That should be,

"Nor could the feminists who attacked her for her article."

-Just like you, Poirot.

"You think a professional journalist writing for a newspaper should employ rhetoric like this in an opinion piece?"

And you'd think wouldn't you Poirot, that those in the DV industry would adopt higher ethical and professional standards when comes to explaining DV statistics.

In relation to my last post, we have the CEO of Domestic Violence Victoria, Fiona McCormack saying this:

“…its really shameful how this issue is funded and just to give you a bit on an idea about the demand, in Victoria there has been 70,000 police attendances to family violence incidents in the last year …every one of those incidents will result in a referral to a women’s agency”

Huh? How bizarre! That means that in Victoria if police attend a family violence incident involving for example, a father and son or brothers, that will result in a referral to a women’s agency. And you should keep in mind that many of the police attendances would be I suggest, visits to repeat customers. Also many visits would I suggest result in nothing with the parties in conflict making up and not wanting it to become a police matter. So what McCormack is telling ABC viewers is bunkum and is consistent with what Devine says in regard to these industry spokespeople.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-25/sherdan-domestic-violence-funding-is-a-broken-model/6804854

Roscop, if the police find a bashed person in a DV situation they don't need anyone's permission to charge the perpetrator anymore, so there is luckily no chance for any 'makeup' after police are called. The perpetrators can't get away with it so easily.

As for statistics, I tend to just go with the Australian Institute of Criminology site rather than just any mad journalist, and of all the intimate partner homicides between 2002 and 2013, 75% were female and 25% were male.
In that same group, the perpetrators of the murders were 77% male and 23% female.

So I ask you, why would you continue ranting about the female component of these stats, when it is so obviously stacked against them in this form of violence?
Yes, we should of course fight against all forms of murder, but in this case surely there is nothing wrong with pointing out the huge difference in gender violence/murders within the intimate partner homicide group?
We all need to deal with the truth....about which stats don't lie....

"We all need to deal with the truth....about which stats don't lie...."

The truth in each instance or the truth about the stats?

The law must deal with the truth about the defendant.

Did the defendant or did the defendant not commit ABH on someone?

If NO the defendant walks. If YES the defendant should be locked up for long enough for the victim to live the rest of his or her life free of fear of the defendant's violence.

Stats? Schmats. Stuff for social engineers, not for law. Dozens of domestic murders and countless domestic bashings tell us the law needs to be strengthened to protect people from fear of violent crime. Doggedly switching the debate to stats while ducking the question of effective legal protection expresses indifference to the human rights of actual victims of (domestic) violence.

I don't have a personal dog in this race. I have never been a perpetrator, victim or witness of domestic violence. But as a citizen I value living under laws which protect fellow citizens' freedom from fear. It's a bother to see evidence of people who plainly don't.

Suseonline thanks for acknowledgingntheir ar male victims. At what point in this thread have of any of those us you are arguing against denied or tried to hide those stats you mention. The point being made over and over is that year after year those male victims get no attentiin at all in statements from politicians, in adds against DV, in statements from those with public roles to raise awarness of and try to help stamp out DV.

Does that not strike you as just a tad off in an era where in almost everything else campaigns fall over themselves to represent diversity?

There is much more to the debate but the complete focus on portraying DV in a far more gendered way than it can possibly be (even ignoring all the inconvenient research that asks both genders about their experience of DV) lies pretty close to the heart of the problem. Its not a single comment or single add that failed to provide some balance. Its a systematic attempt to hide the very existance of male victims at any level of DV (or if forced to admit their existance to claim that they ar so few they don't warrant attention).

R0bert