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.