Domestic Violence is Unacceptable however it is still only a Symptom - not the Cause of Dis-Ease.

I believe most of triggers/causes for endemic family dysfunctions in Aboriginal communities (and in others DV);
plus the prolific failures of (well intentioned?) Government designed and funded solutions and their 'interventions';
can be logically directed at the feet of systemic interference by "Pathological Narcissists and Psychopaths" in our Institutions.

These types are the one's who often rise to leadership positions that wield the most power and influence in Public Policy formation;
Frame the discourse in predetermined set ways;
as well as constructing and manipulating the direction of Public Opinion.

My reference:
"Psychopaths are as prevalent in the Corporate world [and POLITICS] as they are in Prisons"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7472&page=0#229970

Continues with:

"It's not first time issues around Corporate Psychopaths and Destructive Leadership have made the news."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533&page=0#330213

Consider this:

Framing PR Advertising Public Opinion - Framing effect (psychology)
The framing effect is an example of cognitive bias, in which people react to a particular choice in different ways depending on how it is presented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)

And
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/resource-center/education-policy-and-practice/the-framing-of-no-child-left-behind/

Cherry-Picking Fallacy
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Finally:

All we EVER get is the rhetoric that pushes everyone's buttons one way or another. There is no genuine 'public opinion' it is always contrived and created by others.

Whomever Controls Majority Opinion - Controls 'Reality'

Point at the screen, look at your fingers.

Continuing on:
[Those who have] 'Skin in the Game' and are POINTING out faults in the other side, always has 3 fingers pointing back at themselves!
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7472&page=0#230058

Any positive thoughts on that, and how it may relate to the "Big Picture" and directly to DV/FV in Aboriginal Communities not getting solved?
-

Paul asked earlier " Are you suggesting women are not the predominant victims of DV? Are the numbers deliberately distorted by those with a secret agenda."

Not specific to indigenous communities but a topic that has been well canvassed on OLO over many years.

Overall from my perspective, Yes to both excerpt in some specific categories.

From http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm
Facts and Statistics on Prevalence of Partner Abuse

Victimization

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

Perpetration

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

Emotional Abuse and Control

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

R0bert

Part 2
Facts and Statistics on Context

Bi-directional vs. Uni-directional

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

R0bert

Part 3

Motivation

Male and female IPV perpetrated from similar motives – primarily to get back at a partner for emotionally hurting them, because of stress or jealousy, to express anger and other feelings that they could not put into words or communicate, and to get their partner’s attention.
Eight studies directly compared men and women in the power/control motive and subjected their findings to statistical analyses. Three reported no significant gender differences and one had mixed findings. One paper found that women were more motivated to perpetrate violence as a result of power/control than were men, and three found that men were more motivated; however, gender differences were weak
Of the ten papers containing gender-specific statistical analyses, five indicated that women were significantly more likely to report self-defense as a motive for perpetration than men. Four papers did not find statistically significant gender differences, and one paper reported that men were more likely to report this motive than women. Authors point out that it might be particularly difficult for highly masculine males to admit to perpetrating violence in self-defense, as this admission implies vulnerability.
Self-defense was endorsed in most samples by only a minority of respondents, male and female. For non-perpetrator samples, the rates of self-defense reported by men ranged from 0% to 21%, and for women the range was 5% to 35%. The highest rates of reported self-defense motives (50% for men, 65.4% for women) came from samples of perpetrators, who may have reasons to overestimate this motive.
None of the studies reported that anger/retaliation was significantly more of a motive for men than women’s violence; instead, two papers indicated that anger was more likely to be a motive for women’s violence as compared to men.
Jealousy/partner cheating seems to be a motive to perpetrate violence for both men and women.

R0bert

Thomas,
Domestic violence is not peculiar to the Aboriginal community, but is systemic in dysfunctional households, black and white. The proportion of such households in the Aboriginal community, particularly in isolated communities is very high. Add alcohol to the mix of poverty, poor education, unemployment, relationship breakdown all brings on violence as a first response in so many cases. As you say DV is very much a symptom, and a manifestation of so many underlying problems. As a society we need to do a lot more in tacking those deep seated problems. Until we do, domestic violence is going to continue at unacceptably high levels

Paul1405,

With respect, whether you intend it or not, that is the obscurity and obfuscation that prevent priority and resources being directed to indigenous family violence (and dollars actually reaching the sharp end).

As well, the focus exclusively on partner or spousal violence, ie 'DV', might suit those educated middle-class feminists with their career futures in NGOs, the public bureaucracies and in academia, but it cruelly disregards violence directed at children.