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?