Suzeonline:

“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?”

What does it achieve once it has been pointed out to point it out over and over again? It simply becomes nagging and the only point to nagging is to try and inflict some pain – to grind someone into the ground. Sometimes the nagger does not want the other person to change because their pleasure comes from the power they have to nag.

Women are getting what they want from the Turnbull government but it will never be enough. Men are getting nothing from this deal or any other deal in regard to domestic violence. When you are getting something of what you want then you have less cause for complaint than someone who is getting nothing at all. Men are saying they want a proportion of what women are getting and that is basic justice. Anything else is discrimination.

There is no need to keep pointing out the difference it is well known. Men are simply saying that they too are victims and all victims need to be dealt with. When Turnbull and his lobbyists cannot even acknowledge one male victim by using inclusive language then men have every right to demand something from the government.

@Suseonline, you completely missed the gist of what I said in my previous post. I didn't refer to perpetrators getting away with what they had done. Nor did I say anything about the ratio of male to female murder perpetrators so in future I suggest you give more thought to what has been said before going off into your own rants.

What you say in regard to police not needing anyone's permission to charge the (alleged?) perpetrator may well be correct, but if they haven't got any willing witnesses to the actual incident, please tell me how do the police make the charge stick ie get a conviction.

otb,

"You have offered no rebuttal at all. Nor could the feminists who attacked her article."

Why would I bother to "rebut" an article written like that?

Both those articles were written, not to address the problem, but to ignite passions and start a slanging match.

She employs terms such as femi-fascists, feminist dogma, domestic violence activists..the sisterhood. And this is from a main-stream media outlet.

I know you think that's just great...because that's the kind of debased rhetoric you employ yourself on this forum.

We don't see the same from those supporting Turnbull's announcement.

Imagine, a main-stream media article spouting things such as "mascu-fascists", "masculine-dogma"..."the brotherhood".

You yourself have been "feminist-bashing" up and down this thread - (remember the "taxpayer-funded feminist knobs in academia"....who are shameless),which really highlights how bloody immature is your argument (although on any given thread, one could substitute "feminist" for "leftist" or "progressive", etc, and your message would be largely the same).

And now you want me to comment on the content of an article from some antagonistic, self-promoting hack who didn't offer any realistic solution and merely stirred up a hornet's nest for no perceivable gain.

@otb @ Poirot

"remember the "taxpayer-funded feminist knobs in academia"....who are shameless"

Gee, I can think of few of them, but the one that always sticks in my mind is Professor Patrice Easteal who was the author of the biggest load of anecdotal crud I've ever read in her short story titled "Shattered Dreams".

RObert, of course we care about the male DV homicide victims, it's just that the whole debate is that by far, only with DV intimate partner homicides, that women die in far greater numbers than men, and that men are far more likely to be the perpetrators, so why are all the discussions we have on DV end up with many here (not you) blaming women for this?

It seems that many in society DO believe that the female victims ask for it (death) and that really it is the poor male perpetrators who really shouldn't be blamed and the male victims who seem to be blameless - as ALL the victims should be.
I know it seems as though we go round and round on this issue, but if 77% of DV intimate partner homoicide perpetrators are male, and 75% of the victims are female, why is it a problem that the spotlight is on the male side of the equation?

While there are still so many men in our society who still think it is ok, or that at least it isn't their business, what other men do to their intimate partners, then how on earth will the young people grow up to see that it is wrong? If they don't see it as a real problem, then it will just continue.
I get so frustrated, but I just don't see how it will ever change, with the way it is thought of at present.

Suseonline thanks. A few points from that. As I said earlier its the utter failure to give any acknowledgment of male victims that bothers me most. None vs proportional makes a significant difference in outcomes for men seeking help or even some support from those around them.
So it is vitally important I believe for the pollies and industry players to change the approach.

Deaths and sexual assault seem to be the only part of DV and substantiated child abuse where there is a significant gender component (some leaning towards female perps in substantiated child abuse and deaths but I think explained by the greater time women spend with sole care of kids).

There is substantial evidence that women initiate a greater proportion of the violence and escalation of fights and I think just focussing on the body count and ignoring how it gets there is never going to work well. There are plenty of other major risk factors involved that don't get much of a mention if any. Just focussing on gender is a political play not an honest attempt to prioritise (or if it is its been failing for so long then a rethink makes sense.

I'm not sure I'm free of victim blaming. I know there were choices I made that added fuel to the fire rather than settling things. I married someone friends and family were warning me about (not violence, other stuff). That topic also has become so politically charged that honest discussions get tough. I do think that in many cases both parties make choices that lead to the really bad cases ( not all).

We should be able to warn women that dating thugs is risky, people who embrace violence in one part if their lives don't have to move far to bash a partner.

I want the politics out of this and a genuine attempt to address all violence (DV and other). If we are prioritising do it in the basis of controllable risk factors and aimed at reducing the contributers to violence.

R0bert