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?