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.