It has been a long time coming, but full credit to Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk for having the courage to support male victims of domestic violence as being worthy of recognition and assistance too.

Not something the populist Malcolm Turnbull has acknowledged.

<Domestic violence campaigns need to start recognising male abuse victims: QLD Premier

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has announced she will be approaching Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull about launching a domestic violence awareness campaign which acknowledges male victims.

Ms Palaszczuk has admitted she has changed the way she speaks about domestic violence victims in a way which is more inclusive of men after speaking with a male abuse victim at a cabinet event in Bundaberg, the Brisbane Times has reported.

“I do understand that there are a number of men who have gone through or are going through (domestic violence),” she said.

“I actually did change my language when it did become public because it was brought to my attention that there was some serious issues surrounding some men in our community needing help as well.”

Ms Palaszczuk said the next time she speaks with Mr Turnbull she will be addressing the idea of more inclusive campaigns with him, admitting male victims need to be more appropriately recognised.

“I do think that is something we do need to address a bit more,” she said.

“It has to be about stopping violence.”

Ms Palaszczuk said her aim of tackling domestic violence by focusing on the younger generation had not changed.

“Any advertising needs to be about respectful relationships,” she said.

“We need to make sure that that is actually taught not just in the home, but in the schools and that it is the way we treat men and women and it is about calling people out for the wrong thing."

Ms Palaszczuk has been leading the government battle against domestic violence since receiving the ‘Not Now, Not Ever’ report commissioned by the Tony Abbott government.>

http://tinyurl.com/pgzkdl

It may be some time before the 'fact checking'(LOL) ABC catches up. This will take some spinning to reframe. Maybe just forget it.

I agree. We absolutely need to remember the many male victims of their fathers, brothers, male partners, sons and other relatives.
They need just as much support as the female relatives.

One only needs to remember the many people out there with mental health issues and/or head injuries, who are being cared for by male relatives as well as female ones.
These people, as well as those with dementia, are often prone to violence against their relatives.
I take my hat off to those who continue to care for violent relatives in their own homes. They often suffer from mental health issues themselves as a result of the verbal and physical abuse they suffer from their relatives.

While I have no experience of domestic violence against me, I can appreciate the anger often expressed by some men when the there seems to be no recognition of female instigated domestic violence. There are some pretty vicious women out there who make their spouses' lives hell physically and psychologically.

But, all the 'promises' made by politicians not known for actually keeping promises could just be more grandstanding. After all, what can they really do to PREVENT domestic violence? Perpetrators can be punished after the act, but that has proved to be insufficient to stop any crime in all but a few instances when a person genuinely reforms. It's virtually impossible to stop violence in public areas; completely impossible in a domestic situation, I would have thought

ttbn,

There is a lot of truth in what you say about the difficulty in preventing DV, or any violence.

However, dispelling the myth that DV is solely hererosexual and gendered, ie exclusively male offenders and female victims, along with the flawed beliefs that go with that, should ensure that more female and male victims can come forward and their claims will at least be given some consideration by health workers, police and so on.

As usual, my interest is in getting value for (taxpayers') money. Like many others, I abhor the shonky 'science' and factoids that are promoted by the media and the scoundrels who profit from them. It is dismaying, completely unsatisfactory, that the 'sandstone' universities shamelessly permit highly questionable 'research' and interests to be associated with them, thereby lending them undeserved credence. The public are trusting of universities and research, but shamefully that trust is sometimes misplaced.

Well there you have it folks.

According to Suse, we have to feel sorry for "the many male victims of their fathers, brothers, male partners, sons and other relatives". I guess that means we aren't allowed to feel sorry for those men who are married to, or just live with a bitch. It must be OK for those bitches to belt their men, because Suse just refuses to acknowledge they exist.

That's our Suse, about as unbiased & fair minded as OUR ABC, & the Family court.

Otb

Yes. We seem to be as one on this issue.

Franc

Hasbeen,

I really love your direct way of dealing with whacky people.

Franc

otb, that is a very good new discussion you have launched here. And the comments are also excellent.

From a male DV victim's point of view there can also be psychological abuse of children involved.
Children are taken away from their father including by order of a Court that has not had time nor 'resources' to hear the male parent's case and evidence.
Children are taken or stolen from their father.
Children can lose their father forever, physically and mentally.

There are sometimes female hormone issues involved, so sympathy for the women and there should be sympathy for the impacted male.
Women know that PMT can cause friction and instigate argument.

Poverty associated with mismanagement of the economy can cause hunger and near empty plates or no meal at all.
Hunger causes irritation as we know.

What is really off is that children can be taken away from the father forever, because even if they come back years later they are no longer children. They have become adult.

No Court has any right to ignore the genuine male victims of DV.

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk will be congratulated by the many affected fathers and children, for honesty about all the DV issues.

Yes, we have to feel dreadfully sorry about the two men killed each week by their violent partners.

Get a grip.

Joe

Loudmouth, if you only want to consider death then best you get a grip on the number of men and women that are driven to commit suicide instead of physically hurting their partner.

Look at the whole situation as this thread suggests, instead of just looking at the horrific death and injury of females.

Of course if you just want to pander to females while ignoring males then that is your choice.

I am one of the first to stand up in defense of women but I also have the courage to speak up for innocent males.

JF,

Do you have any figures for male suicides, and for female suicides, suicides as consequential to domestic violence ? Are you suggesting that there might be as many men, or even that there are more men, suiciding than women ?

And the last time I looked, suicide actually was a form o 'death'.

So how many women all up, and how many men all up, die, one way or another, from domestic violence ? Are you suggesting that the total numbers would be anything alike ?

Figures, please, not just fellow jocks crying into their beers. Otherwise you really are just blowing it out your arse.

Joe

Murder numbers are low in Australia and it follows that the number of deaths attributed to DV is also low. Of course any death is tragic and one too many, but there needs to be some perspective.

Miranda Devine,
<Campaigns such as Destroy the Joint’s Counting Women project insist on making domestic violence a gender issue. It claims 66 women are victims this year, with the implication these are all “intimate partner” homicides, perpetrated by males.

In fact, only about half of the homicides cited could be classified as having a male partner or ex-partner identified as the killer.

Some of the 66 victims were killed by women, by sisters, daughters, a female neighbour or, in one case, a female ex-lover of the victim’s husband, as well as by brothers, fathers, and sons, strangers, acquaintances and persons unknown.

Domestic violence is a serious enough without exaggerating.

The activists cherrypick facts to support their dogma, rather than using statistics to better target scarce resources to help the most vulnerable victims, and to address the root causes of domestic violence.>
http://tinyurl.com/qjzalet

That is rather the point isn't it? That the resources available to combat DV and assist the victims should be directed where needed and for best effect?

Isn't it better to break the chain of events that lead to violence?

Yes otb. Prevention is best, in the interest of both females and males.
And true data is essential, not cherry picked data.

Well there you have it folks.

According to Hasbeen, we have "...to feel sorry for those men who are married to, or just live with a bitch." It must be OK for those men to belt or kill their male relatives because Hasbeen just refuses to acknowledge they exist.

He only thinks that men are bashed by "bitches" and not by other men in the domestic environment. I guess you didn't give a damn about poor Phil Walsh being killed by his own son, and his wife knifed in her own home? It doesn't happen does it?

That's our Hasbeen, about as unbiased & fair minded as any other misogynistic good 'ol boy...

You can't on the one hand be proud to be the best example of multiculturalism without increasing the number of DV cases along the way.

Like it or not, the majority of our domestic violence cases are imported, so in other words, we have brought it upon ourselves. It's just that the poor old tax payer mother pig, with her ten tits, now has even more strays to care for.

Talk about self distruction.

As for DV against men, I have a brother in law who is continually harassed, mentally by his x wife who is nothing more than a toxic evil bitch.

They have two kids in their early teens who are also fast becoming mental cases, more piglets for mother pig tax payer to fund.

This is not what we work and pay taxes to fund, surely!

Having participated in a recent thread on this subject, I thought perhaps I'd give this one a miss.

otb starts a thread ostensibly on a holistic approach to domestic violence citing the approach by Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk - all well and good.

However, it's not long before the usual suspects drop by to regale us with their usual intemperate banter.

Suse post a reasonable comment - and Hasbeen follows it up with:

"....I guess that means we aren't allowed to feel sorry for those men who are married to, or just live with a bitch. It must be OK for those bitches to belt their men, because Suse just refuses to acknowledge they exist...."

Now there's an holistic approach - Lol!

And Mr Politeness himself, ttbn, follows up that with his contribution:

"Hasbeen,

I really love your direct way of dealing with whacky people.

Franc"

Charming!

rehctub, not to be outdone pops along to enlighten us thus:

"Like it or not, the majority of our domestic violence cases are imported..." (evidence?)

And tops it off with:

"As for DV against men, I have a brother in law who is continually harassed, mentally by his x wife who is nothing more than a toxic evil bitch.

They have two kids in their early teens who are also fast becoming mental cases, more piglets for mother pig tax payer to fund."

A "mother pig tax payer to fund"

It is interesting that some men around here toss around the "bitch" with gay abandon when referencing women...but never employ the word "bastard" (for instance) when referencing men.

So, the short story is...business as usual on a thread of this subject.

"

Some moron mentioned suicide as a major consequence of suicide, AS IF there were somehow more men than women who suicide as a result of violence. Do you seriously think there would be more men than women trapped in hopeless situations with dead-sh!t partners?

Let's add suicide following rape to the mix. After all, rape is often violent, even brutal, a clear act of overwhelming power of the stronger over the weaker. Do any of you poor little things want to claim that more men suicide after being raped by women than women by men ?

My wife had a couple of lovely Aboriginal friends who were both raped, maybe even pack-raped, in their tiny communities. Can you imagine what that does to a young woman, that nobody in those piss-ant communities ever sticks up for them due to the idiot family politics on the place, that they see only that their entire worlds are against them ? Both suicided, both by hanging themselves. So tell me about the men who have been driven to suicide after being raped by women.

While we're at it, let's add de factos killing their girlfriends' kids, and violently. Does that count as domestic violence ? Do you want to claim that women in those sorts of relationships go off their heads and kill their new man's kids ? Violently ? Just as often ?

Yes, some women can be 'toxic evil bitches', no doubt: their numbers probably pale against those of 'toxic evil bastards', wouldn't you think ?

Come on, you blokes, stand up and act like real men instead of sooks.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Poirot, you are right. I don't know why I bother.
Loudmouth, absolutely right.

Suse...yup!

I think I'll sit back here a while and see the reaction to Joe's last post.

Being that it's a man calling out the disingenuous banter of "some" around here, who think threads like this are merely an excuse to label women "toxic bitches" while failing to address any other aspect of these crimes involving both men and women as victims and perpetrators.

So what have you fellas of the "toxic bitch labelling" fraternity got to say to Loudmouth?

I'll wager your replies to him will be far more measured than they have been to Suse.

The relationship of suicide rates to DV and not coping with the outcomes of family law and child support systems is an issue that men's groups have been wanting researched for many years. At this pointthe relationship is speculation based on an understanding of just how desperate it can be tone on the wrong side of those situations. Suicide by gttp://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4125.0main+features3240Jan%202013

For those who's only concern is the direct death rate the male death rate typically runs at 25% of all intimate partner homicides with around 23% of those by a female intimate partner.

For a little light reading (a good coverage of the case for DV not being a gender issue) http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/DV/Gender%20Paradigm%20In%20Domestic%20Violence.pdf

R0bert

Hi Robert,

I would suggest that, in cases of families and relationships which in no way involve any violence whatsoever, male suicide is far higher than female suicide. You're not lumping those stats in as well, are you ?

My guess is that, for example, male farmers suicide far more often than their wives, or female farmers, who have so many other things to think about, to keep their minds busy.

I'm not suggesting that many women don't get wild with their partners: men - so I've observed - can be so bloody useless at times, real wastes of space. My wife certainly seemed to think so occasionally. And she was usually right. It's a wonder I didn't get brained every week for some act of stupidity or laziness or other.

Getting angry and frustrated with a partner does not always translate into violence, and violence does not always translate into homicide. But my wife must have come close often.

And for no reason at all, that I could see !

Joe
www.firstsources.info

For anyone concerned with breaking tyhe cycle of violence and treating the root causes before things escalate, there should be NO problem with what Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has announced. It will be very interesting to hear Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's reaction to launching a domestic violence awareness campaign which acknowledges male victims.

The Queensland Premier has been provided with evidence that has challenged and changed her perception that DV was gendered.

What precisely is the problem with that? In brief, the nub of it, again,

<[Premier Palaszczuk]

“I do understand that there are a number of men who have gone through or are going through (domestic violence),” she said.

“I actually did change my language when it did become public because it was brought to my attention that there was some serious issues surrounding some men in our community needing help as well.”..

“It has to be about stopping violence.”>

Premier Palaszczuk is well educated and has plenty of policy advising experience.

<Palaszczuk was raised in the Brisbane suburb of Durack, the daughter of veteran state Labor MP Henry Palaszczuk, who was born in Germany to Polish parents. Her Australian mother, Lorelle, is descended from German settlers. She has degrees in Arts and Laws from the University of Queensland, a Masters of Arts from the University of London (where she was a Chevening Scholar), and a Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice from Australian National University.>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annastacia_Palaszczuk

Ms Palaszcuk was raised in and represents Durack and Inala, where the median age of voters is around the late thirties. The diversity and socioeconomic status and problems are similar to SBS's 'Struggle Town'.

Ms Palaszczuk's epiphany appears genuine. Hats off to her sincerity and courage. Brick bats though to the shonky social research and politically correct education system (and society) that so poorly informed her to mid-life.

Joe suicide stats are a tough topic with far to many unknowns. Having had a mildish dose of dealing with family law and CSA and hearing stories of some who had far rougher runs with those systems I do think when body counts get tossed in a reason to ignore DV against males consideration of the massive difference in suicide rates is relevant. The utter lack of support both from most peers and authorities for males dealing with an abusive spouse makes a horrible situation even worse.

You have discussed your own history in discovering the predominate narrative around treatment of indigenous people does not match what you found when you looked at the evidence. I'd recommend a look at the document I linked to, you may be surprised at the volume and completeness of the evidence against the current narrative on DV.

No single document is likely to provide a complete case but there is enough in that one to demonstrate that all is not as we are all to often told.

R0bert

//Yes, some women can be 'toxic evil bitches', no doubt: their numbers probably pale against those of 'toxic evil bastards', wouldn't you think ?//

23% is less than 77%, but it is not an insignificant percentage. You could hardly say it pales against 77%. Maths... why don't they teach maths in these schools?

Hi Toni,

Perhaps you're right: 23% vs. 77 %, there's not that much difference.

Tell you what, for the next few days, ask you partner to divide up the amount of meals, amount of sleep and/or child care, use of the TV remote and family car and bathroom time, 23% in your favour and 77% in his/hers. And vice versa for weekends with the in-laws.

Let us know if you change your mind :)

Joe

Or to make it a little more like the situation being discussed we might assume that Toni is bigger than his partner and all so an endurance athlete. His energy needs (based on a particular set of criteria) are estimated to be about 3 times that of his partner.

However using the approach used in discussions of DV it's decided that Toni should have all of the energy. That his needs are to important to spend any of the families budget addressing his partners energy needs.

25% is too small a number to number to bother with after all.

The focus on the body count also ignores the reality that most of public DV discussions by authorities are not about homicides, we have laws that cover that already.

For the DV that is not sexual assault or homicide (most DV physical and otherwise) the 75/25% are not relevant, the numbers tip slightly in the other direction.

R0bert

Annastacia Palaszczuk talked about domestic violence against men as being an issue, which of course it is. However, I doubt she meant that most of the violence perpetrated against these male victims were actually caused by women, but rather by male partners or other male relatives, as I have stated above.

I do know that there is considerable research being done at present into elder abuse, of which I imagine might be perpetrated against both elderly men and women by both male and female younger relatives, because I have heard so many witness accounts of these problems.

At the end of the day, any form of domestic violence is awful and should be brought well out into the light of day, and dealt with. So far, all forms of domestic violence have been left alone somewhat, with mostly the most violent, fatal and obvious violence such the intimate partner violence, being in the spotlight.

So while I'm the first to acknowledge that more men are guilty of physical abuse than women, I would also suggest more women are guilty of mental abuse than men, esspecially against x partners.

I don't refer to many people as evil bitches, but this is one such case and if not for the support we have provided for this man, I would suggest we may well be talking of him in the past tense, especially given his father took his own life.

As for domestic violence, I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that if you took out the likes of provoking partners (mainly x), drugs, alcohol, along with religion/faith (those who naturally disrespect women) then there wouldn't be too many cases left.

So this brings me to suggest we are wasting enough on this preventable problem and need to focus more on the perpetrators and put a rocket up our limp wristed judicial system that allows criminals to get away with blue murder, yet punishes people for the likes of catching one too many fish. Just look at that grub on the SS coast lately, where the judge decided not to look at the incriminating CCT footage.

The system us a complete joke, it's a lottery and we might as well just spin the chocolate wheel, same unreliable result, billions saved.

Why keep throwing billions at a broken system. Why not fix the system then put the money to more effective use. We might even save a few bucks.

Sorry I didn't bite Poirot/Suze.

I say this because we are simply running out of funding and unless we make better use of our taxes, the likes of domestic violence will be the least of our worries.

It never ceases to amaze me how the man hateing feminists are so quick to come down on men with domestic violece, yet, they so often choose to ignore one of the primary ignition sources for DV, that being mental trauma inflicted on men by women.

How very convenient.

As I say, to address any problem, you must first identify the cause, and mental trauma is one such cause that many choose to ignore.

So look at the big picture ladies before you go pointing the finger at me.

I'm simply a hard working tax payer who has had a gut full of my taxes being pissed away on avoidable issues such as this.

Hi Butch,

So are you suggesting that men don't have ways of mentally harassing women in abusive relationships ? That women have, somehow, more power and opportunity and inclination to walk away from abusive relationships than men ?

After all, women are more likely to:

* feel obliged to stay with the kids in a home environment that they hope will become more stable,

* perhaps less likely to be financially able to walk away, i.e. less able to quickly find work, especially if they have had to stay home looking after young children for many years,

* are more pressured by parents and in-laws to stay in an abusive relationship and 'give it one more try'.

Etc, etc.

Isn't that so ?

Joe

Rehctub "It never ceases to amaze me how the man hateing feminists are so quick to come down on men with domestic violece, yet, they so often choose to ignore one of the primary ignition sources for DV, that being mental trauma inflicted on men by women."

Lol! Couldn't help yourself after all aye Rehctub?
Where is your proof for that outrageous statement?
What absolute rubbish.

Mind you, even if those nasty women did annoy the c##p out of their masters, is it ok to beat them or kill them as a result? Are you one of those fine manly men who still lives in the dark ages and believes the little woman should be knocked back into shape if she gives her man a bit of lip?
Of course you are....

Joe,tell me your taking the piss mate, nobody could possibly think it's a one way street, of cause it goes both ways, but, there are far more men who loose their kids than women. There are also more men who's lives get ruined by the finacial burden placed on them by the very unfair system.

As for women being trapped, unless your partner was won in a raffle, it was your choice, so deal with it but don't expect the tax payer to keep coming to your rescue especially for repeat situations, because we already subsidize far too much by way of funding preventable issues.

There is nothing to be gained from playing the gender war. All that does is ensure that millions of taxpayers' $$ are misdirected and wasted.

Reliable peer-reviewed research is becoming available,

<Women more Violent and Controlling than Men: Various Studies find
women-the-aggressors-in-dv

Contrary to the overwhelming perception in society, numerous studies and statistics recently published from a variety of disparate sources have indicated that women are more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive to their partners than men, and are increasingly participating in serious acts of violence against other men, women, the elderly and children.

The findings were presented to a symposium on “intimate partner violence” (IPV) at the British Psychological Society’s Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in Glasgow.

Dr Elizabeth Bates from the University of Cumbria and colleagues from the University of Central Lancashire gave 1104 students (706 women and 398 men) questionnaires about their physical aggression and controlling behaviour, towards partners and to same-sex others (including friends).

Women were revealed to be more likely to be physically aggressive to their partners, and men were more likely to be physically aggressive to their same-sex partners.

Women were also shown to engage in greater levels of controlling behavior, which is understood to be a predictor of physical aggression in both sexes.

“This was an interesting finding,” Dr Bates says. “Previous studies have sought to explain male violence towards women as rising from patriarchal values, which motivate men to seek to control women’s behaviour, using violence if necessary.

“This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men.

“It wasn’t just pushing and shoving,” Dr Bates said, of responses to the anonymous questionnaire. “Some people were circling the boxes for things like beating up, kicking, and threatening to use a weapon.

“The feminist movement made violence towards women something we talk about. Now there is more support for men and more of them are coming forward.”>

http://tinyurl.com/og598j5

otb,

"There is nothing to be gained from playing the gender war...."

ROFL!

I can hardly type for laughing.

This is the guy who relentlessly on this forum engages in gender wars..."femi-fascists"..."femi-Nazis"... (and his latest creation) - "feminist knobs"

Thanks, otb - gilt-edged hypocrisy...and a good laugh to boot!

This too,

<In another finding in Australia, the number of men who report experiencing domestic violence from their current partner has almost doubled since 2005, according to a new survey released last week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

The ABS Personal Safety Survey 2012 collected information from men and women aged 18 years and over about their experience of violence since the age of 15.

Meanwhile, girls have been found to be more devious than boys in their torment of classmates, Australia’s biggest childhood study reveals.

Kids who are poor, overweight, Aboriginal, disabled or living with a single mother are most likely to be picked on in the playground, the Australian Institute of Family Studies has found in a survey of more than 4000 children aged 10 and 11.

Three in every five kids had been subjected to “unfriendly behaviour” in the past year, ranging from hitting to name-calling and being left out of social groups.

And according to new national crime figures women are now outpacing men in the violence stakes, with the rate of women committing assaults jumping 49 per cent since the mid 1990s.

Australian Institute of Criminology data shows the number of female assaults per 100,000 women increased from 125 to 186 between 1996 and 2010 compared to an increase of just 18 per cent for men, while other figures show that mother’s were by far the single biggest group responsible for child abuse and child murder in Australia.

Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program director Professor Paul Mazerolle said there was “no question” young women were getting more involved in violence: “There’s been a moderate increase in [female] violence but we as a community are less tolerant of violence so we’re seeing more of a response from police.”>

So, what about applauding and supporting Qld's Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk who has announced she will be approaching Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull about launching a domestic violence awareness campaign which acknowledges male victims?

Yes OTB, thanks for a good laugh for me this morning too.

After wisely stating there is nothing to be gained by gender wars on this subject, you then spend several long paragraphs ranting about the violent women in our society.

Why is that?
What is to be gained by all those anti-female opinions, other than your usual misogynistic raves?

Suse,

This....

http://amansw.com.au/news/articles/domestic-violence-too-many-kids-dying-or-suffering-brain-injuries/

"AMA President, Prof Brian Owler, is in Sydney today to raise awareness about the effects of domestic violence on children

“Children are all too commonly victims of domestic violence and represent a significant number of admissions to Australia’s children’s hospitals,” Prof Owler said.

“In the past 12 months, 569 children were referred to the Child Protection Unit at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead because it was suspected they had come to non-accidental physical harm.

“For children who live in homes where domestic violence takes place, non-accidental head injury, usually resulting in bleeding on the brain, is very common.

“This type of traumatic brain injury can destroy a life, with effects ranging from development of epilepsy to poor emotion control to severe disability.

“The leading cause of death for Australian children is injury.

“Child abuse by a parent or step-parent is the third leading cause after road trauma and accidental drowning.

“The Australian Institute of Criminology reported that across the period 2008–10, 29 children died of domestic homicide committed by a parent or step-parent.

“I was shocked, when I came to work as a neurosurgeon at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, just how many cases of non-accidental injury we see here,” Prof Owler said."

It is mendacious, idiotic, to imply that child neglect and abuse, might be negatively affected in any way by Premier Palaszczuk's proposal.
It would be quite the reverse one would think.

Suseonline,

It is your own bigotry that construes peer-reviewed research that has appeared in professional journals as "ranting" and "misogynistic raves".

Suzeonline, "ranting" you say re otb? And "mysogynistic"?

otb is clearly revealing evidence of the side of DV that has been kept out of debate about DV.

There are also child daughters that lose their father forever and the ongoing psycological impact and consequences from that should also be noticed. Such mental impact may be akin to impact from rape in some cases, or worse, involving suicide.

The stolen indigenous children had prime focus in relevant debate but modern day Australian children stolen from their dad's is virtually kept quiet by media and politicians. Why is that so?

Why not respectably discuss what otb has commented about?

Isn't it interesting how discussions slide from one topic to something quite different.

So we go from domestic violence to blokes having to fork out more than the sheilas over divorce, and over control over the kiddies. Maybe losing the house too.

That all might be true, POST-DV. But let's stick to the prickly topic of DV :)

My bet is that, in Alice Springs Hospital at this moment, there are fifty times more Aboriginal women lying battered and bruised from their beloveds, than Aboriginal men lying battered and bruised from their beloveds.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen: my in-laws were Aboriginal, and when he had a skinful, my f.-in-law used to kick the daylights out of my m.-in-law. But if he drank too much and got really paralytic, she was happy to kick the daylights out of HIM. So it went, weekend after weekend, in their younger days. More exciting than 'Home and Away'. She was a tough woman, the first woman I ever knew to use certain words in anger.

But on balance, I'd still maintain that women cop more from DV, physical violence resulting in either the police being called or the 'victim' being taken off to hospital, or both, than men, 95% to 5%. Perhaps in some suburbs, the balance is more even, but when I was growing up, in the sheltered environment of Bankstown, I can't recall any bloke ever being taken off to hospital for DV injuries.

DV is the topic, mates.

Joe

OTB, any negative views I may have about the views of men like yourself pale into insignificance compared to the venom you spew.

Loudmouth, I too find it annoying when some men feel the need to equate domestic violence to post-divorce court decisions. These acrimonious divorces leading to the need for court interventions are much fewer than those couples who manage the family decisions by themselves.

I often wonder whether these blokes feel that bashing or killing the ex is well justified when things don't go their way in their personal life or from the courts?
My opinion is that if they were ever, or are now, violent towards their ex or their kids, then the courts were well justified with their decisions to keep them all apart.
I don't care whether they blame the separation for the violence or not, because the courts have seen and heard it all before, and aren't stupid.

I personally know a young father of four boys who has sole custody of the kids, and they all live in the family home, while mum lives alone. The courts found that she was an unfit mother and she only gets supervised access to the kids.
So I believe that these men who complain so much are just bitter they didn't get their own way, like she is. The courts make their decisions on evidence, so that is that.

otb,

"It is mendacious, idiotic, to imply that child neglect and abuse, might be negatively affected in any way by Premier Palaszczuk's proposal.
It would be quite the reverse one would think."

What sort of idiotic rant is that?

I didn't put up that article for any other reason than to highlight that children are also significant victims of DV.

And otb immediately lets his paranoia take over and assumes it's some sort of attack on the Queensland Premier's proposal.

Gawd!

Poirot,

So you were just educating your 'Suse' who may not have known?

LOL, as you were.

otb,

"Poirot,

So you were just educating your 'Suse' who may not have known?"

I posted an article by the head of the AMA - you silly disingenuous little man.

Heh, heh, you did direct it at your 'Suse', as quoted below,

<Suse,

This....>

The subject 'Suse' post that you were responding to is here,
Suseonline, Saturday, 24 October 2015 12:24:36 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7050&page=6

So you were just educating your 'Suse' who may not have known.

Don't worry, your secret is safe with me. This is the Internet.

otb,

So?

What a weird reaction from you.

I post an article written by the president on the AMA on the subject of children as victims of DV - on a thread that you started titled "Holistic Approach to Domestic Violence"..and you in your paranoia and nursing your belligerent mindset reply thus:

"It is mendacious, idiotic, to imply that child neglect and abuse, might be negatively affected in any way by Premier Palaszczuk's proposal.
It would be quite the reverse one would think."

My posting of that article was entirely on topic.

Your reaction to it sums up your stature on this forum - which is shifty and puerile at the best of times.

Try again, otb....if you're going to put up a thread on the holistic approach to DV, perhaps you could attend to the crux of the title's intention.

Pfft....

Poirot,

Yes, it would have been mendacious, idiotic, of you to imply that child neglect and abuse might be negatively affected in any way by Premier Palaszczuk's proposal. Yes again, the Premier's proposal would have quite the reverse effect one would think.

However you have explained that you were just educating your 'Suse' on something she was not aware of and responding to her post, this one,

Suseonline, Saturday, 24 October 2015 12:24:36 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7050&page=6

Shadow Minister will be along shortly to play 'that' game with you.

I find it interesting that gun owners would appear to be less violent than others.

otb,

What an odd character you are...Lol!

You're obviously more interested in trumpeting your fantasies about the motivation for other people's posts than you are discussing the prevalence of childhood injury as a result of DV.

If you wished to avoid other people including Children in your thread on the "Holistic Approach to Domestic Violence" - you should have said so.

I'll let you get back to the purpose of your thread which, judging by your own contributions, was put up, not to approach the subject in an holistic fashion, but as an excuse for you (once again) to gush forth blaming women for much domestic violence.

(We all knew from the outset why you started the thread - so I'm sure you don't mind me calling a spade a spade - holistically, of course)

Off you go, scrabble about and pour out some more of your stuff - or better still, do what you always do - link to stuff you've already posted a few times, or to something scintillating you've written and posted previously.

We look forward to it!

Until people are smart enough to look at what causes such anger among mainly men (not exclusively), dv will never be addressed with any great success. Many men sit in prisons after breaching restraining orders because partners have invited them around and then ring the police. This is a common game among the Indigenous. No fault divorce is an absolute joke. The social engineers who encouraged the breakdown of the normal family have a lot to answer for. We know have generations of angry bitter people. A whole industry of funded by Government money has now been given to mainly feminist groups to address the issues largely created by social engineers. Sad world. As for dv rates among homosexuals (one is not allowed to go there).

......My bet is that, in Alice Springs Hospital at this moment, there are fifty times more Aboriginal women lying battered and bruised from their beloveds, than Aboriginal men lying battered and bruised from their beloveds.

Yes Joe, and how many of those beaten and battered were down the pub drinking away the last of their welfare handout only to be beaten when the EFTPOS machine said, NO MORE!

Also, how many of those beaten and battered go back for seconds, thirds and so on.

Get a grip, wake up, and smell the roses mate.

Is Mis .....find it interesting that gun owners would appear to be less violent than others.

I've owned a gun since I was 16 and I'm not violent.

Back to the topic.

As I have said, take away the drugs, the indigenous, the imports and the morons, domestic violence is not really a problem, it's a preventable issue and it's wasting billions of dollars of our taxes, taxes that could be put to far better use.

Il bet there will be an enquiry into where the funds are going and il bet there are billions being ripped out by dodgy organizations.

Butch,

So ..... are you suggesting that any women who are beaten up twice, three times, four times every month, or more often than that - should be counted as only 'one incidence of DV' each in the annual statistics ?

Quite creative, really.

Joe

No Joe, what I'm saying is the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

Drugs and alcohol can be a great thing, especially when the tax payer is paying the bill.

The quarantining of welfare would be step one if we are serious about tackling indigenous DV.

Blunt, but true Joe.

So many people are reluctant to see it as it is. First we provide the fuel ( welfare cash handouts) then we hold an inquiry into what's going wrong, not to mention wasting billions on the symptom.

Remove the fuel Joe and much of the problem will be gone.

Once we clean that mess up ( huge ask) we can then move to the next problem area.

Political correctness see us attacking problems with one handv ied behind out backs.

ITS TIME TO WAKE UP PEOPLE and see this for what it really is and more importantly stop throwing money at the symptoms and identify and address the causes.

I say again, if we remove the drugs, alcohol, imports and indigenous from DV cases, do we still have a major problem, onevworth throwing billions at. My tip would be no, what's yours Joe.

Try some debate Joe, rather than just trying to manipulate my words.

@ rehctub, "ITS TIME TO WAKE UP PEOPLE and see this for what it really is and more importantly stop throwing money at the symptoms and identify and address the causes."

Absolutely correct.

Too right JS AUS, whether it be domestic violence, education or even indigenous health, or any number of other societal problems, our pollies and law makers are so intrenched and hamstrung with political correctness that they are simply too scared to address the real issues, they being what either causes, or contributes to the issues that are at the core of the problems.

Rehctub, there is a big DV problem in the wider community, not just with the indigenous community. Indigenous people make up only a small part of our population. And it occurs in all parts of the community, not just those on welfare.
And it occurs without the help of alcohol or drugs in some households.

Your simplistic 'solutions' are not workable.
Imagine what would happen if they put everyone on welfare on cards so they couldn't buy alcohol or drugs with money (of course, we couldn't just use welfare cards for indigenous recipients, because that would be racist)?

They would all simply resort to crime by stealing things to sell, or stealing cash from whoever and wherever they can, so they could buy their alcohol and drugs.
The crime rates would rise enormously.

No, there needs to be another way.
I don't know what the answer is...

@ Suseonline, your female point of view is absolutely important especially here on this thread.

You say you don't know what the answer is.
I think there are multiple answers because there are multiple causes.

I know from experience attending DV occurrences that alcohol has been the biggest single cause. I think it still would be, because more people drink alcohol than take other drugs.

Hard economic times are turning more people to drink alcohol.
But these days there is also the aggression caused by taking ice.

Many politicians like their alcohol so debate on the subject can be stifled. Media makes profit from advertising alcohol. So the subject of alcohol has been politically untenable.

Alcohol affects all races and gender.

I think more education on the subject would be a good start, especially about the impact and consequences of over-indulgence, instead of so many lessons on Captain Cook and the like.

I totally agree JF Aus.
While not everyone who over indulges on alcohol or drugs commits domestic violence, those people with an aggressive nature or past will almost certainly be more violent on alcohol.

You could be right re a much more rigorous anti-alcohol campaign and all the benefits that less alcohol in our communities would bring.

The problem is that unlike many drugs, alcohol is meant to be ok in small amounts, so an outright ban on alcohol will never work, like I am sure it will happen one day with tobacco products.

As you say, the law system is filled with people who do like alcohol themselves and thus it will be much harder to regulate the use of it in the wider community.
We need to try something though, as alcohol not only affects DV, but also all other forms of violence, car accidents and deaths, and also a multitude of health problems.

I have to disclose that I am quite partial to wine myself...

It is true as someone has already mentioned, that DV is far higher for indigenous, as represented by the numbers of indigenous women reporting to hospital EDs. Coincidentally or maybe not there is also a much higher incidence of indigenous violence generally and other crime.

It is totally illogical and BAD science to assume from that, that DV is a gendered crime. That 'men' or 'masculinity' is somehow at fault. For starters,
http://tinyurl.com/attribution-error

How is the public schooled to believe highly questionable stereotypes, especially negative stereotypes of men and boys? How is shonky, sloppy, research given oxygen as fact? Ex-federal parliamentarian Bill O'Chee gives some clues,

<Q&A domestic violence program ignored male victims
February 25, 2015

While the increased awareness of domestic violence issues is to be welcomed, its manipulation by those with other agendas is an entirely different matter.

Monday night's Q&A programme on the ABC was a case in point. Not only did it work hard on perpetuating stereotypes about domestic violence, but the producers also refused to accept a potential panelist because she was a woman.

I have seen emails which show the producers had originally invited on the panel a man from 1in3, a group working to raise the profile of male victims of domestic violence. He was unable to go on, but well known psychologist and author on men's health, Dr Elizabeth Celi, was suggested instead. The producers rejected her because she was a woman.

More precisely, they rejected her because she was an eloquent and insightful woman who wanted to speak up for men and children who were the victims of domestic violence. You see, the problem was she didn't fit the stereotype.

Yet there was a place on the panel for my old chum, Natasha Stott Despoja, the Ambassador for Women and Girls. That's because her perspective on domestic violence is finely attuned to exactly those stereotypes.
contd..

Alright OTB, I have to ask, what possible agendas could anyone have by stating that females are far more likely to be victims of domestic violence than males?

And why wouldn't any talk of solutions at least start with where the biggest problem lies?
What benefits could anyone possibly gain from stating the obvious?

If you get nasty or try to bully me with your answers, then I won't be pursuing the discussion.

contd..

<The sad fact is that much of the "debate" about domestic violence is not a debate at all. It has descended into a 21st century morality play in which roles are assigned according to gender. Men can have only two roles in this play: they are either the brutish perpetrators of domestic violence, or the courageous men who care for women.

The voices that are drowned out are the men who are the victims of domestic violence - about one in three of all cases - and the children. Australian Institute of Criminology Statistics show that 45 per cent of children murdered by a parent are murdered by the mother, making this kind of domestic violence an equal opportunity killer....>
http://tinyurl.com/o3zt9vn

Others can discuss what drives the promulgation of sloppy and shonky, sometimes fraudulent research - I believe it is $$ - but surely the point is that the Australian public and the unfortunate victims of violence, DV in this case, are ALWAYS disadvantaged where policy is NOT based on solid evidence.

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk is courageous to support male victims of domestic violence as being worthy of recognition and assistance.

The Premier's statesmanship and principles should also lead to some of the many honest researchers stepping forward to support her and to challenge the parlous state of research, of SCIENCE, in Australia and in other developed countries, where publication in journals and in media briefs from universities cannot be taken as any quality assurance at all.

There seems to be no end of sloppy science - which in the case of DV is made apparent by the cynicism of a populist PM who through his approval of the gendered view of DV, puts buying support from noisy lobbyists ahead of good policy.

@Suseonline,

It was explained during training that generally alcohol causes about 5 or 6 different reactions in different human beings.
1. Some people laugh and sing happily.
2. Some people fall asleep. (like Shadow Minister)
3. Some people feel sick and dizzy.
4. Some people become argumentative. (like Poirot. LOL)
5. Some people become become violent.
6. Some people become relaxed, quiet, contented. (like Suzeonline)

Bottom of economy poverty where I focus research has revealed increasing hardship in family life was driving a husband to go drinking, and when drunk that husband commits DV.

Worry about debt can lead to stress.
A definition of stress is when a person feels like they want to choke the living daylights out of their best friend or someone close.

Bad debt can cause DV. Maybe banks don't want to know.

On the other hand, perhaps banks could be persuaded to help find solutions, solutions such as properly resourced up-to-date education of bureaucrats and politicians and society in general.
Focus toward outcome should be development of employment and business and prosperity.

Then there might be more understanding and less hardship and less domestic violence.

@Suseonline,
Female mysoginists can have agenda to incriminate males.

Stating the obvious can be very negative toward sales and profit.

It's good this family on OLO can have a rational discussion. Without DV.

JF Aus, I am more like number 1 on your list actually : )

I don't know any female misogynists actually?

Of course I am aware that some women wrongly accuse some men of DV for their own purposes, and men do the same thing for the same reasons.
Nothing new there.

The fact remains that more women come off second best physically during domestic violence incidences than men do. That is just a fact.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging where the biggest problem lies, while still acknowledging that it is not the only problem involved.

Suseonline,

I procrastinated a number of times as to whether or not to peg you as number one. I didn't want to indicate you become wild and noisy like in some of the Rage videos. LOL.

I agree there are more female than male victims, but murder is murder and dv is dv, no matter how many of different gender are injured or killed.

There is need for that holistic approach to solutions as ontb is stating.

<A dangerous "ingroup/outgroup" form of siege mentality has enveloped feminist activists and those
researchers who share their dogma. It is based on a perceived threat that somehow, services for women
will disappear if male victimization is recognized or that those who raise issues about female violence
or intervention are somehow against progressive goals for women's equality. That is not the case. We
neither wish, nor believe that protection for women would be diminished by the above suggestions;
simply that more effective intervention and treatment could be implemented if a more humanistic,
complex, and community mental health model were implemented...

There is not one solution for every domestically violent situation; some require incarceration of a "terrorist" perpetrator, others can be
dealt with through court-mandated treatment, still others may benefit from couples therapy. However,
feminist inspired "intervention" standards that preclude therapists in many states from doing effective
therapy with male batterers is one outcome of this paradigm. The failure to recognize female threat to
husbands, female partners, or children is another (Straus et al, 1980 found 10% higher rates of child
abuse reported by mothers than by fathers).

The "one size fits all" policy driven by a simplistic notion that intimate violence is a recapitulation of
class war does not effectively deal with this serious problem or represent the variety of spousal
violence patterns revealed by research.

At some point one has to ask whether feminists are more interested in diminishing violence within a population or promoting a political ideology. If they are
interested in diminishing violence, it should be diminished for all members of a population and by the
most effective and utilitarian means possible. This would mean an intervention/treatment approach
based on other successful approaches from criminology and psychology.>
[The Gender Paradigm In Domestic Violence: Research And Theory,
http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/DV/Gender%20Paradigm%20In%20Domestic%20Violence.pdf
tks to RObert]

OTB ". However, feminist inspired "intervention" standards that preclude therapists in many states from doing effective therapy with male batterers is one outcome of this paradigm. "

Really? Which feminists in which states do this? They must have a lot of clout in the justice system. Why aren't all the male members of the justice system doing something about it?

"The failure to recognize female threat to husbands, female partners, or children is another (Straus et al, 1980 found 10% higher rates of child abuse reported by mothers than by fathers)."

Really? You think there has been no recognition of lesbian DV or mother's violence towards children in their home? I thought the jury was already out on the issues involving violent mothers, given that they have custody of the children far more often?

I am sure you could find something on those issues on the Internet that was written/researched since 1980, surely?
How come a scholarly non-feminist hasn't researched and written papers on all these issues as they are so prevalent?

If there is enough credible evidence on any subject, then any bright researcher of any gender or political leaning could write a paper. What is stopping them?
Is it your usual paranoia about some obscure 'feminists' out there who apparently control all the university and justice systems?

@Suseonline

" I thought the jury was already out on the issues involving violent mothers, given that they have custody of the children far more often?"

Yeah, just like women nag more often.

"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."

Hooray for MGTOW!

"Yeah, just like women nag more often.

"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.""

Lol! - tone it down, Roscop....if you keep up that level of intellectual sophistication, our brains will explode.

Suse, Poirot,

I have to apologise for the Neanderthals on this thread. You may find it hard to believe but we're not all like that.

Best wishes,

Joe

Thanks, Joe

".....You may find it hard to believe but we're not all like that."

Not hard to believe at all - no men of my association carry on like that.

: )

Practically speaking, Government cannot continue to be seen as discriminating by not acknowledging and providing services to all victims.

The Queensland Premier has opened up communication and consultation that will get more people on board. See here,

<Why I’m backing QLD Labor Premier on male victims
OCTOBER 24, 2015

...
Each year, for example, more Australian males (8.7%) will experienced violence than Australian females (5.3%).

Sure, there are some types of violence that women are more likely to experience and men are more likely to perpetrate (and vice versa). But let’s be clear, most men and women in Australia are neither perpetrators nor victims and all fair-minded campaigners for gender equality should want just three things:

For all victims of violence to be helped, supported and protected regardless of their gender
For all perpetrators of violence to be held to account for their actions and given the opportunity to reform and redeem themselves, regardless of their gender
For all violence to be prevented and ultimately ended, regardless of the gender of the victim of the perpetrator.
..
With this in mind, anyone who is genuinely committed to creating a world free from violence should be welcoming and supporting the Labor Premier’s attempts to include male victims in our response to tackling domestic violence.

To do otherwise is to treat male victims as the enemy and make it harder (if not impossible) for men, women and children who don’t fit into the heteronormative “male perpetrator/female victim” paradigm of domestic violence to get the help and support they need.

This is an archaic view of gendered violence, which lies beyond compassion and reason and has no place in a diverse, inclusive and equal society.>
http://talk-about-men.com/tag/annastacia-palaszczuk/

Mine neither Joe.
I admire you for taking the road less travelled on this subject, as far as male contributors to this forum are concerned.
We know the truth, and that is all that matters.

Those opposed to practical support for male victims of DV regardless of the gender of the perpetrator seem to live in denial of the evidence. They "know" the truth in their minds and won't let inconvenient evidence change the truths they hold to tone self evident. The research demonstrating that violent DV is not significantly gendered is very clear. I do accept Joes point that in some sections of the community that may not be the case.

Those who cling to a highly gendered view of DV don't appear to be willing to debate based on the evidence.

The stereotypes around DV must meet some needs but basing community and government response on those stereotypes perpetuates the problem than reduce it.

R0bert

OTB,

Oh dear, that slide away from topic:

' ... more Australian males (8.7%) will experienced violence than Australian females (5.3%).'

And who are the vast majority of the perpetrators of that violence ? Are you suggesting that most of those perpetrators are women ?

Come on, you know that isn't the case :) Just be honest about it.

In everyday life in Australia, power still rests with men rather than women. We're usually physically stronger, on balance we are in a stronger financial position by virtue of the simple fact that it's women who tend to stay at home raising the kids.

OF COURSE, the courts usually find in favour of women when the assets get divided up, and since they have usually looked after the kids, they tend to get the kids and the house.

Is that what most of you blokes are griping about ?

Move on. Get a life. Get another life if you have to.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

@Loudmouth Joe, @Poirot, @Suseonline

Actually the quote "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."...are words that come from the mouth of a woman...Professor Camille Paglia...so stick that one up your jumpers.

@Suseonline, "as far as male contributors to this forum are concerned.
We know the truth, and that is all that matters."

I am a male on this forum, what untruth have I told? What have I said that does not matter? Have I said anything to insult women?

@Loudmouth, "OF COURSE, the courts usually find in favour of women when the assets get divided up, and since they have usually looked after the kids, they tend to get the kids and the house.
Is that what most of you blokes are griping about ?
Move on. Get a life. Get another life if you have to."

Loudmouth are you in favour of women running off with another man and telling lies in restricted divorce court proceedings and getting the kids?
Do you think men have no right to complain or receive justice in such circumstances?

Do you think a father or mother should just move on without the only children he/she has in this world?

By you saying "Get another life. Get another life if you have to", are you suggesting suicide?

Roskop,

Nicely off-topic but anyway ....

Actually, it's likely that without the initiative of women (we'll get to that), we would all still be hunter-gatherers, squatting on our bare arses around smoky fires and stealing each other's women.

The most important revolution in human history, the Agricultural Revolution of 10-12,000 years ago, was very likely brought on by women hand-feeding semi-tame stock animals, on noticing that 'grass' seeds that they had gathered and given to stock sprung up around the pens in which they held those animals, mainly goats, sheep) while the men were off playing with their dogs.

From those initiatives, we have inherited farming, grass huts, towns, cities, trade, number and weight systems, alphabets, States, etc.

Or perhaps you would prefer to still sit around some piddly fire, waiting for food to drop out of the sky, thanks to the elders ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Roscop,

"Actually the quote "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."...are words that come from the mouth of a woman...Professor Camille Paglia...so stick that one up your jumpers"

Yes, I know....from her book "Sexual Personae" - which sits about ten feet from me in my bookshelf...but it's a rather largish book, so I hope you don't mind if I decline to stick it up my jumper.

Notwithstanding that men couldn't have done it all by themselves without women in the breech, no-one is denying the kinds of Apollonian glory that males have achieved in their swerve away from nature - it's phenomenal!

However, that doesn't detract from the latent aggressive tendencies of the species - and particularly the male of the species. Truth is that as adept as the male is at constructing "civilisation", he is equally adept at knocking it down.

Which brings us to otb's contribution from his last post:

"Each year, for example, more Australian males (8.7%) will experienced violence than Australian females (5.3%)."

As Loudmouth intimated, the majority of that 8.7% of Australian males experiencing violence will have been the victims of a male. Same goes for the 5.3% of female victims.

No-one thinks the majority of men commit this violence - or that male victims of violence shouldn't be recognised and given the same attention as female victims.

However, the elephant in this room on OLO appears to be that the male of the species is far more physically aggressive than the female - which shows up time and time again in statistics.

My take is that it's a genetic and instinctive trait in human beings, where that type of aggression was paramount in protecting the tribe from attack. In the modern world where things are arranged in a more civilised fashion, only strong social skills resting on respectful interaction can subjugate the tendency to solve disagreement with violent force.

JF Aus,

You ask:

'Loudmouth are you in favour of women running off with another man and telling lies in restricted divorce court proceedings and getting the kids?'

No.

'Do you think men have no right to complain or receive justice in such circumstances?'

I get confused with double negatives, but No/Yes, they should, and do, have the right etc.

And 'another life' means just that - move to Queensland and start a new life, find a new job, find a new partner if possible. [I don't know why Queensland, but maybe because it's a long way from here in South Australia].

Strange how this topic morphs into others. Surely nobody is trying to justify DV ?

Joe

JF Aus, you are right, I should have said 'some' males on this forum, and not all.
A few questions for you now.

Why are you bringing the family courts and divorce into this thread?
Are you suggesting it is the court's fault that some men kill or bash their ex-partners and/or children?

Why not blame the men who do these crimes?
If the courts rule in favour of the man to keep his kids following divorce etc, is it then ok for the mother to commit DV on them?

Suicide is never anyone's fault but the one doing it to themselves...and they leave a lifetime of mental health problems for their friends and relatives.

RObert "Those opposed to practical support for male victims of DV regardless of the gender of the perpetrator seem to live in denial of the evidence "

Who is opposed to this? Anyone?
All DV victims need support, regardless of gender.

Yes, JF Aus....

From the three fathers I know whose marriages broke down and who initially found themselves separated from their children.

1. After first having extreme trouble with his drug-addicted partner, he was awarded sole custody of both his infant children - and has provided for them wonderfully. These children do not see their mother as she is considered extremely unstable.

2. This fellow had his three children return to him when two were in their early teens and another under ten. Al three continue to live with their dad.

3. This man hasn't seen his children for most of their childhood - his wife flouted most of her orders and skipped interstate before eventually returning. He has since divorced her and remarried to a wonderful woman who supports him wholeheartedly and whom he loves very much. He has retrained and has carved out a successful new career and is happy in his new life. The pain of losing his children is still with him, however, he decided that his life was worth more than resentment and pain and he has embraced the possibilities eagerly....and found happiness where once he thought that would be impossible.

None of these men sought to commit violence on their partners in retaliation for perceived wrongs - and would condemn anyone for doing so.

@Loudmouth,
Joe,

From your point of view, from what you have experienced or observed, you think the topic "morphs into others".
From my point of view a fundamental problem with DV occurrence and law is that the system and the law does not have time to hear the other point of view.

Do tell, Joe, do you think moving on to Queensland or somewhere can remove the psycological trauma and stress from losing your wife and your children? Do you think no argument occurs when someone else arrives on the scene to break up established partners?

Have you ever owned a dog Joe? Losing your children is like losing 10 dogs, if you can possibly know what I mean.

If a court can invoke law to cover the long term impact and psychological consequences of rape then similar should be possible for stealing/misappropriation of children. Plus extra penalty for impact on the children.

Some ex-partners are known to continue to be violent psychologically even years later, to get back at their ex. Children are used as the weapon.

Going to Queensland is not a solution, nor is having a new partner/wife as I have had for the past 10 years.

Children are gone forever, brainwshed, father defamed albeit unjustifiably.

Expand your thinking, Joe. Partners are even known to fire guns and kill others and themselves because a partner and a court have taken their kids.

Courts need proper resources to provide decent, proper justice.

"Those opposed to practical support for male victims of DV ..."

I enjoy those false arguments: says who, Robert ? Who 'opposes practical support for male victims' ?

I'm struck by the self-pity of those manufactured issues, the special pleading on spurious grounds. 'demands' like those remind me of that film clip of Hitler beating his breast in self-pity about Germany losing territory and being picked on by France and England etc., wah ! wah ! and then, I'm told, he goes back behind the scenes with Goering etc. and says with a smirk, more or less, 'How'd I do ?'

How often have we seen this manufactured whinge lately ? That Muslims are all always being harassed and picked on and spat on, etc. etc. Where ? When ? I've never seen anything remotely like that, and I've travelled on buses for years now, and never even seen a woman in a hijab look remotely worried when they get on the bus - blokes, being more paranoid, I can't vouch for.

Or an article today in The Australian about Aboriginal people being stopped from speaking their languages. Complete unsubstantiated rubbish - in my experience and readings, I've only ever come across missionaries learning up on the languages so that they could open and run a school operating in the local language. But within a very short time, Aboriginal people were mixing around and working with each other and with whites, learning English in their day-to-day lives, and I suspect that within a couple of generations were using English as their first language all the time, ergo, languages fading into disuse. But poor bugger me still sells, I suppose.

Credit were credit is due - and 'blame' if you want to call it that, were 'blame' is due. If blokes knock women around, they should cop whatever the law throws at them. Simple as that. And no whingeing, or mealy-mouthed excuses.

Joe

Hi JF Aus,

Having lost my wife to cancer seven years ago, yes, I can understand what it is like to miss someone. Every day, every f.ing day, every hour, and it's partly thanks to OLO that I stay relatively sane -yes, Poirot, I did say 'relatively' :). I don't know what that amounts to in dogs, but you can probably do the maths.

I'm sure that injustices occur in the family court system, like everywhere else, but that is getting slightly away from the topic, and could be perceived as a sort of justification for the obvious disparity (in, say, police and hospital records) in reports and admissions, and in the proportion of AVOs.

I suppose all I can suggest to blokes is 'Be a man, don't hurt your woman or kids, when it's so easy'. Or 'Only gutless tyrds belt their women'. At least that would fit on a T-shirt :)

Joe

Loudmouth observed: "Strange how this topic morphs into others. Surely nobody is trying to justify DV ?"

It morphs into others because the basher lobby (a song sheet now down to a tiny handful of bellowers) is desperately trying to draw attention away from actual domestic violence by relabelling egregious but non-violent behaviour as “domestic violence”. Just scan the posts!

Everything but the kitchen sink can be pontificated over interminably as CAUSING violence – even people being born the wrong gender – but only actual physical assault, indictable by criminal law, is COMMITTING violence. In a word, bashing.

What can be done to help the victims of bashing?

First and foremost, getting the bashers out of their lives.

AVOs help, but they guarantee nothing when breach of them brings only a revolving-door at the hands of the courts. What else can be done to free victims of basher tyranny?

Think really hard. Scour the room for the large elephant in it. Society can cut the cackle by way of the legal system. It’s not rocket science. Most Australians would applaud it. It’s just a matter of getting on with it through legislation so the legal system will stop throwing the victims under the bus.

@Suseonline, "Why are you bringing the family courts and divorce into this thread?"

Because family court law regarding divorce could be updated to include sever penalty for a either partner using children to cause even psychological pain and/or suffering.
If such law was tough it would be a deterrent to argument that leads to DV and divorce and ongoing consequences.
If schools and intending family education developed understanding of what can occur in a partnership/family, then peace and happiness could perhaps be maintained.

I am aware of alcoholism in DV. But not every DV case involves alcohol or drugs. An unfaithful partner can cause a penis to be cut off, the men do not do that crime. And one partner can murder the other, male or female.

No, I am not blaming the Court. But Court's should help bring law up to date concerning gender equality. Individual magistrates that pander to the female in court, can be blamed to a considerable degree.

Just saw this tweet...by a legal person on twitter.

"Kon Karapanagiotidis
@Kon__K

3 more women dead in 3 days

75 women in 2015 in Oz

96% by men

It's #notallmen but all men need to speak out, it's our responsibility

3:15 PM - 25 Oct 2015"

http://twitter.com/Kon__K/status/658180120553787392

That was tweeted yesterday...this morning one more child - an 11 year-old girl - man held in custody.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-26/death-of-11-year-old-girl-at-wangaratta-suspicious-/6883910

Speaks for itself....we've got a problem.

'It's #notallmen but all men need to speak out, it's our responsibility'

It depends. By virtue of my gender, I feel no responsibility for policing half the populace. Just as I don't believe 'Moderate Muslims' have any responsibility for denouncing 'radical muslims'. To suggest such a thing would be to suggest some kind of hive mind or brotherhood or original sin due to my gender. I suspect most feminists would disagree with me there though.

Just as an non anglo saxon may feel offended being challenged to kiss an Australian flag, I am offended being challenged to pledge I will not hit women by the White Ribbon lot.

I would suppose though if a friend was beating his wife, I would feel responsibility to get involved to some degree. Or if I witnessed an abusive couple, perhaps to call the police, which I have done previously.

Anyway, nothing seems to have changed around here. See you again when I next drop in.

Hi Joe,

Sorry to hear about your loss. Never give up.
Injustice occurs in court due to lack of resources to examine and fight cases.
I think DV debate should include debate about prevention of DV. To hell with morphing. Understand all possible causes.
I agree about the T shirts.

@Emperor Julian
Morphing into issues related to prevention of DV should not be a problem.
Of course the bashers would not want debate morphing into law that could punish them, especially in retrospect as with child abuse and rape and murder.

Only actual physical assault is DV you say. Really?
Therein is proof where the law is failing to prevent or reduce DV.
The law does not want to know about motives and deterrent, because of the cost.
Leave the alcohol flow eh?

What about murders committed after divorce, 1 day or 3 months after, is that not DV according to Law or according to humanity?
DV versus AVO. What real difference is there?
Dead is dead whichever way, whenever, including when it is is directly linked to previous DV.

@Poirot,
This is from the link you posted in this DV thread. (quote)
The man was invited to a party at the house on Saturday night but was not close to the girl or her mother.

But yes, there is a huge problem.

Where has Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk got it wrong? Why the feminist backlash?

The are victims, so as far as it is possible given the inevitable geographical difficulties, allow them access to services and treat them all the same. What is wrong with that?

Practically speaking, Government cannot continue to be seen to be discriminating by not acknowledging and providing services to all victims.

The Queensland Premier has opened up communication and consultation that will get more people on board. What is wrong with that?

What about the advantage to breaking the cycle of violence? Of being able to intervene before escalation results in serious harm and broken relationships and consequently children denied either parent and even access to 'his' or 'her' parents (ie children's grandparents) and extended family?

What is wrong with this statement? Not mine, but it seems fair enough. Here,

"..let’s be clear, most men and women in Australia are neither perpetrators nor victims and all fair-minded campaigners for gender equality should want just three things:

For all victims of violence to be helped, supported and protected regardless of their gender

For all perpetrators of violence to be held to account for their actions and given the opportunity to reform and redeem themselves, regardless of their gender

For all violence to be prevented and ultimately ended, regardless of the gender of the victim of the perpetrator."

http://talk-about-men.com/tag/annastacia-palaszczuk/ (linked to earlier)

The Qld Premier has taken a significant step in getting more Queenslanders to cooperate and work together. She is trying to be proactive. What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that, but there is a finite pie, and feminists are protecting two things.

1. The immediate slice of pie they get
2. The unilateral exclusive victim status for women, so they get the largest possible share for when the next pie is cooked.

Sharing doesn't come easily to humans.

Poirot

"3 more women dead in 3 days"

No surprise that. If you do more of the same why should you expect a different result?

At least on federal MP, Senator John Madigan, appears to be on the job.

Well the feminists have got their result.

The girls club up here, called the Queensland government, have just announced new laws to remove the man from the house, so the little lady can have it all. No having to go to court, even the extremely biased family court to get your hands on all he's worked for, just ring the cops, claim domestic violence, & he's gone.

It was obvious to any honest person, with half a brain, that this was the objective of the feminists all along, & the girls club have provided, as expected.

Time to swap sides fellows, Sharia law is looking better every day.

"75 women in 2015 in Oz

96% by men"

Poirot, Miranda Devine exposed the misuse of such figures in arguments regarding domestic violence, in her opinion piece in the 30 September edition of the Daily Telly:

"Campaigns such as Destroy the Joint’s Counting Women project insist on making domestic violence a gender issue. It claims 66 women are victims this year, with the implication these are all “intimate partner” homicides, perpetrated by males.

In fact, only about half of the homicides cited could be classified as having a male partner or ex-partner identified as the killer."

There is disquiet among lawyers and human rights concerning some of the recent DV law changes in Queensland. Providing for retrospectivity for instance. There is a reference here,

<Queensland Parliament passes new domestic violence laws granting victims 'special witness' status
updated 16 Oct 2015>

http://tinyurl.com/pu8ctt4

Didn't the High Court (Sir Garfield Barwick) rule against retrospectivity in law?

Roscop,

"No surprise that. If you do more of the same why should you expect a different result?"

Hasbeen,

"The girls club up here, called the Queensland government, have just announced new laws to remove the man from the house, so the little lady can have it all...."

Hmmm. I'm trying to fit your laments into my own family's scenario when I was a wee child.

My father came from a reasonably well to do family - North Shore people - Import/Export business.

His father died shortly after my mum & dad were married. After the money came through, the family spent the next decade merrily going through it.

By the time my brother and I came along, it was all gone - and dad I think never got used to not being with means. While we were still young, he developed a gambling habit.

In our tender years, it was usual for him to work all week and look like a fine upstanding man - and on Saturday he would hit the pub and the TAB. Saturday nights were hell all through my childhood. He would spend his week's wage on Saturday, come home drunk and grumpy, hit our mum - either because he was cross or because he wanted to force her to give him any money she had put aside from her part time job.

Eventually, when I was 8, after years of being beaten up by this man....she just walked out.

My brother ended up going with her, but out of spite dad sent me away, picked me up later and spent the next 7 years dragging me around the countryside - leaving me with people here and there and then picking me up again - still drinking and gambling and Saturday nights were still hell.

He only hit me once though. When I was about 12 he punched me in the jaw because I wouldn't argue back to him.

I left him when I was 15 (having not had "any" contact with mum for 7 years)...and finally made my way back to mum at 17.

There is the added complication surrounding Billy Gordon and opposition to the 'lock-out laws' the Palaszczuk government is trying to introduce,

http://tinyurl.com/lock-out-law

First things first.

The law regards all assaults as crimes of violence. It carefully defines each type of assault from common assault to murder. There are (ridiculously lenient and watered down further by judges and magistrates and parole boards) penalties for each of them. Defendants go to court on criminal indictments and have facilities for defending themselves.

Criminalising assault recognises inviolability of the person as a human right which a decent society and decent members of it will defend.

I couldn’t find one of the pretexts put up by the basher lobby and the gender warriors to draw attention away from actual domestic violence that would be an indictable offence, least of all a violent crime.

Can anyone else?

Poirot,

"Eventually, when I was 8, after years of being beaten up by this man....she just walked out." Would have there been any medical evidence of these beatings or where they merely very soft beatings?

I know if my father had hit my mother she would never have lived to see the next day...mind you she was so emotional when they had the most horrendous rows, with her continuous rants she showed absolutely no fear despite being far less stronger than my father...not the type of fear the domestic violence industry incessantly talks about. There were no curfews on the rows that I and my two siblings lived through...my mother kept them going all hours of the day and night and sometimes went on for days... I now understand why my father spent time at the local with "the boys".

Hi Poirot,

Good on you - I suppose it CAN be true, that whatever doesn't kill you will make you stronger :)

You have to keep going, to bear witness - and to do your best, just to spite the b@stards.

I don't have any real memory of my father, (just on memory of him beating up my step-father-to-be) I think he was gone by the time I was six or seven. He was a railway-man, and had been on the munitions train between Sydney and Brisbane throughout the War, so I guess turning to drink was to be expected. But it sounds like he got pretty violent with our mum. She sort of mellowed about him in much later years, but it was a bit late then.

Best wishes,

Joe

Roscop,

"...." Would have there been any medical evidence of these beatings or where they merely very soft beatings?"

You guys amaze me : )

I suppose you'd have to ask my mother whether she considered being bopped every other Saturday to be "very soft" beatings.

"....not the type of fear the domestic violence industry incessantly talks about."

Lol!....."the domestic violence industry"

As far as I can recall, the purveyor of domestic violence in my family was my dad. And just to give her a send off, after mum had fled from him and he had sent me away, he hid in some bushes near where she was staying and gave her a "not very soft" biffo one night which damaged her ear and her hearing.

He was subsequently run out of town - which I'm sure he envisaged prior to giving her his going away present.

That's the way it was back in the sixties - no support, and the perpetrators were either allowed to go on with it or eventually ostracized or banished.

Those damn feminists have a lot to answer for in the interim.

.....

Joe,

My dad was the only experience I've had with domestic violence....and believe it or not, he was a nice intelligent guy whenever he wasn't drunk and gambling....what a shame for him - and us.

My adult life has been free of that type of torment - whether by my own design or sheer good luck, who knows?

Cheers

Identifying the causes.

Alcohol. One the one hand you want more spent on education, yet, the do gooders took away many of the parents rights to education their children while at the same time fully educated the kids, to the enth degree, about their rights. Talk about pissing into a fan!

How does a parent educate their kids when they all too often don't even know where they are.

When I questioned my rights as a kid, my father toldnott to worry because he would tell me what was right and what was wrong and, if I didn't like that, tough luck because your ass is mine until you're 18.

Those days are long gone.

Same could be said for disrespecting women because most boys turn into men in their late teens and if dads not around, or they moved out because home was too strict (can you believe the law supported this) then they had no education and/or roll modeling from a father figure.

Of cause the other problem ariose where dad no longer existed and mum became a push over and if a young man has no respect for his own mother, what hope does his future partner have!

Immigration fallout, can you believe anyone could be stupid enough to invite races into our nation, knowing their total domination over, and disrespect for women, then cry wolf years later. Unbelievable!

Then there the druggies. These fools live from hit to hit and while the stash is there, all's good, but once the money runs out, often by way of welfare cash, the brown stuff hits the fan. Not just once, but time and time again. As I say, insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.

Continued

Continued by REHCTUB

Then of cause there's indigenous DV, Unfortunateky this is pretty much a hands in the air situation, an unfixable problem that has been around since the dawn of alcohol, and if anyone thinks it's going to change simply by throwing money at it, think again, unless of cause we remove the cash.

Of cause that will in turn present a new set of problems, but at least one will be decreased.

The reality, almost racist I know, is that so long as you have generations who knowingly bring children into a world that has little to no future, you might as well lock the foxes up with the cooks each night.

We have thrown billions if not trillions over the years at this problem and apart from educating the few, who in turn screw us, we have achieved little, mainly because some people don't actually want to be helped.

Of cause if the offenders do happen to be locked up, we have the ever present problem of yet another death in custody to deal with.

WAKE UP PEOPLE,

So as I say folk, identify the causes and treat them. In fact, take out the above few mentioned and chances are we don't have a major problem after all.

Joe I'm still astounded that you despite your own knowledge of how thoroughly things that people Know can be wrong don't seem to have given any indication of examining the evidence. How much respect do you have for those who continue to push the well known line on Indigenous issues and ignore the evidence? You are better than that.

Suseonline and Poirot have consistently over a period of years worked to derail any discussion about DV where the victim is male. If it's not an attempt to ensure that male victims don't get the same sort of support that female victims get then it's difficult to see a plausible explanation for it.

The Qld premier has made a long awaited and good point. I'll be surprised if she truly understands the issue but it is a far better response than we have had from any other party leader in this country that I'm aware of.

Time to drop the gender tactics of public DV statements and programs, accept that both genders are capable of great good and great wrong and treat people on the basis of their situation rather than stereotypes. Time to tell everybody regardless of their gender that it's not OK to hit a partner or to bully them using the sort of tactics which have been canvassed elsewhere.

Where is the problem in that?

R0bert

Hi Robert,

I don't know what you mean by this:

"Joe I'm still astounded that you, despite your own knowledge of how thoroughly things that people Know can be wrong, don't seem to have given any indication of examining the evidence. How much respect do you have for those who continue to push the well known line on Indigenous issues and ignore the evidence? You are better than that."

Can you elaborate on what you are getting at ? Sorry, evidence of what ? What well-known line on Indigenous issues ? I didn't think I had one :) Are you referring to colonialism, or child removal, or the effects of welfare or grog or remoteness, or disdain for education and work ? If so, we can discuss whatever issues you mean.

[fourth post]

Joe
www.firstsources.info

"Suseonline and Poirot have consistently over a period of years worked to derail any discussion about DV where the victim is male...."

Au contraire, RObert,

There has been barely a thread on OLO in recent years that hasn't been opened to discuss domestic violence (77% of victims which are women) which you haven't immediately jumped onto to derail it by seemingly turning it into a contest of who's worse done by - men or women.

You've been fairly quiet in that respect on this thread, but I presume that's because you understood pretty much that otb had already taken care of that aspect. It didn't take him long to start regaling us of the violence attributed to women (on his "Holistic Approach to Domestic Violence" thread:)- even trying it on by posting figures that show men are more likely to be victims of violence (but, curiously, omitting the fact that most of the violence committed against men - is committed by men)

Roscop is now asking me whether my mum had evidence to prove that her beatings were more than "very soft".

It's an education coming here, I tells ya!

Maybe time for some summary material on DV stats from http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm

"Facts and Statistics on Prevalence of Partner Abuse

Victimization

Overall, 24% of individuals assaulted by a partner at least once in their lifetime (23% for females and 19.3% for males)
Higher overall rates among dating students
Higher victimization for male than female high school students
Lifetime rates higher among women than men
Past year rates somewhat higher among men
Higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) among younger, dating populations “highlights the need for school-based IPV prevention and intervention efforts”

Perpetration

Overall, 25.3% of individuals have perpetrated IPV
Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)
Wide range in perpetration rates: 1.0% to 61.6% for males; 2.4% to 68.9% for women,
Range of findings due to variety of samples and operational definitions of PV

Emotional Abuse and Control

80% of individuals have perpetrated emotional abuse
Emotional abuse categorized as either expressive (in response to a provocation) or coercive (intended to monitor, control and/or threaten)
Across studies, 40% of women and 32% of men reported expressive abuse; 41% of women and 43% of men reported coercive abuse
According to national samples, 0.2% of men and 4.5% of women have been forced to have sexual intercourse by a partner
4.1% to 8% of women and 0.5% to 2% of men report at least one incident of stalking during their lifetime
Intimate stalkers comprise somewhere between one-third and one half of all stalkers.
Within studies of stalking and obsessive behaviors, gender differences are much less when all types of obsessive pursuit behaviors are considered, but more skewed toward female victims when the focus is on physical stalking"

TBC
R0bert

Part 2
"Facts and Statistics on Context

Bi-directional vs. Uni-directional

Among large population samples, 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 42% unidirectional; 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male to female (MFPV), 28.3% was female to male (FMPV)
Among school and college samples, percentage of bidirectional violence was 51.9%; 16.2% was MFPV and 31.9% was FMPV
Among respondents reporting IPV in legal or female-oriented clinical/treatment seeking samples not associated with the military, 72.3% was bi-directional; 13.3% was MFPV, 14.4% was FMPV
Within military and male treatment samples, only 39% of IPV was bi-directional; 43.4% was MFPV and 17.3% FMPV
Unweighted rates: bidirectional rates ranged from 49.2% (legal/female treatment) to 69.7% (legal/male treatment)
Extent of bi-directionality in IPV comparable between heterosexual and LGBT populations
50.9% of IPV among Whites bilateral; 49% among Latinos; 61.8% among African-Americans

Motivation

Male and female IPV perpetrated from similar motives – primarily to get back at a partner for emotionally hurting them, because of stress or jealousy, to express anger and other feelings that they could not put into words or communicate, and to get their partner’s attention.
Eight studies directly compared men and women in the power/control motive and subjected their findings to statistical analyses. Three reported no significant gender differences and one had mixed findings. One paper found that women were more motivated to perpetrate violence as a result of power/control than were men, and three found that men were more motivated; however, gender differences were weak
Of the ten papers containing gender-specific statistical analyses, five indicated that women were significantly more likely to report self-defense as a motive for perpetration than men. Four papers did not find statistically significant gender differences, and one paper reported that men were more likely to report this motive than women. Authors point out that it might be particularly difficult for highly masculine males to admit to perpetrating violence in self-defense, as this admission implies vulnerability."

R0bert

rehctub,

"Then of cause there's indigenous DV, Unfortunateky this is pretty much a hands in the air situation, an unfixable problem that has been around since the dawn of alcohol, and ...."

Actually its been around a lot longer,

"It is not polite to say that pre-contact Aboriginal society was abusive to women and generally violent. This would undercut the long-standing official view that current violence in Aboriginal communities reflects colonial dispossession and on-going victimhood"
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/the-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/

Part 3
" Self-defense was endorsed in most samples by only a minority of respondents, male and female. For non-perpetrator samples, the rates of self-defense reported by men ranged from 0% to 21%, and for women the range was 5% to 35%. The highest rates of reported self-defense motives (50% for men, 65.4% for women) came from samples of perpetrators, who may have reasons to overestimate this motive.
None of the studies reported that anger/retaliation was significantly more of a motive for men than women’s violence; instead, two papers indicated that anger was more likely to be a motive for women’s violence as compared to men.
Jealousy/partner cheating seems to be a motive to perpetrate violence for both men and women.

Facts and Statistics on Risk Factors

Demographic risk factors predictive of IPV: younger age, low income/unemployment, minority group membership
Low to moderate correlations between childhood-of-origin exposure to abuse and IPV
Protective factors against dating violence: Positive, involved parenting during adolescence, encouragement of nonviolent behavior; supportive peers
Negative peer involvement predictive of teen dating violence
Conduct disorder/anti-social personality risk factors for IPV
Weak association between depression and IPV, strongest for women
Weak association overall between alcohol and IPV, but stronger association for drug use
Alcohol use more strongly associated with female-perpetrated than male-perpetrated IPV
Married couples at lower risk than dating couples; separated women the most vulnerable
Low relationship satisfaction and high conflict predictive of IPV, especially high conflict
With few exception, IPV risk factors the same for men and women"

From the home page
"PARTNER ABUSE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE PROJECT (PASK)

The world's largest domestic violence research data base, 2,657 pages,
with summaries of 1,700 peer-reviewed studies."

R0bert

RObert, plenty of info there. Looks all under control.
But only 1,700 peer reviewed studies in a population of over 7 billion?

At divorce proceedings in my case she presented an Affidavit stating I followed her home one night, and I never did that. So there would be a likely false statistic for stalking.

I think a jail sentence is needed to deter a partner from lying.
Plus penalty for defamation.

At present it's too easy to get innocent males punished or locked up.

JF I'm guessing this will be the end of my posts on this thread for a while.

Whilst I'd love to see those who make false complaints severly penalised (along with EmperorJulians bashers) I do get concerned that if not implemented correctly it would make it harder for people who are on the receiving end but where the evidence is not strong to make a complaint.

The rules about determining what constituted a false complaint might need to be so onerous as to become useless to not become yet another injustice. People reporting a crime should be able to be cross examined, should have their claims tested thoroughly but should not face the risk of penalty for reporting unless there is very strong evidence that the claim is deliberately false.

I'm also concerned that severe penalties might hinder access to witnesses, friends or family who might be witnesses but would baulk if they knew the party they like more faced jail.

My thoughts on that stuff are messier than I like, possibly boiling down to a lack of trust in government to implement stuff properly and a strong belief that when government does injustice it has a dimension that's a lot tougher in most cases than just dealing with another individual.

I would like to understand the objections to polygraphs and related technology better. My impression is that they could add an extra layer of evidence even if not perfect.

R0bert

What I want to know is why aren't all these male victims of intimate partner violence asking for help? I haven't seen any DV info stating 'no help for male victims'....has anyone else?

Exactly what do you guys want?
Do we need a big campaign on the media asking that all male DV victims come forward right now for help, because they have built new refuges to keep them safe from their present or ex-partners?

Or do you want them to be able to share the DV safe houses currently used for women?
What is stopping these men from taking out restraining orders on the women?
Why do they stay with the violent women?

Surely they can show the evidence of the violence inflicted upon them in court so they can get custody of the kids?
All this should be as easy as you say the women do it all, surely?

I am sorry for the sarcasm, but really, sometimes it is all such rubbish!
All victims of DV can go to the police etc... no one is stopping them.

Post limit is still going, I'm surprised.

For those who might be wondering about the answer to Suzeonline's sarcastic questions.

The starting point is for public campaigns to address all DV, not just DV committed by men against women.

Included in that is police training that includes clear guidelines not to make assumptions based on gender or physical size.

It has flow on impacts for marriage counsellors and others who have unfortunately been bombarded with the gender paradigm in relation to DV and add to the problem by and unwillingness to take female violence seriously.

That starting point is vital so that each case is judged on the realities of that case by whatever part of government or society is having a role and not on the basis of false beliefs about the role of gender in DV.

There are other flow on issues that should be addressed but the first and most important priority is work towards a safer environment for all victims of abusive partners to be able to speak up and ask for help.

The current gendered approach seriously hinders that.

R0bert

"What I want to know is why aren't all these male victims of intimate partner violence asking for help? I haven't seen any DV info stating 'no help for male victims'....has anyone else?"

The questions asked by Suzeonline have answers - Google Dr Elizabeth Celi. Dr Celi has studied the gender bias issue extensively and addresses the very questions Suseonline asks.

Highly relevant to the socially and bureaucratically severe disadvantages encountered by men because of their gender and built into the system in Australia,

Very relevant to addressing inbuilt gender injustices, and all injustice has to be remedied as an issue in itself.

Very relevant to directing attention away from actual domestic violence.

Totally IRrelevant to stopping the bashers and permanently freeing their victims from their tyranny N O W.

Poirot, it sounds like you had a challenging childhood to say the least.
According to some on this thread, it was probably your mother who drove your father to drink and gamble. How sad you didn't have your mother with you for so long.

RObert, I really don't think our local police or court systems are stupid, do you?
How come they can be (usually) relied upon to work on assaults, murders and murderers of either gender, and come up with a perpetrator and victim, regardless of gender, but yet can't be relied upon to do the same if the people involved are related in some way?

Are you suggesting that if the police are called to a 'domestic disturbance' and find a severely bashed or dead man in the house, with his female relative alive and reasonably unhurt, that they wouldn't arrest the woman and take her to the station?
Then the questions and court process would start and the usual method of justice will hopefully prevail. If the genders were reversed, don't you think the same would happen?

Just because assault or murder may involve two people known to each other in a domestic situation, that doesn't mean the police or courts should be any less vigilant in finding justice. There are many assaults and murders between strangers where the perpetrator will protest they were forced into it because of the words/actions of the victim, or fighting for their life, or were 'insane', drunk, drugged, or whatever.

It always amazes me that just when society is finally demanding that domestic violence is treated in the same way as all other criminal violence offenses, that some men feel this threatens their manhood in some way....what with all those feminists out there pulling everyone's strings.....apparently.

......At present it's too easy to get innocent males punished or locked up.

That is so true JS, my BIL is a classic victim of a system that like It or not favors women. If she cries wolf, she gets a DVO against the guy regardless of whether or not he is a threat and I have the proof to go with it as this guy has always been the primary care giver and loves his kids.

This bitch, I'm sorry but that's what she is, came home one night and told him she had eyes for a work colleague and that she was going to spend the weekend with this guy.

Reluctantly he stayed for the sake of the kids but in the end she would sit there texting this guy so he had no choice other than to leave.

She would then purposely place herself within his restriction zone then report him.

The law is a joke.

As for men not complaining about or reporting DV, most men wouldn't bother, especially where kids are involved as too many kids get used as pawns.

Of cause there are also men who abandon their kids and when they resort to violence they are the ones who should have the book thrown at them but the law is pretty much a toothless tiger, which brings me back to my main point, we just keep throwing money at the symptoms.

I thoroughly agree with R0bert about working towards a safer environment for all victims of abusive partners to be able to speak up and ask for help. That’s if by “abusive” he means violent. Violent means involving bodily assault, non-violent means not involving bodily assault.

However it is no help to victims to ask them to Wait for Godot before ending the ever-present threat, while the bashers can reach them, of further violent assault. Society owes itself, and the victims of assault, a wall of protection of victims that TOTALLY precludes further assault, without the victims having to uproot their lives to hide away.

And yes, criminal courts must consider everything relevant to the question: did the defendant commit an act of violence – viz, an assault? To determine whether the standard period of incarceration for the offence should be doubled for the defendant the court would need to determine such matters as the severity and duration of the assault, and whether or not it was part of a pattern of assaults. To determine whether there should be any leniency the court would need to take into account whether the assault was in the context of a physical assault or succession of such assaults by the victim.

What is NOT relevant is harm (perceived or real) committed against the defendant by third parties or “the system”, the defendant’s ingestion of drugs or alcohol, the harm inflicted on the defendant by the victim’s non-violent behaviour or by circumstances outside the relationship, like the defendant’s childhood traumas. If she’s a bitch or he’s a bastard, bitchyness and bastrardry are in the eye of the beholder and in any event bitches and bastards are entitled to inviolability of their bodies.

Main goal, end the violence before Godot happens along.

Suseonline,

You say "society is finally demanding that domestic violence is treated in the same way as all other criminal violence offenses...". What society are you talking about? It certainly wouldn't include the domestic violence industry. It must be very happy with the way things are.

If no associated criminal charges have been laid, there is no requirement, unlike with other offenses, that an offense having being alleged to having been committed be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

With all the tax-payer funded assistance readily standing by and given to her, any half-baked drama queen can easily get a court to make a domestic violence order separating a parent from his children for weeks or months.

The object of the legal process is at the first court mention is to get the respondent to accept an AVO (or whatever it is called in a particular jurisdiction) on the basis of making "no admissions". The court is not interested in the facts of the matter. Perversely its up to the respondent to have the allegations/facts of the matter tested in court and in Victoria according to the Legal Aid website that will be a minimum of 28 days before it gets to that stage. Even if successful in rebutting the allegations the court can still keep the order in place on the basis the applicant's claim of fear irrespective of whether that fear is reasonably or unreasonably held.

Yes indeed, very few people in society would understand just how evil the domestic violence legal process is

Roscop, I know the VRO system is not good. If it was, then many women and children would still be alive.
Have you got any other ideas how really vulnerable women can be kept safe from really violent criminal men? And you know there are men who are violent even before the women talk about leaving them, let alone try to leave, I have met these couples in their own homes, and I was frightened by this myself.

Other than physical signs of violence on a woman's body, how the hell are the police to know if they are telling the truth about their partners violence or not?
Do you think the men are going to say, "yes that's right officer, I do want to kill this woman"? So they say they don't have enough evidence for a VRO, and the next thing you know the woman is dead. Do you think it is easy for the police?

How can you possibly say anyone at all is happy with a system where so many people are still being killed by their intimate partners?
I would suggest it isn't the feminists who are happy about it...

It seems to me that DV is a mental health issue and treating it as such would cost big bucks so the Government is happy to plod along with 'bandaid' solutions and keep the costs down even if it means that more people suffer.

There is a need for a holistic approach to understand and find solutions to DV, a holistic approach from the cause of the first argument and through to a DV case being heard in Court, and consequences beyond.

For example there could be an 'Apprehended Future Violence Order' to help prevent physical and psychological abuse and violence in the future.

It is abuse that usually leads to violence.

Bullying involves abuse and can lead to violence even among school children.

I think rape has severe penalty, in part to help prevent the long term psychological impact of rape occurring.

DV does not just stop when the domestic situation ceases.

Definition of the D and the V needs holistic consideration. The V is not just about a bruise or drawing blood.

Joe and RObert,

"[fourth post]"

"Post limit is still going, I'm surprised."

You do realise that in the general section you get eight posts per 24 hours for each thread - as long as you don't go over the maximum for the section in that time.

It's only in the articles section that you're limited to 4 posts in 24 hours.

RObert,

I see you've gushed forth in your usual fashion....still 75 women dead this year due to DV.

So posting figures such as:

"Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)

...should show up in the statistics re deaths....it doesn't.

But maybe:

"Range of findings due to variety of samples and operational definitions of PV"

So it's all a bit willy-nilly?

@Poirot cc @RObert

"Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)

...should show up in the statistics re deaths....it doesn't."

I'm baffled as to whether you've applied poor logic or female logic?

Roscop,

"I'm baffled as to whether you've applied poor logic or female logic?"

ROFL!

Look, matey....it's obvious that you don't bother to disguise your misogyny...so your stuff just makes me laugh.

Perhaps RObert's figures should have included a section where victims were requested to provide evidence that their beatings were more than "very soft" - and you could be the adjudicator!

After all, we glean (from the likes of you) that "very soft beatings" should never be permitted to be classified as DV.

I await your next hilarious/sexist comment.

Is Mise, "It seems to me that DV is a mental health issue and treating it as such would cost big bucks so the Government is happy to plod along with 'bandaid' solutions and keep the costs down even if it means that more people suffer"

If we are talking about deaths, and the educated middle class women whose careers come from riding the feminist bandwagon are spinning all female murders as directly attributable to 'men' (the flawed 'Patriarchy' paradigm) which is a lie, the truth is that Australia should be proud to have a murder rate and 'domestic' murder rate that are infinitesimally small compared with other countries and trending ever downwards since the early Nineties (before John Howard's 'gun grab' $1.5billion fraud).

Even one murder is horrendous. However, murder will never be eradicated entirely. The only real deterrents have to do with culture and tradition (our inherited traditions and culture that oddly the self-loathing leftists despise) and importantly, the knowledge of potential offenders that they WILL be caught and convicted (where Australian policing does well despite poor public support in some quarters, the Greens and leftists especially).

The dangers for Australia where serious violence and 'DV' are concerned are:

- firstly, that indiscriminate 'diversity' in immigration continually supplies more and more migrants who import toxic toxic political systems, traditions and culture (remember Rotherham, UK); and,

- secondly, the scourge of binge drinking and recreational drugs. Both are implicated for youth offenders and victims. Youth and violence and 'DV' are linked and relatively young adults are a large rump of 'DV' offenders and victims, including resulting in death.

It is interesting that the Palaszczuk Labor government had as its first priority to 'deep six' the successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013. Also that the Palaszczuk Labor government is now being accused of not really wanting to fulfill its promise to control early am drinking that is implicated in violence and 'DV' of course.

It is Money and Power - ruthless, cynical politics, including nasties like donations+lobbyists, political pragmatism and the quest to win marginal seats that affect policy.

From Poirot in answer to Roscop:

"After all, we glean (from the likes of you) that "very soft beatings" should never be permitted to be classified as DV."

Right, Poirot, calling a physical assault of any severity level domestic violence is simplistic. These are the things that SHOULD be classed as DV:

# Nagging.
# Abuse.
# Receiving a favourable Family Court result.
# Obaining a restraining order.
# Wilful disobedience.
# Anything else that can deflect from focusing on actual violence (y'know, the simplistic stuff -- assault, bashing and killing and that).

I really mean this. Dinkum. I'm not being sarcastic and letting my "side" down in the diversionary gender wars.

Suseonline asks: "Have you got any other ideas how really vulnerable women can be kept safe from really violent criminal men?"

Ever thought of locking the scumbags up? Or does that divert from the really important things like arguing gender culpability stastistics and saving costly prison space for druggies and swindlers?

Oh drat. Am I being simplistic again? Protecting victims and stuff?

EmperorJulian,

As you probably know, at a sub-national level it is the Northern Territory - the claimed gem of multiculturalism where endless diversity is 'embraced' - with its high violence and crime rates that stands out as the enduring blemish on Australia's enviable record of having some of the lowest murder and 'DV' rates worldwide.

If the map of violence and 'DV' were magnified further, there would be the higher violence, higher 'DV' streets and 'burbs in town and cities that the police know and visit often, that would pop up.

Now I happen to agree with you that those who engage in serious threats and violence should be locked up. The police want to do that. However in the case of the most common and repeat offenders in the NT (taking that example) every rationalisation, every excuse possible, is put up and the offenders are out in a trice to molest, rape and beat again. Apparently is our 'Whitey' fault that some 'Indigenous'* 'warrior' has busted a bottle over a woman's head. Or equally likely, used the modern Nulla Nulla, a length of steel star picket.

*sic, the proud, respectable, law-abiding Aborigines despise that word and the Progressives' infantilising paternalism and false victimhood that go with it.

To be very blunt, it is Cultural Marxism and the political correctness of extreme 'multiculturalism' that protect so many offenders and in doing so ensure more victims and no change, no counselling and no timely interventions that might save children and youth from following the same path.

EmporerJulian, of course they should be locked up, but when?
If a woman tells police or courts she is frightened for her life, but they have no proof, and tell her to take out an AVO, then he kills her anyway, what was the point of the AVO?
Some of the guys on this forum echo the feelings of some blokes in the wider community...that is that she must have asked for it, or done something/said something to make him bash/kill her, so what does she expect?

On the each is now trying to derail the whole DV issue by blaming multiculturalism.
Indigenous women are indeed the most vulnerable in the country re DV, However, they still make up only a small number of those women killed by their intimate partners.

Onthebeach states the NT is dragging the DV statistics up, but it doesn't show this on the 2014 violence statistics put out by the ABS on 23/9/15:

"Females Majority of Family And Domestic Violence-Related2 Assault Victims (Experimental Statistics)

For victims of family and domestic violence-related2 assault4, there were:

Four times as many female victims (4,534) as male victims (1,157) in South Australia;
Four times as many female victims (3,482) as male victims (807) in the Northern Territory;
Three times as many female victims (10,648) as male victims (3,860) in Western Australia;
Three times as many female victims (465) as male victims (145) in Australian Capital Territory; and
Twice as many female victims (19,488) as male victims (9,261) in New South Wales. "

Suseonline, "Onthebeach states the NT is dragging the DV statistics up, but it doesn't show this on the 2014 violence statistics put out by the ABS on 23/9/15"

You don't understand. I am talking about rates, not annual statistics that can in any event be misleading.

My source is the UNODC Global Study Homicide 2013. See here,

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

A number of points I'll try and address.
EmperorJulian has made the point about the difference between actual physical violence and other behaviours that get included under the broader banner of DV/domestic abuse.

I'm not a great believer in the sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me view of abuse but would like to see things being a lot clearer about just what a claim means. Too often definitions get quietly expanded to make a problem appear more severe than it is.

"Some of the guys on this forum echo the feelings of some blokes in the wider community...that is that she must have asked for it, or done something/said something to make him bash/kill her, so what does she expect?" I think that's an attempted misrepresentation. What I think and hope is being expressed is an acceptance that peoples own choices can contribute to creating a situation that might not otherwise have occurred. That does not provide an endorsement for the resulting response if it's violent. The concept of provocation is pretty widely accepted in law and certainly plenty of instances of it in the response to women who kill allegedly abusive spouses. The family law and child support systems are so brutal in some situations and so drawn out in their impacts that it's almost a given that some will strike back with the only thing they feel they have left. That does not make it an acceptable decision but it's a reality of human experience.

TBC
R0bert

Fascinating that I'm seeing an add on this thread with a woman half bent over a car in a pair of shorts (and I use the term lightly:) revealing half her bottom (and leaving not a great deal to the imagination) pointed straight at the viewer...with the words:

"15 second testosterone trick"

These adds are usually tailored to the thread.

Lol!.... we've come a long way (not)

Suseonline posted some numbers under the heading ""Females Majority of Family And Domestic Violence-Related2 Assault Victims (Experimental Statistics)"
A couple of points from that. Those proportions certainly don't reflect the attention paid to male victims in the past nor the resources available to them. If true they demonstrate that the numbers of male victims are large enough that some attention should be paid to them.

There are also a lot of reasons which have been covered regularly on OLO and in the papers I've referenced previously that demonstrate that under the current climate surrounding DV males are far less likely to report DV by a female partner.

Part of the need to get public policy to deal with all DV is to make it safer for seek help. Given the volume of quality research demonstrating that DV is not substantially gendered all those stats Suseonline posed really demonstrate is the difficulty men face reporting DV against them.

Poirot also posted "Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)

...should show up in the statistics re deaths....it doesn't."

I don't don't think the answers are clear on that. I have some theories but have not seen enough research into the extreme end of the violence spectrum to be confident. Clearly I think the extremes of family law and child support systems contribute. I think that outside the family men are more likely to be involved in very high level violence than women and that there are some men who don't embrace the responsibility of family protector that most do. I'd like to see some not agenda research to try to understand what drives the extreme end of the spectrum to reduce it. The killing of another person is such an extreme event that extrapolating numbers from lower level behaviours is in my view not a valid approach.

R0bert

"Of course they should be locked up, but when?" asks Suseonline before reverting to a comfort zone of discussing gender culpability stats rather than how to secure safety for domestic violence victims this side of Godot's appearance (and the victim's maiming or death).

To arrive at when to lock bashers up, be guided by the legal definitions of assault. If he bashes her with his fist, or if she bashes him on the head with a frying pan or a rolling bin, that's violence. If "DV" stats list non-violent disputes as violence, junk them. No assault means no violence even when there's abuse.

OK, so to pursue DV pursue the actual crime of assault. Prosecute it in court as vigorously if it's partner assault as it is if it's not.

Now here's the tricky bit if society is to go to war against domestic violence, i.e. against the violent criminals. Legislate to make it impossible for judges and magistrates and parole boards to throw the victims under the bus. Set legislated minimum sentences that mean incarceration long enough for the victim to be free of tyranny for good. It takes some team effort to figure out the drafting, but it's not rocket science.

You're a clever guy Julian.

"Set legislated minimum sentences that mean incarceration long enough for the victim to be free of tyranny for good."

What are you suggesting?...two or three life sentences without parole, for first offense?

"If "DV" stats list non-violent disputes as violence, junk them."

Give us a break Jules. Huge sums of taxpayer dollars have been spent by femocrats and the DV industry assiduously refining the definition of domestic violence so that it covers every imaginable behaviour which displeases a woman. Turning around and junking all that work would also lead to the ruination of beautiful sets of numbers that had previously been used to get pollies to throw money their way. Women who had been on big fat salaries and enjoyed the delights of making a life for themselves on the world domestic violence conference circuit/at DV inquiries etc would cease to have purpose. Anyway just something else to think about.

Roscop,

"Give us a break Jules. Huge sums of taxpayer dollars have been spent by femocrats and the DV industry assiduously refining the definition of domestic violence so that it covers every imaginable behaviour which displeases a woman...."

Says the guy who set about "refining" my tale of my mother's experiences by inquiring if when had any evidence to show the beatings were "more than very soft".

It's fascinating that for a period, and spanning more than half a century, that women have had legal recourse to escape what essentially had been their lot to endure for most of human history.

That troglodytes like Roscop refer to women attempting to protect themselves and their children as "femocrats and the DV industry" displays outright contempt for DV victims.

I don't for a moment consider that the likes of Roscop, judging by his pure scorn, gives two hoots about female victims - or is in any way interested in an holistic approach to domestic violence.

Poirot can you see the appalling ethical standards adopted by the those referred to in the following passages written by a woman:

"Campaigns such as Destroy the Joint’s Counting Women project insist on making domestic violence a gender issue. It claims 66 women are victims this year, with the implication these are all “intimate partner” homicides, perpetrated by males.

In fact, only about half of the homicides cited could be classified as having a male partner or ex-partner identified as the killer.

Some of the 66 victims were killed by women, by sisters, daughters, a female neighbour or, in one case, a female ex-lover of the victim’s husband, as well as by brothers, fathers, and sons, strangers, acquaintances and persons unknown.

Domestic violence is a serious enough without exaggerating.

The activists cherrypick facts to support their dogma, rather than using statistics to better target scarce resources to help the most vulnerable victims, and to address the root causes of domestic violence."

"But these are not facts the man-bashing femi-fascists who control the domestic violence industry want to hear."

So that's the work of the people you are making out are of high virtue in protecting women and their children.

MGTOW level 1 looks better every day.

Roscop,

Lol!...Miranda Devine - the well known Murdoch hack and hysterical right-wing zealot!"

The fanatical ranter who terms female DV victims as "unsuitable"?

The waffler who spurts forth "femi-fascist!" whenever she sneezes?

"But these are not facts the man-bashing femi-fascists who control the domestic violence industry want to hear."

Straight from the rancid pen of Miranda Devine - the woman-bashing, mascu-fascist, attention seeking, domestic violence troll.

Next....

There are more women than men graduating from Western universities. Biological science and social sciences, and psychology straddles both, have been inundated with women undergraduates, post graduates, lecturers and professors for many years, employment in the relevant fields reflects that trend,

BUT,

it takes a woman journalist, Miranda Devine, to courageously stand up and point the finger at some of the deliberate lies that pervade and become 'truths' through frequent repeating in the media. Half-truths and outright lies, 'factoids' to support a feminist paradigm that embarrasses young women and is only spruiked by educated middle class white already entitled women who have been riding the gravy train for their whole career and NGOs with a vested interest too in sucking from the guvvy teat.

A Prime Minister, who if he hasn't been given poor briefing, is cynically toeing the line of feminist political correctness. Either way Turnbull is very casual with 10 million of taxpayers dollars. It is not his money, so any amount is cheap to buy support, or at least less criticism, from the 'Progressive' ABC and other taxpayer paid for lobbyists.

Either way, it is NO good for public policy and the real victims, for instance indigenous, will see no improvement. The money will be extracted by the bureaucratic, legal and NGOs, all fleas on fleas and precious little if any will ever translate into timely, practical, necessary interventions and counselling at the grass roots, where tye cycle of violence needs to be broken.

Now, will some real scientists step forward to assist psychology and the social sciences and the university schools that seem to have forever lost their way and are producing so much sloppy, junk research and reports to win more research dollars?

To think that psychology presumes to call itself a science.

Roscop, "Give us a break Jules. Huge sums of taxpayer dollars have been spent by femocrats and the DV industry assiduously refining the definition of domestic violence so that it covers every imaginable behaviour which displeases a woman...."

Why is that addressed to me? I will never seek refining the meaning of violence to be anything other than violence, which means assault and which is precisely defined in legislation all over Australia. On this thread it's mainly the basher lobby that is busy refining the definition of violence beyond assault to refer to non-violent behaviour which displeases a basher enough provoke a bashing. Check the posts!

Some basher lobbyists are pleading that it is wrong to imprison a basher for too long.

OK, how about legislating that any judge, magistrate or parole board do-gooder, whose decisions cause a basher’s release to facilitate further bashing, is to be personally liable for financially crippling damages?

Nup, wouldn’t do? The bottom line for the basher lobby is to allow bashers to be at large where they can go on bashing.

Jules,

"Check the posts!" If you can't point me to the specific statements you are referring to, I'm not going to bother.

I don't know what other posters think, but to me most of what you say is a whole lot of gibberish especially when you keep on talking about this self-coined phrase "basher lobby"...not a clue what you're talking about there.

Roscop: The language is English.

# To bash is to inflict physical harm by administering blows.
# Bashers are those who bash.
# A basher lobby is people who persistently advocate leaving or setting bashers free to assault their targets.
# Such advocates for bashers may wriggle out of being seen to advocate freedom to bash, by brushing aside any proposals for denying bashers freedom to bash as "gibberish".

What part of my proposals is too hard to follow? The vocabulary? The sentence construction? The internal logic?

Or the outcome - that anything that denies bashers the freedom to bash is too unpalatable to comprehend?

Domestic violence surely includes threat to commit violence, because I think under the same Act AVO's are issued in advance.

Domestic violence surely has to include verbal abuse that drives the victim to kill themselves.

What difference is there from a hit on the head or suicide, dead anyway.

JF: "Domestic violence surely has to include verbal abuse that drives the victim to kill themselves."

One can't be convicted of verbal abuse in a court. It's not an offence under any Crimes Act. Shifting the definition of violence to something that is not actual violence is just another copout to protect bashers' uinimpeded power to get to their partners and bash them.

Actual violence - assault - is an indictabe offence. The way to stop the continued violence (real violence, not mere insubordination) is to reform the penalties to tie the bashers' hands and set the victims free. I hope the number of people in the wider community who want bashers free to bash (i.e. at large) doesn't reflect the proportion in this tiny thread. If it does, efforts to tackle DV are a lost cause.

.....Actual violence - assault - is an indictabe offence

Apparently not EJ, did you not see that young thug on the sunny coast get off because the judge for some obscure reason chose not to view the incriminating video evidence.

Our judiciary system has become somewhat of a lottery and can hardly be relied upon as a deterrent with regards to domestic violence offenders.

As I've said all along, identify the issues, then channel funds towards them because until then we are simply throwing money at the symptoms rather than the causes.

I have seen first hand how ridiculous the system is and I have to wonder how many times the police say the words like 'here we go again' when the call comes out from yet another repeat DV victim.

Bravo! Rehctub has hit the nail on the head, identifying the reason why the law is not protecting victims from domestic violence:

"Our judiciary system has become somewhat of a lottery and can hardly be relied upon as a deterrent with regards to domestic violence offenders."

Now that DV is at last part of a national conversation, let society govern the law through parliament instead of leaving DV victims at the mercy of basher-friendly judges, magistrates and prosecutors, to say nothing of callous psychobabblers on parole boards.

There needs to be an impetus to setting minimum time actually served for each level of defined assault - say seven years for common domestic assault to 15 years for ABH, 25 for manslaughter, and life meaning life for murder.

Drastic escalation for repeat offences. Release at end of sentence be decided by the Justice Minister, any basher leanings constrained by personal liability for heavy financial damages if the scumbag reoffends after release.

To satisfy the bean counters, radically slash prison sentences for non-violent crimes.

@Emperor Julian, "One can't be convicted of verbal abuse in a court."

I think swearing at police can lead to a conviction in court.

It is verbal abuse that leads to violence in a domestic partnership and to long term recrimination by an ex partner.

Law can be amended.

Surely law can be amended to include issue of a warning to stop domestic verbal abuse, such as an AVO, and penalty for ignoring such warning, as with an AVO intended to prevent violence.

Surely prevention is best.

Proving assault with bodily harm and drafting laws to set minimum gaol time for it is not rocket science.

Drafting laws to set workable criteria for proving verbal abuse behind closed doors really IS rocket science.

I hope JF's proposal isn't a delaying mechanism to oblige victims to remain at the mercy of bashers while think tanks are interminably grappling with the problem of proving "she said" vs "he said" scenarios that take place inside the home and leave no visible evidence.

Locking the bashers away from access their victims really IS prevention. Relief for the victims should not wait for ineffective marriage counselling measures directed to persuading bashers that they should deal with their "anger problems".

It can be argued that intervention orders in some cases, such as the Batty case and the one referenced herein, incite violence ie they have the opposite effect of their intended purpose.

"The horrific killing of a 23-year-old Melbourne woman was a "shocking case" of family violence by a"...cuckolded... "man determined to get his revenge on his wife, a coroner has found."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-30/sargun-ragi-death-highlights-failures-of-police-coroner-finds/6898726

The deeply flawed feminist 'Patriarchy' paradigm treats all DV offenders as men and all the same, homogeneous in all respects.

Yet quite obviously offenders differ markedly. For example, there are some whose violence is directed at others as well as at their victims indoors, while others reportedly restrict their violence to the home.

Again, some and maybe most, offend through non-physical assaults on their family members, through verbal and manipulative means, even restricting the other party's interpersonal contacts.

Why then do the feds go along with the feminists' bullying and domination when it is apparent from any real science that there are categories of offenders? Why is sloppy social research allowed to advise policy? - Especially where it so obvious that the millions of taxpayers' $$ allocated annually over decades has, even according to the feminists themselves, achieved Sweet Fanny Adams and the problems in the most affected groups, for instance indigenous in the Northern Territory, continue unabated?

It is cynical vote buying that is the problem.

"It can be argued that intervention orders in some cases, such as the Batty case and the one referenced herein [1], incite violence ie they have the opposite effect of their intended purpose."

The basher lobby, abetted by gender-obsessed femmos with whom they endlessly debate identity issues, will relentlessly duck confronting the one common factor in all acts of domestic violence – the basher, be it Greg Anderson or Avjit Singh or some mythical ‘Er Indoors, has had access to a victim because of not being securely locked up.

This avoidance of confronting the scumbags whose violence IS DV takes many forms such as shifting to supposed “causes” being anything except actually committing it, running all the way back to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, stats about this gender or that gender, or rebadging non-violent behaviour as “violence” – all to avoid focusing on the violent criminals themselves.

Marriage counselling has not made victims safe from bashers, but locking the bashers up surely has – until PC fools release them.

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-30/sargun-ragi-death-highlights-failures-of-police-coroner-finds/6898726

EmperorJulian,

So here we go again:

" ...the basher, be it Greg Anderson or Avjit Singh or some mythical ‘Er Indoors, has had access to a victim because of not being securely locked up."

If those of the ilk of those mentioned have no convictions for an offense having being committed, on what legal basis do you have people locked up? Just because an autocratic emperor wishes that? If you think we should return to the dark ages...just say it.

Emperor Julian,

"The basher lobby, abetted by gender-obsessed femmos with whom they endlessly debate identity issues...."

Are you intending to add anything "practically" useful to this conversation?

I'm kinda fascinated by your penchant to call people names, while you merrily side-step any real detail in your plan to lock up people en masse.

Can you supply some detail as to how that would work and and how it will be financed?

For instance, how many jails will need to be built in each suburb to hold the hordes?

Will these jails be a short term solution once everybody who commits physical violence learns from their incarceration?

Will these jails be put to other use once the "bashers" are convinced of the error of their ways and decide not to re-offend - or are the "bashers" set to be banged-up indefinitely?

Any detail on preventative strategy or rehabilitation - any insight into how it might be possible in a first world country in 2015 to address the age old problem of domestic violence out there in the suburbs?

Apart from calling people "bashers" and "gender obsessed femmos"?

Practical details

V (the victim) is assaulted by B (the basher).
Someone calls the police.
Police take statements, record evidence such as visible injuries.
If the complaint stacks up, police charge B with a suitable category of assault.
Charge is handled by a DPP, who pursues it in court.
If B is not convicted s/he walks
If B is convicted s/he is soon returned to take it out on V.
Meanwhile patriarchs and femmos boringly debate statistics based on murder of the English language (rebadging all sorts of non-violent behaviour as “domestic violence”) behaviour) to feed claims about which gender stereotype is responsible for the most “violence”. “Findings” are triumphantly published by the “sides”. Nobody but the gender warriors reads them.
[All this happens already]

Now here’s what doesn’t happen but should...
If B is convicted s/he cops a sentence at or above a legislated minimum incarceration adequate to free V of his/her access to her/him for many years.

To make room for them, gaols are emptied of all people imprisoned for non-violent infringements, who should never be subjected to the violence of forcible incarceration.

Compre, Poirot?

I well remember when Michael Diamond had a DVO taken out against him for violence; Australia seemed destined to miss out on a sure Gold Medal in the trapshooting, happily the matter was quickly resolved and Australia kept up its medal tally.

"To make room for them, gaols are emptied of all people imprisoned for non-violent infringements, who should never be subjected to the violence of forcible incarceration.

Compre, Poirot?"

Oh, so your grand plan is to empty the jails?

Who's going to be the arbiter of who stays and who is released?

It all sounds quite simple when you put it like that - I take it you're ahead on the calculations on the kind of jail space you'd need to implement your plan being that the "bashers" are obviously in for far longer than those banged-up for infringements?

Talking of murdering the English language - what's a "femmo"?

“Who's going to be the arbiter of who stays and who is released?”

Society, through legislation.

Let me tell you a story about grossly unjust imprisonment.

Some years ago in WA a scumbag stomped a slightly built taxi driver to death in a gutter. The reason he gave: “I don’t like Chinks”. His sentence was only a couple of years, but in the event he was released after 10 months and given a new name. Outrage in the community was massive. Around the same time a woman committed a non-violent offence, swindling investors in her businesses. Seventeen years! From what I’ve observed of people as an ordinary bloke, probably no more than Poirot will have observed, there is something most Australians would find objectionable about this sort of disparity in treatment of a violent and non-violent offender.

Have you ever wondered why there is such a disproportionate imprisonment rate for Aboriginal offenders? I suggest it is related to many repeated non-violent offences that have swept young Aborigines into the penal system. Get them out! Gaol is the proper place for violent criminals only.

I suggest that instead of witch hunts into political opponents like Rudd, Gillard and Shorten, an Australian government should be mounting an exhaustive Royal Commission into the criminal justice system so that only violent offenders get imprisoned and suitable non-custodial sanctions are applied for non-violent offences. This would take care of the initial (and probably final) wave of DV offenders. Even the first wave would have shrunk considerably if the anti-DV laws were well publicised in advance.

Femmos? Australian slang (cf journos, ambos, Commos) for feminists – people who artificially strip issues down to a brand of identity politics [1] based on the female gender.

[1] http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/identity-politics-has-created-an-army-of-vicious-narcissists/

I can't say I disagree with anything in your last post, Emperor Julian.

Australians have been finding that kind of unfair sentencing lamentable for years.

I suppose my posts were my way of saying - "Good Luck with that, because you'll need it".

No Emperor Julian, I remain confused re your ideas outlined above.
What level of violence should lead to B being jailed for what number of years, so V is free of him/her coming back for more?

I would suggest that if B is jailed for several years he/she may well still be upset with V, and get out of jail and bash them anyway?
So what to do?

Obviously all people who commit serious assault on others should be jailed.
However, rather than expensively filling jails with all domestic violence offenders of all classes, surely there must another way?

Suseonline the part that scares me more in that scenario is insufficient evidence to jail B. B is still upset because of the close call with a long jail sentence but no safe time for V .

Then we get the pressure to further reduce the burden of proof and give into it then V gets sent to jail because B is a psychopath and quite a convincing liar.

I suspect it will if anything make it more difficult for V's to report actual violence by B's. Family situations tend to have quite different dynamics to general crime.

I do agree with the point Julian makes though about the frustration with a legal system that seems to let some seriously dangerous people off with very light sentences.

R0bert

I totally agree with your post RObert.
I feel sad about the fact there will probably never be any real answers to stop domestic violence, and more people will die.

Re RObert, Suseonline and Poirot

I agree about the risk if a complaint against a basher fails to lead to a conviction and the enraged basher is free to take it out on the victim. I would suggest fallback AVOs with the very low level of proof (since they’re not criminal convictions) that they have now, but breach of the AVO conditions leading to automatic extremely long term imprisonment. It's one of the many issues involved in stopping the violence by stopping the violent, and requires attention of expert planning groups arising from a Royal Commission.

Unfortunately there is NO way the violence can be stopped by measures which fall short of reliably walling off the bashers. Thank you Poirot for wishing me luck in seeing some serious reform take place in that direction but I'm not the one who needs the good luck, it's the unfortunate victims living on constant tenterhooks because some bullying piece of filth may erupt into violence at any time without warning.

One thing history has taught us for millennia: appeasement leads inevitably to disastrous failure.

Suseonline "I feel sad about the fact there will probably never be any real answers to stop domestic violence, and more people will die." - agreed. A whole range of crimes have been outlawed throughout most of human history and are still with us. I do think though that we can reduce the incidence of those crimes including DV even if we can't eliminate them.

I tend to an assumption that a significant proportion of the worst abusers are going to be narcissists, psychopaths or similar.

People who are often very good at playing the system and people to get their own way so anything we do needs to be considered in the light of handing them yet another weapon. It's always a juggling act between protecting victims from actual abusers and ensuring that the state is not actually aiding the abuser with tools. I also run with an assumption that the government rarely does intervention well.

AVO's with minimal proof may play a role as long as corresponding steps are taken to ensure they don't become a weapon in the hands of an abuser and that they don't in any way penalise the person they are taken out against.

TBC

R0bert

Some bullet points to illustrate the problem of AVO's taken out with very low levels of proof).

- How do we find a balance between protecting children from an abuser subject to an AVO and stopping an AVO taken out with a very low standard of proof being used to isolate an innocent parent from their children?
- Who is responsible for finding and funding suitable accommodation for the subject of an AVO (taken out with a very low level of proof)?
- Will both parties still have access to joint bank accounts and if so how do we stop one party taking actions to place the other at a serious disadvantage? It can take a while to rearrange finances especially if loans and periodic payments are involved.
- Will the AVO impact on future family law matters (child residency, property settlement etc)?
- Would we still expect/demand that people in certain occupations be stood down/sacked on the basis of an AVO being taken out against them?
- What can we do to ensure that subject of the AVO still has access to material for their hobbies or other interests remembering that the AVO is given with a very low standard of proof and may stand for some time. Some stuff can't be abandoned for months and adding the loss of access to loved recreation to what's already a very stressful time is not good for mental health.

R0bert

The evidence suggests that there is no one type of offender as 'informed' by feminist thought bubbles - ie that boys and men and all somewhere on a continuum of discrimination and violence against girls and women.

Bluntly, the prevailing feminist mantras driving government policy are deeply flawed. That wastes resources, frustrating competent risk analysis and measured, robust treatments of those risks.

That the problem is presented as being black and white, that it is men dominating, controlling and killing women, reduced to men being at fault for all that is bad and harmful in the world, is the powerful Hegelian Paradigm at work.

Political parties know that, but they over-use the same psychological tool to manipulate opinion.

There are no statesmen in the federal parliament, just more and more career politicians, yes men and women, who are putting their own futures first.

Returning to the 'solution' of AVOs, the reason why some here doubt that AVOs might ever be successful in deterring violent offenders is obvious. However that requires that we put the person NOT gender first when considering the motivation and the crime. Of course there are people who are NOT put off by laws, AVOs and gaol.

While populist politicians pretend they always have 'remedies' and those remedies are always more redundant laws and limitations on freedom generally, they know and the public should realise that these offenders are determined and not put off by laws.

There is something fundamentally deficient, plain wrong, with how the debate about 'domestic violence' has been and is being framed. Nothing will progress, there will be no lasting improvement for indigenous and other severely affected groups until the Hegelian Paradigm that serves the power and pecuniary interests of vested interests, the bureaucrats, professionals and NGOs with such a stake in the present failed system, is challenged and dispelled. That in turn will only be possible where competent and ethical researchers and scientists finally speak up against sloppy and in some cases outright fraudulent research.

It is obviously foolish to believe that 'DV' offenders are a homogenous group, so why buy it?

R0bert’s bullet points are all relevant to AVOs issued under conditions obtaining today and already need to be addressed where the process creates real injustice. One thought – if violent criminals were locked out of their victims’ harm’s way, shelters now used for bash victims could serve instead as temporary accommodation for AVO recipients barred from the family home.

Under a regime in which convicted bashers are gaoled for at least the time their victims’ freedom requires their absence, AVOs would be an issue only if their defence lawyers got them off. Thus effective anti-basher laws must require that assault trials are confined strictly to evidence and argument relevant to the question “Did the defendant assault the alleged victim or not?” The only acceptable evidence that could mitigate the assault would be that the defendant had already been criminally assaulted by the victim. Barristers who deviate from that and yammer on about other issues (as some basher apologists on this thread do but this is not a court case) are committing contempt of court and should be struck off the rolls.

The most drastic AVO I’ve seen was in the 1950s when a murderer of his partner’s son, a scumbag called Moller, was paroled after 25 years or so on condition that he moved to the Eastern States. Dunno who was treated the more harshly – Moller or the citizens of the Eastern States. As an immigrant from the East my sympathies were with the T’othersiders.

I take OTB’s point that DV offenders are not a homogeneous bunch. But if the V really stands for violence they all have two features in common: they bash and they’re at large.

EmperorJulian,

Tks, as you know I am not disagreeing you on the point you make.

It is worth remembering though that the AVO is no deterrent to the violent who seriously harm, even kill. It would be another charge, that is about it.

So, when it all comes down to risks and treatment of those risks and the risks are not solely affecting and limited to the person making the allegation (RObert's point that the AVO is a common weapon in Family Law disputes), I am yet to be convinced that AVOs have a place. Not arguing against them, just considering all risks and remedies.

I'm not sure about the difference between an AVO and. DVO but I do know it is very simple for a woman to obtain a DVO, not sure about a man. I say this because I have witnessed such an occurrence against a man with a good heart, and that would nit hurt a fly.

In my position, as a registered gun owner, having a DVO taken out against me would mean loosing my right to my guns. This may seem harmful, but I believe once the DVO is lifted, getting your guns/licence back can be a nightmare.

Two main things have to change if we are serious about tackling domestic violence, firstly, the ease of which a DVO can be obtained, and secondly, a shake up of our judicial system because atbthe moment it's a bit of a lottery, depending on which judge resides over the case, and I'm assuming what mood they are in at the time.

Quite simply, the system is broken and until we fix the system (which protects thugs and allows for manipulation of innocent people) all we are doing is throwing money away.

Whichever kind of XVO it is, legal and administrative review should remove all irrelevant penalties on people who haven't been convicted of anything. Guns are a problem though as the authorities would look pretty sick if a basher shot the subject of a restraining order. But certainly the officials should be required to get their fingers out the moment the order is lifted. The main reason Greg Anderson was at large to bash Luke Batty to death was that the officials responsible for arresting him on rock spider charges just couldn't have cared less and stuffed up the paperwork.

The court lottery could be ended by heavy legislated minimum penalties. Seven years for a restraining order violation would be a good lower-end start. I heard on the wireless this morning [1] that a top demand of the Charlesville community opposing domestic violence was for serious penalties for convicted offenders. I'd be amazed if that sentiment wasn't nationwide.

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4344086.htm

Emporer Julian

"The main reason Greg Anderson was at large to bash Luke Batty to death was that the officials responsible for arresting him on rock spider charges just couldn't have cared less and stuffed up the paperwork."

"He was facing charges related to the possession of child abuse images of young girls aged between 10 and 14." Obviously the images had the ages of the girls stamped all over them particularly the images of 14 yo maybe going on 15 yo girls. So even if he was convicted of such charges I think as a first offense conviction, you'd find he would have only received a very light sentence if precedence is anything to go by.

So what you call "rock spider charges" are almost immaterial to him being "at large to bash Luke Batty to death". From my understanding of the situation the conflict over the son had been going on circa the life of their son.

I would say more material to Luke Batty's death is the fact that Rosie Batty had been successful in obtaining a court order restricting Anderson to a humiliating presence at his sons weekend sporting events and little to no contact with his son over a seven week period including school holidays and the possible fear that the mother's real intention was to move to the UK for good.

Roscop my brother inlaw has been through precicely that, his x would request him to bring their daughter to netball, then she would abuse the crap out of him and make a huge scene in front of everyone as he had in fact, by bring the child, breached hid DVO.

While her team mates and other players saw her for what she is, the kids were being continually traumatized by this evilest of women. Even today she is qcomtinually harassing him and short of going to the courts (no money) he has no rights and, if he were a lunatic he may well resort to beating the crap out of her, if he did I would back his actions in any court as being the result of continual aggravation, and that's a huge call because I come from the side of 'you never hit a woman'.

This woman, I refer to as an evii bitch shaw does test that theory.

Roscop,

"I would say more material to Luke Batty's death is the fact that Rosie Batty had been successful in obtaining a court order restricting Anderson to a humiliating presence at his sons weekend sporting events and little to no contact with his son over a seven week period including school holidays ...."

Considering what this man did to his son, it appears that any restrictions on him were more than justified.

"....restricting Anderson to a humiliating presence at his sons weekend sporting events and little to no contact with his son over a seven week period including school holidays..."

How vicious does a man and his actions have to be before people like you cease to roll out excuses for his behaviour?

This animal beats his son to death - his actions - his choice...and you're blaming his wife for attempting protect their son from his savagery.

Sheesh!

There was what is suspected to be a murder-suicide on the Gold Coast yesterday. Another tragedy.

That's another aspect of Intimate Partner Homicide that not really been touched on in this thread (or most of OLO's online discussions).

The material is somewhat dated now but I found an interesting paper on research into murder suicide in Australia at http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi082.pdf

The killing on Karina Lock also on the Gold Coast was another murder suicide.

I'd like to find some more current material on that, between 1 July 1989 until 30 June 1996 6.5% of all homicides recorded in Australia were murder suicides mostly involving family.

R0bert

Poirot,

Are you saying the restrictions and long period of no contact with his son had nothing to do with the state of Anderson's emotions and mind at the time he murdered his son? I suppose from your point of view a man should be able to handle any amount of emotional abuse involving the relationship that is the most him important to him in his whole life and still keep his mind.

"... it appears that any restrictions on him were more than justified." Yes, the same ol argument that Suseonline attempted to employ.
Justified in what sense?...that the restrictions unsettled the father to such an extent they drove him to murder their son and commit "suicide by cop"?

Roscop, while I agree with what I think the broader point you are making is I do get very cautious about applying it to individual situations without really strong evidence. I've not seen anything that leaves me convinced that we know which part drove which in that particular case.

Was a fragile person driven round the twist by manipulation of systems put in place to protect people or were those protections insufficient to protect against someone already dangerous.

There are some very deep flaws in the system which I believe add strongly to some of the worst outcomes by pushing people and keeping on pushing them. There are also some dangerous creatures who need to be kept away from children, former partners etc.

Unless there are some very strong reasons to believe one over the other I think real caution needs to be shown in choosing either.

We do know that in the end of it an innocent child was killed, regardless of how it got to that point that's still a horrible tragedy.

R0bert

Roscop,

"Are you saying the restrictions and long period of no contact with his son had nothing to do with the state of Anderson's emotions and mind at the time he murdered his son?...."

You said it...he murdered his son - savagely.

Stop making excuses for him. If he was mad at his wife and his "emotions" were in a "state" - then why did he decide to take it out on the innocent party - viciously.

"....I suppose from your point of view a man should be able to handle any amount of emotional abuse involving the relationship that is the most him important to him in his whole life and still keep his mind."

You're a lost cause...now (according to you) a woman protecting her child is guilty of "emotional abuse".

You say that openly and in the full knowledge that the man she was protecting her child from eventually committed the most heinous crime towards that child.

I've already mentioned the men I know who were separated from their children...2 of them under restriction for a time. They didn't beat their children to death.

"..... the restrictions unsettled the father to such an extent they drove him to murder their son and commit "suicide by cop"?"

Nice try...excuses, excuses....NOTHING mitigates the premeditated decision by Anderson to savagely, and without mercy, beat his son to death.

No matter how much you seem to be intent in putting that case forward.

In fact, it's more than a little warped that you should keep up that spiel.

RObert,(and Roscop)

"Roscop, while I agree with what I think the broader point you are making is I do get very cautious about applying it to individual situations without really strong evidence. I've not seen anything that leaves me convinced that we know which part drove which in that particular case.

Was a fragile person driven round the twist by manipulation of systems put in place to protect people or were those protections insufficient to protect against someone already dangerous."

Let's put up another scenario - one in which Anderson was not killed and in which he now faces court.

How do you think he'd go using this defence?:

"I was emotionally abused. I was pushed by my wife and the system so much, and being such a fragile person, I was practically forced to make the decision to target my son and viciously beat him to death."

How do you think that defence would go before the courts or with the "men" and "women" out there in suburbia? They'd shake their heads in sheer incredulity after what he did..as I am at the two of you attempting to mitigate Anderson's particularly heinous actions.

Just to add that, yes, RObert, I understand that yo will protest that you were being "cautious" in your post and that I have unfairly included you in my rant.

As usual you came in sitting on the fence...but also as usual you supported Roscop's main thrust and put forward the proposition of fragility, etc"

"Was a fragile person driven round the twist by manipulation of systems put in place to protect people..."

As far as I'm concerned if it's good enough for you to include those kinds of points as representative of your views, it's good enough for me to rebut them.

I suggest normal people would consider the fact that Anderson bashed Luke Batty on the back of the head with a cricket bat and cut his throat was more material in the child's death than any excuses about the mother's non-violent behaviour which included co-operation with access, beyond what was strictly required, on the final day of the child's life.

I know it's simplistic in the eyes of gender warriors to say so, but normal people do have this prejudiced view that a violent bash on the head with a cricket bat followed by a slashed throat is likely to cause death.

Marital malfeasance runs back to the dawn of time, but only violent criminals **DO** domestic violence and they can do so only when they're at large.

Most MPs are normal people and would react positively to suggestions by constituents that combatting DV by targeting the violent criminals is the only route to a positive overall result before 2200. A few neighbours and I have alrady got together to write to our local Member Michael Keenan and to Mr Turnbull pointing this out.

Poirot

>"I was emotionally abused. I was pushed by my wife and the system so much, and being such a fragile person, I was practically forced to make the decision to target my son and viciously beat him to death."

>How do you think that defence would go before the courts or with the "men" and "women" out there in suburbia?

Not very well I'd suggest. No one would pay silk good money to put up a defence with such brevity and phrased in such a blatantly flippant manner. So your comment does nothing to advance the argument.

The tactics used by Poirot do get tiring. Pointing out to Roscop my concerns about assumptions in a particular case get recast by Poirot as "at the two of you attempting to mitigate Anderson's particularly heinous actions"

Hard to believe that is extremely poor comprehension, seems more likely to be a deliberate misrepresentation to divert attention from the point being made.

Seeing the possibility that issues are not all black and white is cast as sitting on the fence. If seeing that there can be more than one side to an issue is fence sitting then in my view it is by far the more honest place to sit rather than on the side doing everything possible to hamper any genuine attempts to discuss or understand the others POV.

I'll try another parallel although I pretty much expect that to be misrepresented (or turned into an attack to divert from the point). In the middle east I tend to a position that favors Israel over its neighbours seeing that for some Israels very existence is intolerable. I'm also able to see that a significant proportion of the attacks on Israilis are significantly contributed to by the treatment of Palestinians. I don't endorse the killing that goes on (especially of noncombatants) but can still see that an ongoing campaign if restrictions and retaliation that hits those not responsible for attacks on Israel contributes to the problem.

The same for a lot of issues. If that's fence sitting then I'd prefer that position to the pretence that its all the other aides fault.

R0bert

RObert,

"The tactics used by Poirot do get tiring. Pointing out to Roscop my concerns about assumptions in a particular case get recast by Poirot as "at the two of you attempting to mitigate Anderson's particularly heinous actions"

Hard to believe that is extremely poor comprehension, seems more likely to be a deliberate misrepresentation to divert attention from the point being made.

Seeing the possibility that issues are not all black and white is cast as sitting on the fence. If seeing that there can be more than one side to an issue is fence sitting then in my view it is by far the more honest place to sit rather than on the side doing everything possible to hamper any genuine attempts to discuss or understand the others POV."

Yes, but the discussion you purposely joined in this "particular case" was about Greg Anderson and the calculated and brutal murder of his son.

You immediately started waxing lyrical about possible "fragility" and "manipulation of systems".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-23/luke-batty-inquest-father-was-100-per-cent-bad/5835800

"Senior Constable Paul Topham told the inquest on Thursday he had "a large number" of conversations with Ms Batty in the year before Anderson killed Luke and was aware Anderson consistently failed to turn up to court hearings about their son."

""The first time I arrested him he became extremely aggressive and I took my OC spray out.

"He was in control of the situation... he was smart enough to shut it down before it got to the next level."

Anderson was never diagnosed with mental illness and Senior Constable Topham told the inquest he saw no signs of mental instability.

"Without a question in my mind, as we say, he was 100 per cent bad...not mad.

"His demeanour...he had no regards for authority whatsoever... whatever we did for this guy, he didn't care."

We were discussing Anderson when you arrived, you knew that, yet you thought it was good opportunity to add your usual line of argument -which is to introduce doubt and cite possible harassment by the system as a catalyst for any wrongdoing by a violent male.

For those not back checking on Poirots misrepresentation I'll point out that I joined in to point out to Roscop my concerns about making assumptions in a specific case without very good evidence. My point was very clear that while there is a valid point that pursuit through the courts can contribute to problems I don't think we know enough in this case to draw that conclusion.

Pretty much the exact opposite of the way Poirot has chosen to represent my position. Not the first time she has used that tactic either, I guess there is a hope there that others won't go back and rerad what was actually said. Useful for point scoring, not so good for honest contributions to a discussion.

R0bert

EmperorJulian :

“... but only violent criminals **DO** domestic violence and they can do so only when they're at large.”

You want to focus on the violent criminals who are at large but how can they be criminals before they are charged? Just because they are violent does not automatically make them a criminal unless the definition of a criminal is anyone who you personally decide is a criminal. That is why we have courts so that a judge or jury can decide against a more objective definition. You seem to convict them without the presumption of innocence. Are you advocating that we dismiss this fundamental principal of our society?

Or are you saying that most of those who are convicted as criminals remain at large? This would seem a problem with the justice system rather than a problem with domestic violence. So which of these two interpretations are we to make? Either we should just accept your definition of a criminal or your real problem is with the lack of appropriate incarceration for criminals.

It is hard to enter into a discussion with you if you are not clear about what you mean.

How can we stop domestic violence before it happens if we only focus on those who are criminals either by your definition or by the definition of the court? It is too late by then. Perhaps you do not really care about stopping domestic violence but are only interested in some kind of revenge?

Talking of "tactics", RObert...

Your own tactics are a case in point. Of all the generalities abounding on this subject in which your argument gains merit, why would you jump into a conversation about Greg Anderson and his brutal crime to further your already well-known viewpoint.

Anderson and his crime are an example of the worst of the worst. Reports from those who dealt with him show that he was uncooperative and aggressive - and in the end he committed a crime of the most brutal nature against an innocent child.

Here's how you put it now:

"My point was very clear that while there is a valid point that pursuit through the courts can contribute to problems I don't think we know enough in this case to draw that conclusion."

Here's the section of your original post to which I responded:

"Roscop, while I agree with what I think the broader point you are making is I do get very cautious about applying it to individual situations without really strong evidence. I've not seen anything that leaves me convinced that we know which part drove which in that particular case."

So there's a subtle shift in your meaning in your latter response - the first being far more open-ended in sprinkling doubt as to the catalyst to Anderson's grotesque actions - the second being a little more dismissive of system harassment for the motive:

1. ".... I've not seen anything that leaves me convinced that we know which part drove which in that particular case."

2. "....I don't think we know enough in this case to draw that conclusion."

If you wish to take me to task for my "tactics", then perhaps you should look at your own an ask why you are taken to task sometimes. It's all very well to appear to sit on the fence, but when you employ that stance in a discussion on the likes of Anderson's crime as a means to inject some nebulous "which part drove what" viewpoint, you come across as calculating and disingenuous

Poirot, like it or not, a contributing factor in many DV cases is the actions of a woman provoking a man.

Now if that man is known to have a violent temper, and notwithstanding the fact that she sticks around, I woukd say that while I don't think it's an excuse to bash her, she has contributed to the problem.

My own son told me he was at the 'beat' a gay bar in Brisbane and smacked a fag 'his words' because he grabbed his dick.

I said to him the the one punch rule could have seen him in jail and that how did he think his mother would have felt.

I also told him that he was part to blame for being there and he said he was with mates that were gay.

Your choice I said but don't put the fox with the hens then cry wolf. It's the same for many of these women I'm afraid. They know the man, yet they insist on taunting him.

Being right or wrong means nothing when you're dead.

rehctub,

"Your choice I said but don't put the fox with the hens then cry wolf. It's the same for many of these women I'm afraid. They know the man, yet they insist on taunting him."

Taunting him?

Using the courts and system to protect oneself and one's child in the case of Anderson (whom we're discussing) is taunting him?

So if that's "taunting" him, then Rosie Batty and the system which tried to protect him, ultimately carry the lion's share of the blame for Luke's violent death at the hands of his uncooperative and aggressive father?

Is that what you're saying?

I think (in the case of a man like Greg Anderson) that's complete and utter BS.

The wriggling to absolve bashers continues.

Phanto, whether a person has been charged or not, if he assaults someone he is a violent criminal. That's what being a violent criminal is. It's not based on my decision, it's based on his action and on what normal people, including even lawyers, know to be a crime. If he's charged and found guilty in a court he's a convicted violent criminal and has a violent criminal record.

Fortunately if the required lobbying is done the laws which already reecognise assault will be augmented to result in the perp being securely locked up and the victim freed from tyranny for a long time.

Phanto referred to a valid point within a comment to which I responded and I overlooked it- my apologies.

How can a victim be protected from a violent criminal before the criminal has been charged and convicted in a court?

This is a danger point remaining in a strategy of locking criminals up. It can't protect the victim from the first offence, which has already been committed before charges are laid. I can't think of anything that can, apart from restraining orders where there is enough cause shown to justify them.

Fortunately it is rare for the first offence to be a catastrophic assault occasioning serious bodily harm.

Poirot, of cause I'm not suggesting that and the Batty case is an isolated, highly publicized case.

The fact is that there are many contributors to domestic violence, and provoking by x partners, or even partners is just one such cause.

For anybody interested in Poirot's recasting of my posts I'd suggest a look at what I actually wrote. I think the difference between what I wrote and the way Poirot is recasting it is pretty evident. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7050#216400
I disagreed with the approach being taken by Roscop although agreeing with what I take to be the more general point he had been trying to make.

It's quite possible for most of us to agree in some points of an issue while disagreeing with other parts of what's being said and seek to address that. Some may be determined to present an immovable solidarity behind an ideological position that does not allow for differences or degree's. I don't ever want to be like that and I respected what I think Roscop was saying enough to assume that my comments would be taken in that spirit.

EmperorJulian another aspect to the lock them away until they no longer present a threat is the same risk that goes with very strong penalties for other less than murder crimes. The temptation to finish what's been started. Get rid of the witnesses, to make sure that if you are likely to do life for what's already happened that the other party won't be around to enjoy your absence. That's not a piece of logic I much like but it does make an unpleasant sense. If the strongest penalties are being used for something other than murder then murder becomes an easier stretch for some.

R0bert

RObert,

We all know that you were attempting to agree with Roscop in a sweeping fashion on the generalised subject of DV.

Roscop had just finished regaling us with myriad reasons of why Greg Anderson was practically "goaded" into the action of slaughtering his son...you had obviously been following his posts.

Here's a recap of Roscop's posts:

"I would say more material to Luke Batty's death is the fact that Rosie Batty had been successful in obtaining a court order restricting Anderson to a humiliating presence at his sons weekend sporting events and little to no contact with his son over a seven week period..."

"Are you saying the restrictions and long period of no contact with his son had nothing to do with the state of Anderson's emotions and mind at the time he murdered his son?..."

"......that the restrictions unsettled the father to such an extent they drove him to murder their son and commit "suicide by cop"?"

I realise you went in to make the point that he couldn't draw those conclusions on an individual case.

However, you appeared quite happy to reiterate his main thrust - in a conversation where we're dealing with the horrendous actions of Greg Anderson in the brutal murder of his son.

What I don't get is why you and Roscop were dancing around your general theme in regards to Anderson's crime....and that theme is that men are somehow "pushed" into things - in Anderson's case it was committing brutal and premeditated murder.

"When Batty dropped Luke off at cricket practice, Anderson was already there, having left his shared accommodation earlier in the day with all his belongings in a backpack, as well as a large knife."

"Ultimately, Anderson brought down the cricket bat over Luke’s head in a chopping motion, according to an eight-year-old witness, Ellyard said.

Anderson then retrieved the knife from his backpack and and stabbed Luke numerous times, including in the neck."

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/20/inquest-to-determine-if-luke-battys-killing

Those are the actions of brutal and aggressive man - not someone we should be using to highlight the imitations of the system.

Poirot,

>"Anderson was never diagnosed with mental illness and Senior Constable Topham told the inquest he saw no signs of mental instability.

>"Without a question in my mind, as we say, he was 100 per cent bad...not mad.

Two comments:

1. Do we know what qualifications SC Topham has in assessing mental illness?

On YouTube there is a video recorded, according to the timestamp on it, about a year before the terrible murder took place. In that video it shows a police interview with SC Topham asking Anderson in a forceful tone questions Anderson believes he doesn't have to respond to. To me as a lay person, although Anderson looks somewhat intimidating mainly because of his size and demeanor, his behaviour does not look like that of a well balanced person.

2. A persons mental state is not necessarily constant. It can deteriorate over time and sometimes rapidly. If you read the range of the material out there in the public domain ie magazine and newspaper articles, Batty's book and coroners report etc, there seems to be only one conclusion that can be drawn and that is that Anderson's life was in a steep downward spiral. Does anyone have a different opinion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZDXldjFPtA

Poirot,

You refer to this statement:

"Are you saying the restrictions and long period of no contact with his son had nothing to do with the state of Anderson's emotions and mind at the time he murdered his son?..."

"......that the restrictions unsettled the father to such an extent they drove him to murder their son and commit "suicide by cop"?"

(The last of the two quotes is taken out of context because it was preceded by a question.)

You then say to R0bert:

"I realise you went in to make the point that he couldn't draw those conclusions on an individual case."

I say why not?

This is what is said in a AWW article published earlier this year:

“At the end, Greg knew that Luke’s attitude to him was changing. He knew that Luke was starting to be embarrassed by his odd behaviour and he was starting to pull away from him”, says Rosie. Greg knew that I was winning. And so he killed Luke in a final act of victory. He won.”

And in the chronology accompanying the article this:

"February 8, 2014: Greg attends Luke's cricket match. Later that week, Greg phones to tell Luke he was ... upset that Luke had not contacted him on his return from the UK." (the words "Later that week..." do not make sense since according to my calendar "February 8, 2014" is the end of a week. Nonetheless that date is by my reckoning over 8 weeks after mother and son departed for the UK and only 4 days before the murder.)

So there you have it ...Rosie Batty's own words as published..."Greg knew I was winning". If Rosie Batty is not talking about the restrictions placed on Greg Anderson's access to his son, what on earth is she talking about?

So the basher lobby, desperate to forestall real curbs on perpetrators of domestic violence, is now entering new territory - blaming violent crime on LUNACY. Greg Anderson, poster boy for the most dogged defenders of domestic violence, was not shown to be a real criminal because the cop who witnessed his crime and described him as being in control of his actions wasn't a qualified psychobabbler.

It's been the victims that have "provoked it", it's been "the system", it's been "the nature of women", it's been "the nature of men", it's been Orwellian Newspeak assertions that violence isn't violence and non-violence is violence.

Yet the elephant remains stubbornly in the loungeroom. Violence is physical assault committed because violent criminals are free to do so.

Roscop,

"...If Rosie Batty is not talking about the restrictions placed on Greg Anderson's access to his son, what on earth is she talking about?"

Restrictions?

On Greg Anderson?

The Greg Anderson who had restrictions placed on him because he was considered a danger?

The Greg Anderson who ultimately proved the need for restriction by the actions of brutally clubbing and knifing his son to death?

That Greg Anderson?

(I haven't got time to address the rest of your nonsense - but I'll be back when I can)

Okay, perhaps we can all agree that domestic violence is multi-faceted, with multiple consequences, up to murder-suicide. It is very difficult to predict and prevent, but somehow that must be done.

If we need a holistic approach, and presumably a preventative approach, then how do we as a society go about implementing that ?

Clearly, spouses get on each others' nerves sometimes, sometimes often. Perhaps everybody involved needs somewhere, a neutral social area perhaps, to cool off, a supportive and non-judgemental group where they can talk out their frustrations, get things off their chest and go back home determined to give their life-partners more space and understanding.

I don't know that separate men's and women's groups would be needed. I don't know how they could be set up as 'groups' rather than a handful of individuals. But perhaps if both wives and husbands under stress could have someone to talk out their issues with, it might be a step forward.

At least, (I can't believe I'm writing this, but here goes) trained social workers could identify habitual tormenters, spouses who get a kick out of humiliating and subordinating their partner, spouses who need other treatment or at least watching, and perhaps leaving.

Just trying to get above the fray :)

Joe

Loudmouth, how does all this marriage counselling protect victims of actual assault when the basher decides to lash out after he's come home with a skinful? How does it prevent the next assault when the booze fuelled arrogance takes over again? And the next? How does it end the constant fear of violence? How does this marriage counselling aspproach (which hasn't ended DV yet) prevent the talk sessions degenerating rapidly into he-said she-said contests?

Maybe the technology shown at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/offender-anklet-monitoring-system-reviewed-for-tasmania/6915704 may have a role, but if any real headway agaiinst DV is to be achieved that way then there must be a requirement that if any basher bypasses the technology in some way then it's "Go to gaol, go directly to gaol, do not pass GO, do not collect $200" And stay there. For many years.

Scumbags stand over their victims with fists and other assault weapons, and any "solution" focused on massaging their angst is back to business-as-usual and no progress against those who commit DV culminating in dozens of homicides.

EmperorJulian:

If it is as horrific as you make out then why do women enter into domestic relationships in the first place? Why do those in relationships now remain in them? Why don't they get out while they can?

Domestic violence can be stopped by simply ending the relationship before anything happens. This is the most logical response to the picture you portray. Why do women ignore all the evidence that you and others lay before them and persist in these relationships? Why do they pander to all those reality shows which romanticise domestic relationships? Why do they choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence of men's violence and relate to the confection of TV, films and novels?

There is something seriously wrong with these women that no amount of re-engineering of men can fix. It is a complete lack of self-respect that propels them into such highly dangerous situations.

phanto,

"There is something seriously wrong with these women that no amount of re-engineering of men can fix..."

It just keeps getting more entertaining.

Which is it, boys?

My mum stuck with dad for the family and because in the sixties there was nowhere to go and no govt support to get out...until she couldn't stand it any more - and our family was torn in two.

If there are children to consider, it's not as easy as it appears to just pick up digs and vamoose.

The likes of Rosie batty got out - and seeing that there was a child involved, her husband got restricted visiting rights.

Then he murdered their son.

Like Emperor Julian said - it doesn't matter which line you guys take, it's always the woman's fault if a man commits domestic violence.

Roscop has spent post after post blaming the person who didn't bludgeon and knife her son to death, who escaped from an aggressive man and attempted to protect their son.

phanto appears to believe that the women who don't do what Rosie Batty did and "get out" are the ones to blame...a la " Why don't they get out while they can?"

Which is it fellas?

(Leaving out "lunacy" and "the system" this time around - but I'm sure you'll meander back there again soon)

Poirot:

There is no need to get so defensive.

I am not talking about the victims. I am talking about those who have not yet become victims. Why do they hang around when the chances of them becoming victims is so high? Why do they enter relationships in the first place when it is so dangerous? I cannot be accused of blaming the victim when there is no victim.

phanto,

"....Why do they enter relationships in the first place when it is so dangerous?..."

I'll give that some credence because there are relationships that are entered upon where it seems obvious that violence is a part of the overall picture.

My own parents though don't fit that picture. I mentioned my dad came from a well-to-do middle-class family, quite comfortable - his younger brother attended Knox College...

After eight years of marriage, we kids came along. Dad had always liked a flutter and the bookies apparently - which was fine until the money ran out. As the years wore on, he gambled more and drank more - but he always had a job. We never had any money after Saturday though...then the frustrations were taken out on mum. If you'd have told her when she got married that her handsome well-to-do husband would turn into a gambler and a drinker who hit her, she'd never have believed you.

Then again, waking through the car park at the shopping centre today I saw a couple effing and blinding at each other, beeping the horn, shouting - and you could just tell that was par for the course in their relationship - and maybe they were off their faces with drugs or alcohol as well. Freaks me out to see people behaving like that - violence just waiting to happen from both sides.

They would probably fit your template.

None of us can have hindsight but all of us can have foresight. No one can know if they will be the one in three who becomes a victim but they do know that one in three becomes a victim. It is a complete lottery with extremely bad odds. If you could tell in advance that you were going to be a victim then who would enter into that type of relationship? All those who do enter domestic relationships or remain in them are gambling against their own safety.

Who in their right mind would take such a risk? There is no way you could say that women have not had adequate warning about the danger. The statistics are trumpeted almost every day. The government says that the problem is worth spending one hundred million dollars on so it must be a crisis. How could any woman be unaware of the gravity of the situation?

Not only do they enter those situations but they bring children into them as well. A child who has no choice is put at the same risk as the mother. How can that be construed as a loving act? If they want to risk their own safety that is their right but do they have the right to place that burden on children?

Despite overwhelming evidence women continue to totally ignore the risk. Not only that but they actively comply in the encouragement of media which promotes images of domestic relationships which totally ignore the statistics about domestic violence. Reality shows about romantic relationships, fiction and drama about loving bliss all have huge markets and it is not men who go after these things.

How can women be so vocal in support of those working against domestic violence and so hypocritical in support of totally unrealistic portrayals of domestic relationships?

cont.

cont.

Given the publicity about the dangers women should be leaving in droves. It is senseless to wait until it happens and there is a thirty per cent chance of it happening to any woman.

It is hard to take women seriously when they complain about domestic violence when on the other hand they do nothing to counteract the flood of media which glamorises domestic relationships. They should be out picketing media companies who promote such unrealistic trash as being the epitome of happiness and the most sought after of lifestyles. It is not only media but the pressure from other women to join in the domestic relationship lifestyle. What about all those mothers and aunts who subject their daughters to a lifetime of emotional manipulation and pressure in order to get them to ‘settle down.’ They too are complicit in maintaining this ludicrous conspiracy.

Rosie Batty is not a role model of courage but a role model of hypocrisy. She is no champion against domestic violence or she would be using her platform to advise women to get out of domestic relationships while they can leave unscathed. Has she questioned the fact that she herself ignored all the evidence about the prevalence of domestic violence and entered into a domestic relationship and compounded the risk by having a child? Her partner may have been a model citizen when she entered the relationship but the risk factor was the same for her as it is for every woman and she took that risk. Every woman who takes that risk has no one to blame but themselves for taking that risk

EmporerJulian,

Who claims marriage counselling can protect victims from future assaults? Marriage/Relationship counselling only works when both parties want to either recover, repair or improve their relationship. In other words both parties have to be on the same page. I'd say its less likely to work if one of the two is a habitual drinker and abuser and doesn't have enough common sense to want to change his/her ways. If children are involved in the relationship its definitely worthwhile. Anyway that is just my view.

With your fixation on a "lock-em-up" policy I understand why you have a dismissive attitude towards marriage counselling.

Re Roscop:

“Who claims marriage counselling can protect victims from future assaults?”

Answer: Loudmouth, without detracting from the fact that his was a thoughtful and worthwhile contribution. And yes, marriage counselling can no doubt be very useful in its place as described by Roscop. But it’s no answer to bashers. Once bashing has started then basher has revealed himself as someone to whom the only proper response is to stop him ever doing it again.

Insisting on leaving bashers free to bash is an obsession of the basher lobby. Stopping the bashers by sending them somewhere where their victims are freed from fear of them is plain common sense. If there’s somewhere other than richly deserved imprisonment then bring it on. I have referred to one promising possibility[1] but the bottom line remains STOPPING THEM. Immediately. And releasing their victims from fear of violent assault. For as long as they want. Mark Latham of the bully handshake wishes to deny people that basic human right. Anyone else? C’mon, man up and admit it.

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/offender-anklet-monitoring-system-reviewed-for-tasmania/6915704

EJ:
"Once bashing has started then basher has revealed himself as someone to whom the only proper response is to stop him ever doing it again."

What about leaving him ? Would not that also constitute a proper response? This is how many women solve the problem or are you not interested in helping women solve the problem?

funny how people are banging on about marriage counseling when by far the highest rates of dv is among defactos, Indigeneous and homosexuals. More tax payer funded solutions more often than not create more problems.

phanto,

I was willing to give your stuff a bit of credence...yet...you've now gone right over the top.

It's difficult to know where to start with your tirade...not a word of criticism for the men who commit domestic violence - its all down to the victims, who are either not doing enough to get out or aren't picketing the mass media or should have picked first up that their partner was likely to turn into a basher....

"Rosie Batty is not a role model of courage but a role model of hypocrisy. She is no champion against domestic violence or she would be using her platform to advise women to get out of domestic relationships while they can leave unscathed..."

What?

Exactly what she did..she and Luke left unscathed, but look what happened in the end.

Where are these hordes of women supposed to go?

"When women do leave their partners, they’re jumping into a safety net that’s full of holes. Across Australia, the demand for refuges is so high that every second woman has to be turned away. Many of these women will end up homeless. More than half the women who seek help from homelessness services cite domestic violence as the reason they left home."

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/march/1425128400/jess-hill/home-truths

Homelessness:

"Half are under 24 years old and 10,000 are children
1 in 40 children under five use a homeless service each year.
The largest single cause of homelessness in Australia is domestic and family violence, which overwhelmingly affects women and children.
Most preventable homelessness is caused when people exit from institutions into unstable housing situations.
The waiting list for public housing is 16 years
For people at extreme risk, waiting time is 12 – 18 months"

http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/Who-We-Are/our-work/Homelessness/#sthash.S5TsgV3H.dpuf

"....Every woman who takes that risk has no one to blame but themselves for taking that risk."

Sorry....this conversation is too stupid for me to continue.

Bye.

Poirot:

For the second time, I am not talking about victims but about those in a situation where there is a one in three chance of them becoming victims and that is every woman in a domestic situation. I am not talking about those who need refuge but about those who do not yet need refuge but are exposing themselves to a risk just by being in a relationship. That risk is one in three.

“Where are these hordes of women supposed to go?”

Are you saying that every woman in a domestic relationship is totally dependent on that relationship and has nowhere else to go? There are millions of women who leave domestic relationships for reasons other than domestic violence. Where do they go? That is where all those who can go should go. They should go even if they are not victims because it is highly likely they will become victims.

It has got nothing to do with homelessness or available places. There are many millions of women who are not victims but who can go but do not. There are many women not yet in domestic relationships but who desperately want to be. They want to be in a situation where they have a one in three chance of becoming victims.

“Sorry....this conversation is too stupid for me to continue.”

But not stupid enough to respond to in the first place. You do not have to apologise.

Phanto asks “What about leaving him ? Would not that also constitute a proper response? This is how many women solve the problem or are you not interested in helping women solve the problem?”

Yeah, yeah, blame the victim – the usual refuge for criminality against the defenceless.

Leaving the basher didn’t help Ms Batty much, did it? Luke Batty was murdered because the scumbag was at large. He was at large even though he was also a rock spider, because the law was too weak to allow the cops to grab him.

The basher lobby makes much of the plea that the victim was asking for it – by giving lip, by not disrupting her life, even by accepting a relationship in the first place. No, bashers are the ones who DO domestic violence, let them pay the full price for being forcibly stopped.

BTW, the ankle bracelet technology has been queried as conferring a false sense of security, and there are problems of cost [1]. Cost could be defrayed by being charged to the bashers.

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-06/big-investment-needed-to-manage-criminals-in-home-detention/691738

Emporer,

Looks like we are shifting from a "lock-em-up" policy" to a "ankle bracelets for alleged perpetrators of DV" policy.

It seems that you have to be continually reminded that Greg Anderson had never been convicted of any offense...not even one related to being what you call "a rock spider". If the evidence was so clear on that why was it taking so long to have the matter dealt with in court even though Anderson failed to make an appearance and allowing for Victorian police incompetence?

Furthermore you haven't explained how being a "rock spider" relates to being a dv perp. of the "basher" type which talking about is your hobby.

MGTOW4Ever

Hi Julian,

I wasn't thinking of marriage counselling as some sort of remedial activity, but as something that was somehow done from much earlier in a marriage - a bit like support systems in which nurses routinely visit young mothers for the first year or so of a baby's life, i.e. very much preventative, and advisory. Maybe such a network of support workers could each loosely pull together a group of similarly newly-married people, like a community club.

Often church groups used to do this, maybe they still do. I sang at a gig in a Uniting Church for the sixtieth anniversary of their community group. Something like that, with a trained and alert marriage counsellor dropping in every so often over a long period, getting to know young couples from they join the group, might make a difference ?

We can each of us carp and whinge and bitch and blame and find excuses for this and that, OR we can try to find ways around the problem. And can pick up the pieces afterwards.

Joe

Gaol, ankle bracelet technology - whatever it takes to free the victim from the basher. I know the basher lobby isn't interested in doing that, groping for excuse after excuse all amounting to a specious claim that the victim brought it on herself (or himself if you want to stick with the narrative that DV is women bashing men). And all being pleas to let the bashers get at the victims.

Anderson was a violent criminal (as well as a kiddieporn collector) who needed to be stopped. He proved it with a cricket bat and a knife.

This current public focus on domestic violence will, hopefully, give effect to an overwhelming view of normal people that DV can be stopped only by effectively and reliably blocking bashers' access to those whom they bash. Those who don't want bashers banged up will need to come up with ways that will achieve the same result both immediately and reliably. Nothing other than imprisonment without parole has been suggested on this thread that comes even close.

We'll see what value we, as a society, place on the human rights of battered wives (or whatever gender you'd like to ascribe to the victims).

The procedure described by Loudmouth is commendable, but it answers a different need from those who are suffering bashings NOW - hundreds, maybe thousands of them. They can't retrofit their lives to the day their relationships began. Maybe the thing that some couples might gain from intervention in their early days (and it would have to be routine) might be a discovery that one of the partners is a mongrel who thinks he has a natural-born right to bash his "property" into submission. That could lead to a timely exit by a future victim. Emancipation one by one, while the violence continues Australia-wide without end.

If these current inquiries lead to bypassing the urgent problems that victims are suffering every day, then the nationwide disgrace of physical domestic assault up to and including homicide will continue without even a blip.

Hi JUles,

Yes, you're right, I have no solution to severe problems, BUT surely it makes sense to put programs in place which anticipate the possibilities of marital instability, and ultimately DV ? To try to minimise the problems before they erupt ?

Okay, perhaps you're right, let's not try that. Let's just wait until problems are so great that any solutions are impossible, and then we actually don't have to do anything but whinge about them. That's much more fun, you can really get a lot of sh!t off your chest that way, slagging off other people.

Carry on.

Joe

Planto, 1 in 3 you say. Well perhaps you had best move and see how the rest of the world lives because where I'm from the numbers are nothing like that, not among the folk I associate with anyway, which by the way may hint to where a large part of the preventable problem is caused because you can't legislate against stupidity.

It's now a very costly one that has somehow been dumped on Joe tax payer to fund, and given I am one such Joe tax payer, I've had a gut full of my taxes being wasted on lost causes.

While I'm the first to agree there are innocent victims, you can't help people who refuse to help themselves.

Of cause if we had a decent judicial system, things would be very different.

No, Loudmouth, we don't, as a nation, satisfy ourselves with slagging off at criminals who have brought us to what our leaders have rightly called a crisis, we seek ways to STOP THEM through the weapons that we have available - legislative powers.

How may legislation be strengthened to bring down those enemies whom Alexander Downer once adroitly termed "the things that batter"?

It's not hard see how to tie the hands of pro-criminal elements in the legal system by setting out what they have to do to protect vulnerable citizens from assault. Legislated minimum sentences. The cops have by and large come to accept the message about dealing with domestic assault, now the prosecutors, magistrates and judges need to be forced, by law, to back up the police service's hard work.

All praise to the good work being done to help people work at their domestic relationships. But additional to, never INSTEAD of, confronting the bashers and disempowering them.

Taxes? Schmaxes. I've paid taxes all my working life and watched the money being squandered by Lib governments in foreign colonial adventures from Malaya in the 1950s to the Middle East today and none of it defending our own country. Our people have enemies right here at home.

Hi Jules,

"All praise to the good work being done to help people work at their domestic relationships. But additional to, never INSTEAD of, confronting the bashers and disempowering them."

Of course. It's not a matter of either/or - whatever works, and the earlier the better. We all enter marriage full of hope, we can't know what the future might bring. And women then often find themselves in weak positions vis-à-vis their husbands, if they are pregnant or raising very young children: he has the job, control of the money, while she is more or less totally dependent on him, and much more socially isolated on the whole.

Then, for some couples, it goes downhill from there. So yes, come down hard on bashers, usually men, who use their position and physical strength to browbeat (I heard one bloke today going at it), stand over, and threaten, and knock their dependent spouses around.

Perhaps they can be shamed into doing the right thing ?

No easy solutions.

Joe

rehctub:

"Planto, 1 in 3 you say. Well perhaps you had best move and see how the rest of the world lives because where I'm from the numbers are nothing like that,"

Well I have no idea what the true figures are. I am just saying that if they are as bad as is being claimed then those doing the claiming should be leaving their domestic relationships and young women should not aspire to be in domestic relationships. It is a put up or shut up situation.

Phanto,

Yeah ! Why can't women look ahead ? Why do they go open-eyed into future-abusive relationships ? Do they WANT to be knocked around ? What's the matter with them ? So surely it's really just their own fault.

And why can't they just leave an abusive relationship ? Why stay ? Just pack up and go ? Is it just to nag and tease and harass and provoke their unfortunate partners ?

Yeah, we shouldn't really bother too much about DV, women after all just bring it all on themselves, out of spite and sheer stupidity. It's really a wonder there aren't more than two murders a week, so many poor blokes getting provoked to defend themselves like that.

Yeah, where are the refuges for blokes ? It's always 'women, women, women'. Anybody thought of that ?!

Joe

Loudmouth:

If someone told you that in a certain dark alley one in three people who walked down it was assaulted you would stop and think before you decided to take that walk. Only a fool would take such a risk with their personal safety. No one can make you go down that street and only you can decide to go. As an adult you have to take responsibility for all your decisions so it is your fault if you take a risk. That is what risk is about – it is entirely up to you and you know beforehand that no one else can be held responsible.

If women enter relationships or remain in them then they are living in a situation of constant risk. The only logical thing to do is to eliminate the risk. They do know beforehand what the odds are and it is they who choose to ignore them.

Every relationship has risks attached to it but someone who takes a risk where the odds are three to one and their own personal safety is the issue has very little self-respect.

It does not help to talk only about what happens when they lose the gamble but to also talk about why they gamble in the first place when there is no need for them to do so.

What is it that drives them to gamble so recklessly with their own well-being? If they choose to gamble then it is their fault. If you blow all your money at the racetrack then you cannot complain that losing money should not be part of the experience.

Hilarious. Loudmouth parodies Phanto and Phanto responds showing the parody was right on the money!

Hi Phanto,

Yeah, it's so bloody unfair that women can predict the future, even years ahead, but us poor blokes tend to live in the present, doing as much good as we can, innocent and blameless. Women KNOW what's ahead, yet they perversely persist in provoking their poor partners - and deliberately do things like getting pregnant (they KNOW how to avoid that, surely ?) and give up their jobs to raise kids (Yeah, just to feel superior to blokes who are slaving away to support them). Women are such parasites - our mothers often earned us about them, harridans, harlots, users, but we were too trusting to listen, weren't we ?

Maybe what many men need are women-free 'marriages', not real marriages of course, Christ they're not poofters, but where blokes can come together, give each other mutual support and spend as much time together as possible. Maybe such blokes can sign a Declaration that under no circumstances are women to have anything to do with them, not to come near them or harass them, and certainly not trap them in some loveless, spiteful relationship and eventually provoke the poor fellas to murder them.

Joe

Loudmouth:

Joe, blokes like you are the salt of the earth – fair dinkum real men always on the lookout for anything that may upset the little lady. Doing what their dads told them to and protect the women folk at all costs.

Real men step in when they see anyone suggesting that the behaviour of women should be challenged. Let us not challenge them to examine the hypocrisies that they live by. The poor dears are not up to much self-examination – it may only lead to freedom and a more fulfilling life. They cook, clean, mother and fulfil a man’s desires – that should be enough for them.

Let us not suggest that they can break away from the pressures put upon them to be in domestic relationships. We will cover their ears when anyone suggests that the “Bachelor” is contrived crap designed to keep women in their place. We would not want them to look critically at ‘chick flicks’, Mills and Boon, and all those other cultural brandings that make sure they know their place. Let us take out anyone who suggests that they do not have to give into pressures from their mothers, sisters, aunts and ‘friends’ who are forever asking are they in a domestic relationship.

Woe betide any man should he ask them to look at how much they are influenced by all this. Nor should they be asked to examine how outraged they are by the prevalence of domestic violence and how they join the chorus of outcries for something to be done. Let all men brave and true show them that the only real way that they can keep themselves safe is by depending on men to change their behaviour. It has to be up to us blokes – we cannot let them see that they have the power to take control over their own welfare.

EmperorJulian:

"Hilarious. Loudmouth parodies Phanto and Phanto responds showing the parody was right on the money!"

It is good to see you are alive enough to be amused by something.

Hi Jules,

I don't know, I think Phanto has been parodying ME, that he's been having a lend of us all :) Brilliant !

Joe

Loudmouth:
"I don't know, I think Phanto has been parodying ME, that he's been having a lend of us all :) Brilliant !

That's the worst part - you really don't know but care enough to bother telling us.