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?