Roscop, you are a lost cause.

"Sigh....as usual this topic degenerates into a feminist hate fest, and nothing much else.
All I can say is that I won't be happy until the 'small numbers' (66 this year so far) of intimate partner deaths is nil.

I don't care if all the politicians and justice system staff are apparently agreeing to abide by the rules of some really important (unknown, un-named) feminists, I just want to see the killings stopped."
Posted by Suseonline

Also posted by Suseonline http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17722#313408
"This article is a load of crock.....and no, not because I subscribe to any Dulith Model or whatever. I had never heard of this before today."

It's if you have never heard of the Duluth Model to have an understanding of the role Feminism has played in the current portrayal of DV stats.

It's worth noting that it's been covered pretty well in this thread that the running total of females killed this year in intimate partner violence up to a point of some days ago was 66. It's also been well canvassed and backed by government statistics that the rate of male victims is typically around 25% or the overall total so at a round guess it's reasonable to estimate that around 20 men have been killed in intimate partner homicides so far this year.

That's also been well canvassed and yet when Suseonline quotes a total it's only the 66.

As for later comments about mens rights groups and the difference publicity given to women killing children vs that given to general violence.

I think that's about context and mission, The mens rights groups are primarily focussed on unequal treatment before the law. Highlighting the Cairns case is against a backdrop of slogans such as Protecting "Women and their Children" (which I think was the original title in the Gillard era of the program which Turnbull announced recently) and numerous other slogans and false claims that falsely represent the proportion of DV and substantiated Child abuse committed by men.

R0bert

Its ok Suseonline...I'm not offended...I was not expecting a half-decent response from you.

I've been thinking about my last post and wishing I'd tackled it differently. It was a dig rather than an attempt at genuine engagment with the tpic which I regret.

Suseonline made a good point in one of the posts I referenced which should have been what I concentrated on, not the bits which I chose to concentrate on.

"I just want to see the killings stopped."

I point I can utterly agree with.

Now for what I think I should have been saying. The gendered view of DV has held the main stage for decades mostly as a result of the Duluth model being widely accepted. It appears to have made little headway in removing DV from our communities.

It's not an evidence based model but is based on feminist theory about patriarchal control. There is good evidence that it's underlying assumptions are not valid - some good coverage of that in the paper I referenced earlier.

Whilst I personally doubt that the killings can be stopped entirely I do think that it's crucial to remove the gendered view of DV and start examining and campaigning against it on an evidence rather than ideological basis to make any significant headway in reducing the conditions that lead to many of those deaths.

R0bert

RObert has seggested that approaches to domestic violence and (presumably) stopping to be evidence-based.

If the proposition that needs evidence to establish it is that domestic assault and battery of women by by men is more common or less common than domestic assault and battery of men by women, stop right there. Who CARES what the answer to that question is, except for sexists who want to indulge in identity politics?

How much evidence has to be accumulated by sociologists or whatever to establish that violent criminals can't commit domestic violence while prison, or violence against anyone except other scrotes?

I assert without any fancy surveys that scumbags can't batter their domestic partners while locked up in prison. Can anyone say why that is not so?

Based on it being so, what real disadvantage (except to the violent criminals) can be incurred by cutting all the cackle and the delay and waste of public funds on invetigsation of gender ratios and other irrelevancies, throwing offenders in secure prisons and losing the key?

ttbn, "... it seems to me that many women, particularly the young, make very poor choices when it comes to males."
I don't know about the "young" bit. I'd also include the not so young.

People make choices for their own reasons. In the case of women like Rosie Batty who had Anderson's son at the age of 39, they are up against the ticking biological clock. She kicked Anderson out of her life and went to live and work in Sydney. Apparently, she didn't do any good in Sydney bloke-wise (obviously the good single blokes there are more discerning lol). She returns to Melbourne and after eight years she hooks up with Anderson again ("Im intrigued to catch up and see him") ...then she gets preggas and in her book blames Anderson for that..."I wondered whether I should go back on the Pill, even though I didn't feel comfortable taking it. But I didn't want to fall pregnant either. When I told Greg this, he protested. I'm not having sex with you if you're on the Pill,'he said." Well why didn't she go see her doctor and get fitted with a diaphragm or take some other precaution. The way I look at it, with Anderson dead she is now free to say anything she likes about what went on between she and him.