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.