@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.