"No your insecurities pertain to your aggression. Forthrightness is not aggression – it is just unnecessary."

Thanks for clearing that up, phanto.

So you come on here to join a discussion/debate on DV/aggression - and then single out a poster whom you proceed to diagnose with "insecurities" which (apparently) pertain to their "aggression".

That's quite a slick tactic - do you do that in all your debates on OLO?

Interestingly, I haven't noticed you critique anyone else on this thread for their "unnecessary forthrightness" or aggressive defence of their views...but then they're espousing views with which you agree and, therefore, not a target for your beguilingly passive technique of derision.

"I am not analysing you on that score..."

Yes you are....

".... I am simply saying that you are under no obligation to me or anyone else for that matter, to excuse yourself or give reasons why you do what you do."

I wasn't doing any of those things.

I was highlighting your ACME analysis - and giving it a dose of satire.

All of that because a poster is wedded to the falsity of 'Patriarchy' and to the junk 'science' and fraud of the feminist 'Duluth Model' - disgraced but a mantra still trotted out to prop up the jobs and careers of the educated, middle class white women who ARE feminism and have sucked mightily and long from the bucket of taxpayers' dollars.

<Scientific Misconduct Should Be a Crime
It’s as bad as fraud or theft, only potentially more dangerous.

By Rachel Nuwer

This article originally appeared in New Scientist.

..Research misconduct degrades trust in science and causes real-world harm. As such, Smith says, it should be a crime akin to fraud.

Why should research misconduct be illegal?

..First, in a lot of cases, people have been given substantial grants to do honest research, so it really is no different from financial fraud or theft.

Second, we have a whole criminal justice system that is in the business of gathering and weighing evidence—which universities and other employers of researchers are not very good at.

And finally, science itself has failed to deal adequately with research misconduct.>

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2014/09/scientific_misconduct_should_be_a_crime_it_s_like_fraud_or_theft_only_more.html

This Dulith model seems to have got some of the forum boys all in a lather.

What I don't understand then is why all the academic misogynists haven't devised their own model to inform all the feminists exactly what the real DV situation is, and what causes it?

They could call it the "Donothing Model"....

Another round in the endless contest between feminist sexism and patriarchal sexism, identity politics substituting itself for focus on the real issue raised by Mr Turnbull.

The epidemic of domestic violence.

Which we have because violent criminals commit it.

Which they can because they are at large.

Which they are because the legal system protects them.

Which it does because it values rule of law above rule of justice.

Which will change when there is a social head of steam to align rule of law with rule of justice.

Which is the pressure point fot securing an end to domestic violence.

It's up to every Australian to take sides.

Suseonline,

You do not earn any respect as a claimed health worker through promoting junk science. It is the sort of half truths (or less) and fraud that supports outfits like the anti-vaccination crew for example.

It has of course escaped your notice that the real research and real findings being quoted here that counter the feminists' 'Patriarchy' and other nonsense was largely done by women scientists.

What you are doing with your silly 'drive-by' gender wars posts is denying the real science done by the many real scientists who are women.

Here again,
Research done by National Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
http://tinyurl.com/oxwsq7t

You need to asking yourself what stake you have in feminist fraud and why. It isn't only 'good men' who must stand up to lies and call them such.

Here you go, read about a real scientist, who just happens to be a woman,

"A scientist's view: why I'm an equalist and not a feminist
All scientific outputs should be judged on content regardless of whether the author is male or female, says Laura Waters"

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/jul/12/scientist-equalist-not-feminist

Good on you Onthebeach, you read and are promoting something written by women!
That is progress for you.
True to form though, you attack me personally by using my profession...again.
It is all so predictable and boring really.

My point has always been that I don't really care who writes what about this subject, I just want to see the DV deaths stopped, and whatever is happening now is not working obviously.
So whatever this Govt can do to kick-start the issue in the media again is fine by me, because much of the media staff have ignored DV deaths, at the expense of other murders, for too long.