//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.