to see the figures - as I doubt that "20" would be the figure. If twenty men have killed by their spouses this year, then it would demand attention (as you say).

Phanto,

"Maybe it is a response out of all proportion. 66 deaths and 100 million dollars..."

I reiterate that the $100 million is simply being returned after it was removed by the Abbott govt.

I happen to think it is a societal problem and that money alone will not fix it, However, closing down refuges for the lack of funding doesn't help.

RObert,

"Rather than the lack of those numbers being something to gloat about they should serve asan indicatiin of the problem. There is sufficient historical evidence to know that the numbers typically sit at around 25% of domestic homicides. Those with any genuine concern for reducing intimate partner violence should be asking why we don't hear any mention of those victims from authorities rather than celebrating the silence about them."

Gloating and celebrating am I?

Interesting, RObert, your own assertive style on this thread, which was ostensibly about Turnbull reacting to the woeful figures on female DV victims this year.

Here's a quote from you earlier in the thread:

"I'm not a big fan of the reuse of emotive terms and words to strengthen an argument so "intimate terrorism" does not sit all that comfortably but from my experience and that of other's who have abusive spouses I think the term is as relevant here as in the UK or USA."

Have I intimated that you, who wasted no time diverting this thread to your own hobby horse, "gloated or celebrated" because you seemingly brushed away the main thrust of the thread opener?

"I'm not a big fan of the reuse of emotive terms and words to strengthen an argument...."

That's appears to be a load of bunkum - or do you think inserting the terms "gloating and celebrating" in reference to my argument is appropriate?

I'll leave you to it...if that's going to be your method of debate.

Tony Lavis,

"Because based on some extrapolation from the most recent statistics I could obtain, I am very confident in making an estimate that 20 or so men have been killed by their partners this year. But apparently, this is not a blight on our society. Apparently this is all hunky-dory. I dislike double standards, Poirot. And I frown upon the notion that murder is not always a terrible crime."

Just noticed that you are asserting that I believe that that the apparent lack of figures of men killed by their partners is "hunky dory".

Here we go again, this thread was started in response to Turnbull's reaction to the dreadful record of female deaths this year at the hands of their partners.

Most of the contributors to this thread have purposely avoided the main thrust of the opening thread - posted their own particular aspects...and are now in hot pursuit of anyone who attempts to address DV deaths of women.

Now we're "gloating, celebrating, thinking things are "hunky dory" or indulging in double standards" and "thinking murder is not always a terrible crime".

And all the while, those attributing such views to others are studiously avoiding discussion of this year's huge death rate of women.

.......

Suse,

Yep....I'm fascinated analysing the tactics employed by certain gents here to shut down anyone who wishes to discuss the subject of the thread opener.

Poirot, figures and references covering past years over a sustained period have been provided which give a good indication what the patterns are likely to be. Your ongoing ignoring of that and preference to focus on the lack of a running tally for this year looks a like a deliberate attempt to gloat on the success of the DV industry in ignoring the number of male victims rather than any honest concern for male victims. If the rate typically runs at around25% of intimate partner homicides is there some reason why a running total for this year is so important? Do you think there is some reason to think that this year the killing of men by intimate partners has suddenly stopped.

A determination to stand against the gender politics that make up so much of the coverage of DV may be a hobby hourse. One with good cause in my view.

For those with who think the gender statements in the prevaling dialog on DV are more imporant than the lives of those actually caught up in DV I guess that is not so important.

R0bert

"Poirot, figures and references covering past years over a sustained period have been provided which give a good indication what the patterns are likely to be. Your ongoing ignoring of that and preference to focus on the lack of a running tally for this year looks a like a deliberate attempt to gloat on the success of the DV industry in ignoring the number of male victims rather than any honest concern for male victims..."

Oh well done, RObert!.....pulls out the old "gloat" accusation for a second round.

Show me the figures, RObert...if you can't find this year's figures - and you and Tony Lavis insist that it's usually around 25%, so you must have access to figures from years past - well put them up...show us!

Then perhaps you can stop employing "emotive language" to shut me down.

It is fascinating....you've spent the whole thread not addressing the female aspect of DV - and now all you've got is to accuse Poirot of "gloating" because I ask for figures.

Show me your evidence from past years on male deaths at the hands of female partners - figures please.

Maybe then you can cease your immature banter on the likes of "gloating and celebrating" and address the subject of this thread...apart from dismissing concerns over the deaths so far this year off 66 women as the "DV industry".

Poirot as you know how I've spent the entire thread you should have already seen this. It was posted on page 2 of the comments section. http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/21-40/rip38.html

Have I missed the post(s) where you asked what the repeated mention of historical rates was based on? If I have missed that and you genuinely had attempted to find out what the claims were based on then I withdraw my earlier comments and apologise for misrepresenting your position.

Robert

Poirot, the excuses re male violence just keep on coming, and they feed the minds of both perpetrators and victims of family violence adversely.
I came across an article from the website thecnversationarea.com on Zite yesterday that had a pertinent comment to make:

"Attitudes that trivialise, excuse or justify violence against women – as well as attitudes that minimise the impact or shift blame from the perpetrator to the victim – are labelled violence-supportive attitudes. Individuals who hold violence-supportive attitudes are not necessarily “violent-prone” or would openly condone violence against women.

However, when influential people express these attitudes or a substantial number of people hold them, it can create a culture in which a behaviour is not clearly condemned and at worst condoned or encouraged. These attitudes in effect allow violence to continue to exist in the community. They prevent many victims and witnesses from reporting violence in the family."

That would be better phrased something like this "Attitudes that trivialise, excuse or justify violence against anybody (male or female)– as well as attitudes that minimise the impact or shift blame from the perpetrator to the victim – are labelled violence-supportive attitudes. Individuals who hold violence-supportive attitudes are not necessarily “violent-prone” or would openly condone violence against anybody.However, when influential people express these attitudes or a substantial number of people hold them, it can create a culture in which a behaviour is not clearly condemned and at worst condoned or encouraged. These attitudes in effect allow violence to continue to exist in the community. They prevent many victims and witnesses from reporting violence in the family."

R0bert

What a crazy title for this thread.

Turnbull, like his slimy clone Rudd, would not recognise a real man if he fell over one in the street.

As for this cynical grab for the feminist vote, it is totally disgusting. How is it that you ladies are too blinded to be able to see through this slime ball?

Thinking in terms of accountability and obtaining value for (taxpayers') money, I would be much happier if the $100million was going direct to known reputable helping organisations that are NOT single interest.

It is not in the interests of the victims of violence nor the taxpayer for the feds to be throwing money at noisy lobbyists (and to line their pockets!), but it is clever politics to do so.

Without doubt I would estimate that very little if any of the money will reach the victims. -Unless consultants and 'administration' are to be regarded by victims as practical outcomes/services.

Fact is, 'domestic violence' could be reduced considerably if the social factors behind 'Struggle Streets' could be addressed.

Then again, to some such as the 'Progressives' who decide Labor's social policy, gay marriage is vastly more important than that. To some, 'DV' is another hammer to bash society into their vision of what should be (and suits them).

Violence is violence and a victim is a victim is a victim. -At least, shouldn't victims of violence enjoy equal status?

Domestic Violence is all about wounded men lashing out inappropriately - not that I am making 'excuses' for violence.

More $$ spent on women's refuges where they and any children can 'escape' to hardly addresses the problem of why their male partners feel that violence against females is a 'valid masculine' response to perceived 'nagging', 'bitchiness and retaliatory punishment’, etc., etc.

Men who have these warped views and actions need help to 'see the light' and this can be assisted by them possibly recognizing that their dv is linked to dysfunctional role modelling by watching their dv fathers and hearing from dysfunctional dv mates advising, "Just give her a smack around the head!" to sort her out!

Instead they may be more assisted by viewing a range of short video clips and testimonies from men who have finally addressed long-term personal issues such as their own witnessing of dv sometimes 'aided' by being abused by other males as children themselves.

Having counselling perpetrators of domestic violence I agree with views espoused by Des Bowman, a Queensland author and speaker who finally got counselling help at aged 62 for his dysfunctional addictive and violent behaviours caused by his background including being sexually abused by other men. He has now taken up the challenge of "Helping Kids [and Men] Choose Life" rather than endless cycles of frustration and violence. The government should be funding 'male friendly' counselling rather than being routinely denounced as 'animals'. Des Bowman has a website www.desbowman.com.au with downloadable resources. He needs support to continue to go into schools to advise of his own 'journey' and offer support to male and female students with 'personal problems' to get healing so that the entire family unit works towards living as a family with respect and love rather than conflict and/or separation.

Equality exists when it suites the author, Why should women be seen as “equivalent” as a man when it comes to DV.

They are not seen as an equal anywhere else. I don’t see the comparison at all when talking about DV. It is a lopsided argument to say women and man can go at it in a violent way and all is equal.

If a man and woman are ferociously violent, the outcome is predictable.

So I can not see how you can mix other causes of death as relevant to DV. If men are inclined to suicide as a result of disputes, it is a mental failing on the behalf of the man, and likely to occur in any case.

If a female is the subject of suicidal tendencies, as a result of being man handled or sociological trauma it is a case of being trapped, a DV merry go round, in any case the female is more likely to put up with the violence because of kids at home, and that makes the trauma worse.

A man is far more capable of coping away from the home, than a woman so that is a major concern for DV sufferers.

Well said ZhanPintu, obviously preventing the violence happening in the first place would be the most ideal situation of all.
I am glad to see this thread take a positive turn.
Thank you.
See you all on another thread.
Suse.

RObert, your raw figure of 25%, obviously came from the stat under 'intimate partners' male 166 25%, female 488 75%. That in itself does not prove, or disprove, that in 25% of DV cases the female is the aggressor, thus leading to the death of the male partner.

You may see this site as biased in favor of women, but domestic violence is very much biased against women.

http://www.domesticviolence.com.au/index.php

"Let me (Turnbull) say this to you: disrespecting women does not always result in violence against women. But all violence against women begins with disrespecting women," the new Prime Minister said on Thursday morning.
This is not just some throwaway talking point.
While Turnbull was quickly applauded by Batty, Cash and former Victorian police chief Ken Lay, make no mistake, there will be others who hate what he had to say.
SMH.

To me that is fair comment by Turnbull on DV,

ZhanPintu, "Men who have these warped views and actions need help to 'see the light' and this can be assisted by them possibly recognizing that their dv is linked to dysfunctional role modelling by watching their dv fathers and hearing from dysfunctional dv mates advising, "Just give her a smack around the head!" to sort her out!"

That is far too narrow and value laden. What other contributors might there be?

Here take a minute to broaden your perspective,

What Causes Domestic Violence?
http://psychcentral.com/lib/what-causes-domestic-violence/

RObert,

"Have I missed the post(s) where you asked what the repeated mention of historical rates was based on? If I have missed that and you genuinely had attempted to find out what the claims were based on then I withdraw my earlier comments and apologise for misrepresenting your position."

No you didn't miss them....I was taking your word in good faith as to the percentage.

What I objected to was you terming my argument as "gloating".

I take it you assume I'm a reasonably intelligent and caring person - why would I gloat at such a thing as a lack of current figures?

Why would I celebrate it?

Male and female deaths attributed to DV are tragic - a societal problem that needs soul searching and attention. I was merely noting that in order to bring male victims to notice, that this year's dreadful number of female victims appeared to be brushed aside in regards to this thread.

Thanks for the link to those figures.

However, in light of the tone of Hasbeen's most recent contribution, there's not really much point continuing here.

Cheers

Paul I think its in the report, and from memory I referenced it earlier, about 23% of the perpetrators are female. My point is not intended to be focussed on the genders on either side of the issue, rather a stand against the unnecessary and damaging gendered nature of the public discourse around DV and the lack of enthusiasm on the part of public figures to stand against all DV. I'll accept that intent may not always be clear in my attempts to rebut the ongoing determination by many to maintain the perception that DV is just something men do to women.

I do they best I know how to make that point but know I lack some of skill at writing in a way that always get that correct (particularly in the face of often determined attempts to misrepresent what I and others have said). I'm highlighting male victims in part because the disparity between the numbers and the way DV is portrayed in the public debate should serve as a wake up call for those who care that all is not as claimed.

Those with a genuine interest in reduction in violence and with some belief in equality of the sexes should be asking theselves why 25% of DV intimate partner homicides (or 23% if you must) don't rate any mention. They might ask themselves why when equality is treated so seriously elsewhere the PM could not have made a point about two way respect rather than the one sided version he used.

R0bert

Poirot " I would like to see the figures - as I doubt that "20" would be the figure"

I had already pointed out in response to requests for this years numbers that I could not find figures for this year and I believe Tony had done similar. I'd posted a link to stats for earlier years which had been ignored. Your continued demands for this years numbers looked a lot like gloating over the difficulty in finding those numbers rather than a genuine attempt to engage. Like wise you are more than willing to misrepresent and disparage the views and stated intents of posters presenting views that conflict view the view of DV that you appear to support.

I always attempt to engage honestly in my online dealings with topics (and in the rst of life), I don't try and derail topics I'm uncomfortable with but will stand my ground when I believe an approach is wrong (as I belive the entirely gendered approach to DV to be).

The PM's announcements and policy direction are in my view based on a false premise that ignores much of the issue, I see no reason to limit my contibution to the debate to a framework I stongly disagree with and which I consider a part of the problem rather than the solution. My interest in the topic remains in seeing violence tackled holistically or where there are focussed areas at least covering enough of the focus area to not make the problem worse. The gendered approach in my view makes the issue worse than it needs be for the sake of a paternalistic/sexist agenda.

I think I've probably used my posting limit up for a while on this topic now.

R0bert

Well girls, once again you've managed to read something into my post which doesn't exist.

At not point have I stated that my relative has bashed his evil bitch x wife and at no time have I suggested anyone should so so, but hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good starry.

Personally, I have a different view on the whole matter. But I would prefer to have the facts first. However, if two druggies have an argument and one gets topped, then may I suggest society is just that little bit better off.

Sorry, but I don't have sympathy for losers who knowingly place themselves in harms way. Nor am i sypathetic for two oxygen thieves who kill each other fighting over who going to buy the last drink with the last of the welfare cheque. I know it's a tough angle, but at some point in time someone is going to have to grow some balls and run this country because all we are doing is pissing our taxes down the drain fighting what is often an unwinnabke fight, especially when we don't direct the funds at the core of the problem in many cases.

What on earth is the point of this infinite speculation about what is a common cause of the myriad episodes of domestic violence when the one element in common is: A violent criminal physically attacks someone. Psychobabble about perp angst, or racist speculation about perp ancestry, or sexist speculation about perp gender, or sociological speculation about perp upbringing, doesn’t touch on that one common act – a violent criminal physically attacks someone.

So how does society lift the fear of violence?

Seems incontrovertible. Lock the violent criminals up the moment they do something that displays violent criminality, and leave them locked up until all other people except fellow-criminals are safe from them. All sentences be decades in gaol with no parole. Apply it to all violent aggression.

The more slack we cut violent criminals the more we are participating at arm’s length in their criminality.

RObert,

If you surmised I had missed your earlier link, then why didn't you direct me to it (something I do often) - instead you accuse me of gloating and celebrating your inability to provide current figures.

"I always attempt to engage honestly in my online dealings with topics (and in the rst of life), I don't try and derail topics..."

Fair enough....however, whenever the subject arises of DV against women (and let's face it, women as victims are "always" numerous) it's always entirely predictable that you will jump in with gusto to close down the conversation about "women" by huffily claiming that the subject is somehow purposely excluding male victims.

It happens all the time...I was waiting for it - and you didn't disappoint.

You come across on OLO as fairly sensible in general, although often fence sitting, but on this subject (no doubt because of personal experience) it's a whole different ball game.

Have you ever started a thread on male victims of DV? (sincere question)...or does it suffice to bring up male victims merely to smother discussion on female victims?

rehctub,

"Well girls, once again you've managed to read something into my post which doesn't exist."

You referred to evil bitches and an evil woman...etc.

You have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who does not fit the profile of the bourgeoisie.

All you care about appears to be your money - and damn the rest of society.

You said:

"So I have little doubt there are many cases of DV which are or prevoked by eliv bitches like this one."

That's the part we commented on.

And now:

"Sorry, but I don't have sympathy for losers who knowingly place themselves in harms way...."

See ya...

Ok Poirot, so are you suggesting there are no cases out there where revenge by man haters occur.

These women, and they're not the majority by any means, will stop at nothing to see their x skinned alive, even if it does effect the kids.

Many women of broken relationships are not content with seeing their x on skid row, and many of those, while starting out with fairness in mind, change their minds and stop at nothing to see their x completely shattered.

Now of cause there are plenty of thugs who leave their women stranded as well, but if a woman finds herself in a violent relationship, then pushes him driven by revenge, then it's little wonder some get fatally hurt. I'm not supporting the practice, merely pointing out one cause.

Now this cause could be addressed by dealing with the extremely unfair child support arrangements, as many men are prevented from moving on because they get screwed over by the x.

Now I don't disrespect people without money, what I disrespect is people who knowingly place themselves in harms way, then cry wolf.

Again I stress, where are the stats on DV against women. Identify the causes, then address them, but don't just keep throwing money at it.

OK it appears I'd not reached a post limit
Poirot,
"If you surmised I had missed your earlier link, then why didn't you direct me to it" - no surmising until you said this "Show me the figures, RObert...if you can't find this year's figures - and you and Tony Lavis insist that it's usually around 25%, so you must have access to figures from years past - well put them up...show us!"

The first indication that I had that you had missed the earlier detail. Tony and I had in my view been clear enough about the estimates from past years and we were not as far as I'm aware asked to justify them up until that point. Rather a focus on this years figures which we had both mentioned not being able to locate. Tony mentioned extrapolating from past years in his estimate of 20.

"merely to smother discussion on female victims" - why does saying that a gendered approach is badly flawed and that violence needs to be tackled holistically have to be seen as smothering discussion on female victims?

I seriously detest the gendered approach to DV and intend to keep highlighting that it's not the gender issue the industry keeps making out (accepting that there are elements that are gendered).

I'm not sure if I've specifically started a thread on male victims of DV, I know I have started related threads which have been ignored.

On a side issue whats your take on Doogs comments, both in regard to mens responsibilities and what I perceive to be an implied suggestion of a lack a lack of moral agency in women? If you always do good then in my view it's a much easier ride than those who choose good over wrong. I'm of the view that women are fully human sharing a capacity for good and evil (or whatever words you prefer). Doog does not appear to share that view.

Starting at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7006#214581 and following on to at least
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7006#214585

R0bert

More side issues about gender or potty-training or whatever of perps.

Why not solve the problem instead of wallowing in it?

Slam the perps in the can and leave them there for decades to make everyone (except the perps) safe?

Seems a no-brainer.

I think the views around DV are too entrenched for me to get my point across directly.

I'm going to try a parallel.

I'll use a US example because the relevant example in Australia is far to skewed by the small percentage of the population represented by indiginous australians.

The numbers are from the NAACP site (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet
- African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites
- Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population

There are a range of issues around the incarceration of colored people but on the face of it a case to suggest a problem with crime by colored people.

- Imagine if the only crime authorities talked about was colored crime. If a succession of US government departments and political leaders were to talk about colored crime and how colored people needed to take the lead in stopping it.
- Imagine those same leaders and departments never mentioning crime by whites.
- Imagine police admitting that it's tough to sort out who is at fault when there is a difference between a white person and a colored person so they mostly just deal with the colored one (after all they are often more powerfull physically).
- Imagine whites shouting down any colored person daring to point out both the structural problems that lead to the higher rates of incarceration and that whites commit crimes as well.
- Imagine if a colored person calling to report an assault by a white person stood a high chance of being the one arrested and a significant chance of loosing all that was dearest for daring to report the crime.
- Imagine others posting on public forums a that it's always the colored persons fault, whites just don't do bad stuff without good reason and anyway colored people do better sleeping rough than white folks.

R0bert

RObert,

Okay here is another parallel, using your black US demographic.

If you recall recently, their was a spate of black people being killed by the police for seemingly trivial reasons. This happens with monotonous regularity , but their was a jump in the numbers and also mobile film and photos of police shooting or being heavy handed with black people - all of which led to widespread protests.

If someone had started a thread ostensibly dealing with the subject of police brutality against "black people" - and then certain others joined the thread to point out that it happens (in smaller numbers) to white people also...well then the core issue of the thread is negated.

Of course all the issues are important, however, when something is introduced to the conversation to dilute the focus of the original subject then those taking part in the discussion, instead of looking for solutions, end up squabbling over ratios.

Which is exactly how it's played out here....

It really is quite straight forward.

Identify the problem areas where DV is occurring. While I accept the highly publicized cases, like young Luke Batty, I am assuming there are certain groups where DV is a re occurring problem.

Now if that happens to be certain ethnic groups, then there's little we can do simply because their upbringing sees that their men have total disrespect for women in general, and more fool us for allowing this into our peace loving nation. But as I've already said, that's history.

Also, if another large contributor happens to be indigenous families especially those living in isolated communities, then may I suggest we pour enough wasted taxes into these people and another few billion won't make any difference, esspecially when they can willingly waste their money on grog and the likes.

Then there are those who are dysfunctional families, because if they are another high contributor, then throwing money at them will also be wasted because they are dysfunctional for a reason in most cases.

While i accept DV is a major problem, I say find the main offenders, and if they can't be helped, then help others that want to be helped.

The reality is we no longer have money on tap and at some stage we must decide where funding is being wasted and address such waste.

It may well be that a large portion of DV cases are repeat offenders and are sadly beyond help, especially help that requires even more of our precious taxes.

I'm not a violet person and I despise wasting my taxes on unfixable issue caused by other people.

Genuine cases, yes, lost causes, no way.

Actually Poirot the original starting of the thread was not a demand that we focus just on violence against women. It was pointing out the issues of further aleniating men by the nature of the language used by the PM.

" Way to go Malcolm! If you want to stop men from behaving violently then alienate them even more by declaring them to be not ‘real men’ and horror of all horrors –un-Australian.Anyone who resorts to violent behaviour has serious issues about their own self-worth. Whatever has led them to that belief can only be made worse by bullying them into submissive behaviour. It could well be that they already do not have a strong sense of their own masculinity and all this kind of jingoism does is to make things worse. Let’s tell them they cannot play with the rest of the boys until they become ‘real men’. Let’s taunt them and deride them until they can tolerate it no further and stop their evil ways."

Above and beyond that I reject your approach targetting me posting disenting a view (and I'm pretty confident that you would reject them if you disagreed with the fundamental premise of an argument). Its not about trying to draw the focus away from violence against women other than where that focus is misrepresentative of the whole issue. Its about a strong belief that the issue needs to be addressed holistically and that the focus on just violence against women is part of the problem not of what solutions we may be viable able to achieve.

R0bert

R0bert, "I'm going to try a parallel.."

It is very decent of you to try yet again to get posters to engage with your point, which simply put is that all victims of serious crime should have equal access to and treatment by the law.

To take another example, in a burning building a firefighter should not ignore and walk past one incapacitated victim to deliver preferential rescues to others perceiving them to be more 'worthy' of rescue and of life.

Yet that is how it has always been: it has always been women first. Children are secondary and added more to legitimise the first priority, which is women.

Men are seen as easily disposable.

Where gender feminists are concerned, mens' silence and invisibility - lack of accounts of men's lives, coping and stresses - are necessary to ensure that the feminist narrative is not challenged and are completely warranted because men are the root source of all that is bad.

Men are not entitled to be heard because of their original sin: they are male, pre-wired to control, molest and do other nasties to wonderful, Earth-mother womyn. Masculinity? UGH! The best boys can aspire to is to be defective girls. The original sin cannot be erased by a male->female sex change. (S)He can never be a 'real' feminist, just a useful supporter perhaps.

The cracks in the gender feminist narrative and sloppy social research are showing though. For instance, suddenly more women are fronting courts for violent crimes. It is getting harder to claim that some man made them do it.

RObert,

Somehow I omitted reference to your argument for a holistic approach to violence in the community.

As most would be aware from my posting record and from my posts in this thread, that is something I also agree with. I chose to focus on the human rights violation of not according equal consideration and treatment to the male victims of violence.

It so happens that there is a different approach to the problem (of violence) that doesn't single out gender and as you say, that is to approach it holistically.

Gender feminism never makes sense. Well, at least not outside of the closed circle cronyism of those educated middle class women, the leftist Emily's Listers, who use feminism to benefit themselves and extend their own entitlement.

A question, is there such a thing as a feminist criminologist?

RObert,

"Actually Poirot the original starting of the thread was not a demand that we focus just on violence against women. It was pointing out the issues of further aleniating men by the nature of the language used by the PM.

Okay.....and you jumped straight in with:

"The distressing part of all that I've heard so far regarding the initiative is the continuation of the completely gendered version of the discussion.

No mention of the admittedly smaller numbers of men who lose their lives at the hands of intimate partners ( 2002–03 to 2011–12 166 males compared to 488 females http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rip/21-40/rip38.html thats 25% of intimate partner homicides. If I'm reading the numbers correctly 15 of those 166 male deaths were by a male partner.

No mention in what I've heard about the impacts of disrespecting men on men by their partners and where that leads to."

So how does your the majority of your comment dovetail into the thread opener - except to draw focus away from the opening comment on the alienation of men who may be prone to committing violence?

"....It could well be that they already do not have a strong sense of their own masculinity and all this kind of jingoism does is to make things worse. Let’s tell them they cannot play with the rest of the boys until they become ‘real men’. Let’s taunt them and deride them until they can tolerate it no further and stop their evil ways."

Your comment focused for the most part on female violence towards men.

You are entitled to post what you wish but, as I've mentioned, it's pretty much a given on OLO that if a subject arises pertaining in any way to DV against women, then it's a given that you will waste no time skewing the conversation away from its core.

Poroit:

So is it just RObert that is a waste of time or is it still the whole of OLO that is a waste of time?

Either way you have wasted quite a bit of time. It is rather hypocritical to keep saying it is a waste of time and then go on and on wasting such time. What does that say about your integrity? Could not the time be better spent on positive action to help women who are victims of DV?

Why worry about the angst of violent criminals? Or their gender or their ancestry or their culture or their potty training? Why not halt the DV? Throw the violent criminals in prison and lose them there? Who cares if they bash one another in prison?

This thread is the biggest I've seen on OLO and I left off way back...

Suseonline,
"Slowly, these men they love start restricting their movements, money and friends, and then they find themselves trapped because he threatens their family members or friends, or says he will kill himself or her if she leaves him."

Your example demonstrates when a man has emotional insecurities, and commits emotional blackmail.

I'd like you to think about what happens if the situation is reversed; with the woman restricting the mans movements, his access to his friends and committing emotional blackmail against him saying she will kill herself if he leaves her?

Tell me what happens then?
Answer = The same thing.

Eventually he will lose patience with the emotional blackmail, lose respect for her, and eventually lash out at feeling trapped.
(It's inevitable)

So what did we learn here?
It doesn't matter who owns the insecurities to begin with.
You could ask who's right and who's wrong;
Is it the person with the insecurities or the "insensitive" person who can't comprehend the other ones crazy behavior?
Or; Does it even matter in the end?

If a man feels he is pushed into a corner there's an increased chance he will lash out.

So then what do we make of this female on male violence?
Could it be a question of Dominant v's Submissive behavior in the relationship?

Where do these messes start?
The lack of being able to be there for someone on an emotional level?
Not building and maintaining emotional trust?
What if person who has control of the relationship and whom the emotional blackmail is committed against lacks the skills/experience/empathy to be there for that person and resolve the issue?
Is the relationship not doomed?

Yes it is all very complex, (I know) but lets move onto solutions.

Spending 100 million dollars on an issue that costs our society way more than that?
Think of it as an investment.
Will it be a good investment?
We better do our research and make sure we get value for money.

What if one of the solutions to this issue was controversial?
Would you all consider it?

- Changing Drug Laws -
Lower the punishment for cannabis and increase punishment for ice/amphetamines
Decriminalise Cannabis and make it a legal option to drinking alcohol.
Right there you create a situation where people don't have to go and get drunk when they are going through breakups.
And you make the choice for cannabis greater than the choice to use ice and help individuals and police steer away from speed psychosis related DV issues.

- Better Education balanced with Increased Punishment -

If we want increased punishment, we better come up with some workable prevention solutions as well.
Anyone can suggest increasing punishment.

1. DV website where users can upload their stories and find out how others dealt with similar situations.
(Can also be used for research studies - a component of the investigation)
2. Relationship website to teach young people what we adults spend years learning.
-Why let them make the same mistakes we've made generation after generation?
Our challenge is to teach them what we learned without them making our mistakes in the first place.
3. All students participate in relationship skills class in secondary school.
(If were going to teach them about gender reassignment surgery at 12 without parental consent we can at least give them the tools to succeed and handle situations in a normal life.)

Then we need to dig into the HOW.
Who and where isn't enough data for DV.

Use the website to enable the studies and gather the data.

You don't need to pay an expert a bucket of money to state the obvious or what should be considered a common sense path forward.

Hell, build the website, turn it into a non-profit organisation - run a global gofundme campaign and save the whole 100 million.

"If we want increased punishment, we better come up with some workable prevention solutions as well.
Anyone can suggest increasing punishment."

Doesn't need research to know that violent criminals can't hurt anyone (except other violent criminals) while banged up in prison.

So bang them up in prison, first offence, and leave them there for a very long time.

That's solving the problem at the expense of those whose violence creates it. It's not punishment aimed to deter, it's direct protection of the rights of their victims, at the expense of the perps.

Any approach focused on making victims hide away in fear while do-gooders try (usually unsuccessfully) to persuade violent criminals to control their anger problem is an assault on the victims.

Armchair Critic "Tell me what happens then?
Answer = The same thing."
No, not the same thing all the time.
Some violent men go ahead and kill the women in many cases, as we well know.

There may be some difficulties in gathering data on some forms of DV, including who started what, who hit first, who said or did what first etc, but there is no denying murder statistics of men killing relatives or spouses in their own homes. And of course there are also men killing other male or child relatives as well, and of a few women doing the same thing.
Obviously these murders and how best to prevent them must take priority over any other form of DV for obvious reasons.

I think the time of 'gathering data' is over, we know the murder statistics.
So yes, bang them up in jail the first time, and don't allow any lame excuse for that sort of violence. Why don't we treat it like the 'one punch' laws and create mandatory sentences?
Just like filthy paedophiles and rapists, there is no 'treating' the so called cause of these criminal behaviors like DV.

"So yes, bang them up in jail the first time, and don't allow any lame excuse for that sort of violence"

OK, to try that out,

In 2002, 26% of indigenous males and 23% of indigenous females report being a victim of physical or threatened violence in the past 12 months. Add threatened and actual together to get the total affected by violence that year. That was only those aged 15 yrs and older.

Banging them up (which appeals to me too) is not going to be accepted for the cohort with the highest per capita source of beatings and deaths.

Rather there will be agonising, splitting of straws, rationalisations, excuses, duck-shoving of blame elsewhere and so on. That has already been apparent in this thread.

Further, while the feds are quite willing to grandstand and purport to ban a visit by an alleged partner-beater to Oz, there is NO, NIL, NADA screening of the suitability of migrants and claimed 'asylum-seekers' to ensure that SOBs, male and female, with a predilection and cultural tradition of resolving ordinary disputes with violence, esp, weapons, are given the lowest priority, or better still, refused entry. My previous post refers,
onthebeach, Friday, 25 September 2015 11:38:22 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7006&page=3

In SEQld where the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 has been successful in keeping the heads down of vicious SOBs who are responsible for the gun and other violence, including against their 'onions', Premier Palaszczuk has moved to 'deep six' VLAD. My previous post refers,
onthebeach, Sunday, 27 September 2015 11:58:01 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7006&page=9

While it is all very right to talk about firmer action by courts (and they already have considerable scope in sentencing), there is NOT the POLITICAL WILL, particularly by left-leaning governments to hold violent SOBs accountable. Instead there is always duck-shoving of blame onto to the good, law-abiding citizens, men and women.

Nor is there the required proactivity in immigration policy to ensure Australia isn't importing toxic political systems, traditions and values, despite the chilling example of Rotherham and other centres in the UK and Europe too

I almost feel like I'm on the side of the argument where my position might be mistaken as defending men who commit physical violence against women.
I assure you both I'm not trying to justify or defend these kinds of violent actions.

By putting forward the compulsory Relationship Studies class in secondary school idea (with a handbook to keep) as well as these dedicated websites for relationships and domestic violence ideas I was putting forward the idea that we give adolescents the tools to know how to act in certain situations and not let things get to the point that physical violence occurs in the first place.

You could even have the same or similar as an optional adult course for when police are called out to DV and its only verbal abuse and hasn't yet worsened to become physical abuse.

Surely you would not oppose these kinds of initiatives if they were to be a benefit and reduce the incidence of domestic violence?

Surely this would prevent murders from occurring.

This is path that speaks "We have new initiatives to prevent domestic violence occurring" or "We have new initiatives to help people make better choices and help themselves".
It also says to perpetrators "You can't say you weren't told" or "You can't say you weren't given the tools resolve your own problems peacefully or prevent these situations from occurring", or "act right" or "deal with your anger and insecurities", or "dealing with someone else's".

This way, you can increase the punishment and you have done it the morally right way because you also made efforts in prevention.

What better way to get the data you need than from people who actually want to share it with each other to help each other?

OTB, I am not sure if many of the DV murders in Australia over the past few years were perpetrated by 'migrants' or not?
Do you have any stats on that?
Certainly, any migrant who is found guilty of DV should immediately be deported.

I do agree with you Armchair Critic in saying that prevention is better than cure, but anyone, even teenagers, would have to have been living under a rock to not be aware that DV is criminally wrong, or that any violence is wrong.

If they are brought up in a violent home or community, then the damage is done.
People aren't born violent.
If only the violent person could be removed permanently from the child's life before the damage is done....but I know that is only a pipe dream.

"If only the violent person could be removed permanently from the child's life before the damage is done....but I know that is only a pipe dream."

The violent criminal usually can if gaoled for a decade or more on the first offence. It's called prevention.

EmperorJulian without defending the violence I think your apprach is far too simplistic. That violent offender could have been goaded for the previous decade, under a system in denial about female violence they could have had violence committed against them over the previous decade all under the threat of loosing children, home etc if they walk. They could have been in the wash up of years of abuse where a biased family law and child support system are busy punishing them for walking out of an abusive relationship.

It is in some cases just a single bad person and someone unfortunate enough to have been blind to that when they got together but from what I've seen if's often far more complex than that and far less one sided than that.

Part of prevention is to get the message across loud and clear that violence is not OK regardless of the gender on either side of it. That emotional abuse is not OK regardless of the gender on either side of it. To work towards legal systems that give parties the best opportunity to move on with their lives following a seperation rather than enduring years of ongoing thuggery assisted by the government at the hands of the other party.

Its not an easy topic but just looking at events that make the news or the covenient part of the body count does not give an understanding of the issues or help towards reducing the incidence of serious DV in our community.

R0bert

Suseonline, "Do you have any stats on that?"

You are the poster who refuses outright to provide any evidence or links herself, says they are not necessary in her case and that she doesn't read links/evidence she doesn't agree with.

This is what I said,
<Further, while the feds are quite willing to grandstand and purport to ban a visit by an alleged partner-beater to Oz, there is NO, NIL, NADA screening of the suitability of migrants and claimed 'asylum-seekers' to ensure that SOBs, male and female, with a predilection and cultural tradition of resolving ordinary disputes with violence, esp, weapons, are given the lowest priority, or better still, refused entry. My previous post refers,
onthebeach, Friday, 25 September 2015 11:38:22 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7006&page=3>
[Reference, onthebeach, Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:53:15 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7006&page=18]

You would or should be aware from the many posts that have appeared on OLO and reports in the media. For starters, the comments of retiring NSW Police Commissioners have been cited on OLO many times before. Why do you imagine that Sydney has a special squad - again, as been mentioned in previous threads? What about the media reports of takeovers of outlaw motorcycle gangs by ethnic criminal gangs?

The essential point is that violent behaviour and anti-social behaviour do generalise. That may not apply to all 'domestic' violence, but it sure would apply to a large rump of the serious harm offences.

This thread opened with a plaintive plea on behalf of violent criminals – don’t diss them as it upsets them.
The opening post drew on the fact that every act of violent crime has its own particular context which means the whole pattern is complex and it’s “simplistic” (a weasel word) to focus on the ONE common factor in ALL violent crime inside the home and on the street - SOMEONE ASSAULTS SOMEONE.

The common context ensuring that violent crime is perpetuated is that the legal system is wishy-washy enough to allow violet criminals to prey on others. To see up close the real-world texture of just one facet of this common context – parole - go to https://www.change.org/p/minister-of-prisons-premiers-prime-minister-make-parole-boards-responsible-for-letting-repeat-rapists-and-murders-out-into-society . Use the run-on links to further pages to get the full picture of what is happening and what many, many decent people want done about it.

What people other than violent criminals and their sympathisers don’t want is violent criminals at large. So get them behind bars and leave them there. For society to walk and chew gum at the same time, direct attention ALSO (not instead) to pressures (but never legitimate excuses) leading some to assault people.

EmperorJulian:

I think you have made your one and only point several times over now. Are you trying to convince yourself of your solution?

What exactly does anyone have to lose by acknowledging that men are also victims of domestic violence? Why can’t the Prime Minister say that everyone who is a victim of violence needs help? Why did he have to say that he took domestic violence to mean violence against women? What do women’s groups have to lose by acknowledging that men also get killed and maimed?

We need to help all victims and if that means that the majority of funding goes to women based on the fact that the majority of victims are women then that is reasonable. It is not reasonable to deny men the same support just because they are men. Every human being who is injured deserves help no matter how that injury came about.

What is the government and the women behind this program afraid of? Why is it so hard to acknowledge that a male domestic violence victim in the emergency ward bleeds just the same as women? It is a simple observable fact and yet it seems impossible for so many to just accept this fact.

It is like they are hanging on as desperately as they can to a belief that domestic violence is a flaw in men that is somehow innate whereas in women it is just an accidental aberration. This is the conclusion they draw from the figures. What is innate in men is that by and large they are bigger and stronger than women and so they will use that advantage when they feel they have to. If women were bigger and stronger then I have no doubt that the figures would be reversed. You only have to see how many women use violence towards their children because they have a physical advantage. Of course there is no way of proving the numbers of this violence because not many five-year-olds know their way to the police station.

Violence is common to both genders so it is time to stop pretending it is a male only issue.

phanto, "What exactly does anyone have to lose by acknowledging that men are also victims of domestic violence?"

It is about greed.

Feminist academics especially have a vested interest in continuing to control the discourse that has served them so well for decades.

Feminism is educated middle class (usually white) women protecting and extending their entitlement. But they always were entitled.

That is why there was an immediate, concerted, very ruthless campaign against the proposed male studies course at the University of Adelaide.

-Come to think of it, if there was an element of truth in 'patriarchy' and male privilege, how come the only proposed non-feminist controlled course in Australia was rolled, cow-dozed (and so dishonestly)?

"Domestic Violence against men? Australia says, 'YES!'"

And meanwhile you, Phanto, and the other apologists for violent criminals dominating this list of a dozen or so correspondents have ducked and weaved throughout to avoid either confirming that violent criminals can't commit domestic violence while behind bars or demonstrating why this isn't so.

And following on that, if it really is so then why it is desirable that the perpetrators of domestic violence remain at large. Indeed you might explain why speculating endlessly on how many men, or women, or immigrants, or Aborigines, or caluthumpians, inflict domestic violence is more productive than getting the perpetrators out of the homes and off the streets.

EmperorJulian, "..apologists for violent criminals.."

What absolute rot, a total fabrication and the very opposite of what I have been saying. PLease do me the politeness of reading and comprehending my posts.

otb,

"It is about greed.

Feminist academics especially have a vested interest in continuing to control the discourse that has served them so well for decades.

Feminism is educated middle class (usually white) women protecting and extending their entitlement. But they always were entitled."

Jeepers!...you'll enjoy this from First Dog on the Moon then...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2015/sep/30/news-corp-columnist-pancetta-mandibles-has-an-answer-for-everything-about-domestic-violence?CMP=share_btn_tw

Perhaps a quote...

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

Rebecca West

To put my quote back in its context, here it is again,

<phanto, "What exactly does anyone have to lose by acknowledging that men are also victims of domestic violence?"

It is about greed.

Feminist academics especially have a vested interest in continuing to control the discourse that has served them so well for decades.

Feminism is educated middle class (usually white) women protecting and extending their entitlement. But they always were entitled.

That is why there was an immediate, concerted, very ruthless campaign against the proposed male studies course at the University of Adelaide>

onthebeach, Wednesday, 30 September 2015 4:30:12 PM
[http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7006&page=20'

Looks like self serving humour and quotes.

If anybody else is having trouble with feminism, yes it's tricky to get a meaningful definition but there seems to be more consistently agreed rules around feminist research which might help for a little self test.

One article on it is here http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/974/2124 - at a guess agreement with the ideas in that article will be a pretty good self test of alignment with feminism.

In the real world the problem is that very subjective research designed to help women is presented as though it was objective research.

We get this years body count of women but no mention of the men who have died at the hands of an intimate partner during the same period. We get catch phrases about protecting women and children as though women were not one of the risk factors facing children.

We get told about mens greater strength but see no focus on womens generally greater skill with words and other areas where women may generally hold an upper hand in confrontations with a partner.

I think for most of us the problem is not women being something other than a doormat, it's the pathetic play to special treatment whilst dishing it out that really gets up the nose.

Now it must be just about time for someone to point out that there are so few women on OLO because men don't treat them with enough special courtesy.

R0bert

Yes indeed...the real reason why all those men bash and/or kill all those other men, women and children in their own homes, and out on the streets, is because those elusive 'feminists' made them do it!
Yes, those damned feminists are just the cause of everything bad in society ....oh please, give us a break!

RObert,

"Now it must be just about time for someone to point out that there are so few women on OLO because men don't treat them with enough special courtesy."

Yes,..it's interesting that that aspect was the first thing Graham brought up in our first private conversation.

I believe there are plenty of reason's that many women can't be bothered with OLO.

One of them is because of the very slanted discourse that often passes for debate around here..like this on the subject of domestic violence against women and the PM's call to respect them:

"It is about greed.

Feminist academics especially have a vested interest in continuing to control the discourse that has served them so well for decades.

Feminism is educated middle class (usually white) women protecting and extending their entitlement. But they always were entitled.

That is why there was an immediate, concerted, very ruthless campaign against the proposed male studies course at the University of Adelaide>"

I've never inhabited "women's sites" so I'm not familiar with the sort of banter that goes on there....but I suspect they'd get short shrift if they attempted to unload any of it here.

There are plenty of women commentators on twitter - and they seem to hold their own as far as " men [not] treating them with enough special courtesy." They give as good as they get on twitter - so I'm surmising it's not "special courtesy" they're after, but ordinary respectful conversation.

RObert,

"Looks like self serving humour and quotes."

That First Dog strip will tell you everything pertinent about the present state of DV in this country...it's telling of you to dismiss it as "self serving humour".

Here it is again:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2015/sep/30/news-corp-columnist-pancetta-mandibles-has-an-answer-for-everything-about-domestic-violence?CMP=share_btn_tw

it's pretty clear to some of us here, RObert - for all your huffing and puffing and inclinations to pretend you're trying to be balanced, that your own relationship baggage orchestrates your approach to this subject.

Your only aim appears to be to shut down conversation on the 80% of victims of DV in which country which are women.

Poirot:

“it's pretty clear to some of us here, RObert - for all your huffing and puffing and inclinations to pretend you're trying to be balanced, that your own relationship baggage orchestrates your approach to this subject.”

Would you care to name some names that agree with you? I for one do not agree with you and do not like the implication that there is any suggestion I might be included in the ‘some of us’.

That is a pretty nasty thing to say and a desperate attempt to silence RObert by casting aspersions on his personal life. That is the kind aggression that women resort to in domestic violence situations and a perfect example of what has been posted about the different methods men and women use to hurt others.

It is about the desire to hurt and not the method you use. Men and women have equal desire to hurt and that is the crux of the issue. Until women acknowledge that they too want to hurt then they will never understand domestic violence.

//Your only aim appears to be to shut down conversation on the 80% of victims of DV in which country which are women.//

Well that's a bit rich, seeing as your only aim appears to be to shut down conversation on the 25% of victims of DV in this country which are men.

I'm quite happy to disagree with you respectfully. I'm generally only rude to posters who make appallingly stupid remarks, and whilst I may disagree with your comments they don't fall into that category. But respectfully, you are barking up the wrong tree. Domestic violence is a terrible crime regardless of the gender of the perpetrator/victim. It isn't more terrible when women are the victim OR vice versa.

Fair enough, gentlemen.

It's pretty clear that there's a domestic violence problem.

The Prime Minister decides to announce some prevention measures and tips back in some of the money that was taken out - suggests perhaps women should be the recipients of more respect.

This is met by howls of outrage on this thread - how dare he alienate men by suggesting such a thing!

Phanto suggests it's the women who should do a bit of soul searching:

"How about spending some of this money on educating women to dismiss rubbish like The Bachelor which encourages women into forming domestic relationships based on the attempt to replicate the romantic fantasies they see played out there? Hammer home the reality that two women are killed every week and that it is far too risky a venture to enter into for anyone who cares about their own safety. Help women take control before and not after."

Any way, you guys win! - Phanto starts a thread responding to Turnbull's announcement, which itself is in response to the appalling figures this year of female deaths - and we've spent almost the entire thread bickering about gender ratios.

Which is "always" the way these threads play out on OLO.

Btw, I'm now supposedly a very nasty lady because I reacted strongly to RObert.

He accused me (three times) of gloating and of celebrating the dearth of current male victim figures.

Woe betide if I'd done the same to him.

Things like this:

".....it's the pathetic play to special treatment whilst dishing it out that really gets up the nose.

Now it must be just about time for someone to point out that there are so few women on OLO because men don't treat them with enough special courtesy."

That's a special kind of message to we ladies on the forum - I heard it loud and clear.

(I made the mistake or firing straight back at RObert - when it's clear I should have generalised about the lot of you blokes like he did with women)

@Suseonline: "Yes, those damned feminists are just the cause of everything bad in society..." I would not use the words "everything bad". I'd probably use the words "a darn lot that is bad".

As Tony stated all DV is horrible regardless of the gender of perpetrator or victim. In my view its often not single sided, all parties involved may bring their respective strengths to the argument and hide behind whatever adavantages they find to help themselves at the others expense.

I suspect its rare that a fatal assault is the first instance of abuse in a relationship and I doubt that the fatal assualt is always perpetrated by the main abuser (but some of the time it will be).

I think the role of verbal and emotional abuse plays a far greater role in suicide rates than authorities are willing to investigate and I think there is evidence to indicate that just as men are generally physically stronger women generally have higher skills in verbal and emotional areas. I don't think capacity automatically means that people use that capacity at full strength.

I know from first hand experience and talking to others who have been through similar experiences that there are women who deliberately hide behind their protected status to hit a male partner knowing that he has few options to stop that.

I believing only talking about DV against women by men regardless of which set of stats you prefer does little to stop the root causes that turn so many relationships into toxic nightmares. That doing so is part of the problem and is based on a sad alliance between paternalists and advantage feminism.

That in context with disfunctional family law and child support system doing so leaves men with few options when dealing with an ongoing abusive situation which on top of w grossly unfair to the men involved may eventually lead a small percentage of them to snap.

That respect should be a two way thing and that when politicians address the issue they shoild be making that point rather than unnecessarily gendered statements.

R0bert

//Phanto starts a thread responding to Turnbull's announcement, which itself is in response to the appalling figures this year of female deaths - and we've spent almost the entire thread bickering about gender ratios.//

Because some posters find comments like those made by Mr. Turnbull:

"The issue of family violence, or domestic violence as it's often called – which is just violence against women, which is the way I would prefer to describe it"

To be more persuasive than the actual statistics on domestic violence. But in this case it is easily demonstrable that Turnbull's comments are either a paralogism (an unintentionally false argument) or a sophism (an intentionally false argument). Given that he's a politician and that some lackey has presumably informed him on the DV statistics, I'm leaning heavily towards sophism.

Accepting sophisms as truthful when there is hard data to refute that position is appalling reasoning, or more accurately complete lack thereof.

It also prevents male victims of domestic violence from receiving the support and assistance they deserve every bit of much as the female victims. As long as most people believe Turnbull's BS about DV being 'just violence against women' there will never be effective provision of service for male victims because so many people will have been hoodwinked into believing that male victims of DV are unicorns.

It may well be the case that the devil is in the detail, and that the new funding will be used to assist all victims of DV. Nevertheless Turnbull's comments were erroneous and harmful, and applauding and defending them is untenable.

Poirot :

“suggests perhaps women should be the recipients of more respect.”

What exactly does that mean? Why not just say women should not be victims of domestic violence? That is all you need to say unless you are trying to manipulate men into feeling guilty where no guilt should apply. Nobody needs to be shown ‘respect’. Respect is something that comes from within. There are people who are shown all the ‘respect’ in the world but still despise themselves. How you think and feel about yourself is totally up to you and is never dependent on what others do to you. Some people have experienced some of the most degrading tortures devised by human beings and yet kept their dignity and self-respect.

No person should be violent to another for any reason but it has nothing to do with respect. Women should be insulted by Turnbull’s comments, not praising them. He insuates that women are people dependent on others for their sense of self-respect.

It is another example of trying to bully men (along with the call to be ‘real men’) into behaving the way he’d like them to. Men should change violent behaviour because it is reasonable and not out of some guilt heaped upon them about women’s need for respect. Women do not need respect they can find it in themselves.

“Phanto suggests it's the women who should do a bit of soul searching”

What is wrong with that – are they so perfect that a bit of soul searching won’t hurt? If they find nothing wrong with programs like the Bachelor then nothing is lost but it will not hurt them to at least question the influence of such shows on the expectations of women in domestic relationships.

I didn’t start a thread responding to Turnbull’s announcement but to the emotional manipulation evident in his announcement.

No one said you were a nasty person but that you made a nasty comment. That is the kind of twisting of words that some women use to exaggerate the ‘attack’ of men. It is a form of aggression too.

phanto,

"I didn’t start a thread responding to Turnbull’s announcement but to the emotional manipulation evident in his announcement."

Yes you did.

How can you say you didn't start a thread in response to Turnbull's announcement - and in the next breath say you started it as a response to something contained in his announcement?

So someone suggests that employing respect may be helpful - and cites it in relation to women...and this is your response:

"It is another example of trying to bully men (along with the call to be ‘real men’) into behaving the way he’d like them to...."

I've never heard such tch...tch...clucking over a relatively benign and sensible suggestion - what is your problem?

You're going out of your way to dissect Turnbull's announcement and tripping over yourself in an attempt to paint it as some sort of attack on manhood.

"No one said you were a nasty person but that you made a nasty comment. That is the kind of twisting of words that some women use to exaggerate the ‘attack’ of men. It is a form of aggression too."

We're all aggressive in debate - some are more passive aggressive, but it boils down to the same thing. Does anybody else here agree with RObert that I was gloating and celebrating the lack of male figures?

That was a fairly "aggressive" thing for him to say to me.

I note that no-one has chided him for such "aggression".

@Robert: “… all DV is horrible regardless …”. Im not too sure as to whether I agree with that statement. You see a lot of DV is hardly detectable as can seen from what is said in an ABC website article.

“Strofield tries to cut through contradictory testimonies by observing how the parties behave towards each other while they're in the courtroom.” Obviously the “battering” is so severe its hard for the magistrate to observe the injuries borne by applicants for the AVOs.

“The magistrate says the only acceptable evidence submitted during these domestic violence court days is the statement of the aggrieved, and that rules over whatever the respondent says in the court, unless they're willing to testify under oath at a hearing.” [Yes, at hearing listed for weeks if not months down the track]

The legal process for obtaining an AVO is so carefully crafted it works a treat for a woman wanting to separate a father from his child/ren. It worked especially well for Rosie Batty…it worked especially well for the Canberra mother who was killed with an axe by the man who was father of her child born days before…and it worked especially well for the Maryborough mother shot a Maccas on the Gold Coast.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-03/domestic-violence-courts-magistrates-orders/6497994

Poirot:

I don’t care about Turnbull’s announcement so why would I start a thread about it? What I do care about and should be evident from the title of the thread is his attempt to manipulate the behaviour of men rather than appealing to reasonable argument. The thread may have taken other turns and I have gone with that but my initial concern was the manipulation he exhibited.

“So someone suggests that employing respect may be helpful “

Why does he need to suggest it at all? Most women are not dependent on others to have a healthy sense of self-respect. To suggest that a woman’s sense of self respect is dependent on the behaviour of men is demeaning to women. A woman’s safety in certain situations may be at risk but her self-respect should never be. If she needs a man to give her self-respect then I would say she is too immature to enter into domestic relationships.

“We're all aggressive in debate”

So you admit that you behaved aggressively? Your excuse is that Robert did it to you so it is ok to do it to him. That is a good start in trying to solve the problem of aggression in society.
If Robert was aggressive towards you then it is enough for you to point that out. Why would you need anyone else to respond to his aggression? Are you trying to co-opt a posse or something? Are you trying to play the victim and engender sympathy instead of relying on the logic of your arguments?

“what is your problem?”

What evidence is there to suggest I have a problem? I simply do not agree with you and if you were confident in your views you would not need to suggest I have a problem even if I do.

phanto,

We could be here all day playing with semantics, but I'm up for it if you are.

I stated:

"So someone suggests that employing respect may be helpful...."

You replied:

"Why does he need to suggest it at all? Most women are not dependent on others to have a healthy sense of self-respect...."

A healthy sense of self-respect differs significantly in psychological terms to the granting of respect by those around you.

What's wrong with calling for people to respect other people?

Why is it seen by you as an attack?

You say:

"....To suggest that a woman’s sense of self respect is dependent on the behaviour of men is demeaning to women."

Who said that?

Turnbull didn't.

He called for more respect. It happens all the time in the modern world. We have banners festooned on school fences throughout my state with the words "Choose Respect".

"Choose Respect" espouses respecting those around you - related to the issue of self-respect and no less important. Self-respect is more about internal psychological machinations, and less about how one interplays with society.

"So you admit that you behaved aggressively?"

So what?

I am often forthright on this forum - I don't come here to give folks a foot rub. I come to voice my opinion - like the rest of you. And "the rest of you" should quit the hypocrisy, because there's plenty of aggression bandied about here in one form or another.

Your opening post wasn't exactly sweetness and light in its forthright stance rejecting Turnbull's suggestion.

I'll withdraw the"gloating and celbrating" part if that is the cause of so much grief.

Ignoring evidence that had already been provided and lacking the courtesy to ask for evidence if the availability of it was not known and the claim thats its generally around 25% of intimate partner was not believed (which appeared to be the basis of the rejection of Tony' s extrapolation for this year) stands though.

Personally I think the focus on that part of my comments is yet more attempts to divert the discussion from any coverage of the actual problems around DV, unfortunately quite successful due in no small measure to my own weakness in ignoring those tactics.

I try not to be unneceesarily rude or aggressive in my comments (other than as the point Tony made about rudeness in the case of particularly stupid comments) but at the same time I don't feel a lot of need to tiptoe around those dishing it out but claiming all sorts of hurt when some comes back their way.

ROSCOP I was thinking of actual DV, not the made up stuff or the blown out of all proportions or the varieties leaving out key facts "he pushed me" (trying to get past me to escape the punches that he was not allowed to defend himself against) etc.

False accusations are almost another issue but the core to it in my view is a recognition that we are all human with character strengths and weaknesses based on our individual makeup far more than our gender. Abuse comes in many forms and the simplistic women good, men bad employed by the DV industry does not reflect reality.

R0bert

RObert,

"Personally I think the focus on that part of my comments is yet more attempts to divert the discussion from any coverage of the actual problems around DV, unfortunately quite successful due in no small measure to my own weakness in ignoring those tactics."

So my pointing out that you guys (who appear to be headlining my supposed "aggression") indulge in antagonistic and provocative rhetoric when it suits you...but if I point it out - then it's a "diversion" and a "tactic".

A tactical diversion, if you will.

"I'll withdraw the"gloating and celebrating" part if that is the cause of so much grief."

It didn't cause me grief.

It was provocative, just as you knew it would be - and now you compound it by espousing that my highlighting of it was a tactic.

Good-o

I've yet to read any of you pointing out that the male victims of DV are partly responsible for their situations...although you guys seem to think that that applies to female victims.

Why is that?

//I've yet to read any of you pointing out that the male victims of DV are partly responsible for their situations//

So we're victim blaming now? Really?

It's not big and it's not clever.

Poirot:

“We could be here all day playing with semantics, but I'm up for it if you are.”

Why would you be up for that? If it is just semantics then why bother? If I am not countering your arguments but just trying to muddy the waters by playing with the meaning of words then why do you bother to engage with me at all?

Not content with having the better arguments and leaving me with the desperate resort of playing semantics you want to go on and try and argue about the meaning of words. If in your own mind you have won the argument about DV what is there to be gained by winning the argument about the meaning of words unless you just need to feel some kind of boost to your ego in your relationships with men?

That is not a good reason to post and it is an abuse of these forums in my opinion. The forums are not here to prop you up in your insecurities.

On this thread there are a million pretexts and diversions that leave violent criminals at large where they can commit violent crime (i.e. assault others). A visitor from space could be forgiven for thinking that that is what Australians are like.

Faith in Australians can be restored by reading the thread at https://www.change.org/p/minister-of-prisons-premiers-prime-minister-make-parole-boards-responsible-for-letting-repeat-rapists-and-murders-out-into-society. Use the run-on links to further pages to get the full picture of what is happening and what many, many decent people want done to stop violent criminals victimising others (i.e.the rest of us).

This mini-group who duck the reality (that nobody can commit violent crime except against other violent criminals while not at largh) are a pinprick against the wishes of most of our 23 million Australians.

By all means pursue all these other issues (some valid and some not) but not at the expense of leaving violent criminals at large.

"I've yet to read any of you pointing out that the male victims of DV are partly responsible for their situations...although you guys seem to think that that applies to female victims."

Not sure if I've phrased it exactly that way, I've never considered the idea that some male DV victims contribute to their situation was in question.

The following which I posted this morning touches on my belief that DV is often a two way thing with both parties contributing. Seems pretty close to covering what Poirot has not seen any of us pointing out.

"In my view its often not single sided, all parties involved may bring their respective strengths to the argument and hide behind whatever adavantages they find to help themselves at the others expense.

I suspect its rare that a fatal assault is the first instance of abuse in a relationship and I doubt that the fatal assualt is always perpetrated by the main abuser (but some of the time it will be)."

I accept in my own case that there were things I could have done better which could have defused some situations. I could have woken up and accepted earlier on that the marriage was not getting better and walked. I could have made choices to shut up rather than respond to false claims and misrepresentation's (a skill I've still not mastered). There were times I was in the wrong with stuff I said. I know I was partly responsible for my own situation.

I'm pretty sure that in the years I've been posting on OLO on this topic I've never ever suggested that all men are blameless. My point has been very consistent that both genders are capable of great things and vile things. That I don't believe either has a monopoly on good character. I'm pretty sure I've made statements to that effect more than once as well.

R0bert

EmperorJulian, so how do you decide who is the violent criminal if the stories conflict and their is not independent evidence? A bit part of the issue being highlighted is that the system and dialogue around DV is so anti-male and so distorted that far to often the male is assumed to be at fault without serious investigation.

I agree with your broader premise once the bias in the system is adequately addressed but not while the system is so lopsided.

R0bert

Tony Lavis,

"So we're victim blaming now? Really?"

I was responding to these kinds of comments directed at women:

"How about spending some of this money on educating women to dismiss rubbish like The Bachelor which encourages women into forming domestic relationships based on the attempt to replicate the romantic fantasies they see played out there?..."

"...What also puzzles me is the number of 'educated' women who hook up with drop kicks..."

"... it seems to me that many women, particularly the young, make very poor choices when it comes to males...."

"... Women in some communities know that floggings have always been part of the culture..."

"... It's just another feel-good, empty gesture that's going to cost a mint, and bore everyone with that Battey woman who's only 'expertise' is to be a victim and be ludicrously awarded Australian of the Year for being a victim...."

"Science debunks the "women are the gentler sex" myth, finding they are more likely to be "intimate terrorists," or hit their male partners in relationships."

"So I have little doubt there are many cases of DV which are or prevoked by eliv bitches like this one."

.....

I was pointing out a discrepancy - has anyone posted similar things in regards to male victims of DV on this thread?

You know I wasn't victim blaming...but you thought you'd write that anyway.

It's not big and it's not clever.

//I was responding to these kinds of comments directed at women//

Those comments all come from the froum's rogues gallery of far-right lunatics. Two of them are from runner, for Christ's sake. Comments of that nature are so far beneath contempt that they do not dignify a response.

Poirot:

“I was pointing out a discrepancy - has anyone posted similar things in regards to male victims of DV on this thread?”

It is not a contest to see who can sling the most mud. It is quite possible that women contribute to the causes of domestic violence. To just pretend that it cannot be so is to bury your head in the sand. Each suggestion made to that end needs to be taken on face value and dismissed if there is no logic to it. You have the choice to just ignore it completely or to show why it is illogical.

It does not matter if there are an unequal number of questions put to women than are put to men. If you are genuinely trying to arrive at the truth you will want to listen to all points of view – you will want to listen to the points of view that men express. If you want to listen to more women’s views then there are places where that can happen. If you want to discuss men’s views with men then this is one place where it can occur. Just because the numbers are unequal does not mean that those views held by men are invalid.

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and being aggressive and it seems to me that numbers of people on the forum who behave aggressively are equally in proportion across both genders. Whilst aggression is present then very little constructive debate goes on. It is never excusable. Thinking that it is ok to be aggressive to people just because they have been aggressive to you or because it is all part of the ‘rough and tumble’ just turns a blind to the attitudes which need to be challenged because they are also lead to violence.

None of those quotes you listed contain any hint of aggression. They are simply opinions. You do not have to agree with them but if you do not want to hear men’s opinions then you do not have to listen to them.

“so how do you decide who is the violent criminal if the stories conflict and their is not independent evidence?”

The bruises are usually independent evidence.

“I agree with your broader premise once the bias in the system is adequately addressed but not while the system is so lopsided.”

That means leaving violent criminals at large to assault people until society has been restructured to deal with their feelings of systemic injustice. So the bashings continue until Godot arrives. Five dozen of them each year are fatal. Not acceptable to leave bashers free to bash. Better to lock ‘em up and lose the key.

Phanto,

"None of those quotes you listed contain any hint of aggression..."

I didn't highlight them as examples of aggression.

I highlighted them as examples where posters here have sought to attribute a portion of the blame to victims who happen to be female - noting that I hadn't seen anyone attempting to do the same in the case of male victims.

"It is not a contest to see who can sling the most mud."

There's more than one way to sling mud - some are adept at sprinkling it about liberally under the guise of virtuous and honourable discourse.

Your moralistic finger-waving in my direction is becoming a tad tiresome.

Poirot:

It has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with maintaining the integrity of the forums. When I point out your aggression and your egotism it is because the forums are not here to pander to the insecurities that you have which make you behave in this way.

Most people come here to discuss issues that are important to them and that is how it should be. Some people come here under the guise of caring about the issues but their real intent is to try and hurt others or to big note themselves. When that happens their behaviour should be exposed for what it is. All of us have a role to play in making sure that the discussion does not get hijacked by people who have their own agenda.

If you do not want your aggression or your egotism exposed then it is up to you to stop behaving in those ways. Every time you behave in that way then you run the risk of having it exposed.

Poirot, "I highlighted them as examples where posters here have sought to attribute a portion of the blame to victims who happen to be female"

How could that be when you objected to research done by women and reported by a women? Why would you want to bury it? Plainly it was your irrational belief in 'Patriarchy' that was at stake. Otherwise why would you be objecting to REAL science that calls SLOP feminist social 'research' into question?

Don't YOU have a son? If a mother cannot love her son enough to protect him from feminist lies that call him a potential molester, rapist and beater of girls and women, who will?

It is time for real women to man-up. You know as well as anyone else that Turnbull is playing politics to spike the guns of those taxpayer-funded feminist knobs in academia (who are shameless), the public bureaucracy and as consultants who, quite plainly, suck mightily from the public moneys allocated by government and precious little of the dough ever reaches the intended recipients.

Here again,
Research done by National Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
http://tinyurl.com/oxwsq7t

You need to asking yourself what stake you have in feminist fraud and why. It isn't only 'good men' who must stand up to lies and call them such.

onthebeach you might find this one interesting. Some points I'd not seen before

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/15503361_Patriarchy_and_wife_assault_The_ecological_fallacy

R0bert

Hi Poirot, you might find this link interesting:

https://theconversation.com/to-change-attitudes-to-family-violence-we-need-a-shift-in-gender-views-44718

Suseonline,

The Justice was merely repeating the words of the Labor government that drafted the Act. That is the understanding and slant of Labor, although hopefully individual Labor politicians might see further than the women and feminist dominated industry and failed notions of 'Patriarchy'.

The Family Violence Protection Act 2008, s.5 uses 'person' and is not gender-specific as feminists would like it to be. See here,

http://tinyurl.com/o59e579

The feminist mantras have been questioned, and importantly funds for men's counselling and research are proposed,

<Dr Richard Fletcher, who heads the fathers and families research program at the University of Newcastle, said focusing on punishing and shaming men for intimate partner violence led to a favouring of arms-length approaches that did not directly involve men, or help them to change.

“The power analysis that says that domestic violence is simply an issue of power, and that men as a group seek to dominate women and have power over them ... I think that simplistic model is really strong in the sector, and I think it infects people’s thinking so that they don’t notice the complexity that’s in front of them,” he said.>

The news report added,
<The complexity of family violence can not be overstated
Throughout the week, the commission has heard how family violence affects women, children [including a specific look at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children], the elderly, and the vulnerable. In coming weeks, it will hear about how other groups are affected, including people in gay, lesbian and other diverse relationships, men, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders generally, those in rural and remote areas, people from culturally diverse backgrounds, and people with a disability.>
http://tinyurl.com/n9upujp

It will be interesting for example to see if the Commission refers to such matters as grandparent alienation syndrome, which one often hears about when volunteering with the aged.

onthebeach I've been wondering if they will realise that they are overplaying their hand. Data and studies that utterly repudiate the idea of intimate partner violence being significantly gendered in any areas except sexual assault and the small proportion that lead to fatal assault are getting more and more accessible.

The contrast between the spin and what quantative (and qualitative where it's not constrained by feminist dogma) research is very conclusive that the claims of DV being something "Males do" is an invented construct rather than an evidence based.

I suspect that over time the current approach will backfire badly on feminists, the weight of evidence will eventually reach someone with both the voice and the courage to address it and things could change pretty rapidly from there.

R0bert

Sigh....as usual this topic degenerates into a feminist hate fest, and nothing much else.
All I can say is that I won't be happy until the 'small numbers' (66 this year so far) of intimate partner deaths is nil.

I don't care if all the politicians and justice system staff are apparently agreeing to abide by the rules of some really important (unknown, un-named) feminists, I just want to see the killings stopped.

Suseonline,

May you one day sigh for children too,

<Mother arrested for murder after eight children stabbed to death in Cairns

One of Australia’s worst mass killings, leaving eight children from the same family dead, has left the city of Cairns in shock.

The grim discovery of the bodies of children aged 18 months to 15 years was reportedly made by their adult brother at their home in Manoora, in the north Queensland city’s west.

The mother of seven of the children, 37, was being treated for stab wounds to the chest and was in a stable condition. Police said early on Saturday (local time) that she had been arrested for murder.>
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/dec/19/at-least-seven-children-killed-in-mass-stabbing-in-cairns

Good loving fathers grieving, see the photos. No Australians of the Year among them though.
http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/children-stabbed-to-death-in-the-cairns-suburb-of-manoora/story-fnj4alav-1227161862831

RObert,

A lot of people, politicians too, are guilty of suspending their own critical faculties and judgement and allowing others to do the thinking for them. "TV tells them so"You really have to wonder when so many women hang on the words of Oprah, her boy Dr Phil and some aged lesbian whose only claim to fame is that she proves audience greed and gullibility go together. Trained seals and fishy offerings.

Maybe Turnbull should be throwing small gifts to the highly impressionable and very easily led Q&A lemmings, $5 Chinese battery operated sex toys would go down well one imagines. Rainbow coloured, got that end covered too! Tres 'progressive'!

I have been surprised how even graduates (well, the humanities ones anyhow) swallow research half-truths, with sloppy feminist qualitative research providing abundant examples.

Fortunately young women are running screaming from the greedy, materialistic, dictatorial, self-obsessed feminists.

Regrettably, the Royal Commission into Family Violence seems to have been deliberately under-resourced. Even so, Royal Commissions can surprise.

Suzeonline:

“Sigh....as usual this topic degenerates into a feminist hate fest, and nothing much else.”
There is something else – it is the man as flawed human being hate fest.

OTB and Robert:

It is interesting how the feminists are quick to applaud Turnbull’s call for men to man-up when it suits them. He wants to get men to change their behaviour out of fear of being ostracized from the group called men. He wants the bond between men to be used to manipulate recalcitrant men into stopping their violence.

His attitude and those behind his report seem to be saying “‘do not stop your violent behaviour because it is the right thing to do but stop or you will be banished from the club”. My reading is that feminists abhor the existence of such a club and all the patriarchal overtones it exhibits but they seem only too happy to acknowledge its existence when it can be used to their advantage.

They will sell their own souls if it helps their control over powerful politicians and the government purse strings.

Lizette Borreli’s article [1], cited by someone on this list, purports to show on the basis of a not very large UK survey that women have the edge over men in inflicting domestic violence. A closer look shows that the “domestic violence” referred to in the article includes verbal abuse, a kick on the shins, a slap on the face, damage to personal property - way outside the scope of what the PM was referring to in his declaration of war on violent criminals. It starts with the infliction of actual bodily harm (ABH) and can escalate to grievous bodily harm (GBH), manslaughter and murder. Bodily harm short of death is marked by bruising, bleeding, broken bones, organ damage (e,g a ruptured spleen) or a miscarrriage. This is what normal people mean by “domestic violence”, and can end up in court as a criminal offence if its victim is not domestically partnered with the victim and should also do so if it involves a domestic partner irrespective of where it takes place and what gender the perpetrator is.

Comments diverting consideration of violent crime (domestic version) to speculation on sexual or racial statistics about perpetrators are knowingly weighing in on the side of violent criminals and the endless reign of fear of actual battery imposed on far, far too many Australians.

This violence urgently needs penalties to fit the crime and put paid to the violence at the expense of those who inflict it.

[1] http://www.medicaldaily.com/domestic-violence-against-men-women-more-likely-be-intimate-terrorists-controlling-behavior-290662

EmperorJulian, that is just one of a significant number of studies seeking to understand to facts of intimate partner violence and also some of the claims that underpin feminist and paternalist beliefs about that violence. The fact that any single study has a limited scope is not an issue unless there is evidence the authors are making claims beyond what's been studied or suppressing evidence.

The paper I referenced for onthebeach earlier may give a more useful coverage of the state of research. Again its just one of many addressing the topic. There are some good metadata analysis's and bibliographies around which will give an idea of the scale of the research that's been done.

R0bert

Yes OTB, that woman killing all those children was truly awful, and didn't all the men's rights groups carry on about it ad nauseum...like packs of jackals.
Where were these guys every time dads or stepdads killed their kids just to get back at the mums? Kids are kids...it is an awful tragedy regardless of who kills them.

Yet we don't see many men killed by their female partners do we?
We see the men killed by their male relatives or by total strangers in the streets.
Where is all the carry on from the men's rights groups when this happens...all too frequently.

"Where were these guys every time dads or stepdads killed their kids just to get back at the mums?"

Suseonline for what reason would dads want to get back at the mums? I myself just can't think why!

Suzeonline:

"Yet we don't see many men killed by their female partners do we?"

Or smaller weaker men. If men are such violent creatures then how come it is always the big guys that come out on top in a fight? Why are bouncers big, strong and menacing? Why are bouncers not small little weasels? It is about using the tools you have. If women had more physical strength they would kill just as readily as men but let's not go there - it makes too much sense and there are no links to 'studies' because it cannot be studied so women are safe.

They may be safe but that is not the same as being honest. Men cannot be blamed for being physically stronger than women. It is like blaming women for being mothers.

"Yet we don't see many men killed by their female partners do we?"

Phanto, we don't see too many men using the gyneo-centric family and domestic violence legal system to knick off with the woman's child/ren do we?

Roscop, you are a lost cause.

"Sigh....as usual this topic degenerates into a feminist hate fest, and nothing much else.
All I can say is that I won't be happy until the 'small numbers' (66 this year so far) of intimate partner deaths is nil.

I don't care if all the politicians and justice system staff are apparently agreeing to abide by the rules of some really important (unknown, un-named) feminists, I just want to see the killings stopped."
Posted by Suseonline

Also posted by Suseonline http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17722#313408
"This article is a load of crock.....and no, not because I subscribe to any Dulith Model or whatever. I had never heard of this before today."

It's if you have never heard of the Duluth Model to have an understanding of the role Feminism has played in the current portrayal of DV stats.

It's worth noting that it's been covered pretty well in this thread that the running total of females killed this year in intimate partner violence up to a point of some days ago was 66. It's also been well canvassed and backed by government statistics that the rate of male victims is typically around 25% or the overall total so at a round guess it's reasonable to estimate that around 20 men have been killed in intimate partner homicides so far this year.

That's also been well canvassed and yet when Suseonline quotes a total it's only the 66.

As for later comments about mens rights groups and the difference publicity given to women killing children vs that given to general violence.

I think that's about context and mission, The mens rights groups are primarily focussed on unequal treatment before the law. Highlighting the Cairns case is against a backdrop of slogans such as Protecting "Women and their Children" (which I think was the original title in the Gillard era of the program which Turnbull announced recently) and numerous other slogans and false claims that falsely represent the proportion of DV and substantiated Child abuse committed by men.

R0bert

Its ok Suseonline...I'm not offended...I was not expecting a half-decent response from you.

I've been thinking about my last post and wishing I'd tackled it differently. It was a dig rather than an attempt at genuine engagment with the tpic which I regret.

Suseonline made a good point in one of the posts I referenced which should have been what I concentrated on, not the bits which I chose to concentrate on.

"I just want to see the killings stopped."

I point I can utterly agree with.

Now for what I think I should have been saying. The gendered view of DV has held the main stage for decades mostly as a result of the Duluth model being widely accepted. It appears to have made little headway in removing DV from our communities.

It's not an evidence based model but is based on feminist theory about patriarchal control. There is good evidence that it's underlying assumptions are not valid - some good coverage of that in the paper I referenced earlier.

Whilst I personally doubt that the killings can be stopped entirely I do think that it's crucial to remove the gendered view of DV and start examining and campaigning against it on an evidence rather than ideological basis to make any significant headway in reducing the conditions that lead to many of those deaths.

R0bert

RObert has seggested that approaches to domestic violence and (presumably) stopping to be evidence-based.

If the proposition that needs evidence to establish it is that domestic assault and battery of women by by men is more common or less common than domestic assault and battery of men by women, stop right there. Who CARES what the answer to that question is, except for sexists who want to indulge in identity politics?

How much evidence has to be accumulated by sociologists or whatever to establish that violent criminals can't commit domestic violence while prison, or violence against anyone except other scrotes?

I assert without any fancy surveys that scumbags can't batter their domestic partners while locked up in prison. Can anyone say why that is not so?

Based on it being so, what real disadvantage (except to the violent criminals) can be incurred by cutting all the cackle and the delay and waste of public funds on invetigsation of gender ratios and other irrelevancies, throwing offenders in secure prisons and losing the key?

ttbn, "... it seems to me that many women, particularly the young, make very poor choices when it comes to males."
I don't know about the "young" bit. I'd also include the not so young.

People make choices for their own reasons. In the case of women like Rosie Batty who had Anderson's son at the age of 39, they are up against the ticking biological clock. She kicked Anderson out of her life and went to live and work in Sydney. Apparently, she didn't do any good in Sydney bloke-wise (obviously the good single blokes there are more discerning lol). She returns to Melbourne and after eight years she hooks up with Anderson again ("Im intrigued to catch up and see him") ...then she gets preggas and in her book blames Anderson for that..."I wondered whether I should go back on the Pill, even though I didn't feel comfortable taking it. But I didn't want to fall pregnant either. When I told Greg this, he protested. I'm not having sex with you if you're on the Pill,'he said." Well why didn't she go see her doctor and get fitted with a diaphragm or take some other precaution. The way I look at it, with Anderson dead she is now free to say anything she likes about what went on between she and him.

phanto,

"It has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with maintaining the integrity of the forums. When I point out your aggression and your egotism it is because the forums are not here to pander to the insecurities that you have which make you behave in this way."

Sorry I've been busy the last little while..I expect you thought I'd read your stuff and went off for a fulsome sulk - but I've only just seen it.

Goodness me, if I'd realised you were diagnosing my foibles, I would have made a bee line back to this thread.

Positively fascinating....

"Most people come here to discuss issues that are important to them and that is how it should be. Some people come here under the guise of caring about the issues but their real intent is to try and hurt others or to big note themselves."

I came here to discuss the current movement which is intent on shutting down attention to the woeful situation regarding women and DV - and the vocal clamour to shut down that attention and smother conversation by shrieking that it disrespects "men" - like your opening post.

Eg,

".... Let’s get the numbers down – it doesn’t matter how. It doesn’t matter where men take their suppressed violence as long as we get the numbers down..."

You seem to think (judging from you thread opener) - that is a terrible thing.

"If you do not want your aggression or your egotism exposed then it is up to you to stop behaving in those ways. Every time you behave in that way then you run the risk of having it exposed."

Poirot is apparently "aggressive" - because she is forthright in her opinion. Her egotism has been exposed - Egad!

And what are we going to do about your rather entertaining passive-aggressive attitude to moi? Methinks I'll sit back and let you wax lyrical on the subject. You're rather a fascinating study yourself, phanto. Since you believe this is the forum to analyse fellow posters, I'll be taking notes...carry on : )

otb,

"Don't YOU have a son? If a mother cannot love her son enough to protect him from feminist lies that call him a potential molester, rapist and beater of girls and women, who will?"

That is the biggest load of BS I've heard.

What is it with you guys? Why are you all so sensitive. I take it that none of you would classify yourselves as any of those things - that all of you repudiate the kinds of actions and the kind of men that carry out those actions.

Why are you all yodelling as if it's being attributed to all of you?

It's not.

My son is old enough to note these things in the news, etc. There is no way he would (even at his young age) take umbrage or consider himself disrespected because "some" men behave badly.

The PM pours one third of the money removed back in to address the situation, and you think it's the end of the world. $300 million was removed by the Abbott regime from programs and refuges - just $100 million has been put back.

Get this:

"It is time for real women to man-up. You know as well as anyone else that Turnbull is playing politics to spike the guns of those taxpayer-funded feminist knobs in academia (who are shameless), the public bureaucracy and as consultants who, quite plainly, suck mightily from the public moneys allocated by government and precious little of the dough ever reaches the intended recipients."

You, otb are precisely the calibre of commentator, we'll be steering Mr14 clear of.

“I expect you thought I'd read your stuff and went off for a fulsome sulk”

But yet here you are ‘up for it‘ yet again - aren’t you the brave one?

“I came here to discuss the current movement...”

Well if you are here for the right reasons there is no need to explain yourself to me.

“Poirot is apparently "aggressive" - because she is forthright in her opinion.”

Why do you need to be ’forthright’? If you are confident in your opinions they will speak for themselves.

“Since you believe this is the forum to analyse fellow posters, I'll be taking notes...carry on : )”

Why don’t you act according to your own beliefs rather than mine?

phanto,

"But yet here you are ‘up for it‘ yet again - aren’t you the brave one?"

Hmmm...okay....if you say so.

"Why do you need to be ’forthright’? If you are confident in your opinions they will speak for themselves."

You tell me, Dr Freud...you were saying that it was because of my "insecurities"...which make me "behave in this way"

"Well if you are here for the right reasons there is no need to explain yourself to me."

Geez, don't forsake me, I was just getting comfortable and good psychoanalysts are as rare as hen's teeth around here....

Poirot:

“Hmmm...okay....if you say so.”

No that is what you said in as many words. I was simply reflecting what you seem to think about yourself.

“You tell me, Dr Freud...you were saying that it was because of my "insecurities"...which make me "behave in this way"

No your insecurities pertain to your aggression. Forthrightness is not aggression – it is just unnecessary.

"Well if you are here for the right reasons there is no need to explain yourself to me."

“Geez, don't forsake me, I was just getting comfortable and good psychoanalysts are as rare as hen's teeth around here....”

I am not analysing you on that score I am simply saying that you are under no obligation to me or anyone else for that matter, to excuse yourself or give reasons why you do what you do.

It seems to me that you do not really comprehend what I am saying and I cannot say it any more clearly so there is little point in continuing this discussion.

"I came here to discuss the current movement which is intent on shutting down attention to the woeful situation regarding women and DV - and the vocal clamour to shut down that attention and smother conversation by shrieking that it disrespects "men""

and yet from my take on the posts none of those posters Poirot is disagreeing with have at any stage said aything that looks like an intent to shutdown attention on DV facing women.

Clearly calls for the debate to be widened, to include DV facing men. Clearly calls for a rethink on the way the issue is handled by authorities. None implies or reasonably suggests any intent to remove attention from DV impacting women. At worst a sharing of attention however given the proportiin of DV attention that has been given to female victims over many years and the apparnt limited success its pretty clear that the isolated focus on just female victims is not a successful strategy (except for those seeking a bigger slice of the pie in family court proceedings). Its years past the time to broaden the debate and work towards reducing the violence by addressing it all.

EmperorJulian, I have no idea how to respond to your point. You appear to be advocatingna lynch mob mentality where the mob think identifies the guilty party based on stereotypes and locks them away for a long time without any considerations of fairness or determining if you have actually identified the abusive person or rather their victim striking back after years of abuse.

R0bert

"No your insecurities pertain to your aggression. Forthrightness is not aggression – it is just unnecessary."

Thanks for clearing that up, phanto.

So you come on here to join a discussion/debate on DV/aggression - and then single out a poster whom you proceed to diagnose with "insecurities" which (apparently) pertain to their "aggression".

That's quite a slick tactic - do you do that in all your debates on OLO?

Interestingly, I haven't noticed you critique anyone else on this thread for their "unnecessary forthrightness" or aggressive defence of their views...but then they're espousing views with which you agree and, therefore, not a target for your beguilingly passive technique of derision.

"I am not analysing you on that score..."

Yes you are....

".... I am simply saying that you are under no obligation to me or anyone else for that matter, to excuse yourself or give reasons why you do what you do."

I wasn't doing any of those things.

I was highlighting your ACME analysis - and giving it a dose of satire.

All of that because a poster is wedded to the falsity of 'Patriarchy' and to the junk 'science' and fraud of the feminist 'Duluth Model' - disgraced but a mantra still trotted out to prop up the jobs and careers of the educated, middle class white women who ARE feminism and have sucked mightily and long from the bucket of taxpayers' dollars.

<Scientific Misconduct Should Be a Crime
It’s as bad as fraud or theft, only potentially more dangerous.

By Rachel Nuwer

This article originally appeared in New Scientist.

..Research misconduct degrades trust in science and causes real-world harm. As such, Smith says, it should be a crime akin to fraud.

Why should research misconduct be illegal?

..First, in a lot of cases, people have been given substantial grants to do honest research, so it really is no different from financial fraud or theft.

Second, we have a whole criminal justice system that is in the business of gathering and weighing evidence—which universities and other employers of researchers are not very good at.

And finally, science itself has failed to deal adequately with research misconduct.>

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2014/09/scientific_misconduct_should_be_a_crime_it_s_like_fraud_or_theft_only_more.html

This Dulith model seems to have got some of the forum boys all in a lather.

What I don't understand then is why all the academic misogynists haven't devised their own model to inform all the feminists exactly what the real DV situation is, and what causes it?

They could call it the "Donothing Model"....

Another round in the endless contest between feminist sexism and patriarchal sexism, identity politics substituting itself for focus on the real issue raised by Mr Turnbull.

The epidemic of domestic violence.

Which we have because violent criminals commit it.

Which they can because they are at large.

Which they are because the legal system protects them.

Which it does because it values rule of law above rule of justice.

Which will change when there is a social head of steam to align rule of law with rule of justice.

Which is the pressure point fot securing an end to domestic violence.

It's up to every Australian to take sides.

Suseonline,

You do not earn any respect as a claimed health worker through promoting junk science. It is the sort of half truths (or less) and fraud that supports outfits like the anti-vaccination crew for example.

It has of course escaped your notice that the real research and real findings being quoted here that counter the feminists' 'Patriarchy' and other nonsense was largely done by women scientists.

What you are doing with your silly 'drive-by' gender wars posts is denying the real science done by the many real scientists who are women.

Here again,
Research done by National Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
http://tinyurl.com/oxwsq7t

You need to asking yourself what stake you have in feminist fraud and why. It isn't only 'good men' who must stand up to lies and call them such.

Here you go, read about a real scientist, who just happens to be a woman,

"A scientist's view: why I'm an equalist and not a feminist
All scientific outputs should be judged on content regardless of whether the author is male or female, says Laura Waters"

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/jul/12/scientist-equalist-not-feminist

Good on you Onthebeach, you read and are promoting something written by women!
That is progress for you.
True to form though, you attack me personally by using my profession...again.
It is all so predictable and boring really.

My point has always been that I don't really care who writes what about this subject, I just want to see the DV deaths stopped, and whatever is happening now is not working obviously.
So whatever this Govt can do to kick-start the issue in the media again is fine by me, because much of the media staff have ignored DV deaths, at the expense of other murders, for too long.

A quote from an article well worth reading,

<Feminist dogma whips up the domestic violence industry

Campaigns such as Destroy the Joint’s Counting Women project insist on making domestic violence a gender issue. It claims 66 women are victims this year, with the implication these are all “intimate partner” homicides, perpetrated by males.

In fact, only about half of the homicides cited could be classified as having a male partner or ex-partner identified as the killer.

Some of the 66 victims were killed by women, by sisters, daughters, a female neighbour or, in one case, a female ex-lover of the victim’s husband, as well as by brothers, fathers, and sons, strangers, acquaintances and persons unknown.

Domestic violence is a serious enough without exaggerating.

The activists cherrypick facts to support their dogma, rather than using statistics to better target scarce resources to help the most vulnerable victims, and to address the root causes of domestic violence.

To break the intergenerational cycle of violence, I wrote that we need to “end the welfare incentive for unsuitable women to keep having children to a string of feckless men”. This was twisted to claim that I had called victims of domestic violence “unsuitable women”.

The dishonesty is clear. The aim is to avoid the obvious, that boys brought up in an environment of chaos, dysfunction and violence, who are neglected and abused, are more likely to become abusive, violent men with poor impulse control.

But these are not facts the man-bashing femi-fascists who control the domestic violence industry want to hear.>

http://tinyurl.com/nexzukw

It's even more obvious that incarcerated bashers can's bash anyone but one another.

Otb

And didn't the commentary you refer to make the defenders of the DV industry with its propaganda, such as AWW and MamaMia websites, turn livid.

AWW: http://tinyurl.com/qgpptwg

MamaMia: http://tinyurl.com/oyrxtea

"My point has always been that I don't really care who writes what about this subject, I just want to see the DV deaths stopped, and whatever is happening now is not working obviously."

If that's really the case then maybe you could stop sniping at those of us trying to get evidence based science used as the basis of policy rather than the current ideological approach that at best perpetuates the deaths (and all the lesser hells of violence and bullying that don't go that far).

While you snipe from the sidelines clearly failing to understand the topic ands the underpinnings of why its gone wrong you are not indicating much actual interest in seeing it end. As per my poorly written post of the other day while you ignore the likely male deaths and just refer to claimed numbers of female deaths you are not showing much interest in seeing it ended.

R0bert

otb,

"To break the intergenerational cycle of violence, I wrote that we need to “end the welfare incentive for unsuitable women to keep having children to a string of feckless men”. This was twisted to claim that I had called victims of domestic violence “unsuitable women”."

Poor Miranda!

She blast out of the article box all guns blazing, attempting to unload blame onto female victims for their situations - terms them "unsuitable"...."unsuitable" - what does that mean?

So this hack who calls herself a journalist, does what she always does - which is promote some publicity for herself by writing something outrageous.

Then...she gets to write a follow up article on all the outrage she's engendered, keeping the spotlight firmly on herself and her half-baked partisan nuttery.

Shes the perfect hack for you to quote!

RObert,

"While you snipe from the sidelines clearly failing to understand the topic ands the underpinnings of why its gone wrong..."

Ergo, Suse doesn't know what she's talking about - while RObert is a full bottle.

I like this:

"....ignore the "likely" male deaths...."

"....and just refer to "claimed" numbers of female deaths..."

Isn't rhetoric fun when we can quietly slip in such descriptors!

Poirot,

Feminists are so predictable: a woman columnist who disagrees with them is guilty of 'wrongthink' and is an enemy.

It is irrelevant that what she is saying has considerable merit.

After all, the feminists are not really about treating 'domestic violence' at all but trying to feather-bed their own victim entitlement by falsely stereotyping all men as molesters and abusers.

Shabby!

A good fight-back manual for all who despise political correctness,

http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/dp/B014GMBUR4

otb,

"Feminists are so predictable: a woman columnist who disagrees with them is guilty of 'wrongthink' and is an enemy.

It is irrelevant that what she is saying has considerable merit."

I don't see Devine as an "enemy" - I see her as a purveyor of garbage.

She's an attention seeking nong.

Here's one from yesterday:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnii5thq-1227555674611?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=CourierMail&utm_medium=Twitter

Plugging junk-science climate deniers is about her level of expertise.

Poirot,

This is the subject article.

<Feminist dogma whips up the domestic violence industry

IT is a marvellous irony that the domestic violence activists who have spent the week abusing and misrepresenting me claim to be champions of “respect” for women.

My sin was to point out the incontrovertible truth about domestic violence, that it is overwhelmingly concentrated in dysfunctional remote indigenous communities and public housing estates.

The response from femi-fascists was to try to get me sacked, silenced and banned from twitter.

They called for my “sterilisation”, branded me a “murder apologist”, a “troll”, a “sicko”, an “idiot”, “a bimbo”, “a vile creature dangerous to kids”, “nasty and vicious”, “stupid”, “a disgrace”, “rabid old hatemonger”, “a typical Australian”.

“Your victim blaming has done almost as much harm to victims of Domestic Violence as the abusers,” read one email.

Yes, the faux-rage meter was at full tilt.

But I value these intemperate expressions, because they provide evidence of a concerted attempt to cover up the truth.

Domestic violence is the last frontier of feminism. You might think women had already achieved equality in the traditional markers of status in our society, most obviously in higher education, where 60 per cent of university graduates last year were female.

But for feminism to remain relevant, it needs to extend victim status even to the most affluent, pampered women of the chattering classes.

Thus the feminist dogma about domestic violence is that all women are equally at risk and all men potential perpetrators.

In the words of Natasha Stott Despoja, Australia’s Ambassador for Women and Girls, and the Chair of domestic violence lobbying organisation Our Watch: “Violence against women does not discriminate, regardless of ethnicity, social status and geography.”

Only, actually, it does.

This is what I pointed out in the column that has enraged the sisterhood, that domestic violence is concentrated in communities where the underclass lives, where welfare dependency has emasculated men, where drug and alcohol abuse is rife, and intergenerational social disadvantage is entrenched.>
TBC..

continued,

<I cited the latest data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, showing the rate of domestic violence in Bourke, with its large indigenous population 60 times higher than in affluent north shore Sydney suburbs. The housing estate welfare traps concentrated in Campbelltown and Penrith are similar hotspots.

The evidence is everywhere if you care to look, that poverty, intergenerational dysfunction, mental illness and substance abuse are preconditions for a domestic violence hotspot, with chronic underreporting in indigenous communities hiding the level of distress.

Take the NSW Coroner’s Court’s annual reports of the NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team which invariably involve welfare dependent couples in and out of jail, with “cumulative social issues in both cases.”

The cases are marked by “serious social disadvantage including in many cases poverty, substance abuse issues, violent coping mechanisms, intergenerational violence”.

Or take the 2011 BOSCAR report “Personal stress, financial stress and violence against women which shows “risk of violence increases progressively with the level of financial stress (and) personal stress.”

For pointing out these inconvenient truths, I was accused of “blaming victims”.

Fake quotes attributed to me, such as: “Rich men don’t hit women”.

The classic modus operandi of feminist outrage sites such as MamaMia is to make up a line, pretend I said it and then attack me for (not) saying it.

This is the intolerance of the femi-fascist. They ignore BOSCAR statistics but trumpet every half-baked internet survey which makes a ludicrous claims such as that a quarter of young Australian men don’t think there’s anything wrong with beating women.

When the Our Watch group, which receives $8 million of federal funding each year to “change attitudes”, wrote a rebuttal to my column this week, it airily claimed that “The latest international evidence shows that factors such as low socio-economic status or harmful use of alcohol do not have a constant or predictable impact on levels of violence against women.”

Yet, when challenged to provide this evidence, Our Watch cited a UN report on domestic violence in other Asia-Pacific countries such as Indonesia, PNG and Bangladesh.>
contd

<When further challenged to provide research from comparable countries to Australia, Our Watch cited a European study which contains Australian criticism of “the lack of attention to social class and to working class community norms and pressures” in domestic violence cases; it also cited a study which found that lower socioeconomic status was more frequent among men enrolled in “batterers’ programs”.

Campaigns such as Destroy the Joint’s Counting Women project insist on making domestic violence a gender issue. It claims 66 women are victims this year, with the implication these are all “intimate partner” homicides, perpetrated by males.

In fact, only about half of the homicides cited could be classified as having a male partner or ex-partner identified as the killer.

Some of the 66 victims were killed by women, by sisters, daughters, a female neighbour or, in one case, a female ex-lover of the victim’s husband, as well as by brothers, fathers, and sons, strangers, acquaintances and persons unknown.

Domestic violence is a serious enough without exaggerating.

The activists cherrypick facts to support their dogma, rather than using statistics to better target scarce resources to help the most vulnerable victims, and to address the root causes of domestic violence.

To break the intergenerational cycle of violence, I wrote that we need to “end the welfare incentive for unsuitable women to keep having children to a string of feckless men”. This was twisted to claim that I had called victims of domestic violence “unsuitable women”.

The dishonesty is clear. The aim is to avoid the obvious, that boys brought up in an environment of chaos, dysfunction and violence, who are neglected and abused, are more likely to become abusive, violent men with poor impulse control.

But these are not facts the man-bashing femi-fascists who control the domestic violence industry want to hear.>
http://tinyurl.com/nexzukw

Poirot,
Now that you have the article before you, you might direct your criticism at her claims and not just rely on slurs.

Just for those who get a little lost in the misdirection
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7006#214953
"I like this:

"....ignore the "likely" male deaths...."

"....and just refer to "claimed" numbers of female deaths..."

Isn't rhetoric fun when we can quietly slip in such descriptors!"

Suseonline posts that 66 people have been killed in intimate partner violence so far this year which is the number of women that previous posts had claimed were killed by intimate partners so far (since called into question by material posted by Onthebeach). Hence the word claim.

Suseonline ignored the estimates of the number of men killed by intimate partners. Based on the claim of 66 females and an historical pattern of around 25% of all intimate partner homicides being male victims it had previously been estimated to be around 20 unless this years patterns altered significantly from the averages, hence the "likely" term.

Poirot misrepresents it to call it rhetoric. Pretty much any angle she can find to divert attention from any deaths or DV involving male victims. Their very existence is a challenge to the foundations of feminist beliefs about DV.

Suseonline is also called out because after a long history of sarcastic responses to men raising the role of feminism in the lies told about DV (including on this thread) as though the idea was some far fetched absurdity she admitted on another thread that she had not heard of the Duluth model. She is in no position to attack others based on such a woefully poor understanding of the issues.

R0bert

The Duluth model is an ideological based rather than evidenced based feminist creation that unfortunately has sat at the core of much of the western worlds response to DV over several decades.

Very likely costing large numbers of lives and vast amount of misery because of it's misdiagnosis of root causes and the vigour the supporters of the underlying precepts have applied in attacking anybody pointing out the problems (see the article Onthebeach referenced for a small sampling.

Reading the work of a range of researchers in the DV a very common theme from those who don't start with the assumption of DV being gendered is the attacks they have faced for doing research that tries to establish facts rather than supporting the feminist line on DV.

To back up a point made in the article Onthebeach posted a reminder of an older set of government stats I referenced early in the thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7006#214514 which indicated around 50% of Intimate partner homicide victims and perpetrators were not employed. Some other research I've read recently discusses a high correlation between mental illness and DV perpetrators.

R0bert

otb,

Sorry, mate I don't comment on silly journalists with a line to push who employ terms such as "femi-fascist".

"Femi-fascist" - and this women pretends she's injecting something useful into the conversation?

(although I realise that a term like "femi-fascist" would start your bells ringing, otb)

".... you might direct your criticism at her claims and not just rely on slurs."

Not to just rely on slurs....why don't you tell that to Ms Devine - she appears rather fond of them.

Ignoring her incendiary "....end the welfare incentive for unsuitable women to keep having children to a string of feckless men." - let's take a gander at the rhetoric she uses in the article you've posted:

"femi-fascists"

"feminist dogma"

"domestic violence industry"

"feminist outrage sites"

"femi-fascist"

"domestic violence activists"

"femi-fascists"

"the sisterhood"

While I can see why you're such a fan - that is not the rhetoric of someone who is genuinely interested in a collaborative effort to get to the root of the problem.

That is the rhetoric of a self-promoting partisan commentator who employs "slurs" liberally as a foundation to her rantings.

Next....

Poirot, so "slurs" have become the red herrings in the discussion. Lets talk about the "slurs" and not the essence of Ms Devine's argument because you know you can't win there. Ms Devine provided a complete table to help her critics with basic analysis and which most twelve year olds would understand.

"that is not the rhetoric of someone who is genuinely interested in a collaborative effort to get to the root of the problem"

I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that the targets of those comments have absolutely no interest in getting to the root of the problem nor in any collaborative efforts that are not just about going along with feminist ideology.

The author is calling out fanatics who do everything in their power to ensure that the root of the problem is not discussed nor got at.

R0bert

Roscop,

"Poirot, so "slurs" have become the red herrings in the discussion. Lets talk about the "slurs" and not the essence of Ms Devine's argument because you know you can't win there...."

So pointing out that "violence" is more likely to occur in lower socio-economic environments is some sort of epiphany!

Golly!

Does Devine suggest anything helpful other than removing welfare from "women" - while labelling those women "unsuitable"?

Sorry I missed her "solution" - maybe because it was buried under so many slurs.

And while you're suggesting I attend to the "essence of Ms Devine's argument" - can you explain why, instead of attending to the "essence" of this thread, you decided instead to go for Rosie Batty?...a la:

"The legal process for obtaining an AVO is so carefully crafted it works a treat for a woman wanting to separate a father from his child/ren. It worked especially well for Rosie Batty..."

"People make choices for their own reasons. In the case of women like Rosie Batty who had Anderson's son at the age of 39, they are up against the ticking biological clock. She kicked Anderson out of her life and went to live and work in Sydney. Apparently, she didn't do any good in Sydney bloke-wise (obviously the good single blokes there are more discerning lol). She returns to Melbourne and after eight years she hooks up with Anderson again ("Im intrigued to catch up and see him") ...then she gets preggas and in her book blames Anderson for that..."I wondered whether I should go back on the Pill, even though I didn't feel comfortable taking it. But I didn't want to fall pregnant either. When I told Greg this, he protested. I'm not having sex with you if you're on the Pill,'he said." Well why didn't she go see her doctor and get fitted with a diaphragm or take some other precaution. The way I look at it, with Anderson dead she is now free to say anything she likes about what went on between she and him."

Practice what you preach.

Well there we have it, RObert,

Mr Reasonable says:

"I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that the targets of those comments have absolutely no interest in getting to the root of the problem nor in any collaborative efforts that are not just about going along with feminist ideology."

"The author is calling out fanatics who do everything in their power to ensure that the root of the problem is not discussed nor got at."

No she's not - she's employing incendiary rhetoric to get a reaction - and when she gets the desired reaction, she gets to write an article about that.

She's offensive...she's offensive every other day on twitter.

You think a professional journalist writing for a newspaper should employ rhetoric like this in an opinion piece?

""femi-fascists"

"feminist dogma"

"domestic violence industry"

"feminist outrage sites"

"femi-fascist"

"domestic violence activists"

"femi-fascists"

"the sisterhood"

...in "one" article.

Admittedly her conduct is in line with the usual trash one expects from those Murdoch sites, along with their photo-shopping and other gutter tactics, it's usual.

Frankly, she'd be more suited to ranting on here wth the rest of you - she'd certainly feel at home.

Piffle.

Poirot,

You have offered no rebuttal at all. Nor could the feminists who attacked her article.

That should be,

"Nor could the feminists who attacked her for her article."

-Just like you, Poirot.

"You think a professional journalist writing for a newspaper should employ rhetoric like this in an opinion piece?"

And you'd think wouldn't you Poirot, that those in the DV industry would adopt higher ethical and professional standards when comes to explaining DV statistics.

In relation to my last post, we have the CEO of Domestic Violence Victoria, Fiona McCormack saying this:

“…its really shameful how this issue is funded and just to give you a bit on an idea about the demand, in Victoria there has been 70,000 police attendances to family violence incidents in the last year …every one of those incidents will result in a referral to a women’s agency”

Huh? How bizarre! That means that in Victoria if police attend a family violence incident involving for example, a father and son or brothers, that will result in a referral to a women’s agency. And you should keep in mind that many of the police attendances would be I suggest, visits to repeat customers. Also many visits would I suggest result in nothing with the parties in conflict making up and not wanting it to become a police matter. So what McCormack is telling ABC viewers is bunkum and is consistent with what Devine says in regard to these industry spokespeople.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-25/sherdan-domestic-violence-funding-is-a-broken-model/6804854

Roscop, if the police find a bashed person in a DV situation they don't need anyone's permission to charge the perpetrator anymore, so there is luckily no chance for any 'makeup' after police are called. The perpetrators can't get away with it so easily.

As for statistics, I tend to just go with the Australian Institute of Criminology site rather than just any mad journalist, and of all the intimate partner homicides between 2002 and 2013, 75% were female and 25% were male.
In that same group, the perpetrators of the murders were 77% male and 23% female.

So I ask you, why would you continue ranting about the female component of these stats, when it is so obviously stacked against them in this form of violence?
Yes, we should of course fight against all forms of murder, but in this case surely there is nothing wrong with pointing out the huge difference in gender violence/murders within the intimate partner homicide group?
We all need to deal with the truth....about which stats don't lie....

"We all need to deal with the truth....about which stats don't lie...."

The truth in each instance or the truth about the stats?

The law must deal with the truth about the defendant.

Did the defendant or did the defendant not commit ABH on someone?

If NO the defendant walks. If YES the defendant should be locked up for long enough for the victim to live the rest of his or her life free of fear of the defendant's violence.

Stats? Schmats. Stuff for social engineers, not for law. Dozens of domestic murders and countless domestic bashings tell us the law needs to be strengthened to protect people from fear of violent crime. Doggedly switching the debate to stats while ducking the question of effective legal protection expresses indifference to the human rights of actual victims of (domestic) violence.

I don't have a personal dog in this race. I have never been a perpetrator, victim or witness of domestic violence. But as a citizen I value living under laws which protect fellow citizens' freedom from fear. It's a bother to see evidence of people who plainly don't.

Suseonline thanks for acknowledgingntheir ar male victims. At what point in this thread have of any of those us you are arguing against denied or tried to hide those stats you mention. The point being made over and over is that year after year those male victims get no attentiin at all in statements from politicians, in adds against DV, in statements from those with public roles to raise awarness of and try to help stamp out DV.

Does that not strike you as just a tad off in an era where in almost everything else campaigns fall over themselves to represent diversity?

There is much more to the debate but the complete focus on portraying DV in a far more gendered way than it can possibly be (even ignoring all the inconvenient research that asks both genders about their experience of DV) lies pretty close to the heart of the problem. Its not a single comment or single add that failed to provide some balance. Its a systematic attempt to hide the very existance of male victims at any level of DV (or if forced to admit their existance to claim that they ar so few they don't warrant attention).

R0bert

Suzeonline:

“but in this case surely there is nothing wrong with pointing out the huge difference in gender violence/murders within the intimate partner homicide group?”

What does it achieve once it has been pointed out to point it out over and over again? It simply becomes nagging and the only point to nagging is to try and inflict some pain – to grind someone into the ground. Sometimes the nagger does not want the other person to change because their pleasure comes from the power they have to nag.

Women are getting what they want from the Turnbull government but it will never be enough. Men are getting nothing from this deal or any other deal in regard to domestic violence. When you are getting something of what you want then you have less cause for complaint than someone who is getting nothing at all. Men are saying they want a proportion of what women are getting and that is basic justice. Anything else is discrimination.

There is no need to keep pointing out the difference it is well known. Men are simply saying that they too are victims and all victims need to be dealt with. When Turnbull and his lobbyists cannot even acknowledge one male victim by using inclusive language then men have every right to demand something from the government.

@Suseonline, you completely missed the gist of what I said in my previous post. I didn't refer to perpetrators getting away with what they had done. Nor did I say anything about the ratio of male to female murder perpetrators so in future I suggest you give more thought to what has been said before going off into your own rants.

What you say in regard to police not needing anyone's permission to charge the (alleged?) perpetrator may well be correct, but if they haven't got any willing witnesses to the actual incident, please tell me how do the police make the charge stick ie get a conviction.

otb,

"You have offered no rebuttal at all. Nor could the feminists who attacked her article."

Why would I bother to "rebut" an article written like that?

Both those articles were written, not to address the problem, but to ignite passions and start a slanging match.

She employs terms such as femi-fascists, feminist dogma, domestic violence activists..the sisterhood. And this is from a main-stream media outlet.

I know you think that's just great...because that's the kind of debased rhetoric you employ yourself on this forum.

We don't see the same from those supporting Turnbull's announcement.

Imagine, a main-stream media article spouting things such as "mascu-fascists", "masculine-dogma"..."the brotherhood".

You yourself have been "feminist-bashing" up and down this thread - (remember the "taxpayer-funded feminist knobs in academia"....who are shameless),which really highlights how bloody immature is your argument (although on any given thread, one could substitute "feminist" for "leftist" or "progressive", etc, and your message would be largely the same).

And now you want me to comment on the content of an article from some antagonistic, self-promoting hack who didn't offer any realistic solution and merely stirred up a hornet's nest for no perceivable gain.

@otb @ Poirot

"remember the "taxpayer-funded feminist knobs in academia"....who are shameless"

Gee, I can think of few of them, but the one that always sticks in my mind is Professor Patrice Easteal who was the author of the biggest load of anecdotal crud I've ever read in her short story titled "Shattered Dreams".

RObert, of course we care about the male DV homicide victims, it's just that the whole debate is that by far, only with DV intimate partner homicides, that women die in far greater numbers than men, and that men are far more likely to be the perpetrators, so why are all the discussions we have on DV end up with many here (not you) blaming women for this?

It seems that many in society DO believe that the female victims ask for it (death) and that really it is the poor male perpetrators who really shouldn't be blamed and the male victims who seem to be blameless - as ALL the victims should be.
I know it seems as though we go round and round on this issue, but if 77% of DV intimate partner homoicide perpetrators are male, and 75% of the victims are female, why is it a problem that the spotlight is on the male side of the equation?

While there are still so many men in our society who still think it is ok, or that at least it isn't their business, what other men do to their intimate partners, then how on earth will the young people grow up to see that it is wrong? If they don't see it as a real problem, then it will just continue.
I get so frustrated, but I just don't see how it will ever change, with the way it is thought of at present.

Suseonline thanks. A few points from that. As I said earlier its the utter failure to give any acknowledgment of male victims that bothers me most. None vs proportional makes a significant difference in outcomes for men seeking help or even some support from those around them.
So it is vitally important I believe for the pollies and industry players to change the approach.

Deaths and sexual assault seem to be the only part of DV and substantiated child abuse where there is a significant gender component (some leaning towards female perps in substantiated child abuse and deaths but I think explained by the greater time women spend with sole care of kids).

There is substantial evidence that women initiate a greater proportion of the violence and escalation of fights and I think just focussing on the body count and ignoring how it gets there is never going to work well. There are plenty of other major risk factors involved that don't get much of a mention if any. Just focussing on gender is a political play not an honest attempt to prioritise (or if it is its been failing for so long then a rethink makes sense.

I'm not sure I'm free of victim blaming. I know there were choices I made that added fuel to the fire rather than settling things. I married someone friends and family were warning me about (not violence, other stuff). That topic also has become so politically charged that honest discussions get tough. I do think that in many cases both parties make choices that lead to the really bad cases ( not all).

We should be able to warn women that dating thugs is risky, people who embrace violence in one part if their lives don't have to move far to bash a partner.

I want the politics out of this and a genuine attempt to address all violence (DV and other). If we are prioritising do it in the basis of controllable risk factors and aimed at reducing the contributers to violence.

R0bert

I know you have personal experience in this matter RObert, but so have I.
I tend to think that trying to stop the ultimate form of violence, murder, should be the highest priority, surely?

Yes, we should be working on stopping ALL forms of violence, but it seems that all other forms of violence, leading to serious injury or death, are treated differently to intimate partner violence and murders.
It seems that only in this form of violence, and possibly also sexual violence, that the victims are most often blamed...and it just so happens that by far most of the deaths and injuries in these forms of violence are perpetrated by men against women.

So why can't you see that this is important to most women, who feel they get less justice or understanding in these issues than in other forms of violence? I doubt this opinion will change for many people until far more people in our communities change their views on what is right or wrong re the way women are treated.
And surely everyone wants this for their own female relatives?

@Suse,

You're like a broken record with this type of talk - "...but if 77% of DV intimate partner homoicide perpetrators are male, and 75% of the victims are female,..."

What you are talking about are very small numbers like 1 intimate partner homicide per week and in terms of the number of divorces involving children which in Australia I understand is around half of the 50,000 per year, that's a very low rate of homicides. The common denominator with a lot of those homicides is an aggrieved father who has had his relationship with his child/ren seriously interfered with by the mother (known in the DV industry as the blameless victim) and in a good number the aggrieved father has seen his child/ren living within the sphere of influence of the mother's new man.

Whilst the laws and legal processes facilitate such situations without there being a finding of guilt in a court of law, the murder of mothers will continue. Fitting GPS tracking devices to so-called perpetrators is not going to change the situation, particularly if the “perpetrator” label is used simply because of an unsubstantiated allegation.

In the dock the defendant isn't a statistic or a gender, it could be (if innocent) a human being and (if guilty) a bullying scumbag subjecting someone to a life of fear.

How do you identity politics wonks suggest the law should be drafted to deal with each?

Ms Batty, by the way, seems to consider it's not a person but a gender that should be the defendant. A neat way of ducking consideration of how real domestic violence laws should be drafted and real court proceedings should be conducted. "Y'r Honour, the gender standing there belted the daylights out of my client"

EmperorJulian,maybe the rest of us are more interested than you in seeing it stopped before someone is dead. You are obsessed with tough punishments and too excited over that part to have any interest in reducing the number of first offences. Sad.

R0bert

Suseonline, my impression is the reverse of yours in terms of perceptions of society taking DV against women seriously and acknowledgement that sometimes victims contribute to their own situations. I think society is socially tougher on male perpetrators of DV than on most other violent perpetrators, certainly seems to be the case in family law that unproven allegations can have massive penalties. An allegation of DV seems to make someone almost untouchable in a way that a fight with another male does not. 

The public version of the discussion rarely gets serious about accepting that in the majority of DV situations both parties have played a role that contributes to it, a lot of research shows that violence is often mutual and I think the role of other forms of abuse in provoking violence are seriously downplayed.

I think that when body counts are being considered in any prioritisation some proportion of suicides should be taken into account as well, unfortunately an area where the research seems to be almost non-existant but it is in my view a major elephant in the room when people talk body counts.

Driving someone to suicide by relentless verbal and emotional bullying, by coopting government bodies to help is no less violence than beating them to death. Generally in my view a lot crueler. Those who are the targets of that kind of bullying find it very difficult to get help.

I disagree with the way gender has been manipulated in the DV debate and doubt that much of it is genuinelly about prioritisation but even beyond that how many decades should that approach be allowed to continue and keep failing to significant reduce DV before its accepted that its time to change approach? The current approach might help those with an axe to grind but it does not seem to be doing much to stop DV, why would more of the same be any better?

R0bert

Yes I agree RObert that what has been done so far to combat DV has not been even vaguely successful. I would suggest though that the males who are victims of DV would also surely be part of the arguments that led to them getting hurt too?
Usually it takes 2 to make an argument of course.

The difference between the genders in DV situations though is FEAR.
At the end of the day, regardless of who started it, who said or did what, unless both of the couple have a gun each, the woman is bound to be more afraid of what the man will do to her, than he of her. Most males are physically stronger, and can shut down most violence any woman can try out on him, and then almost always come off in better shape than her.

So, I would say that it IS a gender issue re DV because women will never be safe in a home with an aggressive male who wants to hurt them. Violent men use that fear to control what they consider is 'their' woman.
I have seen it many times when visiting many homes over the years in my job.
Nothing will make me change my mind.
But I don't know what the answer is.....

Suseonline I think I've been pretty clear in stating that I think its often both parties contibuting including males.

The physical fear point is valid but ignores so much else.
The male dealing with an abusive wife hiding behind the I'm a women you can't touch me shield is in a very difficult position. The male dealing with a family law and child support system that allows it self to be used as a tool to inflict long term harm on the other party year after year. Social attitudes and training about DV amongst professionals that mean that a male dealing with DV is unlikely to get much support.

There are other aspects that in my view also sit there along side the physical fear factor, women generally better skills with spoken words and emotions gives them at times a devestating advantage in a conflict where physical strength is not involved. Different type of fear but one that seems real to many. Again one of my broken records, male suicide rates far outweigh those of women (but I don't think female suicide should be ignored ).

Physical strength is clearly a significant factor when it comes to a brawl, in the lead up to it and for most couples who don't engage in physical violence it may be there in the background but its not the main dynamic in play.

R0bert

Yes, all valid points RObert.
Now, how to stop it all leading to injury or death?
I think it is all too hard!
Cheers,
Suse.

Australia's future does not lie with cynical politicians whose political pragmatism and gutlessness render them compliant creatures of ruthless, noisy lobbyists and to be dictated to by the tabloids. That is NOT the way of the statesman that the Australian public know is required to create a better Australia.

It isn't only in kowtowing to the meme of female frailty and endless victimhood that the superficial Malcolm Turnbull has let Australia down, there are far more serious lapses, one being his early failure to be a champion for freedom of speech.

Would YOU trust Shorten or Turnbull with your lifetime superannuation contributions, with protecting your home from capital gains tax, or with ensuring that your children and grandchildren have the quality of life that is their rightful inheritance? Many would say, "Probably not".

However if the public were asked if Shorten, Turnbull and others of a similar cut will be exiting politics in a far better personal situations esp., financial state, for being there and the answer would be, "Yes, definitely!".

Where have all the statesmen gone, long time passing? Where have all the statesmen gone? Knobbled by the 'progressive' inner city elite, every one...[with apologies to Peter, Paul and Mary].

Suse/R0bert

"Now, how to stop it all leading to injury or death? I think it is all too hard!"

DV will never be brought to zero. Human nature is such that there will always be people of both genders, with bad attitudes and behaviours. You can only ever hope to minimize it. And a good start in doing that would be to put end to the "we are holier than thou" positions people take - like minimizing or ignoring women’s role in domestic violence.

Another thing that needs being done is to take domestic violence laws away from the states and territories. States and Territories apply different policies and terminology.

The laws on this issue and the court processes should be determined at the federal level so that they better integrate with family law. Of course those laws could be cross-vested back to the states and territories for implementation through local and magistrate courts in those jurisdictions. I believe under the constitution the feds have the power to make laws in relation to the family. Another benefit would be in the collection of statistics. You can’t develop good policy if you don’t have good solid data. And when I talk about data I don’t mean the number of police attendances to DV incidents or the number of phone calls women’s agencies receive. I’m talking about far better quality and more insightful data when analysed. And the analyse of that data should be published on the internet so that anyone interested in the subject can gain the best understanding of the real facts of the matter.

Currently there has been far too much politicization of the DV issue at both the state and federal level eg. "Malcolm's call for respect for women”

Too much of what goes on in the development of policy in this area, goes on behind closed doors eg at domestic violence conferences. Organisers of such conferences largely funded at taxpayer expense should be required to publish the text or video of keynote speakers presentations. Here is an example of how it should be done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s62eNC5iws

Looks like a truce, bashers will stop bashing if only their partners stop being uppity. The PM only has to ask bashers to "man up" and stop bashing terrified partners and ex-partners who will even go to the extreme of moving out to the UK like Ms Batty to get away. The state only has to stand back and respect bashers' right to remain at large to go on bashing.

I remain confident that the current round of public inquiries will come up with ways that the state can stop the physical violence dead in its tracks quam primum in ways that the small group of gender warriors in this OLO thread can't face up to. Like locking the bashers up till their victims can really feel safe having the bashers allowed back into society.

EmporerJulian

"... ex-partners who will even go to the extreme of moving out to the UK like Ms Batty to get away."

Ms Batty had not moved to the UK. She had recently returned from the UK and maybe the purpose of that trip was to, inter alia, condition her son to living there permanently as she seemed to be distancing him from his father. She had sought legal advice on taking her son to live permanently in the UK. Also apparently Anderson was very upset about his son not having been in communication with him following the sons return from the UK. Earlier in 2003 Batty had been successful in getting get the court to reduce the fathers access to just weekend sporting events. She used the argument that her son had been threatened by his father with a knife. Her son denied that happened to the authorities. There were other "allegations" as well. That's all there were over eleven years - allegations - never a conviction.

BTW the Rosie Batty man blaming road show continues:

http://www.criterionconferences.com/event/domesticviolenceaus/

Roscop "BTW the Rosie Batty man blaming road show continues:"
There is NO one else to blame for Luke's death than his father...who bashed and knifed his son to death in front of other children.

Rosie and the law personnel she consulted for all of those years now realize she was right to try and keep this violent man away from her son.
If only they had listened to her....

Yep, Rosie Batty is another gender warrior with no real solution for anything whatsoever, just psychobabble. I thought she had gone out to England to escape Anderson's bashings because I heard her tell ABC Radio 720's John McGlue so. She still might have. Anderson was definitely a basher - proved it by beating a child (his own, for Crissakes) to death with a cricket bat.

What a pity he was at large. What a pity the mother pesuaded Luke to trust him.

The coroner's statement at http://www.smh.com.au/national/luke-batty-missed-opportunities-to-intervene-in-boys-death-coroner-finds-20150928-gjwpz0.html leaves no doubt that Anderson was a scumbag and the state failed to lock him up even under the basher-friendly laws currently prevailing. (Use mute button to escape the video performances).

Suseonline

A. "...his father...who bashed and knifed his son to death in front of other children."

Actually my understanding is that only one 8yo boy(coach's son?) part of what happened when he came upon the father striking his son in the nets and then went back and told his father.

That day Rosie Batty thought she was extending great generosity to the father who had seen little if anything of his son in the previous 8 weeks by allowing her (his? their?) son an extra five minutes with his father who had travelled all the way from Frankston by public transport. Clearly the father had reached the end of the road with mother and didn't have the finance for further court battles or if he did where was it to come from?

I'd say what the father did was to pre-empt any move to the antipodes, that the mother may have intended.

B. "Rosie and the law personnel she consulted for all of those years now realize she was right to try and keep this violent man away from her son." (That's right HER SON not HIS SON or THEIR SON).

Now tell us what did trying to keep "this violent man away from" HER SON achieve? Or do you expect the law to chain up fathers with no convictions, to a post or incarcerate them, for up to sixteen 16 years, on the basis of UNSUBSTANTIATED allegations ie mother's uncorroborated word.

Roscop,

"BTW the Rosie Batty man blaming road show continues:...."

Not on this thread....On this thread it's Roscop and the "Rosie Batty blaming road show".

Suse said:

"There is NO one else to blame for Luke's death than his father...who bashed and knifed his son to death in front of other children."

Your reply:

"Actually my understanding is that only one 8yo boy(coach's son?) part of what happened when he came upon the father striking his son in the nets and then went back and told his father.

That day Rosie Batty thought she was extending great generosity to the father who had seen little if anything of his son in the previous 8 weeks by allowing her (his? their?) son an extra five minutes with his father who had travelled all the way from Frankston by public transport. Clearly the father had reached the end of the road with mother and didn't have the finance for further court battles or if he did where was it to come from?

I'd say what the father did was to pre-empt any move to the antipodes, that the mother may have intended."

This man viciously beat his son to death (as you point out, having travelled all the way from Frankston by public transport to do it). . That he was capable of such a feat (for whatever reason) tells me that his mother had very good reason to limit their time together.

But then, Roscop, when you write things such as:

"What you are talking about are very small numbers like 1 intimate partner homicide per week and in terms of the number of divorces involving children which in Australia I understand is around half of the 50,000 per year, that's a very low rate of homicides..."

A very "low" rate of homicides...btw 67 (women) so far this year...is that "low" enough for you?

I dunno, it seems to me that savagely beating one's young son to death qualifies him to be exactly as Rosie perceived him.

Why do you keep blaming the person who didn't beat their son to death?

I don't know enough detail on the specifics of that particular situation to have formed an opinion. Anderson could have just been bad to start with or he could have been a flawed human pushed and pushed until he cracked.

I hope the point that Roscop is trying to make though is that hounding someone through the family law system over many years can contribute to someone with a weakness who might otherwise cope OK cracking and doing the unthinkable.

That sometimes the processes supposedly put their to protect can be wielded as a weapon that wears otherwise good but not perfect people down. That abuse of the legal systems can sometimes contribute to the breakdown of the the person being attacked through that system.

I have no comment on this specific case but I do think the abuse of the court systems added to the brutal formulas used by CSA are significant factors in some of the intimate partner homicides, some of the murder suicides. Not all but the angst unfairness in those systems cause is all to well known to some of us and ignored by those who have not been there (and what I experienced was very light to what some experience).

R0bert

I say again, NO ONE but the father is to blame for this boy's violent death.
One doesn't need to know anything about the case to come to that obvious conclusion.
There is NO excuse for what he did, none at all.

The fact that Roscop uses a disgusting human like Anderson as a poster boy for Roscop's gripe against the system says a lot about him....

RObert,

"I hope the point that Roscop is trying to make though is that hounding someone through the family law system over many years can contribute to someone with a weakness who might otherwise cope OK cracking and doing the unthinkable."

And the point I am making is what is a woman supposed to do "if" she and their children are subjected to ongoing violence by a partner and father? What can a mother do but attempt to use the legal system to keep the offender at bay?

"That sometimes the processes supposedly put their to protect can be wielded as a weapon that wears otherwise good but not perfect people down. That abuse of the legal systems can sometimes contribute to the breakdown of the the person being attacked through that system."

Batty claims she/they were exposed to 12 years of ongoing violence by this man.

This man went on to savagely beat his son to death.

It would seem that Batty's claims had veracity - and that he wasn't "a good" man worn down"...he was a man who was capable of unthinkable violence.

I realise what you are saying, RObert...we have several male friends (one in particular) who have been treated badly by women in the area of their children...through the system - and I sympathise with men who are treated like that. (All good men - who wouldn't dream of hurting their children to punish the mother...and I'm happy to report that in two of the cases, the children ended up living happily with Dad in the end anyway)

However, the same can't be said of Anderson, who by reason of his history and his devastating attack on his son, should not be accorded mitigation..it appears he was a violent man who, if he'd been kept right away from his son, would not have been able to kill him.

Suse,

"There is NO excuse for what he did, none at all.

The fact that Roscop uses a disgusting human like Anderson as a poster boy for Roscop's gripe against the system says a lot about him...."

Yup...

Poirot as I said I don't know the particulars of that case enough to have a view on it.

I do though think a lot of the debate seems to assume that if someone is hounded and hounded and eventually cracks that proves the initial hounding was justified rather than a contributor to the end result.

Then sometimes people do need to take steps to protect themselves and those they love from an abuser. I don't have easy answers to that quandary, both sides of the argument have value. Suseonline made a point on another thread about mental health services which seems very relevant. They are in a poor state and as I understand it very difficult to access for many who most need them.

"and I'm happy to report that in two of the cases, the children ended up living happily with Dad in the end anyway" - a hard thing to be optimistic about when you are in the thick of it but great when it works out better than it might have in the end.

R0bert

RObert,

"I do though think a lot of the debate seems to assume that if someone is hounded and hounded and eventually cracks that proves the initial hounding was justified rather than a contributor to the end result."

Rosie Batty reported a history of violence from Anderson which, I assume, is documented by authorities.

What does it take for a man to savagely beat an innocent physically weaker person to death like that?

Let alone a child - his son?

I mean, what does it take!

People on this earth go through great hardships in many different aspects of life. There are so many cruelties and so many unfair circumstances.

We'd be hard pushed to find a more depraved action than the one perpetrated by Anderson against his young son.

If you guys want to give an example of someone hard done-by by the system - please don't insult our intelligence by holding up Anderson as a victim.

Poirot it would help if you actually read my posts and tried to understand what I said rather than what you want someone you disagree with to say.

Andersen is dead so his side of the story won't be told. What the authorities know or think they know is coloured by the gendered portrayal of DV that currently holds centre stage so unless there were specific incidents with evidence etc I'll reserve judgement on the leadup. Quite willing to join in the condemnation of the outcome, what he did is never OK regardless of how much he was or was not pushed by Rose and the system. An utterly vile act.

There is to much none of us know for either side to legitimately hold either party up as a poster boy or girl.

A great human tragedy with two people losing their lives, a mother loosing a son, other family and friends living with the loss. Anderson's actions are reprehensible but I doubt many sane people in our culture decide to club their child to death so tend to the assumption that he had reached a breaking point. I don't know that, I don't hold him up as a poster boy not though do I automatically accept that the only plausible scenario is him as the evil villain throughout the story.

R0bert

Greg Anderson is the starkest evidence that violent scumbags should be kept where they can't commit any violent physical assault, ranging from ABH and battery to murder, on anyone (no matter hiow uppity) on whom they can project power. That means secure prison, to be released only after the victim has attested that s/he (usually she) no longer fears him/her(usually him). If it means life incarceration so be it.

Ms Batty's allegations against him may or may not have been substantiatable by demonstrable evidence but he was a kiddieporn collector (in gaol parlance a rock spider) and he made sense of what Ms Batty had been alleging and her efforts to protect Luke from him the moment he viciously murdered the child as soon as he could get to him.

Closer to home are those who are using this Forum to peddle propaganda excusing the likes of Greg Anderson and opposing their being locked up to prevent their doing the same. If police are told someone is a basher they should investigate the story with great care in case it's true - which it is in many, many instances.

RObert,

Suse and I had just finished discussing Anderson and criticising Roscop for attempting to blame Batty.

You followed straight up with:

"I don't know enough detail on the specifics of that particular situation to have formed an opinion. Anderson could have just been bad to start with or he could have been a flawed human pushed and pushed until he cracked.

I hope the point that Roscop is trying to make though is that hounding someone through the family law system over many years can contribute to someone with a weakness who might otherwise cope OK cracking and doing the unthinkable."

"I do though think a lot of the debate seems to assume that if someone is hounded and hounded and eventually cracks that proves the initial hounding was justified rather than a contributor to the end result."

And now you tick me off for rebutting that aspect of your last comment.

You seem to be quite a careful and thoughtful poster - I assume that those comments were purposeful - and meant to in some way to mitigate the actions of some men.

That we had been discussing Anderson and his vile actions just prior to your comment - and in light of Roscop's ongoing targeting of Batty, It's not unreasonable that I would comment as I did on your post[s].

Poirot, are we the only ones here who see Anderson's actions for what they were...a violent vicious murder?

I'm sorry for the few couples that feel the need to fight it out in court after they break up, but blaming the courts for 'making' men feel their children's mother is taking them off him, and so somehow that makes it 'excusable' that they then kill their own kids?
Really?

If those few men that do this sort of DV murder were really that upset with the court's decisions (which were actually found to be horribly correct in the end) then why aren't they going after the police, lawyers, judges etc, rather than easy targets like ex-partners and kids?
Because they are violent cowards....

Poirot,

"What does it take for a man to savagely beat an innocent physically weaker person to death like that?"

Why are you asking RObert that question? Wouldn't you get the best answer to your question by asking one of the biological mothers convicted of filicide? After all the greater aggregated experience in killing one's own child/ren lies with biological mothers not biological fathers and you can't get a much more "innocent" and "physically weaker person" than a new born or toddler (if you don't know what they are I can send you some links to pictures) so maybe you should try and get in touch with someone like Kathleen Folbigg or Keli Lane. One of them should be able to tell you what it takes. Let us know what the answer is.

I mean, what does it take!

Really Roscop?
Is that the best you can do?

None of us were trying to let a child murderer off the hook with wild theories like you did re your hero Anderson, so we have no need to discuss any other awful child murders.

Trying to sleaze your way out of a difficult corner are you?

Yes, Roscop,

We were discussing Anderson's savagery.

I can't put it any better than Suse:

"None of us were trying to let a child murderer off the hook with wild theories like you did re your hero Anderson, so we have no need to discuss any other awful child murders."

Suseonline & Poirot,

Your position is that murder has no excuse. You would put to rout any defence lawyer's or journalist's attempt at minimising an offence with the, "They made him/her do it..." rationalisation.

It follows that the sentencing for any offence should never be affected by any excuse or rationalisation, no "But s/he had a troubled past, was 'mental' at the time etc".

Many might agree with you, but I wonder if that is your intent. Or whether you would flex your rule depending on who is in the dock and who is the victim?

otb,

'... Or whether you would flex your rule depending on who is in the dock and who is the victim?"

We're discussing Anderson - in response to Roscop attempting to blame the person who didn't beat her son to death.

"At the coronial inquest into Luke's death, Ms Batty accused authorities of not doing enough to protect her son. She broke down repeatedly while giving evidence earlier this week.

Senior Constable Paul Topham told the inquest on Thursday he had "a large number" of conversations with Ms Batty in the year before Anderson killed Luke and was aware Anderson consistently failed to turn up to court hearings about their son.

Senior Constable Topham said he believed Anderson was highly intelligent and knew how to work the system.

He arrested Anderson in January 2013 and a video recording of Anderson's police interview with him was played to the court, in which Anderson appeared aggressive and refused to answer questions.

"You've got nothing... I wish to leave," Anderson can be seen saying to Senior Constable Topham.

Senior Constable Topham said he considered Anderson violent and dangerous and wrote at the time that Anderson was "nuts".

"Anderson was probably one of the ones that worried me more than the other guys," Senior Constable Topham said.'

"The first time I arrested him he became extremely aggressive and I took my OC spray out.

"He was in control of the situation... he was smart enough to shut it down before it got to the next level."

Anderson was never diagnosed with mental illness and Senior Constable Topham told the inquest he saw no signs of mental instability.

"Without a question in my mind, as we say, he was 100 per cent bad... not mad.

"His demeanour... he had no regards for authority whatsoever... whatever we did for this guy, he didn't care.

"He knew what he was doing.""

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-23/luke-batty-inquest-father-was-100-per-cent-bad/5835800

No OTB, that is not my intent.

We are only discussing Luke Batty's murder here, and Roscop's opinion that Rosie Batty and the family court system are to blame for his death, and not his murderous father.
Mind you, I would be hard pressed to find any 'excuse' in a court for any child murder at all....

Poirot,

I am aware of all of that.

Would you mind answering my questions? What about this,

<Your position is that murder has no excuse. You would put to rout any defence lawyer's or journalist's attempt at minimising an offence with the, "They made him/her do it..." rationalisation.>

Suseonline\Poirot

"..wild theories..". Plural hey! What wild theories are we talking about?

Roscop,

Here's a smattering....

"The legal process for obtaining an AVO is so carefully crafted it works a treat for a woman wanting to separate a father from his child/ren. It worked especially well for Rosie Batty…it worked especially well for the Canberra mother who was killed with an axe by the man who was father of her child born days before…and it worked especially well for the Maryborough mother shot a Maccas on the Gold Coast."

Roscop, even in light of Anderson's extreme actions, you've been ever so busy elaborating on this and another thread of your "wild theory" that Batty is primarily responsible for her ex-partner beating his child to death.

You haven't got a good word to say about this mother - have you?

And you even go to the trouble of embroidering your diatribes with passages like this:

"....Apparently, she didn't do any good in Sydney bloke-wise (obviously the good single blokes there are more discerning lol)..."

Roscop's overriding view on this thread appears to be that any woman genuinely seeking to protect herself and/or her children through the system - is a "deservedly" sitting duck for a violent partner.

otb,

"Your position is that murder has no excuse..."

We're discussing Anderson at this particular juncture - don't try and divert by sprinkling nebulous and invented views and ascribing them to me.

On one or two occasions the basher lobby has come up with the plea that Ms Batty hadn't produced evidence for her frequent complaints to the police of Anderson assaulting her.

By law, a citizen who witnesses an offence is entitled (even required) to inform the police. It's not required that the informant prove it though s/he should co-operate when questioned further. If the informant is a victim of ABH there will always be evidence (that's how the offence is defined). Police have long been alleged to dismiss information about domestic violence as "only a domestic", but this is changing.

In the event, Anderson bashed the child to death because he was at large owing to a deficiency in the law which hopefully will be remedied - provided the current pressure on domestic violence doesn't get sidetracked by psychobabble from rival gender warriors

Poirot/otb

//"Your position is that murder has no excuse..."

We're discussing Anderson at this particular juncture - don't try and divert by sprinkling nebulous and invented views and ascribing them to me.//

Poirot is that because you don't want to be quoted in future and you want to be able to be/remain selective in you denouncements of filicide perpetrators based on gender?

Or alternatively, Emperor Julien, we could go with your psychologically sound idea of 'banging up' for life everyone who ever raises their hand at anyone else in the domestic environment?

Would there ever be enough jails for all those people?

Obviously, the DV perpetrators would get parole when their sentence finishes and get back out, so surely we need to come up with some more financially viable ways of tackling this subject, rather than throwing every DV perpetrator in jail forever?

Suseonline I don't think the Emperor is planning on letting them out. We will need some really big jails.

I found an interesting piece from what appears to be a neutral(ish) source in the DV gender wars addressing some of the points I've been trying to make http://www.revelstokecurrent.com/2012/06/15/on-violence-against-men/

I'm not familiar with the site from elsewhere, I did though like the way the issue was approached seemingly as an outsider to the topic.

R0bert

Roscop,

"Poirot is that because you don't want to be quoted in future and you want to be able to be/remain selective in you denouncements of filicide perpetrators based on gender?"

Where have I been "selective in [my] denouncements of filicide"?

Go ahead - cough up the evidence?

The only person who says I'm selective in my denouncements of filicide - is you, Roscop.

Is that another one of your "wild theories" (plural)?

Illicit extension! No blowout in gaol ccupancy. Also gaols may well be able to run much more cheaply than now if they are reserved for violent criminals. No comforts.

Imprisoning everyone who commits ABH (rather more than raising a hand) in a domestic setting would stop the offences dead. Few further offences with the perps banged up, few further calls on prisons. Large ongoing supply of scumbags unlikely.

No parole before the victim voluntarily sanctions it. That removes lives of fear of perp's release.

Locking up offenders isn't a psychological measure for deterrence - simply sweeping the violent criinals out of the homes and off the streets.

There's a corrollary. Imprisonment is a violent sanction suitable only for violent offences. Empty prisons of all non-violent offenders - use non-custodial sanctions as deterrents.

Incidentally for the diversionary gender warriors, the domestic offence to which they refer as including large numbers of female offenders is abuse, not violence. It doesn't come within the ambit of domestic violence, which is violent assault occasioning ABH or worse. It's mere issue-dodging obfuscation to conflate abuse with violence.

EmperorJulian, I do agree that we should not be keeping non-violent offenders in prison and support incarceration of the genuinely violent until such a point as they can be credibly assessed as not presenting an ongoing threat.

In regard to your last paragraph perhaps a read of http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/DV/Gender%20Paradigm%20In%20Domestic%20Violence.pdf

The assertions you make are not based on evidence.

R0bert

Suseonline, Friday, 9 October 2015 10:31:06 AM,

Thanks for your reply.

I asked because there has been a lot of public unrest for many years over courts delivering lenient sentences for serious crimes where the offender could claim relief through cultural traditions or 'sad' background. There are always examples involving indigenous girl and woman victims. It is unnecessary to give links.

A gang of young men should not get away almost Scott Free because their victim (and they) are Aboriginal (Qld). Likewise a man who brandished and fired an illegal gun and put his boot on the neck of his child victim before committing statutory rape (a child marriage case, Northern Territory) should not get away with a 24hr custodial 'sentence', the reduction being for 'cultural reasons'.

Thanks for that link RObert, and I do actually agree that of course there are male victims of domestic violence - especially young teens, older men and gay men.

I went to an Elder Abuse conference a few months ago, and it is truly frightening what some adult children will do to their aged parents, including physical violence if they don't hand over their money to the kids!

Young men are often knocked about and/or constantly put down by one or both parents, then we wonder why they head off into adult relationships of their own and resort to all forms of abuse.

However, I also agree with OTB, in that by the time people are adults they can no longer keep using a bad childhood etc as a defense for violent acts against others.
While we may have some pity about someone who has been abused for years finally snap and kill their abuser, the law may not agree that murder is a fair enough punishment.

And no, I don't believe that violence and murder can be condoned because of 'cultural' reasons either.
When living in Australia, everyone abides by the laws here, and gets suitable punishment if they break them.
Certainly, DV murders should be treated every bit as serious as non-DV murders.

Suseonline, "And no, I don't believe that violence and murder can be condoned because of 'cultural' reasons either.
When living in Australia, everyone abides by the laws here, and gets suitable punishment if they break them.
Certainly, DV murders should be treated every bit as serious as non-DV murders"

Agree.

The problem with Turnbull's pragmatism is that he fails the real areas of DV concern and he deliberately over-simplifies the causes.

I will rile the educated white middle class gender feminists in saying this, but they have been guilty of making a meal of the millions of guvvy funds for decades, while the Struggle Towns have got worse and the abuses in indigenous communities continue.

Looking back on the 4X4 travels in remote areas that I did as a student and travels in country and more remote places decades later, I have witnessed the growth of problems from not known in some areas then to a huge problem now. How did the billions of taxpayers dollars do that?

Turnbull and his advisers need to eschew the easy political points scoring to be had by agreeing with the noisy lobbyists of urban elites.

Having declared it all to be a 'gender problem', Turnbull will of course be jetting off 'over there' to strut the world stage.

He should be in his car and on foot visiting the once pretty and peaceful country towns that are now avoided by travellers because of the indigenous lawlessness, violence and crime that is now apparent. Suffer the little children, eh?

Regarding Rosie Batty, it should be apparent to all that the media and political interests are using her (albeit with her cooperation). So much for ethics. There should be fears for her future, because one day that misplaced adulation and celebrity will end. The media knobs know that, but todays sensationalist headlines always take precedence.

Onthebeach, I am not agreeing with the usual feminist conspiracy theories re DV regularly trotted out on this forum, because I don't believe women have as much say on any political matters as you seem to think....yet.
Anything Turnbull and Co say and do are for their own purposes and not for anything they are 'told' to do by these un-named feminists.

I doubt the feminists as such have much to do with the lack of action re indigenous violence and sex abuse, but more likely those people concerned with indigenous 'rights' and the Stolen Generation etc. which could be driven by religious, political and/or human rights organizations filled with all sorts of people.

The indigenous DV situation is even more fraught with gender issues than other groups in society, given that the women (and men) are even less likely to report abuse on themselves, and also the wider indigenous community won't report on each other.
So secrets in the domestic environment in those communities are even more controlled than in most other communities.

I don't know what the final paragraph is that RObert asserts is inconsistent with evidence. If it's "Incidentally for the diversionary gender warriors," [snip] "conflate abuse with violence", then it doesn't require evidence as it merely suggests a red line distinguishing domestic violence from other abuse, in that domestic violence consists of ABH and battery up to and including murder.

The Dutton and Nicholls paper surveys abuse as a whole, and it would be an arduous task to isolate within it the abuse that is violence. Even to do so would elucidate only gender-warrior irrelevancies about male vs female statistics.

It doesn't impinge on whether or not violent criminals (whatever gender, culture, ethnicity etc they are) can go on inflicting ABH and above on their partners while banged up in gaol. The answer to that question, without any academic research, would seem to be a no-brainer.

Just a stray afterthought: Does anyone know how many of the 66 DV murders up to now for 2015 were men murdered by women and how many were women murdered by men? Could make a useful database for the gender wars that occupy those who don't want the system to get on with stopping the violence.

Emperor given that particular aspect has been discussed over and over on this thread its a very strong indication of how little attention you pay to what other people are actaully saying. So focussed on your obsession with long joal terms that you have not bothered to pay any attention to the discussion. Go back and read the thread and try and understand whats being said.

R0bert