Bettina Arndt calling for all to question the biassed assumptions and sloppy self-serving 'research' that is being spruiked on domestic violence.

http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/domestic-violence-and-white-ribbon-day-help-change-the-debate/

<Domestic violence and White Ribbon day – help change the debate
by Bettina on November 21, 2015
..
Every year I grind my teeth on White Ribbon Day listening to listening to their spokespeople misrepresent this issue, fudging the statistics and totally denying any responsibility for women in family violence. Next week across the country many hundreds of people are running White Ribbon events, over 500 people are now Ambassadors, pushing the party line.

Many of the sportsmen and other eminent people who are involved in this are well-meaning, assuming they are simply helping our society overcome a critical social problem. It is very likely they have never been presented with the facts included in my article, the 40 years of research showing most family violence involves both men and women and mothers are the major abusers of children.

I feel we need to respectfully approach these people and inform them that we are not denying the importance of the work they are doing in addressing the issue of violent men but unfortunately they are also being drawn into a divisive campaign which distorts the truth about family violence and denies many victims the chance to be heard and supported.
..
The domestic violence lobby groups have got away with their distorted campaign for far too long because they have silenced their critics. I am shocked by how many people have written to me saying I was ‘brave’ or ‘courageous’ to speak out on this issue. Come on! We live in a free, democratic society and none of us should be nervous about being heard on this important issue. But nothing will change unless we all start making sure we get our message across.>

Who is 'we' Onthebeach?
You and the other good Ol' boys who want to derail a society that is finally standing up to the violent men who want to keep control over 'their' women?

Too late.
The truth is out now for all to see, and women are not hiding the truth anymore. And there are plenty of real, honest good men who support these women too.
Any pathetic men who don't see the truth of domestic violence will be left behind, alone.

And guess what? They have only themselves to blame...not the communists, Marxists, feminists, university lecturers or whatever other mad argument is put up.

Suseonline,

Off you go again with your obsessional prejudice and bluster against 'white' men.

Now, what about taking the time to read the OP and the link?

Most would be aware of Bettina Arndt, BSc, MPsych, an Australian sex therapist, journalist and clinical psychologist.

Here is another article that others will find interesting and as a comment on your post,

<Domestic violence and the demonization of men

It has been an interesting exercise challenging the current witch hunt on domestic violence. As my article, silent victims, in the Weekend Australian points out, the zealots controlling debate on this issue are successfully demonizing men and white-washing women’s role in family violence.

The reality is very different from the picture constantly presented of dangerous men terrorizing their families. Over 1700 articles in peer-reviewed journals conclude show domestic violence is not a gender issue, both women and men are actively involved in most violence in the home, women often initiate violence, and it isn’t simply self-defence. Even though physical violence by women causes fewer injuries, it is by no means harmless with women more likely to use weapons and men sustaining a third of the injuries from partner violence.

Most children growing up in violent homes are cowering not just from their fathers but their mothers as well – all available Australian data clearly shows women are the major abusers of children. So what are these children to conclude from current public discussion of this issue –that only Dad’s violence matters? That only Dad can be held responsible for the terror these children experience? Surely this does nothing to break the cycle of violence putting future generations at risk.

What’s scary is the constant stream of lies and misinformation being promoted in the current cultural dialogue, deliberate use of wrong statistics designed to promote men as the only villains. There are men working very hard to try to correct this misinformation, attempting to correct the record by contacting the politicians, bureaucrats and media commentators who persist in using deliberately inaccurate statistics. It is horrifying to see how often these efforts are totally ignored.>

contd..

<Amongst the main offenders is the ABC where most journalists, broadcasters and producers skew debate over true nature of violence in the home. I’ve seen correspondence with the culprits, who continue to use misleading statistics despite being presented with evidence from our key data collection bodies, such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics, showing they are using wrong information. Many make their personal prejudices on this issue abundantly clear – in her ABC breakfast show Virginia Trioli recently sneered at the possibility that men could be victims of domestic violence.

In the last week I have appeared on commercial radio programmes across the country discussing this issue – but almost all the key ABC programmes refused to touch it. The exception was Steve Austin, Brisbane’s morning presenter, who gave the issue his customary intelligent, open-minded consideration. See this link to listen to his interview.

When Mark Scott was appointed to his current position, I wrote to him pointing out that the real bias in the ABC has nothing to do with giving equal time to politicians from opposing parties but rather the refusal of most of the organization to touch topics which challenge the ABC’s current orthodoxy on any number of social issues. Domestic violence is a classic example and the ABC is true to form, showing total allegiance to the views promoted by the domestic violence lobby groups.>

http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/domestic-violence-and-the-demonization-of-men/

Not just violent white men Onthebeach, ALL violent men. I am not racist at all.

I have read plenty of 'men's rights' groups articles, with people like you wielding their pens aggressively, trying to derail the DV truth.
I couldn't be bothered reading any other c##p articles or websites, because I, like the majority of the community, won't change my mind on this subject.

Happy white ribbon day.

meanwhile we continue to import men whose culture/religion believe its fine to belt wives who refuse sex. Same feminist are happy to allow encourage Government not to discrimnate against these men. Its seems more about feminist getting a power kick then dealing with the issues. I wonder how many of those men on the boat with Sarah heading towards Greece had beaten their women!

The more publicity that this issue gets the more ridiculous women appear. On the one hand they are telling us that domestic violence is epidemic and that it mostly comes from men and on the other hand they are breaking their neck to get into domestic relationships. They are obsessed with domestic relationships either real or imagined. They love to see them portrayed in film, literature and on TV reality shows and dramas. They lap up all the gossip of other peoples’ domestic relationships and pour over the fine detail of the lives of celebrities in hope of gleaning some information about their relationships. From childhood they are taught that the best thing in life is a domestic relationship and this should be their ultimate goal. As school girls they talk obsessively about their relationships with boys that will surely lead them into the path of violence. There is a multi-billion dollar wedding industry which feeds of this delusion. Dating services and web sites that hook people up do tremendous business.

How can they enter into domestic relationships when the overwhelming evidence is that such relationships present extremely high risk? Thirty per cent will be victims they tell us and then they plunge head long into that very situation they decry. Could there be more stupid behaviour than to take such extraordinary risks with one’s personal safety?

Every woman who raises the issue of domestic violence and how prominent it is should be asked why they enter into or remain in a domestic relationship. They should be challenged about how serious they are and how important the issue really is and then they should be presented with how they behave and the attitudes they have to domestic relationships.

It would be hard to find a more hypocritical stance on any topic in society than the one taken by women in relation to domestic violence. There is hardly a woman on the planet that does not view domestic relationships through rose coloured glasses. It is time that they began to act in accord with their abhorrence of domestic violence.

Suseonline, "I am not racist at all"

Then you had better contact the site moderator about that other Suseonline who has been dumping on 'Whites' and 'White' men especially for years on this site.

Suseonline, "I couldn't be bothered reading any other c##p articles or websites"

To the contrary, Bettina Arndt is a well-qualified, highly credible source. Courageous too, for being one of the rare scientists to challenge sloppy research and feminists misleading the public.

It is a judgement of you and your extreme bigotry against certain groups in society, examples being men, Christians and 'Whites'(sic) that your mind is closed. Yet as a left radical feminist you are forever defending and promoting Islam. Typically for self-loathing leftists and gynocentric radical feminists, Islam is to be preferred and those despised 'White' Anglo-Saxons are to be diversified out of existence. -The lunar rationalisation being that the 'enemy of your enemy is your friend'.

Of course you demonise men. You imply you are only replying to this thread to scoff, sledge and deny, but then you have been criticised for trying to derail threads on similar issues in the past and recently.

Bettina Arndt's article on DV and White Ribbon Day raises important issues which you could attempt to argue against. That would be the positive, adult thing to do. But no, as always you have your bigoted head in the sand, ostrich-like, 'Nope, not reading it' you declare. Typical.

Suse,

otb says: "Most children growing up in violent homes are cowering not just from their fathers but their mothers as well..."

Which would explain why women are currently murdered in DV incidents in this country at a rate of two a week.

phanto's commentary is just inane....according to phanto, being controlled and bashed is entirely down to the woman for being anywhere near a domestic relationship in the first place.

I see this is still the place to come for ludicrous commentary on the subject - Lol!

Poirot,

You are aware the quote was not mine. It was from Bettina Arndt's article. Falsely attributing it to me is an unprincipled ploy you have used before. It avoids recognition of that highly credible source, and you cropped to conceal the author's explanation.

Here again, for those who may not always read earlier posts - a circumstance you were cynically trying to take advantage of.

Bettina Arndt
<Domestic violence and the demonization of men

It has been an interesting exercise challenging the current witch hunt on domestic violence. As my article, silent victims, in the Weekend Australian points out, the zealots controlling debate on this issue are successfully demonizing men and white-washing women’s role in family violence.

The reality is very different from the picture constantly presented of dangerous men terrorizing their families. Over 1700 articles in peer-reviewed journals conclude show domestic violence is not a gender issue, both women and men are actively involved in most violence in the home, women often initiate violence, and it isn’t simply self-defence. Even though physical violence by women causes fewer injuries, it is by no means harmless with women more likely to use weapons and men sustaining a third of the injuries from partner violence.

Most children growing up in violent homes are cowering not just from their fathers but their mothers as well – all available Australian data clearly shows women are the major abusers of children. So what are these children to conclude from current public discussion of this issue –that only Dad’s violence matters? That only Dad can be held responsible for the terror these children experience? Surely this does nothing to break the cycle of violence putting future generations at risk.

What’s scary is the constant stream of lies and misinformation being promoted in the current cultural dialogue, deliberate use of wrong statistics designed to promote men as the only villains. There are men working very hard to try to correct this misinformation, attempting to correct the record by contacting the politicians, bureaucrats and media commentators who persist in using deliberately inaccurate statistics..>

otb,

"You are aware the quote was not mine. It was from Bettina Arndt's article. Falsely attributing it to me is an unprincipled ploy you have used before...."

Many apologies, otb,..is this better?

otb quotes: "Most children growing up in violent homes are cowering not just from their fathers but their mothers as well..."

"....It avoids recognition of that highly credible source, and you cropped to conceal the author's explanation."

Apologies too for not including your "highly credible" sex therapist source!

........

While we're on the much loved OLO subject of victim blaming...

"Domestic violence victim blaming 'rampant'"

"Unconscious victim blaming is 'firmly entrenched' among Australians when discussing domestic violence, federal government research shows.

Despite strong community support for ending domestic violence, the report by market research group TNS found Australians are taught from childhood to understate the severity of family violence.

It also found males escaped blame for domestic abuse."

"It found young men were taught to blame others for violence, while young women internalised the experience by blaming themselves.

It argued there is 'little empathy towards the female experience' within the community.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull labelled the findings 'utterly unacceptable' and said addressing disrespect would be at the heart of any domestic violence policy."

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/11/25/domestic-violence-victim-blaming-rampant.html

ROFL!...can't go past otb's hysterical outburst at Suse.

"It is a judgement of you and your extreme bigotry against certain groups in society, examples being men, Christians and 'Whites'(sic) that your mind is closed. Yet as a left radical feminist you are forever defending and promoting Islam. Typically for self-loathing leftists and gynocentric radical feminists, Islam is to be preferred and those despised 'White' Anglo-Saxons are to be diversified out of existence. -The lunar rationalisation being that the 'enemy of your enemy is your friend'.

Of course you demonise men. You imply you are only replying to this thread to scoff, sledge and deny, but then you have been criticised for trying to derail threads on similar issues in the past and recently.

Bettina Arndt's article on DV and White Ribbon Day raises important issues which you could attempt to argue against. That would be the positive, adult thing to do. But no, as always you have your bigoted head in the sand, ostrich-like, 'Nope, not reading it' you declare. Typical."

The "positive adult thing to do"...ROFL again....from the guy who can barely utter a sentence around here without demonising his usual targets with stupid epithets, be they feminists, femi-nazis, feminist nobs, progressives, leftists...etc.

"...scoff, sledge and deny..." (otb's specialty!)

Triple ROFL!

What a whopping hypocrite you are otb.

It's a good question; why are we encouraging migrants whose religion/political organization allows and encourages domestic violence?

It's very hard to contain a fire when volatile fuel is continually added to it.

Rofl indeed Poirot, it sounds like Onthebeach and his sex-therapist friend are getting hysterical over the fact that the vast majority of the community now realize that there is a huge problem with DV affected women, and their male perpetrators in Australia.

The men who are victims of DV are also victims overwhelmingly of other men, and the men on the whole have no where near the level of fear that female DV victims have.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it OTB, and have a fab white ribbon day...

Poirot & Suseonline,

This reply (to another party) by Bettina Arndt on her site dispels your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what she is about,

Bettina November 21, 2015 at 3:19 pm #
"You are deliberately misunderstanding what we are trying to do. We are not proposing to undermine the important efforts of White Ribbon to address the issue of men’s violence. I support that work totally. What I don’t understand is why White Ribbon is so determined to deny the truth about violence in the home. What we want them to do is to, as you put it, is campaign against domestic abuse in all its forms, taking practical measures to spread compassion and mercy. Surely that is not such a big ask?"

Where do you have a problem with that?

Or as others ask, how can extending compassion to ALL victims of abuse in the home in any way detract from our care and support of women?

I think that even though it is crucial to highlight the wife beating husbands as is being done, that it should not be gender specific and more so, the focus should also include a broader consideration of abuse more generally,

(as well as the likely pre-cursors)

i.e emotional, verbal, psychological, neglect, the risks of substance etc

At least, that is certainly as it is taught at a tertiary level for educational purposes.

And you can bet they are mapping out all of the incidents and attempting to identify the triggers/alarm points.

Just a quick poll of the male posters, who here has ever encountered a man who openly admits and tries to justify bashing his wife or girlfriend?
I've been in construction since I was 16, I've met thousands of men from all walks of life in an almost exclusively male industry yet I can't recall ever hearing a man admit to DV much less seek the approval of his actions from a group of men.
Normal people tend not to want to get involved in things that don't concern them and the truth is that what goes on behind closed doors is not our business and certainly not our responsibility.
When we detect a crime being committed we report it, that's our only obligation, if the crime is being committed before our eyes we call the Police and then intervene to stabilise the situation and buy time for the professionals.

I had a male "friend" in primary school who used to bash his old grandma. It wasn't a friendship that lasted though and ended when me and my best buddy of that time stoned him in the laneway.

..

I was in a backpackers in Cairo with the staffer trying to tell me that it was time that I went to bed. I declined, and not long after one of the locals rolled in, grabbed the remote and changed channel. Within moments, we were watching a scene of a husband returning home and slapping the $%^& out of his wife.

And this person turns round, and I took him to mean, yeah, yeeah, this is great ey?! And how about you, do you enjoy slapping your wife too?

otb,

"Bettina November 21, 2015 at 3:19 pm #
"You are deliberately misunderstanding what we are trying to do. We are not proposing to undermine the important efforts of White Ribbon to address the issue of men’s violence. I support that work totally. What I don’t understand is why White Ribbon is so determined to deny the truth about violence in the home. What we want them to do is to, as you put it, is campaign against domestic abuse in all its forms, taking practical measures to spread compassion and mercy. Surely that is not such a big ask?""

What's interesting, otb, is your ploy now to come across as reasonable on this subject.

"Where do you have a problem with that?

Or as others ask, how can extending compassion to ALL victims of abuse in the home in any way detract from our care and support of women?"

No problem with that at all....

But let's recall your rhetoric to Suse:

"It is a judgement of you and your extreme bigotry..."

"...Yet as a left radical feminist you are forever defending and promoting Islam..."

"...Typically for self-loathing leftists and gynocentric radical feminists..."

"Of course you demonise men..."

"...You imply you are only replying to this thread to scoff, sledge and deny..."

"...as always you have your bigoted head in the sand..."

Speaks for itself.

I note Bettina isn't backward at tossing in emotive terms as well.

"As my article, silent victims, in the Weekend Australian points out, the zealots controlling debate on this issue are successfully demonizing men and white-washing women’s role in family violence...."

"Zealots" eh?.....I'll be watching "Hitting Home" again tonight - all those battered women aiding the zealots in getting their message across.

//Normal people tend not to want to get involved in things that don't concern them and the truth is that what goes on behind closed doors is not our business and certainly not our responsibility.//

'Twas not always thus. For centuries there was an English folk tradition known as 'Rough Music' or 'ran-tanning'. Rough Music involved men gathering outside a person's house rattling bones and cleavers, ringing bells, hooting, blowing bull's horns, banging frying pans, saucepans, kettles etc. and generally making a right old racket. Songs and poems would be bawled, detailing the person's crimes for all the world to hear, like this one from South Stoke, Oxfordshire:

There is a man in our town
Who often beats his wife,
So if he does it any more,
We'll put his nose right out before.
Holler boys, holler boys,
Make the bells ring,
Holler boys, holler boys.
God save the King.

The intention was to humiliate the person against whom the Rough Music was being played, and it was generally directed at domestic and sexual misbehaviour - such as child abusers and men who beat their wives. And it was led by men - apparently even in the 18th and 19th century, men knew it was wrong for a husband to beat his wife without having to reminded by feminists. Amazing.

As forms of vigilantism that were likely to lead to public disorder, Rough Music and similar activities were banned under the Highways Act of 1882. These days you'd probably get arrested for breaching the peace, at least.

Yes Onthebeach, no one is fooled by your sudden wish to be Bettina Arndt's biggest fan, just because she is a woman who believes only a tiny part of your twisted logic.
Why don't we start discussing some of the writings from Michael Flood?

Michael Flood: "There has been in Australia, for a long time, a kind of network of anti-feminist men’s groups. Some men’s rights groups focus on general issues of gender and violence and so on, and some have a particular focus on fathering and family law. And those men’s and fathers’ rights group overlap. I’ve described them as an anti-feminist backlash because of their views on women and gender and because of the political strategies they adopt.

And one of the issues they’ve taken up is the issue of domestic violence. Because it’s been a focus of women’s movements and feminist actors for a long time, it’s also been a focus of backlashes against those movements. These groups incorrectly claim that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical or that men are a large proportion of domestic violence victims and women are a significant proportion of perpetrators."

Yes, I prefer that writer. And...he is a male!

I couldn't be bothered reading any other c##p articles or websites, because I, like the majority of the community, WON"T CHANGE MY MIND ON THIS SUBJECT.

Happy white ribbon day.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 25 November 2015 10:12:39 AM

This type of comment indicates, either what is known as a concrete thinker or a rigid thinker.

Remember the Children overboard affair? Pictures where shown to demonstrate the TRUTH. However our politicians distorted the truth for their own agenda.

This topic and the tactic used, engages the emotive side and once the emotions are engaged rational thinking goes out the window.

This should be a warning sign that you are being manipulated and controlled

In this case Victoria,

"The lack of resources for male victims is just extraordinary. I was particularly struck by news that $100,000 was awarded to support pets of female victims in Victoria but not a cent for men suffering abuse."
http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/domestic-violence-and-white-ribbon-day-help-change-the-debate/

You couldn't make this stuff up.

No-one has made a case for discrimination against male victims. Although there are bigots who believe that all male victims, men and boys, are unworthy of assistance.

Male victims of domestic violence:

<The impacts of family violence on male victims include:

- Fear and loss of feelings of safety
- Feelings of guilt and/or shame
- Difficulties in trusting others

- Anxiety and flashbacks
- Unresolved anger
- Loneliness and isolation

- Low self-esteem and/or self-hatred
- Depression, suicidal ideation, self-harm and attempted suicide
- Use of alcohol or other drugs to cope with the abuse

- Physical injuries
- Sexual dysfunction and/or impotence
- Loss of work

- Loss of home
- Physical illness
- Loss of contact with children and/or step-children

- Concern about children post separation.

To add insult to injury, male victims of family violence often find it distressing to see social marketing campaigns such as Violence Against Women Australia Says No (federal) and Don’t Cross the Line (SA), which suggest that men are the only perpetrators of family violence and women and children the only victims.>
http://www.oneinthree.com.au/malevictims

How does it take anything from the campaign to assist women women to show compassion to ALL victims, children, male, gay&lesbian and transgenders?

Why the stone walling?

otb,

"No-one has made a case for discrimination against male victims. Although there are bigots who believe that all male victims, men and boys, are unworthy of assistance."

As far as I can see, the only person making those claims is you.

And also the only person calling people bigots, radical feminists, self-loathing leftists, gynocentric radical feminists....

And the next thing you're posting things like a delicate and compassionate petal - even roping in a gay and lesbian, transgender profile to display how positively inclusive you are:

"How does it take anything from the campaign to assist women women to show compassion to ALL victims, children, male, gay&lesbian and transgenders?"

None of us have a problem with any victim receiving the attention and care they need.

Let's face it, otb, your main point in setting up this thread was to fire another volley at feminism.

Even the pets are (according to you) "pets of female victims"....not (as you are no doubt aware) pets of the relationship which are often threatened or targeted by aggressors as some kind of sadistic payback to victims if they attempt to throw off control and leave a relationship.

So, notwithstanding, that there are obviously men out there with aggressive female partners - how many of them are cowering in their homes in fear of that partner, setting up safe rooms, clutching SOS devices and installing security cameras because they're so terrified?

Onthebeach, you don't fool anyone at all.

You couldn't give a damn about any man who may be out there, terrified in their own home, waiting fearfully for the wife to get home, ensuring he hasn't spent more than his 'allowance', or that he hasn't been out by himself, scared for the bashing they know is coming.

Wasn't it you who joined the other ranters against Rosie Batty and her stance on DV?
Yet, it was her son (a male) who paid the ultimate price after DV from his loving father.
Where was the outcry from your fave men's groups about this dreadful DV murder?
Silence...

Luckily, the rest of society did give a damn and will continue to do so, despite people like you crying into their hankie.

Suseonline,

You are making things up. You could at least do the OP and other OLO readers the politeness of reading the OP and the links and responding with whatever countering argument you might come up with.

Poirot, "Even the pets are (according to you) "pets of female victims"..

You are up to your same shabby tricks again. You are perfectly aware that quote is not mine. It was from Bettina Arndt's article. Falsely attributing it to me is an unprincipled ploy you have used before. It avoids recognition of that highly credible source and it is taken out of context. All a part of your elaborate attempts to make the discussion personal and avoid the facts - facts you cannot counter and obviously don't intend to even try.

However the discussion can't always be about your attention-seeking self (and Suseonline), even though you try to direct it that way.

Bettina Arndt says that "the domestic violence lobby groups have got away with their distorted campaign for far too long because they have silenced their critics".

Some might observe that you and Suseonline are displaying the same motivation, trying to howl down fellow posters and disrupt this thread. That doesn't help the other victims of abuse and violence: children, men, gays, lesbians and transgenders.

Equal should mean equal, especially where government policy, funding and regulations are concerned.

This thread is really quite amusing.

onthebeach posts an article for discussion about why the DV issue is misrepresented and Suseonline comes in blaming men AND DEMONSTRATING the exact kind of traits that probably drive men crazy and to the point of DV.

Labeling any man who doesn't agree with her as pathetic.
Being Argumentative, Niggling, Biased and Confrontational.
Looking to start that actual fight where she can say "Look - All men are aggressive and violent"

Sorry Suse, nothing personal, just calling it the way I see it.

Hahahahaha.
Have we actually learned anything here at all people?
You people are funny and can't see the trees for the leaves.

As usual with such things, there's lots of heat and not much light. Statistics would add a little understanding but there's very little appetite for that since, it is clear, the data doesn't tell the approved story. So its ignored except when it can be manipulated.

Just one number to give a flavour of just how much this debate has been hijacked by moral posturing, political positioning and career advancement.

Between 2010-12 (according to the Aust Institute of Criminology) 24% of those killed by an intimate partner were male. No white ribbons for them however.

If the white ribbon poseurs were fair-dinkum about this they'd be looking to prioritise action where it would be of most use. That is, they would seek out the places where DV is most prevalent and work to save the women there.

From the report - "Reducing violence against women and their children" released with such fanfare yesterday by the Feds:

"One third of Indigenous women have experienced physical violence from a partner.
This is twice the level recorded among non-Indigenous women.

In addition:
Indigenous women in remote and regional areas experience rates of family violence up to 45 times higher and sexual assault 16 to 25 times higher than other women.
Indigenous women and girls are between 25 and 33 times more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence related assaults than other Australian women and girls."

Hands up all those who think we'll see Batty, Turnbull et al out in the never-never telling the men out there of the need to wear white ribbons. OR is it much easier to display your moral rectitude by glibly asserting that its a problem all over and all men need to be beaten into submission.

Are there pockets of DV everywhere? Probably. But then again there are pockets of drunken violence everywhere as well. That doesn't stop the authorities from concentrating their efforts in those places where its most prevalent. The difference is that their main concern is to stop drunken violence irrespective of the background of the perpetrator. Not so DV.

PS..from the same report....
"There is limited information and no uncontested national data available on the prevalence of violence against women in CALD communities.It is, however, widely hypothesised that prevalence is much higher. "

Again, if the poseurs were serious about reducing the problem rather than just using it as a hammer, they'd be demanding that this lack of data be rectified. But that'd involve taking on the ethnic community and multicultural Aust doesn't do such a thing. Much easier to beat up on supposed violent sexism in the non-CALD ( culturally and linguistically diverse) community.

otb,

"You are up to your same shabby tricks again. You are perfectly aware that quote is not mine. It was from Bettina Arndt's article. Falsely attributing it to me is an unprincipled ploy you have used before. It avoids recognition of that highly credible source and it is taken out of context. All a part of your elaborate attempts to make the discussion personal and avoid the facts - facts you cannot counter and obviously don't intend to even try."

Well I do have to claim rushing my replies (as I have a life) didn't notice the quote marks and I haven't read all of Bettina's waffle so apologies again.

However, I presume that you agree with her "shabby trick" about the pets being solely the female's, ignoring the very common tactic by aggressors of threatening to harm the pet to keep control of a partner who wants to leave.

"highly credible source"....not too sure about that - she's jumped on the anti-feminist bandwagon...here's a quick bio:

"Arndt came to prominence in the 1970s by editing Forum, an Australian adult sex education magazine, which led to frequent radio and television appearances. She was appointed Editor in 1974 and remained in the position until July 1982. Her work in sex education also involved post-graduate courses, seminars and lectures for groups including doctors and other professionals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettina_Arndt

I don't see how that makes her an expert on the sociology of domestic violence. It's not her area of expertise - which appears to be sex.

She is of course welcome to commentate, however, that doesn't make her views any more credible than others addressing the scourge of DV who hold differing views.

I see you avoided responding to my last paragraph.

"So, notwithstanding, that there are obviously men out there with aggressive female partners - how many of them are cowering in their homes in fear of that partner, setting up safe rooms, clutching SOS devices and installing security cameras because they're so terrified?"

There you go....

With all the whining about how we are supposed to be 'ignoring' all other victims of domestic violence other than women, I haven't seen any evidence that this is correct.
Nowhere have I seen written that the authorities will only help heterosexual female victims, so all the carry-on is merely lies.

Onthebeach continues his paranoia about all women, and his love affair with his sex therapist. Meanwhile, the business of the rest of the community getting on with trying to deal with domestic violence goes on.
At the end of the day, a few disaffected men worried about losing their masculinity if they face the truth about domestic violence is never really going to be a problem.

Can we have some details concerning Arndt's: "....Over 1700 articles in peer-reviewed journals conclude show domestic violence is not a gender issue, both women and men are actively involved in most violence in the home, women often initiate violence, and it isn’t simply self-defence. Even though physical violence by women causes fewer injuries, it is by no means harmless with women more likely to use weapons and men sustaining a third of the injuries from partner violence."?

Where are these articles?

Which journals "peer-reviewed" them?

What is the detail pertaining to these artices?

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/the-one-in-three-claim-about-male-domestic-violence-victims-is-a-myth-20150429-1mw3bs.html

"The claim made by many men's rights advocates that one in three victims of domestic violence are men is false. Utterly false.

It is, however, a myth that has taken hold, having been cited in The Sydney Morning Herald, Q&A and the Daily Telegraph to name only a few. As the basis of a submission to the Senate enquiry into domestic violence, this myth now also poses the serious risk of altering the way governments approach the issue.

As Dr Michael Flood, a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at University of Wollongong, said, the One in Three claim "could be described more accurately as a campaign against efforts to address men's violence against women."

So let's look at where the myth comes from, and exactly why it is wrong.

It seems to have first appeared on a Men's Rights Activist website, which claims a source is The Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Personal Safety Survey (PSS).

At first glance, the data in Table 3 of the PSS does appear to suggest that males are 33 per cent of people who have experienced an act of violence from a current partner in the last 12 months. That number, however, is clearly marked with a warning that states: "Estimate has a relative standard error of 25 per cent to 50 per cent and should be used with caution."

Cont'd....

Suse nd Poirot,

Do you think that a woman in fear of her life should be allowed an effective means of self defence?

Cont'd...

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/the-one-in-three-claim-about-male-domestic-violence-victims-is-a-myth-20150429-1mw3bs.html

"Apart from the statistical issue, the very nature of the question is problematic. Domestic violence is extremely complex and it's not unusual for victims to be confused about whether their relationship is actually abusive. Nor can it always be defined by simply identifying "an act of violence".

As Leslie Morgan Steiner said in her TED talk:

"I didn't know he was abusing me. Even though he held those loaded guns to my head, pushed me down stairs, threatened to kill our dog, pulled the key out of the car ignition as I drove down the highway, poured coffee grinds on my head as I dressed for a job interview, I never once thought of myself as a battered wife."

"Even if you were to accept the problematic claim that PSS is a reliable indicator of domestic violence, what it actually says is that only 1 in 5 of the victims are men, 4 in 5 victims are women and most of those women experienced more than one incident of violence.

So much for the One in Three theory. But this is still not the full story:

The PSS does not address the effect of the violence on the victim.

It doesn't ask if the victim was physically injured by the violence.

It doesn't ask if they felt frightened or helpless or controlled.

It doesn't ask if the violent act was committed in self-defence.

It doesn't ask if respondents wanted to leave the relationship because of the violence, or if they were able to do so.

It doesn't ask if they needed help to leave, or if that help was available and effective."

"As Dr Flood told Daily Life, "the real issue here is that the PSS is limited as a tool in understanding the dynamics of domestic violence."

The One-in-Three claim deliberately ignores those limits in its attempts to divert attention away from male violence.

Obviously this does not mean that we should ignore the needs of male victims. Nor does it mean that we are doing so."

Poirot, "Well I do have to claim rushing my replies (as I have a life) didn't notice the quote marks and I haven't read all of Bettina's waffle so apologies again"

Not the excuse you used previously for that unprincipled tactic.

Interesting that like Suseonline you don't read evidence you object to.

Along with Suseonline you are just up to your old tricks of hijacking the thread along personal lines to prevent disclosure of facts you don't happen to agree with.

BTT

mhaze is right, "If the white ribbon poseurs were fair-dinkum about this they'd be looking to prioritise action where it would be of most use. That is, they would seek out the places where DV is most prevalent and work to save the women there".

Bettina Arndt is calling for all to question the biassed assumptions and sloppy, self-serving 'research' being promulgated on domestic violence.

http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/domestic-violence-and-white-ribbon-day-help-change-the-debate/

The slanted, sometimes outright fraudulent research and advice being proffered to government - at the expense of taxpayers and many victims, eg children, men and LGBT, indigenous women too - shores up the essentially contested feminist patriarchy paradigm, advantaging the dogmatism, wallets and careers of the already advantaged educated, professional, middle class women who are feminism in the West.

First, it is unconscionable that incomplete, slanted and fraudulent advice is being knowingly spruiked to government and the public by educated professionals, including some academics in universities, who are putting their own benefit, career and entitlement ahead of community good. They have no respect for or investment in good science either.

Secondly, the inevitable negative consequences that flow from poor advising is that taxpayers' dollars are NOT being targeted and expended for best effect and value for taxpayers' money is not being obtained. Nor is there the fairness that should apply in laws (that should be based on evidence, but what if that 'evidence' is biassed and deeply flawed?).

Of course concerned citizens should be writing to those well-intentioned but misled White Ribbon Day ambassadors and to populist politicians who swing like weather vanes and avoid the challenges of drafting good policy.

Lol Onthebeach, so everyone else is mislead and listens to fraudulent claims about DV except you? You know that all the data is wrong about the vast majority of DV being perpetrated by men against women because ...how?
Have you been gathering your own data then?

I would suggest most intelligent people in government departments, universities and criminal data research are very capable of gathering and reading and deciphering data correctly, as you show absolutely no chance of being bright enough to do.
I would prefer to take my advice from proper statistics than from a sex therapist who just wants to sell books for herself.

You haven't got a leg to stand on Onthebeach, and you know it.
The evidence against your little stand is enormous, so no point in rabbiting on and on....

Myth Number 1,
DV is 'gendered'.

<The killer story we could not publish until now

IN August 1993, a little boy - John Ashfield, aged 6 - was beaten to death with a hammer to his head.

His mother, Gunn-Britt Ashfield, then 25, led the assault; her boyfriend, Austin Allan Hughes, then 20, was a keen participant.

According to evidence presented to court in December 1993, Ashfield became enraged when she heard that John, who was in Year 1 at East Nowra primary school on the NSW south coast, touched his three-year-old sister in an inappropriate way. Her boyfriend agreed the boy could not be allowed to "get away with it".

He didn't. Less than 24 hours later he died in Shoalhaven Hospital, his tiny body covered in more than 100 bruises from his parents's savage beating -- a beating that ended with Hughes putting the Nowra telephone book against John's head, and hitting him with a hammer.

They were each sentenced to 21 years in jail, reduced to 19 years on appeal, with a minimum of 14 years...

John's sister Melissa, 17, does not want her mother released. "I have not seen my mother since I was 11," she said. "The last time I saw her (in prison) I pulled her hair and slapped her. I have flashbacks to what happened. She tried to blame me. She tried to get us to help her bash John. She tried to say that John touched me. He never touched me."
..
When it became apparent that John had lost consciousness, his mother dunked him under a cold shower, then a hot shower.

Several hours passed before Ashfield took her son to Shoalhaven Hospital. In the meantime, she told her other children to tell police John had been beaten by a gang of teenagers while walking through a park.

Her oldest boy, then aged eight, went on national television to back up the story.

In a shaky voice, he said: "We were going to buy milk and bread when four boys said, 'Come here. We want to bash you up'.">
tbc..

contd..

<

The story was never going to stack up: John was cold and bleeding from the nostrils when he was airlifted to Westmead hospital in Sydney.

Doctor Barry Wilkins would later tell the court he had more than 100 different coloured bruises, suggesting "repeated, non-accidental beating".

His small hands were swollen and bruised, which suggested he had "attempted to fend off an assault". He had suffered a very serious brain injury.

On the day of John's funeral, his natural father, Brian Ashfield, wailed over the white coffin.

Brian is now dead but he told reporters at the time of his son's murder that he had warned the NSW Department of Community Services that his wife was violent, and that she intended to hurt the children. In fact, DoCS had about 35 notifications that all was not well at Ashfield's home...

John's uncle, Andrew Ashfield, said the law banning publication of John's story had "protected the people who killed him, and the social workers who let it happen".

"DoCS knew that she was violent, and knew that she was troubled," he said. "But they didn't take the kids until after she killed one of them."

Wendy Campbell, who was Brian's fiance at the time of John's death, wants the case to get media attention because she "promised Brian, if they ever apply for parole, I will be there, and I will stop it".>
http://tinyurl.com/nv3s79k

Otb,

"The slanted, sometimes outright fraudulent research and advice being proffered to government - at the expense of taxpayers and many victims, eg children, men and LGBT, indigenous women too - shores up the essentially contested feminist patriarchy paradigm, advantaging the dogmatism, wallets and careers of the already advantaged educated, professional, middle class women who are feminism in the West."

Everything otb consistently bleats on his pet subject is exemplified in this doc...."Backlash: Angry men’s movements" - Michael Flood PhD:

http://www.familylawmattersaustralia.com.au/sites/familylawmattersaustralia.com.au/files/documents/pdf/Flood,%20Backlash%20-%20Angry%20men_107.pdf

"...Fathers’ rights groups make claims to a victim status, downplaying
any sense of men’s or non-custodial parents’ agency, making analogies
with oppressed groups such as Aborigines, and painting their
opponents as possessing enormous power...."

Otb, has certainly gathered all the oppressed groups around him - "...eg children, men and LGBT, indigenous women too... - he's busily expanding his analogies.

"Bettina Arndt is calling for all to question the biassed assumptions and sloppy, self-serving 'research' being promulgated on domestic violence."

And where are those "facts" to which you allude, otb?

Interesting that we not privy to Arndt's so-called "research" - apart from her reference to 1700 peer-reviewed articles...and a vague reference to One in Three having loads of "proper statistics". It's nowhere. The sex therapist writes an article in which she generalises wildly - offers no statistics - lambastes anything that doesn't dovetail with her agenda - and spends a while denigrating the ABC.

Doesn't that all sound familiar.

"I’ve been calling these “men’s rights” and “fathers’ rights” groups,
because these are common descriptions and because some of the
groups use them themselves. “Anti-feminist” is also a useful
description for nearly all these groups. Another term is
“masculinist”, popular among American men’s rights men but in
less frequent use in Australia. More bluntly, men’s and fathers’
rights forces have sometimes been described as “pro-sexist” or the "angry men's movement".

Finally from Arndt's article:

"... If you need help in putting together emails to send them, send a blank email to domesticviolencetruth@gmail.com and you will automatically receive in response another email containing information you can use in your letters."

Weird.

Here's some actual coroner's statistics from NSW - or will you and Bettina think they're dodgy too?

"The Domestic Violence Death Review Team released their third annual report earlier this year, which analysed the 877 homicides reported in NSW between 2000 and 2010. To summarise their findings:

593 men and 283 women were killed in NSW over 10 years.

101 (17%) of male and 137 (48%) of female homicides were domestic violence related.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were significantly overrepresented in both male and female victims.

108 women were killed by their intimate partners.

* 105 of those women were domestic violence victims.
* 3 were killed by a partner where there was "evidence of violence and abuse used by both parties with no clear coercion and control".

35 men were killed by their intimate partners.

* 6 of those men were domestic violence victims, all 6 were killed by male partners.
* 25 men were identified as being the abuser of the woman who killed them.
* 3 were killed by a partner where there was "evidence of violence and abuse used by both parties with no clear coercion and control".
* 1 man was the extramarital intimate partner of a woman and was killed by her and her abusive husband acting together.

Over the whole ten years, "there were no cases where a woman was a domestic violence abuser who killed a male domestic violence victim".

53 children were killed by a parent.

* Nearly 60% of them were boys.
* Half of them were under 2 years old.
* 75% occurred in a domestic violence context, but in just over half those cases, the child was not the direct victim of the abuse.
* 80% of the fathers who killed their children were perpetrators of domestic violence.
* 94% of the mothers who killed their children were victims of domestic violence.

22 adults were killed by family members.

* 16 men were killed by sons, step-sons, brothers, daughters and fathers.
* 6 women were killed by sons, daughters and a nephew.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/what-the-coroners-court-report-reveals-about-domestic-violence-20150517-gh3qhj.html

Poirot,

As has been pointed out to you and Suseonline by other posters in previous threads, but perhaps you forget, the 'One in Three Campaign' has challenged misinformation about family violence, including the myth of gendered violence.

See here, or at least other readers could avail themselves of the opportunity since you and Suseonline say you don't read anything that doesn't accord with your long-held opinions,

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/misinformation/

Like Bettina Arndt who is calling for all to question the biassed assumptions and sloppy self-serving 'research' that is being spruiked on domestic violence, the One in Three Campaign says it, "aims to address the widespread misinformation about family violence and abuse by providing accurate data to the public about this important issue".

and

"The One in Three Campaign is fully supportive of all genuine programs designed to protect women and children from violence. We are simply seeking similar protection for men and boys and asking that the vast majority who are not violent are no longer tarred with the brush of violent males?.

That all sounds reasonable enough.

Now, back to the murder of John Ashfield, aged 6, who was beaten to death with a hammer. His mother, Gunn-Britt Ashfield, then 25, led the assault; her boyfriend, Austin Allan Hughes, then 20, was a keen participant.

I wonder if the kind, civic-spirited Ambassadors to White Ribbon Day might ask next time for some necessary balance. That isn't too much to ask is it? Fairness, equality and compassion, and less feminist idealism (especially in lieu of facts)

-Because domestic violence isn't gendered at all and children like the late John Ashfield need champions too. There are more recent examples with more numerous casualties. Out of respect for the recently bereaved I have left those examples to one side.

strangley enough most prison officers will tell you that working in the womens units are the worse for violence. They bash the << out of each other even more so than the males. Just another inconvenient truth that shatters the very narrow simplistic narrative. We were told by the social engineers that when smacking kids stopped the violence would disappear. The opposite has taken place. The engineers want to be able to sexualise kids at a young age, allow the porn education to feed then (often dressed as education) and expect this confused people to turn out model citizens. Well I suppose Turnbull and co are good at slogans which is why the root causes will never be addressed. Some groups will receive more grants while many women and some men continue to be bashed. As for culture well we aren't allow to go there (unless of course it is a white man).

otb,

Notwithstanding Arndt's fevered attempt to defend her hobby horse and spray around her article and denigrate the ABC prior to the screening of "Hitting Home":

On the subject of One in Three:

http://www.dailylife.com.au/dl-people/oneinthree-myth-unanimously-busted-on-hitting-home-finale-of-qa-20151125-gl8dzp.html

"That 'statistic' has become a mantra for MRAs - but despite being constantly debunked it continues to seep into mainstream discussions around domestic violence. The claim is that one in three domestic violence victims are male...."

"Last night, on the special Q&A program (and season finale) following Hitting Home, this statistic was raised again by an audience member. Thankfully, this time, the panel being asked were all well informed in the field of domestic violence. And their unanimous debunking of the claim was powerful."

"Social Services Minister Christian Porter got straight to the point: "I don't accept that statistic. I don't know where it's come from, and I'll be having a good look at it.

"This is, very sadly - and something we just have to be blunt and honest and open about or we'll never break the cycle - this a problem perpetrated by men against women ... almost exclusively."

"NSW Assistant Police Commissioner Michael Fuller went further into the statistical reality in his state: "Around 25 per cent of men present as victims of DV assaults ... but of that 25 per cent, more than half of the offenders are still male."

"Any victim of crime deserves a service," he added, "but we can't lose sight of the fact that for more than half of the cohort of male victims the offenders are male themselves."

Domestic Violence NSW CEO Moo Baulch pointed out that male offenders are often skilled at pretending to be the victim in order to play the system, but said better data is needed to really understand what is going on."

"You actually see high rates of reported one-off incidents," Humphreys said, noting that 9% of men and 14% of women had reported being victimised. "But actually when you look at who's reporting four or more incidents, 89 per cent were women."

Posted by *Runner* Thursday, 26 November 2015 5:52:29 PM

" ... Strangely enough, most prison officers will tell you that working in the womens units are the worst for violence. They bash the << out of each other even more so than the males. ... "

Yeah, remember *Prisoner* with Lizzy & Vinegar Tits and all the crew?
HaHaHa

..

And also *Runner* the cleaners will tell you that the Sheilas are heaps filthier in the dunnies than the guys, that's for sure.

'Hitting Home' (ABC)

Why didn't the ABC seek balance as required by its Charter by inviting a One in Three Campaign representative onto the program? -Given that the program's producers knew that 'One in Three Campaign' had a stake in any discussion of domestic violence and the ABC had scheduled 'Dorothy Dixer questions to challenge One in Three's information?

//"You actually see high rates of reported one-off incidents," Humphreys said, noting that 9% of men and 14% of women had reported being victimised.//

Once is all it takes to kill or permanently disable somebody, so once is too often.

Is it only abuse on the fourth and subsequent occasions?

My above post should have referred to Q&A.

Poirot of course has rushed like a moth to a flame to quote featherweight journo Jennifer Noyes. Must have resulted from a Google search.

Now because Poirot has been so scathing about the expertise of Bettina Arndt, whose qualifications and experience are not so shabby at all and her articles and books well researched, it is only appropriate to check the recent output from Poirot's source, the inexperienced reporter, Jennifer Noyes.

Jennifer writes about such important feminist issues as a mother taking the opportunity to be offended by schoolgirls being 'forced' to wear a non-white tee-shirt over swimmers at a school pool party. Which was declared sexist, "implied their bodies are indecent, sexual, and need to be covered up". Then Jennifer contradicted herself by adding "and no, a white t-shirt is not enough, because we all know sixth graders in wet t-shirts are just asking for trouble".

Here is the article,
http://tinyurl.com/q2b2rf6

Having been involved with school P&Cs, School Councils and sports volunteering for years I might suggest that the mother who took offence and the aptly named Jenny (sic) know little about precocious Year 6 schoolgirls. I have also seen more than enough air-headed, interfering parents who go out of their way to be offended and get a power-trip out of forcing teachers and school administrations to back down.

Reporter Jenny's conclusion from the subject Q&A was up to her usual standard: emotional, slanted and overreaching. Dumb-ass. No further comment needed.

Some of Q&A's guests did not let the ABC's producers down. For example, Moo Baulch, the flatteringly titled 'CEO' of Domestic Violence NSW, asserted without challenge that, "male offenders are often skilled at pretending to be the victim in order to play the system".

Still trying to flog a dead horse here I see Onthebeach.
Police statistics, as given by Poirot, and as used by all intelligent people to realise the truth about domestic violence, do not lie.

The policeman on the Q&A show seemed extremely experienced to me, and he has obviously been on the front line of dealing with domestic violence for many years.
I think his experience well and truly trumps yours and the sex therapist.

In any case, aren't you being hypocritical watching the ABC at all, what with all the c##p you level at it...ad nauseum?

Why not check out more articles written by Michael Flood?
He certainly has far more experience with domestic violence research than the sex therapist will ever have.
If she is your new poster girl for DV, then you aren't doing very well.

Suseonline,

The NSW Assistant Police Commissioner Michael Fuller said that any victim of crime deserves a service, ie fairness and equality, which is the direct opposite of what you believe where victims of domestic violence are concerned.

Bettina Arndt, "The lack of resources for male victims is just extraordinary. I was particularly struck by news that $100,000 was awarded to support pets of female victims in Victoria but not a cent for men suffering abuse."
http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/domestic-violence-and-white-ribbon-day-help-change-the-debate/

Is that your concept of fairness and equality?

Suse and Poirot,

Do you think that a woman in fear of her life should be allowed an effective means of self defence?

//Do you think that a woman in fear of her life should be allowed an effective means of self defence?//

Let me guess... this would be the type of self defence that goes bang? In 45 US states, and also Iceland for some reason, it isn't prohibited for individuals to carry Tasers. Or aren't they effective enough for you?

Spot on, Suse.

otb,

Nice try, but Jennifer's article merely reported verbatim Q&A's discussion. I'm not citing her as some kind of credible expert like your are Bettina Arndt - whose main claim to fame is editing "The Forum"...the kind of "Australian adult sex education magazine" you were likely to find stashed under your teenage brother's bed, circa 1978....(Lol!)

You say:

"The NSW Assistant Police Commissioner Michael Fuller said that any victim of crime deserves a service, ie fairness and equality, which is the direct opposite of what you believe where victims of domestic violence are concerned."

Nice cherry pick.

Fuller also said:

"NSW Assistant Police Commissioner Michael Fuller went further into the statistical reality in his state: "Around 25 per cent of men present as victims of DV assaults ... but of that 25 per cent, more than half of the offenders are still male."

"Any victim of crime deserves a service," he added, "but we can't lose sight of the fact that for more than half of the cohort of male victims the offenders are male themselves."

Why didn't you quote the rest of Fuller's sentence if you're interested in "balanced" representation?

And you're still quoting Arndt's misrepresentation that the "pets" are solely the "pets of female victims".

The upshot of that is often that a woman is intimidated and controlled by her partner's threat to harm of kill "their" pet - and stays in the relationship to protect the pet - and is in turn harmed or killed herself, or even just further abused in general.

Is that your concept of fairness and equality?

Arndt's misrepresentation of that common situation is a further indictment of her agenda.

Toni,

"//Do you think that a woman in fear of her life should be allowed an effective means of self defence?//

Let me guess... this would be the type of self defence that goes bang? In 45 US states, and also Iceland for some reason, it isn't prohibited for individuals to carry Tasers. Or aren't they effective enough for you?"

Whether Tassers are effective or not is beside the point, women in fear of their lives or serious physical injury are not allowed to possess them in Australia.
The PC brigade seem to prefer that women be killed rather than allow them any means of self defence.

Don't be ridiculous Is Mise, even in shoot-me-up USA you don't hear of many women shooting their intimate partners dead. More often it is quite the opposite.
Personally, if I was in a DV situation, which I never have been, I may very well shoot the bastard if I got the chance.

I believe the police tell women here they would be worse off carrying a gun because their loved one could grab it and turn it against her anyway.
Mind you, the police could be wrong...

Poirot,

The NSW Assistant Police Commissioner said that any victim of crime deserves a service, ie fairness and equality, which is the direct opposite of what you, Suseonline and the radical feminists behind White Ribbon Day believe where victims of domestic violence are concerned.

However, to justify your position you imply that the senior NSW cop intended that police make judgements as you do on who should receive a police service. That they be biassed like you and Suseonline who reckon that a woman's budgie is more worthy than any man, child or LBGT.

Thanks to feminists like you the police might not always receive the training and instructions they need to recognise and deal effectively with (say) the DV rampant in (say) homosexual and transgender relationships and there are complaints about that. See here,

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/domestic-violence-a-silent-epidemic-in-gay-relationships-20150415-1mm4hg.html

Maybe the transphobic Greer could explain the feminists' exclusion of transgender for instance, where the concern is protecting and constantly buffing the 'Patriarchy' paradigm.

Nothing fair, equal, egalitarian or humanist where the radical feminists are concerned. Which is also why men and boys who are victims of domestic violence must be given the cold shoulder. They are liars, pretenders (refer to the unchallenged comment on the most recent Q&A mentioned earlier) and unworthy of help.

However the public are not signed up to the religion of feminism. Which is why feminists must mushroom the public, doing everything possible to conceal and distort any evidence of DV victimhood outside of feminist certified 'Wonderful Womyn'. Feminists are about political capital and the victims of DV are useful for that.

However all victims are due compassion and support, without fear or favour. No-one is seriously arguing that women are not presenting as the most common and severely affected victims of DV. Training and instructing police and health workers to recognise and provide the same service to all victims is the only acceptable standard.

Suseonline,

If that is a serious risk and consequence where duly character-checked, licensed and trained people are concerned, the same argument would disarm police (who don't require a licence) and security staff.

otb,

"The NSW Assistant Police Commissioner said that any victim of crime deserves a service, ie fairness and equality, which is the direct opposite of what you, Suseonline and the radical feminists behind White Ribbon Day believe where victims of domestic violence are concerned."

Yes he did....just before he added "...but we can't lose sight of the fact that for more than half of the cohort of male victims the offenders are male themselves."

And you can stop right there with your underhand misrepresentation of mine and Suse's argument.

Where have we stated that we believe in the direct opposite of Fuller's remark: ""Any victim of crime deserves a service..."?

Go on - direct us to the statements by both Suse and myself where we have said we don't think all victims are deserving of care and attention?

"However, to justify your position you imply that the senior NSW cop intended that police make judgements as you do on who should receive a police service. That they be biassed like you and Suseonline who reckon that a woman's budgie is more worthy than any man, child or LBGT."

Absolute BS, otb...it's obvious you're desperate here - and in the process of tying yourself in knots while inventing paths of thought to justify your own dearth of substance.

We haven't implied anything of the sort. We quoted the senior NSW policeman.

You don't like quotes when they disagree with your agenda, do you, otb?

So you start spinning a huge unintelligible tapestry of what you'd like to think about our comments.

Your old trick of misrepresentation is still with you, I see.

Poirot,

If you and Suseonline truly believe that all victims are due compassion and support, without fear or favour and all victims are due the same services as the only acceptable standard,

then,

both you and Suseonline have pretenders who have been using your nicks for years to obfuscate, obstruct and deep-six your efforts.

You should take that up with the site moderators.

Because in this thread alone there have been 'false' Poirots and 'false' Suseonlines who have trenchantly sledged Bettina Arndt for having the temerity to even suggest that male victims of DV should be recognised and there should be some balance shown in the delivery of services.

otb,

"Because in this thread alone there have been 'false' Poirots and 'false' Suseonlines who have trenchantly sledged Bettina Arndt for having the temerity to even suggest that male victims of DV should be recognised and there should be some balance shown in the delivery of services."

Still at it I see.

We've critiqued sex therapist, Arndt, due to the dodgy content of her "article" and her association and promotion of the dodgy content in the One in Three campaign.

It's just so reminiscent of climate deniers and their junk-science - as in: - "...If you need help in putting together emails to send them, send a blank email to domesticviolencetruth@gmail.com and you will automatically receive in response another email containing information you can use in your letters."

Can you post the contributions on this thread from Suse and I where we've criticised Arndt for suggesting male victims of DV should be recognised?

Just counting up your hysterical rants from your previous post...all in one haranguing post, and peppered thus:

"radical feminists

radical feminists

feminists

feminists

feminists

feminists

feminist

feminism"

A fairly accurate representation of otb's balanced outlook.

'.but we can't lose sight of the fact that for more than half of the cohort of male victims the offenders are male themselves.'

How is that even relevant? It's unfathomable to me why this matters.

Just as different races have different worth in natural disasters, female victims of violence seem more mourned than male.

In fact I bet more children of both sexes are victims of violence.

Though probably little boys had it coming being born with that original male sin.

'"Any victim of crime deserves a service..."?

ie. I'm not racist but...

The *insert label here* are killing each other. Nothing to see here, as long as they don't hurt us in the process.

But back to domestic violence. There is 2 agendas as I see it.

Mens Rights Groups: Trying to steer the conversation towards fathers losing custody via nefarious use of domestic rights protections. Probably some claims justified, some not, some a grey area.

Feminists: Attempting to paint Domestic violence as proof of the Evil Male Patriarchy, and a result of misogyny. Probably an element in it, but hardly relevant to most domestic disputes, which are much more to do with drug and alcohol abuse, violent damaged people, anger management issues, stress, hopelessness, lack of coping mechanisms, and mismatches in physical strength, abuse of power.

Truth: Men are more violent with each other due to testosterone, and are stronger than women, and when women and men argue, men have less emotional coping skills, emotional outlets or support networks, and are more likely to abuse drugs (probably due to the lack of outlets), and are just more likely physically stronger.

People lash out at those that they don't fear.

Result: Women get hurt and killed more in the home while in close proximity to men, while generally vastly more men kill each other, and men more likely top themselves.

Such is life.

Hi Houellie,

"'.but we can't lose sight of the fact that for more than half of the cohort of male victims the offenders are male themselves.'

How is that even relevant? It's unfathomable to me why this matters."

It's "relevant" to this thread which was started under the premise that women are almost as violent and prone to abusing their partners as are men. Statistics of males presenting as victims are often skewed, ie most attributed to a female partner as being the aggressor - the senior NSW policeman was straightening out that misrepresentation. A misrepresentation that fueled Arnt's article and the premise for this thread.

Note that otb totally ignored that part of the policeman's statement and its pertinence to the premise of this thread...and you (apparently) can't even connect its pertinence to the subject at all.

"Truth: Men are more violent with each other due to testosterone, and are stronger than women, and when women and men argue, men have less emotional coping skills, emotional outlets or support networks, and are more likely to abuse drugs (probably due to the lack of outlets), and are just more likely physically stronger.

People lash out at those that they don't fear.

Result: Women get hurt and killed more in the home while in close proximity to men, while generally vastly more men kill each other, and men more likely top themselves.

Such is life."

Yes - but let's not forget that much domestic abuse is about control and intimidation (including violent abuse) to maintain that control. Abuse leading to serious injury, death or police intervention is usually at the end of a series of longer term abuse.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's absolutely no excuse whatsoever, for a male to physically assault a female. I do accept there are occasions, under some extreme circumstances, where a female might offer some extreme provocation toward her male partner. But still I've yet to witness an example, where a male has a legitimate right even a religious obligation, to exact any form of physical punishment upon a female !

However, contingent upon the above set of circumstances, a male may defend himself from a violent attack from a female, provided his response is directly proportional too the force offered by the female. And which is reasonably necessary in the circumstances, to neutralize that attack.

Houellebecq,

From my observation your summary has a lot going for it.

My overriding concern and it is a consistent theme that I usually declare, was expressed in an earlier post in this thread: to get value for (exasperated) taxpayers' money and public accountability, through measurable outcomes, I wrote:

<First, it is unconscionable that incomplete, slanted and fraudulent advice is knowingly being spruiked to government and the public by educated professionals, including some academics in universities, who are putting their own benefit, career and entitlement ahead of community good. They have no respect for or investment in good science either.

Secondly, the inevitable negative consequences that flow from poor advising is that taxpayers' dollars are NOT being targeted and expended for best effect and value for taxpayers' money is not being obtained. Nor is there the fairness that should apply in laws (that should be based on evidence, but what if that 'evidence' is biassed and deeply flawed?).

Of course concerned citizens should be writing to those well-intentioned but misled White Ribbon Day ambassadors and to populist politicians who swing like weather vanes and avoid the challenges of drafting good policy.>

Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 26 November 2015 12:04:31 PM

Suse,

Who mentioned guns?
I merely asked what you thought was an adequate means of self defence for a woman whose life is threatened or who fears serious injury.

Why do the Australian States deny women who are at risk any means of self defence?
They do allow women to study Martial Arts but an eight stone woman against a sixteen stone, enraged male is not going to be able to throw him and put him in a disabling lock.
Perhaps it is unfair to say that the PC crowd are happier to see women dead than defending themselves, but it sure looks that way.

So, what do you really think is an adequate means of self defence for a woman in fear?

Emblix Solutions provides services like Website designing, Digital Marketing, Search Engine Optimization (SEO), Social Media Marketing (SMM), E-commerce, E-mail Marketing, SMS, Voice calls, PPC campaigns, Affiliate Marketing, Online reputation management and many other services.

Onthebeach, are you still going on about feminists? Surely you must have covered all anti-feminist arguments by now? Boring...

Let me just state for the record...I am fully in agreement that all victims of both domestic and all other forms of violence, including all men, children and women of all colours, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and disability should receive equal rights and access to legal, safety, and medical needs after they suffer said forms of violence by any perpetrator.

There now, so don't go misrepresenting my thoughts on that subject again or I will just continually trot out my statement for you to re-read every time.

My statement above in no way negates the undeniable fact that with intimate partner domestic violence there is absolutely no doubt that women are more severely injured and killed in larger numbers by male perpetrators than men are.
Full stop.

Is Mise, are you seriously expecting me to believe you weren't thinking of your fave subject of bang-bangs when talking about self defence for women?
Do you not think that everyone else hasn't also thought of that, and other forms of self defence?

It has been denied to the women because of the high chance of either their loving partner or ex-partner getting their hands on it first and turning it against them.
Anything other than camera's, high security alarm systems, distress alarms or perhaps a guard dog or three would not be helpful if the man is physically stronger than the woman.
If that were not the case, it would have been allowed already.

Suse,

If the man intends to kill the woman she has a right to defend herself, legally and morally.

The PC crowd however would deny her the means of defending herself and her children.

Why?

Perhaps they would also like to see all emergency flotation devices removed from wharves and other places where someone might fall into the water.

Is Mise,

There's no accounting for societal stupidity - as I write this, some loon is busy shooting innocent people in Colorado Springs. The country with 290 million guns among its population endures around 11,000 gun homicides a year and tens of thousands more gun inflicted injuries.

Here we go:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/

"Having a Gun in the House Doesn't Make a Woman Safer

Firearms have been touted as a great equalizer between the sexes. But in cases where self-defense matters most, women tend to find their own weapons turned against them."

"Christie Salters Martin is a professional boxer and the owner of a concealed carry permit. But when she attempted to leave her husband, she was shot with her own gun. Today, she cautions other women against making the same mistake. “Just putting a weapon in the woman’s hand is not going to reduce the number of fatalities or gunshot victims that we have. Too many times, their male counterpart or spouse will be able to overpower them and take that gun away.”"

"A recent meta-analysis concluded what many people already knew: the availability of firearms is a strong risk factor for both homicide and suicide. But the study came to another conclusion that is rarely mentioned in the gun control debate: females are uniquely impacted by the availability of a firearm. Indeed, the study found that women with access to firearms become homicide victims at significantly higher rates than men."

"It has long been recognized that higher rates of gun availability correlate with higher rates of female homicide. Women in the United States account for 84 percent of all female firearm victims in the developed world, even though they make up only a third of the developed world’s female population. And within American borders, women die at higher rates from suicide, homicide, and accidental firearm deaths in states where guns are more widely available. This is true even after controlling for factors such as urbanization, alcohol use, education, poverty, and divorce rates."

Cont'd

Cont'd

"What’s more surprising is how many of these deaths occur in the home, at the hands of a male partner. In a study in the Journal of Trauma, A.L. Kellermann, director of the RAND Institute of health, and his coauthor J.A. Mercy concluded: “More than twice as many women are killed with a gun used by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than are murdered by strangers using guns, knives, or any other means.”

"In another study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, researchers interviewed 417 women across 67 battered women’s shelters. Nearly a third of these women had lived in a household with a firearm. In two-thirds of the homes, their intimate partners had used the gun against them, usually threatening to kill (71.4%) them. A very small percentage of these women (7%) had used a gun successfully in self-defense, and primarily just to scare the attacking male partner away. Indeed, gun threats in the home against women by their intimate partners appear to be more common across the United States than self-defense uses of guns by women."

"Another large case control study compared women who were murdered by their intimate partner with a control group of battered women. Only 16 percent of the women who had been abused, but not murdered, had guns in their homes, whereas 51 percent of the murder victims did. In fact, not a single study to date has shown that the risk of any crime including burglary, robbery, home invasion, or spousal abuse against a female is decreased through gun ownership. Though there are examples of women using a gun to defend themselves, they are few and far between, and not statistically significant."

"....A 2005 study examining mortality data from 1998-2000 found that when a female was shot by her intimate partner, the perpetrator subsequently killed himself in two thirds of the cases. This statistic not only shows necessity of getting mental help for at-risk men. It also further suggests that owning a firearm may make a household more vulnerable than ever."

Plenty of studies there....all reaching a similar conclusion.

Suseonline, "Let me just state for the record...I am fully in agreement that all victims of both domestic and all other forms of violence, including all men, children and women of all colours, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and disability should receive equal rights and access to legal, safety, and medical needs after they suffer said forms of violence by any perpetrator...My statement above in no way negates the undeniable fact that with intimate partner domestic violence there is absolutely no doubt that women are more severely injured and killed in larger numbers by male perpetrators than men are'"

Yes, fair enough and thanks for it.

I despair of any of our current crop of Party career politicians ever being anything but knee-jerk populist on this, or most things.

I would like to see some recognition of the different categories of offender. After a search I cam up with this paper as being close to my thinking on the lack of homogeneity of offenders,
https://www.griffith.edu.au/professional-page/anna-stewart

Now Prof. Anna Stewart,
https://www.griffith.edu.au/professional-page/anna-stewart

General Comment
I will not be entering into the firearms debate.

However outside of NSW*, while one is said to have the 'right' to self-defence, all need to be aware that offenders do have more rights.

If an offender is even slightly injured by their victim (or by the homeowner's poodle), the luckless victim will find herself in the watchhouse being treated as a criminal, then before a court where the REVERSED ONUS OF PROOF(!) will require her to prove that her or pooch's use of force was finely measured and reasonable.

The Crown Prosecutor is NOT your friend and in the comfort of a court will NOT be easily convinced that your options, eg waiting optimistically for the police, were ever extinguished. The offender can and may sue you too.

*NSW, where self defence has some necessary protection at law
http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/defences/self-defense

Sorry, I duplicated a link. That paper I wanted to link to is here,

http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/3851/16496_1.pdf?sequence=1

Apart from that, there is some very useful and relevant research being done at Griffith University.

Is Mise, it isn't any so-called PC crowd that are preventing female DV victims from arming themselves with guns and just shooting their abusers dead on the spot. There is no evidence at all to suggest the guns would help.

That would make these women judge, jury and executioners, and as much as I think many of these violent men need shooting, they should still have the right to a fair trial.
It seems they would also be judged as committing murder as well, given they would probably be charged with using unreasonable force.

As Poirot suggests, I would imagine that if there was any chance that these women could effectively stop the violence against them by using a gun for protection, then there would be a higher level of male deaths by their female partners in a place like the US.

This event and report could easily have been in Australia, where government has been far more concerned about the rights of criminals than about victims,

<Knife hero Myleene ticked off by police
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/2801350/Myleene-Klass-scares-yobs-from-garden-by-waving-knife-through-window.html

TELLY beauty Myleene Klass was told off by cops for waving a knife through her WINDOW to scare off yobs skulking in her garden at night.

The mum of one was alone in her kitchen as toddler Ava, two, slept upstairs when she saw the trespassers trying to break into her garden shed and peering through her windows.

Desperate to protect her daughter and her home, brave Myleene, 31 — whose fiance Graham Quinn was away on business — grabbed a kitchen knife and waved it, shouting: “I’m calling the police.”

But when cops arrived they told her she could have got into trouble with the law — even though she was in her own HOME and the yobs were outside.

An insider said: “She could see two teenagers trying to break into her shed and pressing their faces up against her windows to see inside.

“It wasn’t just high jinx — she was genuinely frightened. She was alone with her baby and scared out of her wits.

“Acting completely on instinct, she grabbed a knife and started banging on the windows, making as much noise as she could and shouting that she was going to call the police.”

Her tactics worked and the yobs ran off. But the Marks & Spencer model was horrified when cops told her carrying an “offensive weapon” is illegal — even in her own home.

An insider said: “She never even stepped out of her door — and anyway she was a frightened mum trying to defend her baby and her property. It’s absolutely insane.”

The insider added: “The officers were very kind and one of them actually said, ‘Off the record, I’d probably have done the same as you’..>

Suse and Poirot,

Then we had better disarm the female police officers before some hunk of a homicidal male takes their gun off them.

What would you recommend for a woman in fear of her life to have for the purpose of self defence?
Bear in mind that any recommendation will be illegal because it is unlawful in this country for women to possess ANYTHING for the purpose of self defence.

Would the women murdered in Australia been any less dead if they had been killed with something with which they had tried to defend themselves?

It doesn't seem rational that the women's movement and 'gun control'(sic) activists are relying on the State to protect women,

BUT, and it is a very large 'BUT',

the current discourse on DV and the numbers accepted by government have every woman fearful for her life and limb. It is also alleged to be a 'rape culture' with rape a common event, ENDEMIC and always increasing.

Sexual molestation, rape and violence is the lot of women and girls. It is 'terrorism'. It is inevitable. That is the message of Rosy Baty, the icon of anti-DV. It is why she was made Australian of the Year and why she was given the honor of addressing the federal parliament to set them right.

To be blunt, if the advice being tendered to government is to be believed, the State cannot protect women and girls, not back then, not now and not in the future. The State has not managed to protect women against that claimed tsunami of violence despite the millions being poured annually into women's advocates, lawyers and DV over many years, for decades.

However, if a feral, a man, invades a woman's home threatening her and in trying to defend herself she injures him even slightly, she will be interrogated by police, held and could be arrested and thrown into court where she will be required to defend herself against a REVERSED standard of proof. That is, prove you were really afraid, now how afraid was that again, was it reasonable, you could have thrown yourself out of that sendong floor window to flee instead of hitting the the gentleman with that poker you kept for that purpose etc.

Where the State obviously cannot protect a woman, it is unreasonable that where she is caused to defend herself she may be charged, required to sell her home for her defence against that reversed standard of proof and ultimately end up in gaol.

Sadly it is the criminal that the State has shown it has a duty to protect and has buffed up laws to protect criminals' rights.

The solution that the activists have in mind, is 'Give In and you won't be hurt' or 'Lay there and think of Mother England [or whatever takes your fancy]'.

Governments and the Do-Gooder industry are encouraging domestic violence and violence against women in general..

I have only read some of the posts on this thread, but I am very surprised at some of the responses. The thing is, Bettina Arndt has been around for decades, first as a sex therapist and then specialising in relationships in general. She would have interviewed more couples in that time, than any of you have had hot dinners and it is very foolish to write off her opinion and expertise. She might be controversial at times, but IMO far more realistic and understanding of the real world than most people.

Fact is, this subject is not black and white as some seem to want to claim. Yes there are cases, but in many cases it is far more complex and starts with verbal abuse on both sides and escalates from there.

There is a solution, documented in Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence" Kids at school as young as 6-7 are being taught emotional literacy, conflict resolution skills etc. The results have been dramatic. Less bullying, less violence, issues are addressed and solved before they get out of hand. Any kid can learn it. We should be teaching it at our schools.

The main problem I have read with many posts on this page, are many now have become based on violence (one person, simply attacking another) without considering flow on effects.

That being *all* forms of violence.

1. One time on a bus, a women, her partner and children, were all coming home on a bus I was on. The mother was using vile language all the way home (towards the children), and yet the partner was doing nothing re the issue.

2. In another situation, involving this couple, I got onto a bus and the bus had bad odours of alcohol. I saw the male partner and family, leave at a bus stop parking facility. I hope the male didn't drive home (as he was clearly drunk). These people are not suitable parents.

3. In another situation (on a bus I use) a younger aged woman was very violent towards her boyfriend. She demanded "her" boyfriend not get off the bus, was screaming this out very loudly (and was using the F) word a lot. The bus driver was concerned and didn't know what to do. The male in that case ended up getting out of the bus at a stop he didn't want, and the female chased him into a local park.

4. Finally, when I was aiming to sit down in a bus seat (a middle aged person - looking in his 30's), pushed me into another seat. Other people were concerned. I was asked if I was O.K. I said I was more concerned about his girlfriend, but the problem was that she was agreeing with all of the horrible things he was saying about me after the incident.

People need to discuss relationship issues, before they get together.

On and on it goes, sliding off the issue of domestic violence (i.e. violent criminals assaulting victims) on to what gender the violent criminals are - while ducking the one factor common to every single episode of domestic violence - assault happening because a violent criminal is AT LARGE.

Though no fan of Christian Porter, I swung over to him big time when on a Q and A panel debating DV he was the only panel member to cut the escapist cackle and focus fully on sweeping the bashers out of victims' lives and into prison. He spoke as a former Crown prosecutor often frustrated by pro-criminals' grip on the judiciary and the parole boards. With people like Porter in the Cabinet and the seemingly unstoppable groundswell against basher impunity it looks likely that to start with AVOs will be enforced with gaol for breaches and for assault of every gradation earning serious prison time.

The worm is turning at last! Roll on legislated mandatory sentences.

I should hasten to add hearty concurrence with onthebeach's concern over householders being treated as criminals for successfully defending themselves against violent or potentially violent intruders. Punitive laws directed to protecting criminals need drastic change. It's small wonder that home invasion is virtually an Australian national sport.

Hi Poirot,

'It's "relevant" to this thread which was started under the premise that women are almost as violent and prone to abusing their partners as are men. Statistics of males presenting as victims are often skewed, ie most attributed to a female partner as being the aggressor'

I think it's the inevitable result of the expanded definitions of DV, and even of the definition of 'violence', that eventually you can then accuse women of engaging in the same behaviour in relationships.

Actually if you look at the definition of DV, I am surprised there is any couple that hasn't perpetuated DV on each other practically every week.

Victim industries always play with the definitions, to exaggerate their figures, to get more funding. Everything is an 'epidemic' these days.

Originally you had domestic violence, which was bashing your wife. Say x% of women were bashed. Then all sorts of 'controlling' behaviours were brought into the definition of DV (to expand the figures to more scary '1 in 3'), many of which women engage in as much if not more so than men.

So it's a bit hypocritical for these organisations to cry foul men use these expanded definitions, or have actually been convinced they're now victims.

Of course once men do this, then the topic is quickly switched back to pure wife bashing, still using the figures from the expanded definitions of course.

Houellie,

While I take your point on definitions...the bit you couldn't connect earlier wasn't about that.

It concerned the point that although 25% of victims presenting were male, that more than half of those were the victims of a male aggressor. And I considered that a pertinent point on a thread thread that sought to represent women as almost equal perpetrators of domestic violence.

It's so very easy to utter the term "victim industries" isn't it....I did see a few women victims last week on Hitting Home. There they sat being photographed, brazenly displaying their fat lips and black eyes, golf ball-sized forehead lumps and bruised throats.

You'd think they'd know better than to buy into the "industry".

Talking of definitions, I read yesterday that in Queensland they've only now made "attempted choking" a criminal offence - and this is one of the more common methods of intimidation...it beggars belief that it wasn't on the books before.

Hi Poirot,

Oh I 'connected', so I outlined the environment that allows the notion to be anything but fanciful.

I wonder if it is a crime yet to slap a guy in the face.

I wonder if it's domestic violence to force a guy to sleep on the couch, damage his property, belittle him in front of friends, discourage him to keep in contact with friends, control the family finances, goad him to hit you and threaten to leave with the kids. Apparently these kind of things are only DV if there is some mystical 'Patriarchy' involved.

I will wholeheartedly concede the vast majority of people in genuine risk of actual violence are women. But the horse has bolted now, the definitions are expanded. You must accept that under the new definitions, a lot of men are victims

I am sure there are a lot of psychopath guys controlling fearful women, I get that, but the amount of guys being controlled, and the amount of basically fooked up relationships where the guy just happens to be the stronger one and has anger management issues, or even where the woman just knows the guy is too nice or principled to retaliate and totally controls the whole environment are legion. I think we've all seen some dreadful behaviour from both sexes, but this is only deemed part of the DV narrative when it's the man doing it.

I have been in relationships where my girlfriend used to swing knives at me when drunk, threaten to self harm if I left the situation and goaded me to hit her to prove I wasn't a wuss. It's a pretty tricky situation to navigate when you know damn well you're the industry's designated abuser, the all powerful Patriarch, who is under high suspicion regardless of the facts.

I've even seen relationships where the couple use fights as foreplay.

But the orthodoxy, the controlling of the conversation by the industry, doesn't allow any responsibility placed on women in relationships for fear of excusing the more extreme violence of men.

'There they sat being photographed, brazenly displaying their fat lips and black eyes, golf ball-sized forehead lumps and bruised throats.

Exactly. Actual violence. The stuff the industry switches to talking about when people say there are equal stats between the genders for yelling and belittling and threats and generally aggressive manipulative behaviour. The stuff used to bolster the figures, I reckon is much more evenly spread in relationships.

Exactly my point ie. Now men are more aware of the expanded definitions of DV, they realise they have also been a victim, but once men do claim this, then the topic is quickly switched back to pure wife bashing, though still using the figures from the expanded definitions of course.'

To be fair on the 'attempted choking', that can be part of a healthy sex life. When trust is involved.

"To be fair on the 'attempted choking', that can be part of a healthy sex life. When trust is involved."

Taurum stercore or, more commonly, "Excritia bovinus".

I again reiterate, there are no circumstances whatsoever where a male is justified in physically assaulting a female ! Other than perhaps in circumstances of self-defence, and then only, proportional to the force offered.

I've (unfortunately) attended many incidences of domestic violence over the years, and rarely are there ANY circumstances where a man can legitimately strike a female. I say this despite any other arguments you may care to evoke.

o sung wu,

Couldn't agree more, although I have slapped a woman lightly on the face to halt mounting hysteria.
There is no excuse other than in self defence.

' again reiterate, there are no circumstances whatsoever where a male is justified in physically assaulting a female ! '

See, why only women? Are there any circumstances where men are justified in physically assaulting a man? Are there any circumstances whatsoever where a female is justified in physically assaulting a male?

I'm sure you'd say yes. To both. So really you guys aren't for equality, just white knight chivalry and patriarchy.

I was brought up in a similar era, maybe not as old, and I have never hit a woman, and cant imagine doing so. Much to my detriment on occasion where I could have protected myself a bit better.

The thing is though, from my experience, the same attitudes from the loudly proclaiming 'never hit a woman' grandstanders generally come from un-reconstructed macho sexists, who see women as inferior, even whilst they admire them on a pedestal.

But really, you guys go on with your chest beating nuance-free world view you got going there, and I'll act all chastened to placate you so I don't blow your mind too much.

BTW: Erotic asphyxiation goes both ways, and it can be a valid sensory indulgence.

Quote:BTW: Erotic asphyxiation goes both ways, and it can be a valid sensory indulgence.Unquote.

Well, yer Honour, we was only stranglin' fer a bita fun, but I had an organism an' she was dead; diden mean t' do it

Chivalry does indeed prevent us from hitting women and long may there be chivalrous men amongst us.
Hitting other men is justified if they hit first or miss with one, comes under the heading of defence.

The public attempt to confront domestic violence would get nowhere if it was sidetracked by all these other issues that are not about immediately, or as fast as the necessary legislation can be drafted, passed and gazetted protecting victims of assault from assault and the fear of assault.

The most ridiculous red herring I've seen is an attempt to sidetrack discussion of domestic violence into one of rearming the likes of Martin Bryant (disguised as relating not to the Martin Bryants but to dear old ladies cowering in their beds!)

Imperator,

Domestic violence is already illegal so a raft of new laws is just a feel good exercise.

What is your solution for the small woman about to be attacked and in fear of her life?
How could she possibly protect herself against an aggressive male?

Ring 000?

Now if she had a gun she could say "Hang on minute" and go and rummage it out of its secure cabinet, load and cock it, check safety off, and return and blow the bastard away.

Hi there HOUELLEBECQ...

Your right pal, I just beat my chest in an overt demonstration of how chivalrous I am ! I reckon in my time I've seen many instances of vicious assaults occasioned against females, often for absolutely no reason whatsoever ! And the assaults have been so bad and so vicious the victim dies, and dies very painfully indeed, and in the presence of their children too. Of course, the Brief of Evidence becomes much much harder, as do all charges of murder ?

During the days of the old R of I, you'd ask the offender why he gave his missus such a floggin', he'd reply along the lines, '... I had a bit of piss on board and she nagged me from the time I came in the front door, you know what I mean eh ? 'gees' she never let me alone with her whinging, she deserved a good kickin' you can understand that ...' ?

Sure, I can understand his wife 'really' deserved a good kicking because she failed to recognise his 'delicate state' after he'd consumed so much booze ? How dare the 'b...ch' question his sobriety, after all a man is boss of his own house, and his wife MUST learn to accept that, and yield to his wishes ...?

And you HOUELLEBECQ, have the temerity to accuse me, and many other men of merely 'grandstanding' and carrying out a lot of public 'chest beating' in an effort of demonstratively, treating women as inferior!

All because we utterly condemn any physical assault occasioned upon any female, for any reason, save that of self-defence. Pal, I have so much to learn from your wise counsel ?

IS MISE...Somehow I couldn't imagine a bloke like you, giving ANY female a 'beating', it simply doesn't fit with your character, background, or vocational antecedents ! Others though, I'm not so sure ?

I thought that Houllie made some great points, that it is not a black and white issue, as so many are claiming.

So who do I blame? I blame both men and women. Women are mothers and run a good part of the education system. They know as I know, that many a young male, with few brains and loaded with testosterone, often from a dysfunctional family, is let loose on the community and then wonder why some of them turn violent. Yet this kid sat through years of education, when he could have learned to deal with things like anger management, conflict resolution and other skills. Instead he is forced to learn languages or some other dicky idea dreamed up by the educators, commonly women. So keep me out of it.

Imperator,

So you have decided to join that little band who cannot answer the question?
The question being; what can a woman do to defend herself against a bigger and stronger male who is bent on doing her immediate harm?

Surely you must have some idea of how she could defend herself.

Perhaps she could dial '999', it would be just as effective as dialing '000', the response time would be much longer but the fatal result would be the same.

//Well, yer Honour, we was only stranglin' fer a bita fun, but I had an organism an' she was dead; diden mean t' do it//

Actually, great majority of erotic asphyxial deaths are male. I've never heard of any female cases; but male cases do pop up in the news from time to time - I'm sure we all remember Michael Hutchence of INXS fame. Then there was David Carradine a few years ago, and some British politician a few years before that...

It's a risky game and you wouldn't catch me doing it, but apparently some people do get off on the hypoxia. What goes on between two consenting adults in private is none of my concern, even if they are weird sick freaks.

//The question being; what can a woman do to defend herself against a bigger and stronger male who is bent on doing her immediate harm?//

Kick him in the nuts? Hit him with a frying-pan? Employ the deadly art of Dim Mak? Maybe not that last one. I'd probably go with the frying-pan. A heavy blunt object will probably stop him in his tracks or at least slow him down, and you're more likely to be able to improvise a weapon when you need one than have a readied firearm conveniently close by.

Toni,

I can't see the little woman overcoming the big 16 stone hyped up male with any close physical contact.
You, and others, seem to be obsessed with guns; don't you know of any other effective means that a woman could employ?

//I can't see the little woman overcoming the big 16 stone hyped up male with any close physical contact.//

Maybe not the kick in the nuts - although they can be remarkably effective at reducing big, burly blokes to writhing, gasping agony. And definitely not the Dim Mak (that was a joke). You might be surprised, however, in how effective blunt force trauma can be in stopping even large, muscular men. It's not so much a case of the woman overcoming the man as it is the considerable force that even a small women can deliver with a mace.

Consider this excerpt for wikipedia's entry on hammers, and how it might apply to bludgeoning weapons:

"A hammer is basically a force amplifier that works by converting mechanical work into kinetic energy and back... The amount of energy delivered to the target by the hammer-blow is equivalent to one half the mass of the head times the square of the head's speed at the time of impact. While the energy delivered to the target increases linearly with mass, it increases quadratically with the speed (see the effect of the handle, below)... In this way, great strength is not needed to produce a force strong enough to bend steel, or crack the hardest stone."

Human skeletons are considerably less hard than the hardest stone - about 4.5-5.0 on Moh's scale - and soft tissue, unsurprisingly, considerably softer still. If man can shrug off a blow that can bend steel and crack rocks then that man is presumably Superman. In which case the only effective weapon against him will be green kryptonite.

//don't you know of any other effective means that a woman could employ?//

I have mentioned tasers. You didn't like that idea. I have mentioned blunt-force trauma. You disagreed that it would be effective, but you are wrong on that score. Frankly, I suspect you're going to keep dismissing any and all suggestions until everybody achieves the enlightenment you hope they will achieve and says 'Of course! Why didn't I think of it before! We just need to give women guns, and the problem will magically solve itself.' It appears to be your deeply held belief that the only effective way for a woman to defend herself is by shooting people, whereas I feel that anything which causes sufficiently debilitating pain and/or disrupts the right vital systems will prove effective. This includes methods such as stabbing, blunt force trauma, burning/scalding, shocking/electrocuting etc.

//You, and others, seem to be obsessed with guns.//

Given your tendency to dismiss, out of hand, any answer which isn't 'guns', I'd suggest that it is in fact you who has the child-like fascination with shiny things that go bang.

Toni,

"Given your tendency to dismiss, out of hand, any answer which isn't 'guns', I'd suggest that it is in fact you who has the child-like fascination with shiny things that go bang"

They are not all shiny, there are plenty of matt finished ones!

What I am obsessed with is the right of people to defend themselves against unlawful attack and Governments refusal to allow anyone to possess anything for that purpose.

Tassers are fine but illegal, capsicum spray is fine also but illegal as are all other irritant sprays if designed for defence, or if a legal substance are possessed for the purpose of self defence.
You mention a mace, illegal as are all other blunt or sharp instruments that are kept for self defence.

John Howard boasts about the changes to the law which he initiated, perhaps he considered ordinary folk to be expendable whilst he and other politicians were protected by armed men and women.

Cowardly.

This thread has wandered even further into irrelevance to the basic question of domestic violence - stopping the violent criminals. Now it's stuck in the realm of unravelling the Howard gun reforms and arming the violent criminals, along with every kill-crazy enemy in the land, with guns. Sheesh, we're not Yanks, they have a much bigger population in reserve to go through by shooting one another dead. And we still have an epidemic of violent domestic criminality to put a stop to.

//You mention a mace, illegal as are all other blunt or sharp instruments that are kept for self defence.//

I know about the legality of maces in NSW. I used to be involved in dark ages re-enactment - you're allowed to have a blunt sword, axe, spear etc. but maces are illegal. You can only have maces for ceremonial purposes, such as the one carried by the Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Representatives or those carried by Drum Majors in marching bands. Which is good, because weekend warriors would get seriously hurt if they started using maces. And a whack from a blunt sword still hurts even when you're wearing chainmail and your fellow combatants are pulling their blows. If they weren't pulling their blows, there would be smashed limbs aplenty.

So there's one thing you can legally keep and which will make an effective improvised weapon if needs be. Other people who engage in more mainstream sporting pursuits might have a cricket bat or hockey stick or some such. Again, these will make effective improvised weapons.

My friend works in construction. He recently got a contract which involved some demolition, and bought himself a new tool known as a known as 'Fubar':

http://toolmonger.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/post-fubarsite.jpg

A more fearsome weapon than a lot of the actual weapons I've seen. It's not illegal. And if you ever got hit with one, you would indeed be fcuked up beyond all recognition.

I work in hospitality. My knives aren't illegal, my meat tenderiser isn't illegal, and if I had a good heavy cast-iron frying pan with a nice long handle that wouldn't be illegal anyway.

....

....

There are, in fact, a wide variety of implements readily available for sale and fully legal to possess that make effective weapons. The Fubar being a case in point. It's all the mace a man could ever need. It may be illegal to possess them expressly for the purpose of self-defence, but nobody ever asks you what you intend to do with them when you buy them so how could the police possibly know? And it isn't necessarily illegal to defend yourself with them.

In summation: you can legally possess a lethal implement like a Fubar and you can legally defend yourself with it, you just can't legally admit to having purchased it for that particular purpose. Sorry, what's the problem here?

The problem Toni is that one is not allowed to possess anything for the purpose of self defence; oven cleaner in spray cans is legal but if one keeps it in the bedroom then it is deemed to be for defence and is illegal.
----
Imperator,

Discussing the means which a woman may use for defence in a thread on domestic violence is entirely relevant.
We have a Government that is allegedly against domestic violence but which resolutely refuses to all potential victims any legal means of defence.
Instead of ranting make a few constructive suggestions.

Maybe posters could read earlier posts.

As stated earlier, the Rosie Batty message that is so crucial that she was awarded an Order of Australia, became the domestic violence icon and guru lauded by feminist elite and media, particularly by their 'fact-checking' ABC, and was invited to address the federal Parliament, IS that:

- Sexual molestation, rape and violence at the hands of 'men' is the lot of women and girls. Every woman fearful for her life and limb. It is ENDEMIC and always increasing. It is inevitable. There is a 'rape culture'. It is 'terrorism'. 'Men' MUST swear against fulfilling their destiny, which is to dominate, control and enslave women (master-slave - feminists' Hegelian dialectic) and generally wreak mayhem where 'Wonderful', blameless, 'Earth Mother' women are concerned.

BUT, and it is a very large 'BUT',

- if the advice being tendered to government is to be believed, the State cannot protect women and girls, not back then, not now and not in the future. The State cannot protect women against the claimed tsunami of violence.

However, if a feral, always a man, invades a woman's home threatening her and in trying to defend herself she injures him even slightly, she will be interrogated by police, held and could be arrested and thrown into court where she will be required to defend herself against a REVERSED standard of proof.

Police and their Prosecutors have considerable leeway in determining what is a 'weapon' and even more leeway in limiting what is a 'reasonable' force.

Where the State obviously cannot protect a woman, it is unreasonable that where she is caused to defend herself she may be charged, required to sell her home for her defence against that reversed standard of proof and could be gaoled.

Sadly it is the criminal that the State has shown it has a duty to protect and leftists have buffed up laws to protect criminals' rights.

Toni Lavis, "Sorry, what's the problem here?"

The first problem is that you have not familiarised yourself with the laws and their application.

For starters, you are leading with your chin. If you ever (say) caused to defend your own life and loved ones in your home and the feral alleged he was threatened or injured in the process, your friends and acquaintances will be interrogated, your computer will certainly be taken by police and your online record will be scrutinised for any evidence that could be used to incriminate you.

Secondly (and I will leave it at that), you must be astounded that (say) Adrian Bayley's victims were apparently incapable of 'improvising a weapon when they needed one'. [Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 11:08:23 PM]

However, weapon or not is not my concern. In my posts I am only asking for all Australians to have the right to defend themselves in their own home. That the burden of proof is returned to the police and police prosecutor, where it rightfully and usually is in our system of law. It is intolerable that the victims of crime are being re-victimised by the very police and authorities who failed to protect them in the first place.

NSW is the sole jurisdiction that has changed that and thanks to the Australian Shooters and Fishers Party,

<Division 3 Self-defence
418 Self-defence—when available
(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the
person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in
self-defence.
(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the
person believes the conduct is necessary:
(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or
(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his
or her liberty or the liberty of another person, ..
..
In any criminal proceedings in which the application of this
Division is raised, the prosecution has the onus of proving,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the person did not carry out the
conduct in self-defence.">
[excerpts from Crimes Amendment (Self-defence) Bill 2001, NSW]

Hi there IS MISE...

The first paragraph of your last thread is quite correct in law. Often well meaning advice given to women to carry a large hat pin as a defensive weapon, technically if caught using said hat pin the woman could run perilously close to being charged, particularly if the original assailant is injured by the hat pin !

I know the law's an absolute ass, and it's frightening to think that your wife, girlfriend even an elderly mother, is prohibited from carrying any object with the intent to protect themselves ? Seems to be all the crooks way when you think about it ?

I recall one of our blokes was confronted by a really curious dilemma; where an alleged 'female' assailant (who just happened to be built like the proverbial 'brick lavatory') when charged with common assault, in her defence claimed the victim became the attacker ! And had savagely 'scored' both sides of the (attackers) face with her long finger nails, thus occasioning substantially injury to her, into the bargain !

It was later contended, the original victim had used more force to defend herself, than was reasonably necessary, thus occasioning undue further injury to the alleged assailant. I'm unaware of the outcome other than it became quite 'messy' with Barrister's on both sides, earning a good quid from the proceedings ? It would've became a topic of conversation for some time to come, in many a muster room I reckon?

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

I'd be astounded and ashamed to hear that police ever took the side of an assailant, in circumstances where a victim is defending himself and his family in their own home. Provided the victim didn't overreact to a point where the assailant suffered serious injury or death. The average 'jack' can generally always 'tidy things up' for the victim(s)? No copper worth his salt would ever side with a crook - still in these days of political correctness and 'Dudley Do Good's' as witnesses, one can never tell eh ? As I've said previously, I'm glad I've retired.

o sung wu,

As you realise, I am not criticising police in general. Like all large bodies of people the police have some who throw their weight around and would like to get their name known to the upper, political levels.

That is far more common in the cities than in country areas, where the police have to apply good judgement or not get the job done.

In NSW the changes are working and have not resulted in any problems at all. However that does not mean that victims, especially the male victims, of home invasion are not being re-victimised, and more so where the media and 'human headline' politicians become involved.

There are well-publicised, recent examples and in NSW where there is some protection.

NSW
It was only public outrage and public support that helped this unfortunate victim of a home invasion. One wrong word and it would, not could, have gaoled him. He suffered for a very long time and was subjected to the full shabby treatment at the hands of sectors of the media, the leftist commentariat, senior police and prosecutors and politicians.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/donald-brooke-to-find-out-if-he-faces-a-murder-charge-for-fatally-stabbing-a-stun-gun-wielding-intruder/story-e6freuy9-1226167931279

much later..

http://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/docs/default-source/recent-media-releases/06-12-2013-decision-in-the-matter-of-brookes-.pdf?sfvrsn=4

One can only guess what the outcome might have been if the home invasion had occurred in another State or Territory, without the NSW protections for self defence.

I am only asking for all Australians to have the right to defend themselves in their own home. That the burden of proof is returned to the police and police prosecutor, where it rightfully and usually is in our system of law.

Sadly it is the criminal that the State has shown it has a duty to protect and leftist governments have buffed up laws to protect criminals' rights.

The public just don't realise and clowns on The Box don't help. Some of these TV 'personalities' are self-styled (producer-appointed?) experts everything. Imagine how the public is constantly being misinformed by idiotic, doubtless scripted, exchanges such as this,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imcn-0K-9Bs

Thanks to all who put their opinions forward. The general conclusion? That all victims of violence should receive equal recognition and treatment.

For my part, I will never accept sloppy, self-serving research wherever it occurs. That so many scientists do not always challenge sloppy and even fraudulent research reports in the news is often because they are concerned that in so doing they might inadvertently lend some credence to the original report.

However there is also evidence of political interference and the negative consequences of that: poor policy and wastage of public (taxpayers') $$.

I am more concerned about children, but I somehow doubt that Rosie Batty and her enthusiastic bandwagoners, esp. the ABC, would ever agree with children being given equal priority, or even male victims.

Where was the indignant outcry about this child abuse? (link below) Where was that populist weather vane, Malcolm Turnbull?

<'Mummy blogger' charged, accused of injecting ill child with urine, laxative abuse

A woman who has been charged with harming her daughter by injecting her with urine is a prolific "mummy blogger" who wrote in detail about her family's life, particularly the ill health of the child she is accused of harming..>
http://tinyurl.com/zb3vwkz

Bettina Arndt is right to say that, "the domestic violence lobby groups have got away with their distorted campaign for far too long because they have silenced their critics". There are gutless politicians too, though.

http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/domestic-violence-and-white-ribbon-day-help-change-the-debate/

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

There's a general principle saying:- "we all have the 'LEGAL RIGHT' to defend ourselves and others, against a violent attack".

[There's a High Court judgement; 'Viro & Ors' vs CofA way back when Adam was still in 'three cornered trousers and button up boots', allowing the application of lethal force in order to protect ones self against a violent attack ?]

The precise facts escape me at this time, so I can't use this judgement to support an argument, one way or another ?

Where this general principle stumbles somewhat, there's no allowance for 'how or what' we may use, in order to defend ourselves, only that it's lawful to do so ? In all matters of 'self defence' we're governed (everybody, including the police) by the 'Doctrine of Proportionality'. In other words we may use as much force as reasonable necessary, to abrogate the force offered by the assailant.

A nine stone woman would need to deploy a significantly higher measure of force, to nullify a male assailant who weighs in sixteen stone, than a male victim would need, to negate the force offered by a nine stone woman attacker? Hence a crude example of the 'Doctrine of Proportionality'.

In principle you can defend yourself. I am not arguing that point.

What I am talking about is immediately after, when the unfortunate victim must defend him-/herself in court.

I gave an example (Donald Brooke) from NSW, the sole jurisdiction in Australia where people who defend themselves have some hope through the removal of that despicable reversed standard of proof that applies everywhere else.

Even in NSW the victims who defend themselves are still re-victimised and can easily lose all of their assets defending their actions in court.

The treatment of Donald Brooke by senior police, by some headline-hunting politicians and the media (who went so far as to provide photos of him, his home and Google Maps location) was so shameful that the public eventually rose up and finally secured a merciful end to the saga.

Maybe you agree it shouldn't have taken that.

o sung wu,

In the interests of brevity I should have again drawn your attention to the second sentence below,

"I am only asking for all Australians to have the right to defend themselves in their own home. That the burden of proof is returned to the police and police prosecutor, where it rightfully and usually is in our system of law".

The burden of proof should be returned to the police and police prosecutor, yes?

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

In the interests of brevity, and to answer your question...Yes, Yes, and Yes, !

I'm sorry there old mate, but I'm not sure I follow you ? The burden of proof has NOT shifted, furthermore any offences attendant to any of the assault matters pursuant to this current discussion, are always placed on the Crown, not the accused. The Crown are obliged to prove their case against the accused, to a point beyond that of a reasonable doubt.

There are some offences which are classified as 'strict and absolute liability' and they're generally confined to Traffic matters.

However OTB, I believe what you're asserting herein; that some sententious and judgmental police and politicians, like to believe they themselves are empowered to impose their own somewhat 'cockeyed' determination of the legal definition of 'the burden of proof' ? Which everybody knows is quite a comprehensive departure from that which the law has provided, in our system of criminal jurisprudence.

And that my friend, is clearly erroneous and the Courts won't have a bar of it ! I hope my sentiments are clearly aligned with yours OTB, as I've tried to explain !

Just as a bit of info, when the then Shooters' Party moved to assert that the burden of proof rested with the prosecution and that they had to prove that a person who acted in self defence did not fear for their life at that moment, the Greens cried out in outrage and called the Bill a "licence to murder", and they oposed the application of law as it was intended to work.

o sung wu,

As usual, Is Mise's concise description of the problem goes direct to the point, and identifies one of the political flies in the ointment.

To you both, Seasons' Greetings and to all others too.

And to you too, ONTHEBEACH, and IS MISE;- all the best for Christmas and a safe and contented 2016.