Axe Slashes Family Apart

Updated June 07, 2016 14:02:13

Axe slashes family apart The Daily Telegraph March 4, 2015>> Photo: The Daily Telegraph in Sydney seemed to blame an axe for a murder.

A new report shows that up to 15 per cent of articles on domestic violence imply an element of victim blaming. Can it be a coincidence that roughly the same percentage of people think women are somehow responsible for the violence inflicted on them? Julia Zemiro calls our media to account.

It's the beginning of June and 31 women have been killed by violence so far this year in Australia. In 2015 there were 79 women murdered, the majority of which by a male family member.

These deaths are just the tip of a grotesque and insidious iceberg full of countless numbers of women and their children living in fear for their safety.

Many of us become aware of this issue when we read or hear about it in the news, another tragic death in the headlines.

The media play a powerful role in bringing this issue to our attention and shaping the national conversation. What's causing it and what will it take to stop it before it starts.

With this powerful platform comes a great deal of responsibility.

I hosted the inaugural Our Watch Awards last year, an event that promotes the positive role the media play to help prevent violence against women and their children.

Positive, I hear you say? Is there a "good" news story when it comes to violence against women? Yes, It IS possible to prevent this violence. And more importantly, it is vital.

How we interpret a news item affects our feelings and thoughts on domestic violence. How journalists and editors present a story can speak volumes. Who or what is selected to appear in the article and how those individuals and events are portrayed is very important. Language matters.

I'm not a journalist. My job is not to report facts. But surely there's more to this "story" than click-bait articles that turn tragedies into entertainment.

The Our Watch Awards, administered by the Walkley Foundation, honour those who do exemplary work to help end violence against women. Highlighting the great work these journalists do is a critical part of moving the national conversation forward from one that dwells exclusively on gruesome tragedy to one that starts to unpick the drivers of this violence and a world where women and children live free of it.

But while there is much great work worthy of recognition at this year's Awards (entries open for the 2016 Awards today) exemplary reporting is not always the norm. Our Watch and Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety (ANROWS) today released a new report on the nature of reporting of violence against women by the Australian media. The report stands out internationally in its size and scope.

The research (4,516 items reviewed over four months - February to June 2015) found that there is a large volume of articles about violence against women, and this is a good thing. We are no longer living in the dark about domestic violence. We are talking about it, reading about it, calling it out. But the research found there are still challenges in reporting of it. There is still a lack of social context and an understanding of the underlying drivers of violence.

Distressingly too, few media items (only 4.3 per cent) included information for women on where to seek help. And by help I don't mean a link to self-defence classes - which, again, implies that the woman should be ready to defend herself rather than her husband understanding that he has no right to harm her.

According to the National Community Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women survey, one third of people don't know where a woman can get the crucial help she needs if in a violent situation. It's hard to believe there's no correlation here.

Blaming victims is another attitude still present in too many articles about incidents of violence against women. About 15 per cent of articles on the issue included information about the behaviour of women, much of which implied women were responsible for the violence. And the shocking thing is that these attitudes reflect what society thinks; research tells us that as many as one in five people think women are somehow to blame for the violence inflicted upon them if they had been drinking or flirting or out alone. Again, is this correlation between media reports and community attitudes purely coincidence?

The same amount of articles offer excuses for the perpetrator like, he was drinking, using drugs, jealous, seeking revenge; he 'snapped' or 'lost control'.

And interestingly, male perpetrators of violence were often rendered largely invisible in the news; instead, there were headlines such as, "Axe slashes family apart:". Well, that axe should definitely be held accountable for its actions and go to jail.

Jess Hill, the inaugural winner of the 2015 Our Watch Gold Award for her reporting on violence against women, devoted a year of her life to researching and reporting exclusively on domestic violence. Her entry comprised two long-form articles, (one for The Monthly and one for The Guardian); and two radio documentaries for the ABC's investigative Background Briefing program. A year makes for in depth reporting.

But no matter the length of any report, care, diligence and balance is essential.

As a reader, I put myself in that woman's position. I imagine her life constantly on pause, and in danger, as she cannot move through this cycle of violence. I imagine that woman as a teenager when everything was still possible.

These women and their children have already borne so much. As people in the media, we have the power to make it shift with the language we use and the voices we choose to highlight.

>Julia Zemiro is a media personality, actor, presenter, writer and an Our Watch Ambassador.

If you or anyone you know is experiencing abuse or violence, or if this article raises feelings of depression or anxiety, support is available from:

>1800Respect

- 1800 737 732 (24 hours)

>Men's Referral Service

- 1300 766 491

>Lifeline

- 13 11 14 (24 hours)

Topics: domestic-violence, feminism, crime-prevention, media, information-and-communication

First posted June 07, 2016 11:52:46

Comments (297)

Comments for this story are closed.

  • Zing:

    07 Jun 2016 12:15:38pm

    "About 15 per cent of articles on the issue included information about the behaviour of women, much of which implied women were responsible for the violence."

    And how many articles directly blamed the woman? I'm betting close to zero. I'm also betting that the information about the behaviour of the man probably dominated the article.

    The information about the woman's behaviour is usually added for context, so we can figure out exactly why the guy went nuts. Was she cheating on him? Was there mutual violence? Were they drug users? Did they break up five years ago and he's been stalking her? It all helps answer things.

    Alert moderator

    • mike j:

      07 Jun 2016 3:20:27pm

      Studies regularly show that women are more physically aggressive towards their partners. The only males more aggressive on average than females are those in homosexual relationships.

      Furthermore, women are far more likely to use emotional violence and to engage in greater levels of controlling behaviour, which is understood to be a predictor of physical violence.

      If violence were to be perpetrated against a man who acted like this, most people would call it karma. But when it happens to a woman, entire textbooks on logic and morality must be rewritten so that we can cast the responsibility-averse modern female as a helpless, sympathetic victim.

      Alert moderator

      • Pete:

        07 Jun 2016 10:26:57pm

        mike_j: an fascinating statistic to be sure, but pretty much irrelevant to the single most important statistic of all: 31 women have been murdered by their male partners this year. Whether women are "more physically aggressive" to their partners is an interesting irrelevance. Who initiates the violence is similarly near irrelevant. It's the 'killed' part that is the focus, and by and large, men do the killing. I have no interest in understanding who did what in abusive, broken relationships to the point I would never take a side despite the attempts of most partners in these trainwreck relationships trying to get people around them to do so. I usually end up thinking "Well, you chose him/her" and simply assume blame lies on both sides. But this is all a distraction: women are unnecessarily dying, and stopping this is society's challenge - not listening to dysfunctional partner's stories, trying to apportion blame or mend trainwreck relationships. Those are largely unimportant issues to anyone but the protagonists, and not worthy of attention while we deal with the appalling state of affairs that sees so many women killed by their partners.

        Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          08 Jun 2016 7:26:48am

          Can people stop referencing the bogus "counting dead women" statistic (31 this year) as if it relates to domestic violence?

          It is meant to be a representation of ALL women killed by violence, not just women killed by their partners.

          The equivalent statistic for males would be twice as large, it's almost like they put that statistic out there to conflate the issues by confusing people like Pete as to what it really means.

          And the idea that the only thing that matters is who ends up dead is ridiculous, there's a lot of people who've killed in self defence who would disagree with you.

          Alert moderator

      • Craig:

        07 Jun 2016 11:00:24pm

        Mike, saying 'studies show' doesn't make it true.

        The vast majority of domestic abuse is by males against female partners. The second largest group (less than ten percent of the size of that group) is by males against male partners.

        Yes women can and do engage men physically, but the group doing so as domestic violence is very small. This is based on real studies, police records, hospital records and all the evidence collected over the last 30 years.

        I will let you do your own research, it's not hard.

        Alert moderator

        • FW:

          08 Jun 2016 7:46:20am

          "Yes women can and do engage men physically, but the group doing so as domestic violence is very small. "

          So it's ok for a woman to 'engage men physically' and it's not domestic violence?

          And then there's the emotional/psychological abuse from women.

          If you dig into all the information that is available the picture is alot less black and white than hypocritical articles like this one would have you think.

          Why can't the ABC show the whole story?

          And the other problem is that people think that just because we say 'men are victims too' that it's downplaying the violence done to women instead we are pointing out the disparity and inaccuracy in the media's seemingly deliberate misrepresentation of this issue.

          Alert moderator

        • FW:

          08 Jun 2016 7:46:38am

          "Yes women can and do engage men physically, but the group doing so as domestic violence is very small. "

          So it's ok for a woman to 'engage men physically' and it's not domestic violence?

          And then there's the emotional/psychological abuse from women.

          If you dig into all the information that is available the picture is alot less black and white than hypocritical articles like this one would have you think.

          Why can't the ABC show the whole story?

          And the other problem is that people think that just because we say 'men are victims too' that it's downplaying the violence done to women instead we are pointing out the disparity and inaccuracy in the media's seemingly deliberate misrepresentation of this issue.

          Alert moderator

        • kateknox:

          08 Jun 2016 11:00:31am

          @ FW

          You seem to have missed Craig's pont.

          So I'll say it another way... why can't people just the compassionate and empathetic to the victim to support them, instead of jumping to one's self.

          If you know what it's like to be abused, then why can't you be compassionate??

          Alert moderator

    • Cobbler:

      07 Jun 2016 3:32:37pm

      Indeed.

      It's hard to understand why people want to ignore context on these issues. To me it's critical to understanding how to tackle the problem.

      In the case of the drug addict in SA. If we find that a large proportion of these cases happen when the woman's drug addiction had sent the guy around the bend then maybe we'd get more traction reducing violence against women by tackling the drug issue, or what drives people to drugs, rather than just harping on about patriarchy.

      As an example. There's growing evidence that suggests that being forced to wear bike helmets, while certainly protecting your head actually leads to significantly less people choosing to ride bikes. This in turn leads to more incidences of disease due to sedentary lifestyles. So we might actually be doing more harm than good by enforcing it. This result would never have been uncovered if we were never to question the benefits of bike helmets.

      Alert moderator

      • Mick:

        07 Jun 2016 5:31:53pm

        We need to be careful here. Obviously victim blaming is wrong. But men who have been subject to abuse by women sometimes notice a pattern.

        Some women (again, SOME) will abuse their partners by making them so angry that the man will respond, and then be blamed for their response. This has happened to me before. My partner had been abusing me every which way for about 5 hours straight, on and off for about six months, and I blew up at her. I have a huge amount of self control, and I have never hit anyone. But she literally said to me "Go on. Hit me. Hit me. I know you want to. I know you would".

        I know all the feminists would howl me down. But the reality is anybody who is constantly subject to emotional abuse will eventually lash out physically. I would expect a woman to also lash out physically if her partner abused her non-physically over a long period of time.

        The point is, relationship abuse is far more complex than feminists acknowledge. Why are these the kinds of things the feminists forbid us from talking about?

        Alert moderator

        • Odie:

          07 Jun 2016 5:46:42pm

          In answer to your question: they don't want us to talk about it because that would make it harder for them to portray all women as victims and all men as potential perpetrators who lash out randomly for no reason.

          That would then make it harder for all of those currently profiting from the gender industry to continue to make their living.

          Alert moderator

        • david:

          07 Jun 2016 9:44:53pm

          Thanks Mike

          Alert moderator

        • Crikket:

          07 Jun 2016 11:40:09pm

          SOME women may make the man angry, but I think you are missing the point. It is ok to be angry - it is not ok to hit someone because you are angry.

          As men, we all need to learn that inflicting physical violence is not an acceptable response to annoyance, frustration, or anger.

          Alert moderator

        • Crisplion:

          08 Jun 2016 7:46:19am

          "As men, we all need to learn that inflicting physical violence is not an acceptable response to annoyance, frustration, or anger."

          Speak for yourself. I learned that when I was about three years old. I am at a loss to see why you think that sharing a Y chromosome with those who didn't places any responsibility for their poor behaviour on me - setting aside the fact that some adults without Y chromosomes have also manifestly failed to learn that lesson.

          Alert moderator

        • dr dig:

          08 Jun 2016 9:00:22am

          Crispilon, how do you reconcile that with the fact that violence is a part of life. We cannot escape it. Sometimes violence is necessary. I expect our police to use violence when necessary. I expect my children to use violence when necessary. To suggest that one will never have to resort to violent means is not facing reality.

          Alert moderator

        • Crisplion:

          08 Jun 2016 9:16:36am

          dr dig, I agree - violence is sometimes necessary in self-defence or in the defence of others. What I said is that at an early age I learned that "violence is not an acceptable response to annoyance, frustration, or anger", as Crikket put it. Self defence or the defence of others is another thing.

          Thankfully I have never had to use violence to defend myself and have always managed to successfully use verbal dissuasion in situations in which others were threatened. But yes, you're right, it's sometimes necessary to respond to violence with violence.

          Alert moderator

        • Statikk:

          08 Jun 2016 8:09:18am

          So, it's ok to make someone angry?

          What sort of female sicko would subject their partner to that? For no reason other than their own enjoyment?

          My ex was the same, controlling and emotionally abusive. You know something is wrong when you'd rather spend 12-14 hours at work then be home with your family.

          You can't combat emotional abuse either unless you're wired the same way. I had to leave but it has definitely hurt my life and those of my children as now she is the victim , figure that one out.

          Alert moderator

        • NotSo:

          08 Jun 2016 9:00:20am

          "Some women may make the man angry" ... WRONG! You make yourself angry. If a man - or a woman - gets angry, the angry feelings are theirs - part of their own brain activity. It is a choice. An unconscious one, perhaps, but the anger belongs to the angry person, and is acted upon by the angry person. So stop with the "Some woman may make.." rubbish and put the responsibility where it belongs. Angry feelings nad angry behaviours belong to the perpetrator of angry actions.

          Alert moderator

        • GRANDMA:

          08 Jun 2016 9:21:42am

          CRIKKET...a good contribution, succinct and no excuses attached.

          We know that anger is a feeling, and violence is an action.

          It's up to each individual to control his/her own behaviour.

          Alert moderator

        • Cobbler:

          08 Jun 2016 12:37:32pm

          Crikket,

          When something is causing you constant stress and/or humiliation and you have done every non-physical thing you can to try and make it stop then you're face with 2 options: Lash out or leave.

          When it is suggested that women should just leave abusive relationships you get shouted down as not understanding the issue.

          Men on the other hand should just need to toughen up or leave. Go figure.......

          Alert moderator

    • Mick:

      07 Jun 2016 5:19:06pm

      The simplicity with which feminism treats this issue is childish. They have already drawn their conclusions, apportioned blame, decided who are the only victims of abuse, and anybody who wants to add nuance is howled down as sexist and complicit in abuse and murder of women. Thats why a large number of men will never get on board with feminist views on this because those men (who do not abuse) feel unfairly blamed for all of this.

      Men and women tend to abuse in different ways. Men may use violence more often because they have found it more effective. Other men also use other ways. Women more often use emotional and psychological abuse, manipulation, lying about things to upset their partner, they use verbal abuse and passive aggression. I have been a victim of awful emotional abuse by a woman, as have a lot of men I know, and do you think feminists would care?

      We've decided that physical abuse by men is worse than any other kind of abuse. Okay. Fair call. But deciding that does not mean that we should ignore the horrific and damaging abuse committed by women, lesbians, gay people and family members in general.

      Also, every time feminists acknowledge abuse of men by women, somehow the man asked for it or deserved it. What did the article say about victim blaming? The hypocrisy is heartbreaking.

      Also, what about mental illness? The saying is: "Women get sad, men get mad". So, if an abuser has a mental health issue that has caused some kind of abuse, we should be looking at these factors. Instead, feminists just say "He is evil".

      Also, asking about why women choose and stay with abusive partners is relevant. Some women find abusive men attractive and will choose abusive partners. Some women will choose a series of abusive relationships. I would never blame the victim, but this is a problem that needs addressing.

      Also, we are not children, we are rational people who should be looking at all the nuances of human relationships. Police are now being urged when responding to domestic violence incidents to arrest any adult with a Y chromosome. The ill informed strategies being pushed for by feminists have a very real possibility of working a great injustice against innocent men. I know this is anecdotal, but a friend of mine had a psychotic wife who hit him with a frying pan and threatened to really hurt him, he protected himself, neighbours called the police and they arrested HIM and charged HIM.

      It is also a fact that men are also the victim of abuse of Family Court processes to deny access to their children. Many other injustices are worked against men in the legal system simply because their partners can make ungrounded accusations that the courts are likely to consider true because a so called vulnerable woman made them. This may have been the opposite a while back, but not now.

      I think that relationship problems and the abuse they cause is not

      Alert moderator

      • Mick:

        07 Jun 2016 5:44:57pm

        Think the moderator accidently cut me off.

        I was going to say...

        I think that relationship problems and the abuse they cause is not a simple issue. Like all social issues, they involve so much complexity and nuance. Its unjust and sexist to impliedly cast family abuse only as men abusing women. Even if we stop all abuse of women by men, there will still be horrible stuff going on in families.

        For example. Aboriginal people tend to put in jail at far higher rates than non-Aboriginal people. However, there a myriad of socio-economic, historical and probably racist reasons why this is the case. And the way to address the high rates or Indigenous incarceration is not by saying there are simply a lot of Aboriginal criminals that need to be punished. That's unfair.

        Alert moderator

        • James Picone:

          07 Jun 2016 6:00:15pm

          "Think the moderator accidently cut me off. "

          There's a word limit.

          Alert moderator

        • david:

          07 Jun 2016 9:46:33pm

          Thanks Mick

          Alert moderator

      • Statikk:

        08 Jun 2016 8:16:33am

        Cheers Mick

        It's not a black and white issue but feminism is very happy to push the 'evil man' angle at every point.

        Alert moderator

        • dr dig:

          08 Jun 2016 9:04:02am

          Statik, yes and here's what I think is a good analogy. Is infidelity a male problem?

          I am not equating the outcomes of infidelity with physical injury from DV. I am talking about the causes of infidelity and who commits it.

          I find the idea that to prevent DV we have to focus on men the same as saying that to prevent infidelity we need to focus on men.

          Alert moderator

    • Gratuitous Adviser:

      08 Jun 2016 7:27:28am

      Shhhhhh..........! I agree but in the current environment it's not politically correct to make this valid point.

      Alert moderator

  • Realist1:

    07 Jun 2016 12:17:08pm

    Wow so men's lives don't matter at all in domestic violence. How about children that suffer at the hands of mothers?

    How about female/female relationships where 30% suffer domestic violence.

    Until you deal with ALL domestic violence and treat all victims with equity then you will never solve the problem.

    Alert moderator

    • Buttercup:

      07 Jun 2016 12:37:55pm

      Tonight on SBS at 8.30 (at least in Gippsland): Angry Girls - The Rise in Female Violence.

      I loathe any violence against anyone. Our Watch is not a credible organisation. A recent Guardian article detailed the "unbelievable harrassment" suffered by researchers studying domestic violence in a way that did not suit the Our Watch position on the matter which is that it stems from inequality.

      Alert moderator

    • Andrew Thomas:

      07 Jun 2016 1:09:47pm

      Hi Realist1,

      You may be onto something. Given that men represent a much smaller proportion, then we should be able to get to a zero outcome much faster.

      Besides, women are really just out to get us blokes. I am hearin-ya brother!

      Alert moderator

      • Ian:

        07 Jun 2016 2:01:18pm

        Sarcasm is cheap, especially when it is based on fallacy.

        According to the statistics, women initiate violence against males multiples more often than the reverse. Just ask yourself how many times you have attacked a woman in your life compared to how many times a woman has attacked you. Thankfully, women are generally less able to harm their male counterparts & that fact combined with the tendency amongst males to not report attacks by women, the tendency amongst police to not take such seriously even when they are reported & the tendency amongst bodies such as the DV clearinghouse to deliberately withold figures on female initiated violence for political reasons, leads us to the fallacy that women are less aggressive than men.

        Sadly, children bear the brunt of this delusion.

        Alert moderator

        • Andrew Thomas:

          07 Jun 2016 2:32:30pm

          Hi Ian. I am serious. Just check out the statistics from emergency centres across the nation. They totally don't support you in any way shape or form. But why let such stupid things as facts stop you from playing the victim. Sickening.

          Alert moderator

        • mike j:

          07 Jun 2016 3:13:20pm

          I'm pretty sure that broad spectrum 'emergency centres' category isn't considered an authority for conducting empirical studies.

          On a related note, more women self-report being victims on Jezebel and Mamamia than men.

          Alert moderator

        • Andrew Thomas:

          07 Jun 2016 6:48:54pm

          Hi mike,

          Very sinister. Very scary. Unlike the others, you actually sound rational (Ian, Realist1, you could really learn from this guy).

          Alert moderator

        • ephemeral:

          08 Jun 2016 10:42:44am

          I think you will find (completely contrary to your statement) that emergency room admissions are a very large, detailed data set that is perfect for empirical studies. It seems to me that you know how to spell these words but not quite what they mean.

          Alert moderator

        • Ian:

          07 Jun 2016 5:00:24pm

          Spare us the faux disgust. I have in no way played the victim by any definition. My point has always been that women should be held equally accountable for their actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

          Assuming you are saying that more women wind up in emergency centres than men, we both know that is incorrect. If you are saying that more women wind in emergency centres because of men than men because of women, that is obviously true but in no way challenges my assertion that women initiate violence more often than men but are generally less capable of causing harm. The ABS Personal Safety Survey has long documented the fact the women are multiple times more likely to raise a hand to a partner or a child, than a man.

          My concern is that the manipulation of DV perceptions by feminists ultimately results in harm to children. A violent mother should not be giving precedence over a non-violent father in the context of child custody, merely because she is a woman. I know that this does happen from personal experience & I have seen children harmed because of it.

          Alert moderator

        • Mick:

          07 Jun 2016 6:03:19pm

          I think we need to be more careful with saying which gender is more violent. I'm not sure that it is a relevant question. If there is a problem with domestic physical abuse it needs to be addressed in whatever way is most effective. But there is a huge amount of abuse going on families that does not involve violence, and yet nobody really cares.

          It seems like the preoccupation with male violence against women does not address the totality of issues surrounding abuse in families and the possible causes and remedies.

          Alert moderator

        • Andrew Thomas:

          07 Jun 2016 6:42:39pm

          Hi Ian,

          I'll spare you nothing. I stand by every word and letter of my comments.

          Alert moderator

        • Andrew Thomas:

          07 Jun 2016 6:47:29pm

          "Spare us the faux disgust. I have in no way played the victim by any definition"

          Yeah, no.

          "my point has always been that women should be held equally accountable for their actions"

          We both know this isn't true.

          Alert moderator

        • david:

          07 Jun 2016 9:52:26pm

          Thanks for your thoughts Ian. You speak for me.

          Alert moderator

        • Bev:

          07 Jun 2016 8:52:14pm

          @Andrew The Victorian Royal commission reported 25% of victims are men. They also reported 33% of Emergency Dept attendances were by men. This means that male victims are more likely to be physically injured than women. Yet we only hear about violence against women.

          Alert moderator

        • ephemeral:

          08 Jun 2016 10:46:26am

          So by your numbers 75% of DV victims are women and 67% of DV victims needing emergency medical treatment are women. Seems to me like that is a significant majority (Twice as many women need treatment than men).

          Alert moderator

        • Bev:

          08 Jun 2016 11:53:58am

          Way to totally miss the point. Nobody says more men are injured what is being said is if we consider men and women as victims more male victims are badly enough injured to require treatment at an emergency department (25% of victims, 33% of emergency attendance). This says men are 33% more likely to be physically injured than a woman if they are a DV victim.

          Alert moderator

        • david:

          07 Jun 2016 9:47:53pm

          Thanks Ian.

          Alert moderator

      • Realist1:

        07 Jun 2016 2:25:16pm

        Andrew T

        You can discount male deaths if you like. Must be nice to simply ignore them. What is it one in three!! Yeah who cares about them

        Alert moderator

        • Helvi :

          07 Jun 2016 2:45:22pm

          Realist, many ( of course not all) women suffering from DV are not working, they do not have money, so they often stay in the abusive relationship for the sake of the children, who also often get abused.

          Are we now building more safe houses for those women/children.

          Some might escape to their parents places, but the abusers find them only too easily.

          Safe houses for women and children would be a start. Oops, for men too.

          Alert moderator

        • Mick:

          07 Jun 2016 6:06:44pm

          The interesting thing now is how much money some women are making. Many professional women make far more money than their husbands. A lot of women are now going into higher income professions like medicine and law. The potential for women to misuse this power imbalance has not been explored.

          It may be the case that some men are being subject to financial abuse. They would never feel like they can mention it to anyone, becuase that would be totally emasculating.

          Alert moderator

        • Craig:

          07 Jun 2016 11:13:54pm

          Mick, I love having my female partner earn more than me. She is achieving great things in her career and I am proud to support her. Some of the benefits for me include less stress, being able to spend more time with the kids and helping them grow into mature balanced individuals who don't have the pointless gender hangups of their elders.

          Btw we both earn six figures, so household duties aren't a real concern, we hire people for a lot of those.

          I have always believed that whoever can command a high salary & enjoy what they do should get out there and do it. I have never understood men who see themselves as 'the breadwinner' - that's a weak, two dimensional and emasculating position that no male or female should consider as their role in life. No wonder so many men have few friends, die young & live unhappy and stressful lives - they've based their happiness of a centuries old outdated model of manhood that ensures that only a few of them can every be successful, while most are like sheep in a herd.

          Get out there and make a difference in the world - your kids are one of the biggest ways to achieve this, and if you don't enjoy what you do, stop doing it and do something else. The only thing stopping you is fear, and fear (which dominates bullies, trolls, homophobes and wife beaters) is both a sign of weakness and poor character.

          Alert moderator

        • Andrew Thomas:

          07 Jun 2016 6:46:16pm

          "You can discount male deaths if you like. Must be nice to simply ignore them. What is it one in three!! Yeah who cares about them"

          Your words not mine Realist1. But this doesn't surprise me. DV can occur to anyone, male, female, child, young or old. All if it is unexceptable.

          But that is not my problem. My problem is that as soon as someone points out that women suffer more than men we get people like you ranting, it just makes me sick. So it isn't DV against men per-se that is the issue. It's, well, you. Sickening.

          Alert moderator

        • Realist1:

          08 Jun 2016 9:42:22am

          Andrew T No that is not your problem your problem is that you laugh off and dismiss real victims.

          Domestic Violence is gender neutral by definition. Surely if you are such a feminist you would believe men should have equal access to the resources that are used in domestic violence. Can you find one male refuge for suffers of domestic violence, any legal assistance or counselling.

          No one o here has diminished or claimed women are not more likely to be killed. As you falsely claim.

          But explain why men are not allowed to raise their concerns and have them heard??

          Show me the last time the ABC ran a men's issues article about workplace deaths,. Men four times more likely and do commit suicide, just what is being done about that. How much of that is down to family law and how men get screwed over time and again with custody.

          Alert moderator

        • ephemeral:

          08 Jun 2016 10:58:35am

          Because ever forum that starts to talk about male on female violence is hijacked by people like you, clouding what should be a very simple message/concept. Men should not hit women. This statement/sentiment holds true regardless of whether or not men ever get hit by women (which by the way they shouldn't do either). Already in this thread there are the usual: "but men get hit as well", and "some women make men angry" (as if that is any excuse).

          Alert moderator

        • Realist1:

          08 Jun 2016 11:19:44am

          ephermal

          I am not sure what country you were brought up in, but I can tell you as a male it was drummed into me from childhood that men don't hit women ever.

          Men leap to the defends of women being hit.

          If a woman hits a man generally people simply laugh at the man or sit back and do nothing.

          We are taught to respect and treat women in a particular way. So where the hell do you get we think it is ok?

          This article like so many other has hijacked DOMETIC violence and made it men on women violence

          Women should not hit men either, or children or the elderly or any other family member.

          Is that too complicated for you!!

          Alert moderator

        • david:

          07 Jun 2016 9:54:35pm

          Thanks Realist1 for the comment.

          Alert moderator

    • Ian:

      07 Jun 2016 1:51:44pm

      You hit the nail on the head. The agenda is duplicity with this issue & there is a system at work here trying to manufacture it.

      Alert moderator

  • John Mair QGM:

    07 Jun 2016 12:21:51pm

    I facilitate a Mens Behaviour Change Group on the Gold Coast. I see men come into the room using minimisation denial and blame every day. By the time they leave after 16 weekly 2 hour sessions they can no longer use those excuses. They are shown that their behaviour got them into the room. My colleague and I work hard to persuade them they need to change. The groups are sometimes robust in their delivery but done with a consistent message that violence and violent behaviour is not acceptable. The men are changed when they leave us and recognise that they are the one who chooses to be violent. We have a collaborative method even though the majority of men come from the new DV Court in Southport. The men are encouraged to discuss their lives and sometimes it is challenging for the facilitators, however the men are held accountable for their actions and negative behaviours. We will continue to work hard to stop Family and Domestic Violence through education. There are still punitive measures that the Justice system can and must deliver too.

    Alert moderator

    • Lexx:

      07 Jun 2016 12:31:25pm

      Does your organisation have a corresponding behavioural modification course for women?

      Alert moderator

      • luisa:

        07 Jun 2016 2:10:39pm

        What sort of behaviours do you think women need to change? If men need to change violence, denial, minimisation and blame, what do women need to change? Genuine question, BTW.

        Alert moderator

        • Ian:

          07 Jun 2016 2:34:32pm

          There is the problem right there.

          Alert moderator

        • david:

          07 Jun 2016 10:11:01pm

          Thanks again Ian.

          Alert moderator

        • Lexx:

          07 Jun 2016 2:36:16pm

          I will give an answer in the form of a question.

          Do you accept that there are real world scenarios a man who has acted in a violent manner against a woman can also be regarded as a victim?

          Alert moderator

        • Lexx:

          07 Jun 2016 2:36:17pm

          I will give an answer in the form of a question.

          Do you accept that there are real world scenarios a man who has acted in a violent manner against a woman can also be regarded as a victim?

          Alert moderator

        • Politically Incorrect:

          07 Jun 2016 2:40:23pm

          In cases where women are perpetrators of domestic violence: the exact same things.

          Alert moderator

        • Alpo:

          07 Jun 2016 3:01:32pm

          One commonality in domestic violence perpetrated by men, women or both concomitantly is abuse of alcohol (and other drugs).

          But in any event, the truth remains that violence of men against women is more frequent than the other way around. It also remains true that on average men are physically stronger and therefore more capable of causing physical damage to women, than the other way around.

          Education can do a lot to change this... but a fairer society also helps.

          Alert moderator

        • Realist1:

          07 Jun 2016 3:46:54pm

          Alpo

          not true about drugs and alcohol,

          Not true about men's violence v women

          Yu are confusing women's death against men's rather than violence

          Alert moderator

        • Helvi :

          07 Jun 2016 4:09:06pm

          Realist, I often read or hear of cases where ice addicted men (maybe some women too) attack their old and feeble parents, so why not also their partners...

          Alert moderator

        • Good Grief:

          07 Jun 2016 3:55:39pm

          Alpo, I agree with much of your sentiment.

          However, I disagree with you on one point; that is education. What most people regarding DV never address is what kind of people are usually prone to commit it in the first place. As it turns out, it has less to do with gender but rather whether two specific conditions met.

          The first is that the aggressor is impulsive, has low self control and are more on the "bold" side of the personality spectrum.

          The second is that the victim has no means of effectively defending against the aggressor. Hence, the aggressor faces little or no repercussion to their actions.

          Unless that education is ingrained during formative years, those impulsive behaviors are to remain fairly permanent once the individual has reached late 20's. Educating them not to turn violent at the heat of the moment is like educating a psychopath to empathize with another human being; results being fairly patchy and conditional at best.

          Alert moderator

        • Alpo:

          07 Jun 2016 5:15:22pm

          "Unless that education is ingrained during formative years".... I agree. The education effort must start early on, the earlier the better. I also agree that there may be some added personality issues that may be relatively less flexible. I don't deny that. But the environment (social environment) remains a major factor in early development.

          Alert moderator

        • Bev:

          07 Jun 2016 9:03:59pm

          Yes men do commit more violence numerically against women but 25 % of victims are men but 33% of Emergency dept attendees (for DV injuries) are men (Vic RC). This means male victims are more likely to suffer physical injury than women. The reason is simple whereas men tend to use fists women use heavy objects, throw objects, use knives and other sharp objects and toss hot liquids at men inflicting serious burns.

          Alert moderator

        • Alpo:

          08 Jun 2016 7:14:28am

          "25 % of victims are men".... Doesn't this mean that 75% are women?

          "but 33% of Emergency dept attendees (for DV injuries) are men (Vic RC)"... Meaning that 67% of "Emergency dept attendees (for DV injuries)" are women.

          Relative numbers don't mean much when the raw numbers overwhelmingly show that women suffer more and more dangerous injuries. In addition, the relative difference among men could be explained by the likely more dangerous consequences of man-man violence.

          Alert moderator

        • Realist1:

          08 Jun 2016 9:46:09am

          Alpo

          So even on those figures men should get a proportional share of all the money spent.

          Show me one ad or comment on any government funded program that indicates women are also violent. Name one male refuge .

          You getting the point yet or is 33 deaths in one hundred something that should simply be ignored.

          So much for you claiming to be a "progressive" men not allowed to have help

          Alert moderator

        • ephemeral:

          08 Jun 2016 11:04:38am

          Salvo's run refuge's and help programs for male victims or look at the one in three site. See how simple that was. A two second google search you could have done yourself would have answered your question, but I think you didn't really wanted an answer in the hope that people would draw the wrong conclusions. A lack of action on one front is never an excuse fro a lack of action on another.

          Alert moderator

        • Realist1:

          08 Jun 2016 12:05:08pm

          eph

          So the salvos run a male on domestic violence refuge?? Tax payer funds is it like the women ones

          Alert moderator

        • Erick Quang :

          07 Jun 2016 3:58:30pm

          Luisa "what do women need to change?" getting off their back sides would be a start.

          Alert moderator

        • Tess:

          07 Jun 2016 5:19:33pm

          What sort of an answer is that?

          Alert moderator

        • qed:

          07 Jun 2016 7:16:55pm

          That answer, Tess, is exactly what the article was referring to.

          The persistent conviction that women are at the root of it all, and are ultimatey responsible for men's bad behaviour.

          The men aren't responsible, because, reasons.

          They're men, they have short fuses and testosterone. And that makes it impossible to be reasonable and exercise self-control.

          Also, poor tools to manage the anger and communicate their frustrations with a difficulty, a difficult partner and a life that is less than ideal.

          Women have to do that, but they aren't men and have no testosterone. (Actually they do, but lets not get too academic here.)

          So, men who lash out and thump women are being goaded by the women, and this is, essentially, called 'blaming the victim'.

          Alert moderator

        • Statikk:

          08 Jun 2016 10:06:09am

          In todays world of equality, women should just hit back.

          Alert moderator

        • Erick Quang:

          08 Jun 2016 10:29:44am

          Tess, regarding your question "What sort of answer is that?" The truth.

          Alert moderator

        • david:

          07 Jun 2016 10:10:25pm

          Women can cause more damage verbally and emotionally.

          Alert moderator

      • david:

        07 Jun 2016 10:09:25pm

        Good reply Lexx.

        Alert moderator

    • Realist1:

      07 Jun 2016 12:37:08pm

      really and yet you only mention men

      Alert moderator

      • Left of Centre:

        07 Jun 2016 1:06:26pm

        Yes, really.

        Because whichever way you twist it, the reality is that men are, in the vast majority of circumstances, the aggressors in these situations.

        So yes, the focus should be on men changing their attitudes.

        Alert moderator

        • Good Grief:

          07 Jun 2016 1:24:38pm

          Should we take it a step further and focus on which ethnicities these men come from as well and tell them to change their culture and attitudes?

          Or is this where the politically correct drawn the line?

          Alert moderator

        • Tess:

          07 Jun 2016 5:22:19pm

          Unless you have stats showing that ethnicity plays a part in DV, you should not go there.

          Alert moderator

        • Good Grief:

          07 Jun 2016 6:04:20pm

          @Tess

          There's just an article regarding the prevalence of Domestic Violence in Aboriginal communities, Tess, here on the Drum a week or two ago. Read it up.

          Also, read up on the Parliament of Australia government website regarding DV. It goes into correlations such as socio-economics, remoteness of community, education and culture. So yes, culture (specifically their perceptions of women), apparently plays a large part such that even education and socio-economic status could not mitigate.

          Last but not least, while Australia does not provide statistics based on race, but just go to the FBI page of statistics and there is a huge prevalence between "culture" and violence.

          So yes, it's uncomfortable and un PC. But it's out there.

          Alert moderator

        • Tess:

          08 Jun 2016 8:56:49am

          GF I am fully aware of the serious problems in many aboriginal communities, however to say this is a manifestation of ethnicity, I think is wrong. I believe you will find similar levels of violence in any community with equal disadvantage, dislocation, substance abuse, lack of education and opportunity.

          Alert moderator

        • Good Grief:

          08 Jun 2016 10:24:31am

          Tess, it would not explain then the existence of ethnicities that have been subjected to generations of poverty and racial abuse (i.e. Jewish and Orientals) yet show very few instances of domestic violence, while other groups have been indicated domestic violence across differing amounts of wealth.

          Anyways, the reason why I brought this whole thing up is not to stir the racial pot. Rather, it's to point out the leftist dogma of being bold enough to use male incited violence to indicate causation (because it's politically correct to do so), yet at the very same instance, shy away from making the same conclusions when cultural factors are brought up. Some, as indicated by your response, would go straight into attributing external factors (location, wealth, education, some other more "privileged" people) rather than address the issue as a group as you do with "men" in general.

          It reeks of intellectual dishonesty and plays a tune to a desired narrative rather than facing the facts. It also doesn't help address the issue when you lazily tar all men (including those of us from minorities with very little domestic violence) in the same bush while conveniently ignoring the cultural factors that cause domestic violence in the first place simply because it's un-PC to do so.

          Alert moderator

        • bystander:

          08 Jun 2016 10:12:23am

          But to get the stats, someone has to go there?

          Alert moderator

        • OUB :

          07 Jun 2016 1:35:40pm

          There are many very violent women in prison LoC.

          Alert moderator

        • pH:

          07 Jun 2016 1:36:08pm

          Source?

          Alert moderator

        • ephemeral:

          08 Jun 2016 11:09:33am

          but 25% of victims male but 33% of Emergency attendees (for DV injuries) are men (Vic RC). So two to three times as many women as men depending on how you look at it. Seems to count as a vast majority of circumstances to me.

          Alert moderator

        • Realist1:

          07 Jun 2016 1:48:45pm

          Left

          The why call it family violence at all?

          Can you define violence ?

          For example would you say keeping kids from seeing their fathers as emotional violence?

          Funny the only physical assault in my relationship was my partner assaulting me. So I ended the relationship guess who got custody ....

          Alert moderator

        • Ian:

          07 Jun 2016 2:47:36pm

          I have had the same experience. Only violence comes from mother. Next time I go to see my son, she has somehow arranged police supervision of me. How does that work??? I have no criminal record. No drug habits. I own my own business. I have never even been unemployed.

          And I have never tried to see my son since. That was 8 years ago.

          Alert moderator

        • Andrew Thomas:

          07 Jun 2016 2:34:58pm

          LoC,

          Whilst you are stating the obvious, I can see that there are at least a few blokes out there you will never convince. But they really don't matter.

          Alert moderator

        • Politically Incorrect:

          07 Jun 2016 2:41:57pm

          OK, so what happens to the DV victims of women?

          Alert moderator

        • Ian:

          07 Jun 2016 2:51:30pm

          Kids don't vote so they don't count.

          Alert moderator

        • Andrew Thomas:

          07 Jun 2016 5:52:29pm

          Precisely Ian. That's exactly what we are saying even though nobody did. But hey, whatevs.

          Alert moderator

        • dr dig:

          07 Jun 2016 3:46:48pm

          LoC, how do you know that in the vast majority of cases men are the aggressor? Leaving aside how that might apply in a lesbian relationship which have relatively high rates of DV.

          I would accept that in the majority of cases women receive greater physical harm than men. However that does not mean they were the aggressor.

          I am vehemently against DV and have put myself in harms way to assist victims of it. It is very disheartening though when women refuse to accept advice and I have even witnessed cases where the woman deliberately provokes and physically hits a man hoping to induce a violent act in return.

          These are complex issues and mis-defining the problem as men will solve nothing. That is the point that I and many others make. I do not say that victims of DV should be ignored. On the contrary, unless you have a well defined problem and investigate the causal factors properly (including questioning the actions of all parties) you will never find solutions.

          Alert moderator

        • Left of Centre:

          07 Jun 2016 5:11:32pm

          "These are complex issues and mis-defining the problem as men will solve nothing. That is the point that I and many others make. I do not say that victims of DV should be ignored. On the contrary, unless you have a well defined problem and investigate the causal factors properly (including questioning the actions of all parties) you will never find solutions."

          I've never said the problem is men, period.

          The problem, specifically, are society's attitudes towards accepted, or expected, behaviour from men.

          I agree, no victims of DV should be ignored and I accept that the achieving solutions will be complex.

          But why should be running around in circles trying to "define the problem" and investigate the actions of the parties?

          As a society that holds itself out to be civilised, in what possible context and can any action reasonably cause one partner in a relationship to physically assault or abuse the other?

          I can't think of any.

          Further, I think, as a society, we should neither accept or expect, tacitly or otherwise, any action by one partner to reasonably provoke domestic violence from the other.

          DV shouldn't be accepted or expected at all, period. If you agree with this statement, then there is no need to question the actions of the parties.

          Alert moderator

        • dr dig:

          07 Jun 2016 5:46:35pm

          You should consider yourself very fortunate LoC that you can't think of any.

          It is far too easy for me to think of many.

          The same would go for anyone who grew up in a low SES or disadvantaged area.

          Alert moderator

        • Left of Centre:

          07 Jun 2016 7:43:09pm

          "It is far too easy for me to think of many."

          You and many others.

          Hence, DV will continue to be a problem and will never be solved.

          Alert moderator

        • dr dig:

          08 Jun 2016 7:47:07am

          LoC, by saying you can't think of any reasons why DV would occur you are admitting a deliberate ignorance to the causal factors at play. I have never been an active participate in DV except for physically intervening to prevent further damage. Your insinuation that I have is not appreciated.

          Alert moderator

        • Peter J:

          08 Jun 2016 8:53:39am

          dr dig

          LoC wrote " in what possible context and can any action reasonably cause one partner in a relationship to physically assault or abuse the other?"

          Note the word 'reasonably.' They didn't say they couldn't think of any reason why DV would occur, but that there is no REASONABLE cause. Surely none of us would disagree with that.

          Alert moderator

        • dr dig:

          08 Jun 2016 9:50:29am

          Peter, I take the word reasonable to mean logical. There are many logical deductions that can be made to reason as to why DV would occur.

          I would also say that in LoC's statement the words 'any act' are just as much a qualifier. As there would rarely be any one act that reasonably leads to DV, it is predominantly a multi-factorial situation.

          In short, I feel my interpretation of LoC's comment was correct.

          Alert moderator

        • Left of Centre:

          08 Jun 2016 11:15:58am

          " As there would rarely be any one act that reasonably leads to DV, it is predominantly a multi-factorial situation. "

          I don't think you understand.

          I'm saying that it shouldn't matter how many factors are in play. Accepting or expecting, tacitly or otherwise, DV to occur is a large part of the problem.

          That you (and I'm sure many others) can think of contexts where one partner can reasonably commit DV on the other is why this problem will never go away.

          Alert moderator

        • dr dig:

          08 Jun 2016 12:18:22pm

          OK LoC, so we are playing word games then around the term reasonably as Peter suggested. You are suggesting if it is reasonable it is fair or acceptable, I am interpreting the word reasonable as being able to logically identify reasons as to why it would occur.

          I am saying there are identifiable reasons as to why DV occurs. I don't accept that it should occur, but I do expect it will occur.

          For example, a large factor in DV is often disadvantaged and abusive pasts which have lead to drug and alcohol dependence, often also for both partners. Arguments over (and under the influence of) drugs, alcohol, and obtaining them lead to violent acts, instigated by either partner.

          Alert moderator

        • Mick:

          07 Jun 2016 5:57:04pm

          Women TRYING to provoke violence is a real problem. It might be very rare, but it's not misogynistic to acknowledge that it does happen. A man with proper self-control won't respond with violence, but some men don't have self control.

          Is it a crime to provoke another to the point where they hit you? No.

          So how can a man report this? How can this show up in the statistics?

          If I abused my wife badly enough, to the point where she stabbed me, the reasonable observer would say that my wife is not entirely to blame or not even to blame at all.

          I have personally experienced a woman who abused me, who I know wanted me to hit her so she could claim that I abused her. I have a massive amount of self control and never did.

          These things DO happen and its not mysoginistic to recognise this fact.

          Alert moderator

    • Stevem:

      07 Jun 2016 1:00:46pm

      I applaud the work that you do, thank you.

      I have absolutely no evidence to support my comment, but it seems to me that those who perpertrate this violence very rarely change their ways. They might do and say the right things in groups such as yours, but I'd be very interested to know the rate at which they re-offend or not?

      Please note that I am not criticising what you do, and I really hope that I am wrong.

      Alert moderator

      • Pete:

        07 Jun 2016 10:59:14pm

        stevem: I make what I think is a reasonable assumption when it comes to DV - there are some distinct personality attributes associated with both the perpetrator and the victim. Moreover I think that these people often 'find' each other in relationships. I'm not aware of any research into this (although I'm sure there is some), but if your point is that these people rarely change their ways, I'd agree. You're dealing with fundamental aspects of personality, and this is difficult to change in an individual. I think the best approach (and one which I understand is utilised) is to get a change in actualised behaviour, for instance providing partners with the 'tools' to use when faced with a potential DV situation. The system has neither the inclination, nor the resources to get fundamental change in the deep-down attributes of a person who commits DV and people are simply not interested in the minutiae of trainwreck relationships, so this is probably all we can hope for. Meanwhile, we need to work on the urgent task of reducing the death rate of women - even if this means addressing the real issues in superficial ways, nor not at all. I think it can be done, and having an honest debate that is not hijacked by extremists on either side (most 'mens' advocacy groups, and some feminists) is a start. Men who have 'come back' from a DV background have a lot of important things to say - these are different people to those still embroiled in their own personal DV issues and who seem to make up the majority of these 'men's groups'. The latter still have issues that need to be addressed (for instance the legal system that they perceive as deeply unfair), but they pale in comparison to actual murder which is overwhelmingly the main problem at the moment.

        Alert moderator

    • david:

      07 Jun 2016 10:08:40pm

      Someone who works within the system; who think that we all have a choice; that we can control our actions - no matter what is thrown at the victim (in reference to the discussion, the male), who becomes a perpetrator - I'm just glad I'm not in your Men's behaviour change group.

      I am astounded how simplistic your thinking is, for someone who works in the industry. Out right dangerous! But perhaps I should let you be, and for you and the status quo, to work it out yourself.

      Alert moderator

  • Freddie Frog:

    07 Jun 2016 12:29:35pm

    So,

    I'm assuming this research also compared the reporting with instances where males were victims of violence to provide the context that reporting on female victims was worse or contained more "victim blaming" language, whatever that is supposed to mean?

    They must have right?

    Alert moderator

    • Buttercup:

      07 Jun 2016 12:52:09pm

      An article appeared on the ABC last week on the subject of internet abuse which I found interesting. A study had found that females were almost as likely to abuse women as men were. But it was presented under the headline that it may have been flawed, quoting none other than Clementine Ford who responded to controlled data with hearsay: namely that these women abusing other women were in fact men posing as women. The article cited Ford as a victim of online abuse but conveniently omitted that she has also rather notoriously abused women, among others.

      I am no less progressive than ever I was, but this is one reason I have turned my back on feminism. It has a real credibility problem now. When feminism fails no-one suffers more than women do. These issues are used as tabloid fodder and abused by social media's venal little clickmongers. There are just as many women exploiting them for their own gain as there are men.

      Alert moderator

      • Freddie Frog:

        07 Jun 2016 1:06:18pm

        I see the problem as a large dose of confirmation bias.

        There is a set agenda and the research is far too often based around finding data that supports the agenda rather than objectively looking at any issue.

        Your example of Clementine Ford is very apt in this regard. She often authors extremely inflammatory and derisory articles (as well as being abusive to people on social media) and then utilises the inevitable backlash as further proof and evidence of her initial point(s). It's a self fulfilling prophecy for people like her.

        Alert moderator

      • Statikk:

        08 Jun 2016 10:13:53am

        Clem Ford is definitely one of the craziest feminists going.

        Given she attacks men and women equally online, I'm surprised she hasn't been jailed for harassment.

        Alert moderator

    • Left of Centre:

      07 Jun 2016 1:08:03pm

      Indeed.

      Because we should be funding research into the minority of cases when men are the victim of violence so as to appear impartial.

      You know, being politically correct and all.

      Alert moderator

      • Realist1:

        07 Jun 2016 1:50:20pm

        Left

        So just exclude men and to hell with them as victims because why?? How many male deaths is ok for you?

        Alert moderator

      • Freddie Frog:

        07 Jun 2016 1:51:28pm

        "Because we should be funding research into the minority of cases when men are the victim of violence so as to appear impartial."

        Is that what I wrote? No.

        Although you do make a good point that research funding should be allocated proportionally. Or do you think research should only focus on the majority of cases in any specific area?

        I don't think you've fully thought this through and the impact on your actual goal if that's the case.

        But back to the point, you cannot objectively complain that reporting about violence against women is somehow poor or reflects bad societal attitudes against women without looking at context and overall media reporting can you?

        Well unless you've already got a set agenda that is.

        Alert moderator

        • Left of Centre:

          07 Jun 2016 2:37:23pm

          "But back to the point, you cannot objectively complain that reporting about violence against women is somehow poor or reflects bad societal attitudes against women without looking at context and overall media reporting can you?"

          What context or overall media reporting are you talking about?

          I have made no complaint about the standard of reporting of violence against women.

          The bad societal attitudes against women is reflected in the number of posters jumping up and down about domestic violence committed against as males as if that problem was worthy of the same degree of research or attention.

          It isn't.

          Is domestic violence against males worthy or attention? Yes, of course.

          But can we please stop pretending that it deserves equal attention to domestic violence against women.

          Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          07 Jun 2016 3:07:44pm

          Left of Centre,

          "I have made no complaint about the standard of reporting of violence against women."

          What do you think the article or this research is about?

          For an example, let's say that children hate all vegetables.

          Then let's say a researcher from the Brocolli council studies children's reaction to brocolli and surprisingly finds that children hate brocolli. The researcher then seeks government action to promote brocolli despite the fact that children hate all vegetables not just brocolli.

          Do you think that research provides good contextual and objective information or are the results incomplete and skewed because they didn't seek children's views on other types of vegetables?

          "But can we please stop pretending that it deserves equal attention to domestic violence against women."

          Who's claiming that it should? But wouldn't you agree that they should receive attention proportionally to their victimisation and need?

          Do you honestly think that this is currently the case where approximately zero attention and government funding is given?

          Alert moderator

        • Left of Centre:

          07 Jun 2016 5:24:36pm

          I don't think you thought that broccoli analogy through.

          Even if the research did take into account DV against men, do you honestly think it would (or should) change anything?

          "But wouldn't you agree that they should receive attention proportionally to their victimisation and need?"

          Do you mean the various domestic violence helplines/hotlines set up for men to call?

          The Men's Shed program?

          Various substance abuse programs (if such things are a factor)?

          Or, if you want to completely equalitarian about it, make an appointment to see a psychologist, bulk billed to Medicare?

          So no, this is not currently the case where zero government funding is given for men's DV issues.

          Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          07 Jun 2016 7:33:22pm

          Ah, I thought it through but it seems you haven't.

          "Even if the research did take into account DV against men, do you honestly think it would (or should) change anything?"

          Yes, I'd think you'd find that the media reports stories where males are victims of violence almost identically to the way they report on female victims. It's called context. Something that is clearly missing here because the researchers are pushing an already determined agenda rather than promoting objective assessment.

          "So no, this is not currently the case where zero government funding is given for men's DV issues."

          I see you didn't answer the question. Do you think make victims should receive funding and support proportionally to the amount of total victims? Should funding be allocated on need rather than gender?

          Note, from all credible research this would be a minimum of 25%? Do you honestly think that's the current allocation?

          The fact that the sole item directed at males you could come up with is the "men's shed" program, something that has nothing directly to do with domestic violence tells me you might be in trouble here.

          And it's also interesting that you listed men's domestic violence hotlines which are almost exclusively set up for men to call for counselling when they think they are going to commit violence, not as victims.

          Alert moderator

        • Left of Centre:

          08 Jun 2016 11:32:50am

          "Do you think make victims should receive funding and support proportionally to the amount of total victims? Should funding be allocated on need rather than gender? "

          Based on the raw number of victims? No.

          Based on need? Yes.

          Of that minimum 25% of male victims of DV, how many of them were brutally bashed, suffered GBH or threatened with death?

          Further, how many of that number had no realistic option other than to stay in the abusive relationship?

          Furthermore, of that 25% how many of them also engaged in DV? i.e. they were not passive.

          Now ask the same questions of the remaining 75% of female victims of DV.

          Then reconsider the context in which we discuss DV and the proportional allocation of funding and services.

          Then consider the number of services directed only at men (as well the general public) for their mental health needs already in existence and ask why we should divert resources away from the majority.

          Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          08 Jun 2016 12:32:26pm

          "Based on need? Yes."

          Finally we're getting somewhere. Although you didn't answer the last part of the question.

          Do you honestly think that the current funding is allocated according to need?

          "Of that minimum 25% of male victims of DV, how many of them were brutally bashed, suffered GBH or threatened with death?"

          The homicide research shows that about 20-25% of the victims murdered by their partners are male.

          I've not seen the statistics on brutal bashings or GBH in this area, perhaps you have?

          I also see that you haven't mentioned the very real effects of emotional abuse which is a very large part of the problem beyond the physical side.

          "Further, how many of that number had no realistic option other than to stay in the abusive relationship?"

          How many women are in this position? We have multiple services available for women who want to leave an abusive relationship and they should be fully supported both legally and through law enforcement. I'm not saying it's easy, but the idea that they have "no realistic option" to leave is completely removing them of any agency.

          "Furthermore, of that 25% how many of them also engaged in DV? i.e. they were not passive."

          I don't know, perhaps you can tell me? Then you can answer the questions from the other perspective of male victims.

          "Then reconsider the context in which we discuss DV and the proportional allocation of funding and services.

          Then consider the number of services directed only at men (as well the general public) for their mental health needs already in existence and ask why we should divert resources away from the majority."

          I agree we should consider this and it's the exact reason I've raised the issue. The amount of male only services is minute compared to the services available to women only.

          Why should we divert resources away from the minority? Because you've already agreed that they should be allocated based on need.

          Alert moderator

        • Bev:

          07 Jun 2016 9:19:25pm

          LOC "domestic violence helplines/hotlines set up for men to call"

          You do realize the help lines are not for victims but for males who are DV offenders and want to change. They do not help male victims.

          Alert moderator

        • Realist1:

          07 Jun 2016 3:23:29pm

          Left of c

          We would like some!!! How many men's refuges are there, how many programs for male victims, one ad or media attention that actually decries violence against men... committed by women

          Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          07 Jun 2016 3:46:27pm

          Well Realist, if you would like some refuges or programs for men, why don't you go and talk to your local member and organize some support for it.

          It is not revolutionary, women pioneered the methods years ago,

          Alert moderator

        • Realist1:

          07 Jun 2016 4:09:23pm

          DW

          Yeah sure did it all on your own.. you are full of it DW and your dismissive and cold attitude is a sad reflection on you.

          Women pioneered the methods,, oh please what a laugh.

          We cant even get people to take men's issues seriously, let us se, we are white men with white male privilege, we can only be the racist sexist ones and your attitude reflect just how much inequality there is

          Alert moderator

        • Adman:

          07 Jun 2016 4:25:03pm

          DW. And it is women who use their victim status to shut down any debate regarding male victims of DV.Just look at the backlash the QLD premier received when she tried to talk about male victims of DV.

          Men who do try and raise awareness regarding male victims are routinely decried as misogynists, businesses and politicians won't touch these issues with a 10 foot pole.

          Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          07 Jun 2016 5:01:33pm

          Realist and Adman, have you any idea how hard women had to fight to get recognition for discrimination against women, DV, and how long it took?

          Obviously not. So I'll say it again, it you want to change attitudes or get some support for men victim, get out and start doing it. It won't happen overnight. And it certainly won't happen unless you take some initiative.

          Alert moderator

        • Adman:

          07 Jun 2016 5:37:03pm

          DW. It is rather ironic that in an article about victim blaming you are blaming male victims for not being effective enough at promoting themselves.

          It is also rather conservative of you to state "Well women had it hard, it is only fair that men have it hard." So much for being a progressive.

          Alert moderator

        • Ian:

          07 Jun 2016 5:46:45pm

          And so finally we reach the root of the problem.

          Why is recognition of female violence a political taboo?

          Because women are the democratic majority & behave as a voting bloc to win privileges by extorting goverments.

          Even the height of his popularity, Howard was unable to place a cap on legal aid funding for women claiming abuse in divorce/custody cases even when the claims are obviously & proveably false.

          Hence, allegation of abuse has become standard procedure for women who automatically receive literally unlimited legal funding against fathers who must pay for every cent of their defence out of their own pockets.

          In my case, I also copped child support of course plus travel & accomodation expenses because she had illegally taken our son interstate but that didn't matter because well, she is a woman.

          At the end of it all, after I had been lied to & about, lost everything I had ever worked for, treated like a criminal for merely trying to maintain a relationship with our son & nearly killed myself on the road a number of times travelling back & forth, I have to admit I did half feel like killing someone. And so I faced the terrible choice that every separated father fears: going on & risking mental breakdown or giving up & turning your back on your child.

          Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          07 Jun 2016 4:58:18pm

          Desert Woman,

          Are you suggesting that the "squeaky wheel gets the grease"? That funding shouldn't be based on need but rather by publicity?

          And here I was thinking you actually believed in the principles of equality and equity that you constantly espouse.

          Alert moderator

        • whogoesthere:

          07 Jun 2016 5:01:49pm

          Don't forget co-operation !

          Alert moderator

        • Adman:

          07 Jun 2016 5:41:08pm

          Freddie. People like DW are not interested in equality if it means it might apply to what they consider a privileged group. They think gender politics is a zero sum game, they fear that acknowledging male victims of DV means less acknowledgment, and funding, of female victims.

          Though, from reading her above comment, it seems she also wants men to suffer in a manner similar to how she perceives women suffered.

          Alert moderator

        • Ian:

          07 Jun 2016 6:03:05pm

          That is exactly right. The last thing any feminists wants is equality. What they want is a perpetual perception of victimhood to foster a constant favourable presumption in ccourts that decide who gets the kids & hence houses, child support & welfare. Or in other words, economic control.

          Feminists might be evil but they are certainly not stupid.

          Alert moderator

        • Peter J:

          08 Jun 2016 8:59:50am

          Ian

          Do you see the hypocrisy of you accusing feminists of promoting 'victimhood' when every one of your posts on this subject has set out how much of a victim you (allegedly) are?

          Alert moderator

        • Bev:

          07 Jun 2016 9:16:06pm

          Left of Centre.

          At the moment there is no funding for male victims and no research into DV against men. You say since men are a minority of victims (25%) we should ignore them. Lets look at teenage suicide. Boys suicide at 5 time the rate of girls (girls are 20% of victims). Apply the same logic and ignore suicide by teenage girls. You should be happy since it fits your philosophy exactly but I bet you would scream blue murder if that was the policy.

          Alert moderator

        • Alpo:

          08 Jun 2016 7:19:01am

          Although statistics are important to understand where the major problem is, that requires more urgent attention, nobody should be ultimately ignored. One victim of violence is a victim too many.

          Alert moderator

        • Left of Centre:

          08 Jun 2016 11:36:04am

          "At the moment there is no funding for male victims and no research into DV against men."

          Clearly not, since such research is being referenced by others.

          "You say since men are a minority of victims (25%) we should ignore them"

          I'm saying no such thing.

          Alert moderator

      • Ian:

        07 Jun 2016 3:00:40pm

        Where did you get the idea that men are minority of victims?

        Alert moderator

      • Statikk:

        08 Jun 2016 10:14:31am

        So, you don't want equality?

        Alert moderator

    • mike j:

      07 Jun 2016 3:27:15pm

      Meanwhile, no-one mentions that men have a 100% fatality rate. A hundred percent!

      There's no way the female rate could be that bad, but I'm not going to bother looking it up.

      Alert moderator

      • Freddie Frog:

        07 Jun 2016 4:59:56pm

        I think we need some funding for some research on this clear imbalance.

        Alert moderator

  • whogoesthere:

    07 Jun 2016 12:32:31pm

    ' one in five people think women are somehow to blame for the violence inflicted upon them if they had been drinking or flirting or out alone. '

    I have difficulty with the language around this. There was a story on the news about car thefts last night. Advice was given that you should always lock your car, don't leave phones etc in them, put your car off the street if you can etc. This seems pretty much common sense, and no-one gets stuck into the person saying it. If I left my car unlocked on the street with the keys in it I do think it would be partly my 'fault' if it got stolen.

    But if we tell women to not get blind drunk at a party, or not to walk alone at night, we are 'victim blaming', to me this type of advice is just the same as locking your car.

    Of course we all should work towards a perfect world where there are no rapists or car thieves, but, in reality, we may reduce these things, but I doubt we will even eliminate them altogether.

    So yes, do all we can to reduce crime and violence in our society. But, don't pretend that all us (men and women) shouldn't take some actions to mitigate the risks we face in some situations. And don't get stuck into people for pointing this out. It's just real world common sense.

    Alert moderator

    • Buttercup:

      07 Jun 2016 12:59:07pm

      That which is now known as feminism infantilizes women, which is another reason I no longer identify as feminist.

      I read recently of a young woman who stated that she suffered from "sad girl syndrome" because she lives in a world (first world at that) which "subordinates women." And I just thought, what have we done? This is the opposite of what my feminism is about. That we are engendering such misery in girls appalls me. We might not live in perfect world but we are free to change it and that is cause for celebration.

      If feminism really is about the pursuit of equality (and that is arguable) then we must be prepared to have an honest discourse about what really constitutes inequality.

      Alert moderator

      • Desert Woman:

        07 Jun 2016 2:01:03pm

        Buttercup, if feminism infantilizes women, why do we have so many men on this site constantly claiming that it should all be about them?

        Women are out and about securing political support, building refuges and support groups. Doesn't sound very infantile to me. Men crying about how they are ignored however....

        Alert moderator

        • AJ:

          07 Jun 2016 2:29:58pm

          They have a right to be acknowledged even by cold hearted serial man hating bitches such as your self.

          Unless of course you really do want the victim wagon to roll on and on and on.

          Alert moderator

        • Helvi :

          07 Jun 2016 3:52:08pm

          AJ, are you calling DW a bitch, I thought this forum had some rules on how to behave here...?

          Alert moderator

        • OUB :

          07 Jun 2016 5:18:34pm

          I agree with you Helvi. Moderator please remove AJ's post. I expect it was a heat of the moment thing and it serves no purpose to leave it in place.

          AJ you are not helping your cause or those you seek to support.

          Alert moderator

        • Helvi:

          07 Jun 2016 5:56:52pm

          Thank you OUB, much appreciated.

          Alert moderator

        • Snufkin:

          08 Jun 2016 10:41:51am

          @ AJ, name-calling is silly and it isn't helpful.

          Instead, you should offer rational argument and data.

          Check out Dalrymple's book which I mention above, for an educated and highly readable professional view of the issue.

          Or Bettina Arndt's well-informed criticisms.

          Have a good one.

          Alert moderator

        • AJ:

          08 Jun 2016 11:40:29am

          So DW being cold hearted and dismissive of DV against men is helpful, I take it you only had a problem with one word which had hit the nail on the head.

          As many other have stated time and time again this problem will never be solve A because violence is engrained within human nature and B because the perpetual victim

          funding pushed for by feminist with and agenda against men and the need to keep their jobs.

          Alert moderator

        • Realist1:

          07 Jun 2016 2:49:37pm

          DW

          Actually claims of rape culture, oppression, micro-aggression, safe spaces etc. certainly do treat women in such a way. trigger warnings etc.

          Those women are certainly expecting men to build all those shelters for them and fund all that support and somehow believe that men should not also have the same for when they are victims.

          Just lobe that idea of women only train carriages for their "safe space"

          Alert moderator

        • Ian:

          07 Jun 2016 3:02:22pm

          There are no men here claiming it is about them. What is here is a combination of both men & women who believe that women should also be held to account for their actions.

          Alert moderator

        • mike j:

          07 Jun 2016 3:33:23pm

          Women are out looking after women, which is all they have ever done. They're out securing the political support (of men), building refuges (by paying men) and support groups (with men's tax dollars).

          Then if a man dares to suggest that women should actually exhibit the equality they claim to embody, he's 'crying'.

          I've had it with you narcissistic, entitled women who can't even figure out your own hypocrisy. Time to revisit women's suffrage.

          Alert moderator

        • Statikk:

          08 Jun 2016 10:18:47am

          Spot on mike j!

          I have totally given up supporting many charities as the bulk of the monies tends to go towards women.

          I'm essentially using my financial power to NOT help women in any way.

          Alert moderator

        • Snufkin:

          07 Jun 2016 9:53:10pm

          Only this morning I heard a poor mother, bewildered and grieving over the suicide of her son, say: "On average, at least one young man aged between 15 and 24 suicides every day in Australia."

          We also know that Australian women are the major perpetrators of violence against children, a fact that Bettina Arndt has often pointed out, but which the ABC repeatedly chooses to ignore.

          Most of us here would probably deplore all "family violence". As someone who had an abusive mother, I know I certainly do.

          A question arises: Why is there currently so much emphasis upon family violence, stereotyped as violence towards women, perpetrated by men, when there is undeniably a much more complex situation concerning most family violence? Surely "family" includes children, too?

          Why persist with this simplistic, divisive and unhelpful approach of focusing only upon female victims of male partners or male relatives?

          Have a good one.

          Alert moderator

        • Pete:

          07 Jun 2016 11:19:03pm

          DW the problem is that most of these men seem to be conflating their own personal difficulties with that of the overall system (a system that is struggling to stop the killing of women let's remember). To a large extent, they're two separate issues, and people understandably have little interest in the "sample size 1" stories about trainwreck relationships. But in the language of the posters, these stories end up getting joined to the point where they morph into a conspiracy against men. I have no doubt there are demonstrable problems in the system that men are 100% correct in pointing out - hell, there may even be an unintended conspiracy, but this conflation of the personal and the societal or systemic is confusing the issue and gets us nowhere. Let's just focus on the main issue: deaths, even if it means ignoring some of the possible, but impractical to fix, opinion-based causal factors.

          Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          08 Jun 2016 8:28:45am

          Thanks Pete, very perceptive and that would certainly account for some of it. But look at the nature of the sentiments expressed here and the language. Some of these people are angry out of their mind.

          There has to be some deep seated problems below the surface to produce these sorts of responses and I think it goes back to the fact that the inequality of men and women in all its aspects has been taken for granted for so long now. Quite simply, these people feel 'they wuz robbed'.

          They have lost many of their special privileges, many of their rights as cock of the roost. The old order has gone and they don't like it. Probably many of them don't even know where their feelings come from - but they are certainly lashing out, and women are copping it.

          I want to stop the killing of women but I also want to stop all the heartbreak involved in lousy males/female relationships. Plenty of people do enjoy loving equal relationships but there is a way to go before that is only going to happen for everyone. In the meantime, we can only keep working and try to keep the damage to a minimum.

          Alert moderator

        • Adman:

          08 Jun 2016 9:56:23am

          It might make you feel better about yourself if you can simply discount men and women who feel we should also talk about male victims simply having 'some deep seated problems'. I think it would be more interesting to look at why certain people are afraid to acknowledge that male victims also need help. The same people feel that focusing on a symptom of DV, is more important than trying to solve the underlying reasons for it.

          Alert moderator

        • Realist1:

          08 Jun 2016 10:24:50am

          DW

          Perceptive, he admits he doesn't have any answer, but simply makes false accusation against any person who dares not follow the regressive totalitarian line by people like yourself.

          Either we deal with "Domestic" violence or we don't. If you think success is to paint men as the 100% perpetrators and dismiss their issues people like you will be guilty of assisting in more violence and deaths by your arrogance alone

          Alert moderator

        • Adman:

          08 Jun 2016 8:54:34am

          Pete. You may be incapable of looking at the systematic causes of DV, instead only being able to focus on one of the symptoms, but the rest of us aren't so narrow minded.

          If you want to stop DV deaths of women, children and men, you need to look at the underlying reasons for DV. The current male bad, woman victim narrative, only looks at one of the symptoms.

          Please take your faux concern for male victims elsewhere.

          Alert moderator

    • Tigerthorn:

      07 Jun 2016 7:11:06pm

      Hey, whogoesthere.... you do know that women aren't cars right?

      Women are in fact human beings.

      How dare you, or anyone for that matter, reduce women to such a degree? We are not some possesion that someone has broken into because we were left unattended in the street!!

      Alert moderator

      • whogoesthere:

        07 Jun 2016 9:14:22pm

        I'm a woman, so yes I know I'm not a car. I try and keep my car safe, and keep myself safe too.

        Alert moderator

    • K:

      07 Jun 2016 10:41:33pm

      If you parked your locked car in a street and came back and it had been broken into you are not to blame, if a woman walks around in any state, whether it be sober, drunk, alone, with friends whatever, she is a locked car, unless you have permission to be there you shouldn't be near her, let alone inside of her, she is not to blame.

      Regardless women are not cars. The problem with telling women we should always be sober, with friends ect, is that it inadvertently gives men permission for their bad behavior 'well if she didn't want to have sex with me, she would of stayed home and remained sober', that is the thought process of some men. It's not acceptable. The reality is that there are always bad people in the world, the difference is, that we as a society should not explain away their behavior. We should not teach women that just because these people exist that, they need to alter their behaviour. We need to send the message that it is ALWAYS the fault of the rapist.

      Not to mention that women are in a no win situation. If we say we feel uneasy by some stranger coming up and talking to us on the street, we are told we are overreacting, 'he was trying to be nice', 'all he did was say hi', or the worst is 'he just wanted your number'. If we're careful, it's overreacting, if we're not then it's our fault. Maybe changing the narrative will place blame where it is deserved.

      Alert moderator

  • Big Ben:

    07 Jun 2016 12:52:03pm

    "her husband understanding that he has no right to harm her."

    How does that fit with the notion of armies and wars and drone-strikes and violence in the World today, reported in the news every minute, that is done by the Good guys against the Bad guys?

    The right to harm someone is dependant on the behaviour of that person. If we behave ourselves and do as we are told, then we don't get harmed. If we can't behave ourselves, then we should go away so that we don't get harmed. Harming wrongdoers is the core of Western civilisation.

    Alert moderator

    • Zing:

      07 Jun 2016 1:12:23pm

      "If we behave ourselves and do as we are told, then we don't get harmed."

      Correct. But the behaviour required of you depends on who you are accountable to.

      As a rule, individuals are not accountable to other individuals for their behaviour. So short of self-defence, you have no right to harm another individual just because you think they're behaving incorrectly.

      If you do harm that individual, you're in the wrong. Which means our society - to whom you *are* accountable - will have a score that needs settling with you. And as western armies and drone-strikes show, our society settles it's scores.

      Alert moderator

      • Big Ben:

        07 Jun 2016 2:25:55pm

        "our society settles it's scores."

        It's just a big democracy. We just make it look like we do whatever gets the most votes, and that's easy because nobody really knows what goes on in such a huge dysfunctional society. We just have to keep the customers satisfied.

        Alert moderator

      • doggesselley:

        07 Jun 2016 3:25:00pm

        Unfortunately Zing, whether it's due to incompetence, flawed intelligence (incompetence), technological failure, carelessness, or the kind of collective blame/punishment mindset which the man-haters so often serve up on ABC forums (I'm not including Julia Z here by the way), our society often ends up settling its scores with people who bore no particular animosity towards us, and whose only crime was to be born in a different part of the world and be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I know the likes of Ruby Hamad would dismiss my concern at the loss of innocent lives abroad as some kind of whitey cop-out, an empty gesture which I indulge in so that I can feel good about myself, but I'd suggest that very few of those drone strikes you mention are in fact settling scores. They're doing something else.

        Alert moderator

    • Amylou:

      07 Jun 2016 1:18:02pm

      This is a strange comment. Leaving aside all the moral pitfalls of war, including the hypocrisy underlying justifications for starting wars and all the civilians who get killed, how does war even relate to domestic violence? Are you suggesting that women who get routinely beaten up by their husbands/male partners have done something "wrong"? What could that wrong act possibly be?

      Everyone makes mistakes in marriage (including men!) but violence is not the answer.

      This comment smacks of the old-fashioned idea of keeping women in their place. Well, the world has moved on and you should too.

      Alert moderator

      • rf:

        07 Jun 2016 1:27:57pm

        I think they're saying that the macro affects the micro in some ways.

        Alert moderator

      • Zing:

        07 Jun 2016 1:33:30pm

        "This is a strange comment."

        Big Ben has a record of picking whichever side of the argument is likely to offend the largest number of people.

        So my advice is that you interpret his comment in the most offensive way possible. It's a pretty safe bet that you'll be reading it the way he intended. And if not, he'll certainly tell you.

        Alert moderator

        • Big Ben:

          07 Jun 2016 1:51:13pm

          "So my advice is that you interpret his comment in the most offensive way possible"

          A lot of trolls around here like to butt in with their little bit of offense when they know someone will bite. My advice is that you interpret Zing's comment as the most offensive remark possible to her given the time she had to think it up.

          Alert moderator

        • Zing:

          07 Jun 2016 2:48:13pm

          Big Ben.

          You make deliberately provocative comments on a variety of subjects, then insult the people who get outraged. It's clear that you're the troll here.

          And I'd recommend you not assume that an anonymous poster is female. There's a 50% chance that you'll be laughably wrong - which makes you a joke at your own expense.

          Alert moderator

        • Big Ben:

          07 Jun 2016 3:42:29pm

          I've known you for a long time, Zing. If you remember when you first appeared here I thought you were very intelligent a long time ago, but there was an impostor here in the mean time used my name and wrote a lot of tripe in a lot of places, and a lot of people seem to have got me confused with that pretender.

          Now I can tell you're female, because you lack some aspects of masculinity in some subtle ways. You could also be an effeminite male, which is the same thing on the w3.

          I never try to be provocative at all, but only what the House Rules will allow, and everything I write is read by a moderator before publication, so what comes out is a box of chocolates anyway. If the Truth hurts, you have my permission to not reply.

          I can tell you're a woman because you'd rather nag me than discuss the topic, because trolling builds your sorry little ego.

          How about we discuss the topic now? Would you like that, Miss Zing?

          Alert moderator

        • Zing:

          07 Jun 2016 5:08:35pm

          Big Ben. Do you believe that violence against another person is justified outside of self-defence?

          If not, then we have no argument. If yes, then you're part of the reason for domestic violence - in which case, discussing you is discussing the issue.

          Alert moderator

        • mike j:

          07 Jun 2016 5:26:46pm

          "If [you believe that violence against another person is justified outside of self-defence], then you're part of the reason for domestic violence"

          You heard it here first, folks. If a total stranger punches your missus in the face, you can't touch him else you're perpetuating 'domestic violence'.

          Rule works well when white knighting on internet blogs, but half life of zero seconds in the real world.

          Alert moderator

        • Zing:

          07 Jun 2016 5:58:29pm

          "You heard it here first, folks. If a total stranger punches your missus in the face, you can't touch him else you're perpetuating 'domestic violence'."

          Self-defence extends to protecting another individual from attack. Whatever right the victim has to defend themselves can be invoked on their behalf by a defender. The law's quite clear on that.

          Nice try at verballing me, though. Maybe it'll work on the next guy.

          Alert moderator

        • Big Ben:

          07 Jun 2016 5:27:04pm

          "Do you believe that violence against another person is justified outside of self-defence?"

          Personally, I don't believe that any violence is justified, except when there are weapons involved, but I have been well-trained in self-defence, and I am not the president of the USnA so I don't get to set an example to all humans on the usage of violence as a deterrent like he does.

          If someone throws a heavy object at me in my own home, or tries to stab me in the heart with a breadknife in my bed when I am sleeping, or attacks me physically, or attacks my friends or my home or my things in front of me, then I reserve the right to do whatever it takes to stop that behaviour, and if someone gets a bruised wrist from my police grip, then that's a peaceful resolution. Much more peaceful than what Barack Obama and his ilk advocate as the Golden Rule, if that makes you feel more comfortable, Zing.

          Does this mean that you will try your best to refrain from playing the pretend vigilante moderator at me now that you realise that you were the one who got me mixed up with another correspondent?

          Alert moderator

        • Helvi:

          07 Jun 2016 5:54:44pm

          Zing,you are not a clairvoyant, you assume too much about other bloggers characters and their intentions. You accuse Big Ben of his assumed failings. Please stop.

          Alert moderator

        • Zing:

          07 Jun 2016 6:39:05pm

          Helvi. I base my judgements on bloggers based on what they've said in the past.

          Take you for example. You've made dozens of offensive generalizations about Australian people and Australian society. So if I call you a racist based on those comments, it's an observation - not an insult.

          Alert moderator

        • Big Ben:

          08 Jun 2016 9:46:47am

          Try and keep your focus on the topic of the story, Zing. It is one thing to remember names from other days and other arguments, but it is wrong to try to use some personal gripe you have from persons who are anonymous (and you can't tell one Ben from another besides) from one story to attack innocent correspondents in another thread. It just shows up your own personal neuroses. This is not your facebook page, girlie.

          Alert moderator

        • Statikk:

          08 Jun 2016 10:31:40am

          "Do you believe that violence against another person is justified outside of self-defence?"

          No but if a person (man or woman) attacks me, then don't expect nothing to happen.

          Alert moderator

        • From the Fortress:

          07 Jun 2016 2:28:00pm

          Big Ben, you do like to..... oh forget it! You're not worth the effort.

          Alert moderator

        • mike j:

          07 Jun 2016 3:40:56pm

          Did you think it was a 'strange comment'?

          Every action story ever has been specifically written in a way that justifies violence towards the antagonist (overwhelmingly a male). If you don't think violence towards another human being is occasionally justified, you don't understand the human condition.

          The only question here is why society thinks what is acceptable to do to a male is abuse when it happens to a female.

          Alert moderator

      • Big Ben:

        07 Jun 2016 1:33:45pm

        "What could that wrong act possibly be?"

        That, my dear, is the question precisely.

        It is important when we choose to live socially around others, and by this I mean under-the-same-roof, where the locked doors stop, inside one single home and sanctuary, for more than one individual at a time, that we take precautions with all of our behaviours and how our own actions might affect others, because inside the home, behind closed doors, there is no direct authority beyond the occupants of a single domicile, and the only way to ensure effective justice on the domestic scale, is for each member of the household to understand and abide by the rules of the house.

        Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have shown what happens to bad Libyans if they don't behave themselves and do what they're told and follow the rules that The President gives them.

        That is on a global scale. In the average Australian household, yo momma is POTUS.

        Alert moderator

      • Realist1:

        07 Jun 2016 1:51:48pm

        Amylou

        Actually the western world may have moved on, but the world definitely not

        Alert moderator

        • Odie:

          07 Jun 2016 3:07:13pm

          So if I'm arguing with a bloke who is bigger or tougher than me, there are places I do not take my debate. The reason for this is that I'm pretty sure that fellow might want to knock my block off and probably has the ability to do it. Men (or at least those of my vintage) seemed to understand this. The ones that didn't had bruises.

          We now seem to have this perverse version of equality where some women feel they are entitled to say or do whatever they want to whomever they want, but then expect no retaliation because, you know, vagina.

          Blokes of my age were taught never to hit women - those who did were considered to be cowards. But it was rare in real life to see a woman get in a bloke's face, or push, punch or slap the guy as part of an argument - at least in public. Now I see this on public transport, especially on Friday and Saturday nights. Interestingly enough, if you also pay attention to movies and television, you'll see that a woman slapping a man (without consequence) seems to be considered so routine it borders on insignificant.

          The way I see it is; if you want to get abusive or physical with someone, expect that person to give it back. Your genitals don't make you special and they do not give you a free pass. And, final bit of advice, before you decide to go all Jaqueline Chan you should probably factor in the relative damage dealing capacity of each of the parties to the engagement. Equal rights means equal fights.

          Alert moderator

        • Statikk:

          08 Jun 2016 10:34:12am

          "Equal rights means equal fights."

          Exactly!

          Women want to be able to shoot their mouths off without suffering any of the consequences that generally go along with that behaviour.

          Alert moderator

    • Bert:

      07 Jun 2016 1:19:25pm

      Interesting point. We live in the bullying age. The strong v the weak, the US v Iraq, AS Govt v Asylum seekers, Police v unemployed misfit, Media v Duncan Storrar, US & Allies v illiterate farmer. All a lesson how the strong react to the weak. Zero tolerance. Zero understanding. Zero empathy. Us and them, smash smash smash. Is it any wonder people are just doing what they're shown, male or female?

      Alert moderator

      • Big Ben:

        07 Jun 2016 1:53:08pm

        "Is it any wonder people are just doing what they're shown, male or female?"

        Now in Australia we teach girls how to be assertive, and aggressive and stand up for themselves and all kinds of violent behaviour. In Australian females, it's nurture, whereas in Australian males, it's just nature.

        Alert moderator

        • Bert:

          07 Jun 2016 2:05:50pm

          Not with you on any of that. Standing up for yourself is not violence.

          Alert moderator

        • Big Ben:

          07 Jun 2016 3:46:14pm

          "Not with you on any of that. Standing up for yourself is not violence."

          Let me explain. Hiroshima was standing up for yourself. If Truman had surrendered to the Japanese, there would have been no need for nuclear weapons in the history of civilised mankind.

          Talking is always the first option in a civilised society, but if that fails, then punishment is the next best form of communication if threatened by another. This is how it works so we all do the right thing, otherwise there would be anarchy and the best hope you'd have is to die in your sleep.

          Alert moderator

    • Larry :

      07 Jun 2016 2:45:04pm

      As a society we don't allow vigilantes to meet out justice to wrongdoers. We have systems and safeguards for ensuring violence is perpetrated only when necessary, and by sanctioned people. We vote for the people who take us to war, and who write the laws that determine what is right and wrong in a society. Are you seriously saying you think husbands have a right to use violence against a partner they perceive as behaving badly? As if they were a trained police officer? And the idea that in a domestic relationship, a grown adult should just do as they are told so they won't get hurt is quite horrible. Relationships should be full of communication, understanding and caring for each other. Physical violence by one citizen against another is illegal in almost any context.

      Alert moderator

      • Big Ben:

        07 Jun 2016 4:12:05pm

        "Relationships should be full of communication, understanding and caring for each other. "

        Let's begin with some Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons, shall we?

        Okay? Feel good? Bzzt now the music stops.

        When the music stops, Larry, what do you suggest?

        Tazers perhaps? Always a winner for the police.

        Alert moderator

  • GM:

    07 Jun 2016 1:15:21pm

    Here are some other examples of victim blaming:

    -Suggesting to anyone that they shouldn't walk through a housing commission area late at night with $100 notes sticking out of their pockets

    -Suggesting to anyone that they should stop and look before crossing a road

    -Suggesting to anyone that they should chew their food before swallowing it

    Sometimes victim blaming is just plain common sense

    Alert moderator

    • sandy:

      07 Jun 2016 2:11:04pm

      It interesting that when people read abut a violent crime, even though they may not know either the victim or the perpetrator, they feel the need to deliver a homily on "common sense" as a response to an attack.

      Women are well aware of the dangers of being attacked, its discussed all the time. We grow up with it. We start getting unwanted attention pretty much from the time we hit puberty, and seriously - in my forties i still have to put up with it. It's not a compliment. I don't need to hear what you think of my breasts. I don't need you to tell me that my need to go to the shops makes me responsible in some way for the bad behaviour of someone else. I need milk for tea and like any other citizen of this country, I should be able to go and buy it without being molested in any way.

      In practically every discussion like this there is a list of rules included on how to avoid being attacked - and these rules are arbitrary, depending on the person, their prejudices, how they imagine a woman should live. Dont go out at night. Dont go out alone. Dont go out. Wear a burkha.

      The reality is there is no guarantee. Many of the women mentioned above were attacked in their homes.

      Masa Vukotic was attacked in a park near her home one afternoon. Did common sense dictate that she never have left her home without a male escort? Are women that unsafe in this country?

      No victim of violence - male or female - needs your patronising "common sense" dismissal of their experience. Why do they have to answer questions? They didnt break any laws. It's about time we look at who threw the punch, who did the damage, who attacked another person. And to ask what they were doing, why they were there and to hold them responsible for breaking the laws of this country.

      Alert moderator

      • whogoesthere:

        07 Jun 2016 2:49:39pm

        But given many people's bahaviour, we do. Of course there is no guarantee, it's risk mitigation. Jill Megaher's rape and murder was a tragedy, and her muderer shouldn't have been on the streets. But the cold, hard truth is if she had not chosen to walk home alone, she'd be alive today.

        Personally I will take the risk of walking through a park, but wouldn't walk home alone at night. We all have to make these choices, men and women. It's all good and well to say we all have the 'right' to do what we like whenever we like without danger. But the real world doesn't work like that.

        Alert moderator

        • sandy:

          07 Jun 2016 3:51:05pm

          Once again - why is risk mitigation - or analysis of the victim's choices the first or most important response in this situation?

          Am attacker is not a force of nature, and attack is not beyond human control. An individual has chosen to attack another. Isn't that the choice that should be attracting attention?

          Concentrating on the behaviour of the victim to the exclusion of the attacker is victim blaming.

          WHY is the first response to an attack is to analyse the behaviour of the victim despite the fact that the victim hasn't broken the law? - Instead of outrage at the behaviour of the perpetrator, no analysis of the circumstances that.

          People - especially women - do moderate their behaviour all the time. How is it helpful to respond to a victim of crime by saying, well you didnt moderate your behaviour enough?

          Jill Meagher was in the wrong place at the wrong time -as any of us can be, but the fundamental issue in her case is that her killer was a violent man, known to police who should have been in jail instead of being paroled. People need to challenge the system that allowed him to roam to the streets, not shrug and say "she should have stayed home that night."

          Where does this "risk mitigation" solution stop? She shouldn't go out at night. She shouldn't be out in the day. She shouldn't be in the street unaccompanied. She be at work or at home and covered from head to toe. Strangely enough, those kind of restrictions havent stopped women being attacked in the countries that have those laws.

          Alert moderator

        • whogoesthere:

          07 Jun 2016 4:23:54pm

          There was plenty of outrage about her attacker. I did not say the 'first response' should be concentrate on the victim's behaviour. I said he should not have been on the streets.You are misrepresenting what I said.

          It is not an either/or. Again, if you lock your car and house, it is only prudent to try and protect your person. And as far 'how far' does risk mitigatio goes, that's up to the individual. None of us should have to do it, but we do.

          Alert moderator

        • Lexx:

          07 Jun 2016 4:53:54pm

          @sandy

          Why have you taken a topic which is about victim blaming in domestic settings and diverted it into a different discussion about victim blaming in random attacks?

          In the domestic setting there is so much more to consider about the contribution of each party to the resulting outcomes.

          In the random attack scenario it's a case of the victim being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

          Are you trying to say that the two scenarios are equivalent?

          Alert moderator

        • doggesselley:

          07 Jun 2016 5:15:17pm

          Sandy, I 100% agree with you. But just don't try to infer that all men must bear responsibility for the murders of Masa Vukotic or Jill Meagher, or that all men must bear responsibility for the numerous instances of domestic violence in which a man physically attacks his partner, daughter, sister, mother. I think you might find that many of the gripes which men have with the various domestic violence opinion pieces which appear on the Drum, is that so often the author is driven by an ideology which condemns all men, and that instances of particular men treating women violently are taken as proof that all men treat women violently, or that all men in some way approve of such behaviour, when we absolutely do not. I personally don't have any gripes with Julia Z's piece. However, if we really want to do something about domestic violence, then I think we need to move away from the popular idea that DV is an epidemic and that it's everywhere. I know Miranda Devine copped a serve from her critic in residence (Clementine) for suggesting that DV might have a significant demographic component, but that's the road I'd be going down. I mean, I can't think of a single male friend I've ever had, who would hit a woman or condone hitting a woman, except perhaps in some theoretical extreme instance involving self-defence (attacked by a woman wielding a knife, etc). None of my male friends would ever make a comment to a woman about her appearance or sexual attractiveness unless he was on intimate terms with the woman concerned. Not a single one of my male friends would contemplate treating a woman with disrespect, let alone violence. Indeed, for many of us men it's a code of honour thing. 'If you're a real man, you don't hit women', nor do you seek to physically prevail over women...nor men for that matter.

          Alert moderator

        • Not surprised:

          07 Jun 2016 6:21:27pm

          Violence against women and the number of women dying from domestic violence would disagree with you. Do you really think that all men who perpetrate domestic violence are the stereotyped rough hewn braggart who boasts about hitting the missus?Perhaps they are your friends, the same guys who say they would never hit a woman or harass a woman about her clothing, etc. I recall my brother talking with his Uni mates about how any man who hit a woman was the lowest of the low, deserving of being beaten up, etc. same brother who choked his wife, bruised her legs by throwing things at her and who used to use me as a punching bag growing up. Domestic violence is everywhere but you don't necessarily see it.

          Alert moderator

        • GRANDMA:

          08 Jun 2016 10:06:01am

          Yes it's true that it's sometimes the man you never thought would be a tyrant at home. But it's not just the violence, it's the control of the woman's movements, constant criticism of her cooking or her clothes and friends, complete control of the family money, etc, etc. I have experienced these in a relationship, and being a passive person, I never understood why I got hit or why he thought he needed to control me.

          It's not just about the murders we see in the news. It's happening anywhere and everywhere. And until all men accept that women are their equals, it will go on and on.

          Some men here insist on arguing about women who assault their male partners in the home. But we know that only a few men are killed by their wives/partners, compared to the frightening statistics for men killing women in Australia.

          Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          07 Jun 2016 3:55:00pm

          OMG, it was her fault because she walked home?

          WGT, you think the streets should be a men only zone?

          So men can continue to think they have the right to rape and kill any female they see? How is that going to change anything? How is it going to educate anybody?

          That is your picture of a desirable Australia? Well, why not confine them to the kitchen and not let them out of the house?

          Alert moderator

        • Realist1:

          07 Jun 2016 4:14:59pm

          DW

          "So men can continue to think they have the right to rape and kill any female they see"

          Just what men are these in our western society DW??

          Based on your comment you would also agree that women only train carriages are wrong?

          Alert moderator

        • whogoesthere:

          07 Jun 2016 4:17:19pm

          No, I obviously don't think the streets should be a man only zone, or they men have the right to rape and kill. Don't be stupid.

          Would you walk home alone late at night in a city ?. Yes or No. Would you tell a young woman she should walk home alone at night in a 'rough' neighbourhood ?. Yes or No.

          Until education, legislation, cultural change makes society better we need to be aware of risks and try and look after ourselves. That is all am I saying. Not fair, no, but that is the reality.

          Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          07 Jun 2016 5:16:35pm

          WGT, what you actually wrote was "If she had not chosen to walk home alone, she'd be alive today".

          I don't think it comes any more clear than that. You are saying that women have to accommodate their behaviour to that of the brutal predators out there.

          You can call me stupid if you want and you can try and wriggle out of it all you like. The fact is it wasn't a 'rough neighbourhood'. It was an ordinary built up area with restaurants etc. So we abandon all the streets to them?

          Thank goodness many of the women in Australia have a bit of gumption, self respect and the will to fight for what is right.

          Alert moderator

        • whogoesthere:

          07 Jun 2016 7:11:46pm

          but what I wrote is true. And yes, I am saying that while there are high levels of violence in our society people have to make decisions about there behaviour, men and women. I am not trying to wriggle out of anything. I have said again and again we should do all we can to try and stop violence.

          My step sons, young and strong, don't go drinking in certain pubs is another example. What I am talking about is not a gender issue. It's simple about trying to stay safe in a sometimes dangerous world. I used to work in inner city Melbourne, I'd often go out with friends at night. I never would walk back to my car alone because I thought it was an unnecceasry risk. Do I want a society where that wouldn't be a worry, of course.

          I have no idea why you are trying to twist my words, and you haven't answered the questions.

          Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          07 Jun 2016 9:34:51pm

          Actually WGT, I quoted your words, exactly.

          You may not appreciate having to confront them but there they are. Clear as a whistle. I don't twist other people's word, I leave that to those who don't like it when they are called out. There are dozens of example on this page alone.

          Words convey meaning WGT. I knew you would wriggle and now you have. You are doing nothing to combat violence by expecting women to stay off the street. You are merely condoning male violence.

          Alert moderator

        • whogoesthere:

          08 Jun 2016 7:36:28am

          This is carzy. I make a simple point that people sometimes have to make choices to modify their behaviour to avoid potentially dangerous situations, and you turn it into me condoning male violence.

          You tell me I'm 'wriggling' yet you won't answer a simple question.

          I never said women you 'stay off the street' 24/7, again you twist my words.

          Crazy.

          Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          08 Jun 2016 11:57:39am

          WGT, you know what you wrote and you know what you meant.

          I believe women should be able to walk the streets alone without fear of attack. You clearly believe we should conform to the status quo which is that we can't.

          By believing that, you are accepting that we are not equal in rights. we should accept that we should knuckle under and accept that we are lesser and have fewer rights.

          that is what we have had for centuries. If you want that to continue, just say so and be done with it.

          Alert moderator

        • dr dig:

          08 Jun 2016 8:50:33am

          DW, never twist words eh? How about "get off the street". Women should stay off the street? Neither of these things were said by WGT.

          Hence clear evidence that you see what you want to see and try to twist people's words to suit your argument.

          WGT made the case that if the woman had not walked home alone, she would be alive today. Can you comprehend that. Not walk home alone. That does not equate to staying off the streets. That means not walking home alone.

          Alert moderator

      • Odie:

        07 Jun 2016 4:20:23pm

        Agree with you on some of your points. But I'd add a few items for consideration:

        1. There are also "arbitrary rules" that apply to blokes (e.g. you get gobby with another bloke, expect retaliation), it's just that these "arbitrary rules" are applied in different contexts.

        2. Nobody is saying you shouldn't be able to go to the shops. We are saying that there are bad people out there who will try to do you harm. Now, you can stamp your feet and demand that everyone turns into rainbow farting unicorns, but it doesn't mean it's going to happen. With that in mind, as a human being with any sense of self preservation, you should should probably take precautions.

        3. Like it or not, but people who don't take precautions or who insist on blindly traipsing about demanding that the world change to accommodate them sometimes become cautionary tales.

        4. Nobody that I've read on this forum is condoning domestic violence. There's probably not that many people out there who like to high-five rapists and wife beaters, either.

        5. People appreciate context. For example, reporting that person x killed person y during a drug deal, doesn't make person x any less culpable. But it does set the context in the crime was committed.

        Alert moderator

    • Grant:

      07 Jun 2016 2:16:51pm

      It's only victim blaming when a female is the victim

      Alert moderator

    • Aliliz:

      07 Jun 2016 2:39:01pm

      GM - Here's an ACTUAL example of victim blaming language from an article elsewhere on the ABC site today from a trial of three brothers in their twenties and thirties who are alleged to have raped a teenage girl: "Defence lawyer Daniel Gurvich questioned each of the Scheiders [who helped the girl when she knocked on their door for help] about whether the girl was wearing make-up when they saw her."

      Alert moderator

      • JessC:

        07 Jun 2016 5:22:40pm

        Wearing make-up? Wow. I know that lipstick originated as a sexual come-on (to mimic the genitals) but we've come a long way from antiquity and a woman is more likely to be criticised for NOT wearing make-up these days!

        I wonder if Defence lawyer Daniel Gurvich has a wife, daughters or sisters ..... and how he'd feel if they were questioned in such a manner.

        Just doing his job? Yeah right.

        Alert moderator

    • Pete:

      07 Jun 2016 11:36:29pm

      The items you listed are not victim blaming at all, so your argument that 'victim blaming is just plain common sense' collapses. But if it's any consolation, the logic error you've made is so common, you're at least not in a small minority. What you describe is indeed common sense, and you could even describe those who do these things as stupid. But there's a world of difference between this and victim blaming. Victim blaming would go on to say "and so you deserved this", or "you're at least partly responsible for this because you created the environment that brought the attack on". It takes the bad actions of the perpetrator, and minimises his/her culpability by apportioning blame to the victim. In summary, you can do stupid things that tend to make you a victim, but at the same time your are not in anyway responbile for your victimisation. That responsibility lies solely with the perpetrator. Read the next sentence carefully. Both the stupidity of the victim, and the 100% culpability of the wrongdoer can occur at the same time - as difficult a concept as this is for lots of people to understand.

      Alert moderator

  • Budgie Smuggler:

    07 Jun 2016 1:17:52pm

    Yep, only 8 replies have been published so far and "you guessed it" ..... they are only worried about the poor, abused, innocent and hated men who are attacked by their brutal, domineering, manipulative, violent female partners. I mean, how DARE Julia Zemiro defend abused women when those poor, poor men are suffering so much.

    SAYS IT ALL.

    What a bunch of neanderthals we still are in Australia.

    Alert moderator

    • Realist1:

      07 Jun 2016 1:56:44pm

      You do seem to struggle with simple concepts.

      All FAMILY violence should be treated.

      But I bet the families of murdered fathers would also be as dismissive...

      Until such times as all violence is treated seriously then you will have a significant push back and achieved very little, or is that a little difficult for you to grasp

      Alert moderator

    • Ian:

      07 Jun 2016 2:16:38pm

      There is nothing daring about pushing this government sanctioned, highly cliched paradigm that we have all been forced to hear about countless times before.

      If I had a dollar for each time I have heard Rosie Batty or whoever else "courageously" peddle this same tired old hypocrisy, I'd have my own fleet of limousines.

      If I got a million dollars for each time I have heard anyone talk about female violence which includes abuse of children, I'd still be penniless.

      That is why no-one listens anymore.

      Alert moderator

    • Breakfast in Bed:

      07 Jun 2016 2:28:52pm

      Thanks Budgie Smuggler. I guess at least we know what we're up against and just how far we still have to go.

      Let's hope that these men are in the minority. We can only but feel pity for them and the bitter and shallow lives that they must lead

      Alert moderator

      • Realist1:

        07 Jun 2016 2:57:41pm

        Breakfast

        So you want to make it a divide are you for real, or are you saying female lives are more important?

        Alert moderator

      • Odie:

        07 Jun 2016 4:28:12pm

        Because men who point out hypocrisy and double standards must be lonely losers, right?

        And all feminists have blue hair?

        Come on, champ. Resorting to pigeon holing and name calling is quite lazy. How about you address the substance of the submissions, assuming you're capable of doing so.

        Alert moderator

    • kateknox:

      07 Jun 2016 3:42:37pm

      @ Budgie Smuggler

      You are on POINT there. 100% correct.

      This comments on this article, clearly show males that keep blaming everybody else.

      Seriously these same Males, why can't you be compassionate? Especially since you know so much about being hurt.

      Alert moderator

      • mike j:

        07 Jun 2016 4:18:46pm

        Mostly males reply because any half-intelligent female doesn't want to be associated with this gendered, institutionalised, plaintive whining about victimhood. They support it, of course, they just don't want to be associated with it.

        Some, however, will take the attention and welfare any way they can get it.

        Alert moderator

        • kateknox:

          08 Jun 2016 10:58:16am

          @ mike j

          Your words are ambiguous "any half-intelligent female doesn't want to be associated with this"....

          This intelligent female has seen all your comments in this article forum, along with others, my words might be missing the mark. The concept is to think of the victim written about and provide compassion and empathy, instead of jumping to but what about the males being hurt.

          Why can't people think to be empathetic, as opposed to jumping to their own self?

          Alert moderator

    • Pete:

      08 Jun 2016 12:03:18am

      To be fair Budgie Smuggler, it's only a small group of posters with passionate views about their own personal situations. They want to conflate their own issues into the wider problem (when in fact they're largely different, if not irrelevant) so I wouldn't read too much into it.

      Alert moderator

  • Son of Zaky:

    07 Jun 2016 1:21:32pm

    "Victim blaming". Wow, now there's a loaded term guaranteed to inflame the passions and muddy the discussion.

    A few points;

    1. Like it or not, humanity is composed of a wide assortment of nutters interspersed with some more normal people. Always was, always will be. Because I know this (and because I think I'm one of the normal ones - here we may disagree), I tailor my presence as I waft through life based in part on who I may be coming into contact with. I don't consider it an oppressive burden; I consider it a logical thing to do to avoid unnecessary trouble. It would be nice if life was all about me, but I'm pretty sure it isn't.

    2. Should I somehow get myself into trouble, part of my thought processes would run to admonishing myself (where appropriate) for having made poor choices which allowed the situation to arise.

    3. In my world, I'm not "blaming the victim" (i.e. me), I'm assigning proper culpability. It helps the healing process - and becomes a useful tool to help prevent the same thing happening in the future - if I approach the matter with honesty, no matter how much more comforting it would be not to do so.

    4. What is important here is an ability to have self-awareness about your situation, and where that situation may lead. That's not anything even vaguely post-modern, that's basic defensive skills which I'm pretty sure exist throughout the evolutionary chain all the way down to what are referred to as lower organisms. I am not that air-headed that I feel I can do what I like, when I like, and for as long as I like and not run the risk of putting myself in harm's way given the sea of nutters I swim around in. As I've intimated, you can't "ban" nutters or edit them out of reality - they're always there. It's up to you to live your life around that reality.

    Pulling all this together, I would contend that the term "victim blaming" is a seriously unhelpful term as it forces an either/or response - you are apparently either blaming a victim or you aren't.

    I am quite prepared to blame (and see punished) the perpetrator for throwing the punch, committing the rape, or taking the life, but I'm afraid I'm not prepared to stop asking the question of why any possible modifications of victim behaviour which could have prevented the crime - but weren't, probably through some sort of bulletproof sense of being inviolate - didn't occur.

    In short, I reserve the right to question - which I fully understand means that in some people's lexicon I'm "blaming the victim". Unfortunately, I can't do anything about that other than to watch them get angry and start flailing about.

    Alert moderator

  • Eric:

    07 Jun 2016 1:31:59pm

    The media can influence things? I won't hear it.

    Alert moderator

  • steve3:

    07 Jun 2016 1:32:49pm

    Commenting on a very similar opinion piece some months ago I said I had no compassion for the perpetrators of domestic violence.

    They should be publicly shamed and go to jail for a lengthy term at the very least. I do not care how much they were provoked or how miserable their childhood our how drug addicted they are.

    They are human beings with a brain, they made the choice to commit evil and it stops there.

    Women must also have nothing to do with such men. If so many women did not fall for the handsome, confident outsider they and their children they have would not suffer from these monsters.

    Women should listen to their friends, family and work colleges when considering a relationship. In my long life I have seen many women ignore all advice and go with a partner that everyone who cared for them said was not suitable.

    To absolutely no ones surprise all these relationships ended in tears if the woman was lucky.

    One friend of mine was blinded in one eye.

    Check him out carefully, if in doubt give him a wide birth and warn others.

    Alert moderator

    • Megz:

      07 Jun 2016 3:27:36pm

      Steve3, I have had a number of partners who were intensely evaluated and approved as a "good guy" by friends and family, some of whom had known the man in question for most of their lives .... time passes and the real man shows himself ..... disaster! It is very difficult to judge what a person is like behind closed doors, no matter how many social, work or other encounters they have had with them, and no matter how high the esteem they are held in through local sports or community involvement. In fact, sometimes it seems that after enough years of a community and family telling a man that he is awesome, he can begin to think that he is god of his world and unaccountable for the consequences of his own actions....and still they defend him, until they see it with their own eyes - in fact, even then they will still make excuses for his behaviour.

      Alert moderator

      • steve3:

        07 Jun 2016 11:44:23pm

        Very good points Megz.

        Life has no guarantees, and the despicable types can still bluff their way past family and friends.

        But at least family and friends know you well, and have your best interests at heart. Some primary filtering can, and does stop a lot of rubbish getting through.

        But as you state they can still get through if they have enough rat cunning.

        When being attracted to someone it is important to be as rational as possible when you consider them as a possible life partner. Go through your own filtering process.

        Does everything they say ring true?

        Are they egotistic?

        What aspects of their character are potentially undesirable?

        If a woman is tricked into a relationship with a dishonorable man and suffers violence, they should go to the police without delay and get out of the relationship immediately.

        Painful as leaving often is, especially when homes and children are involved, staying with them is the worst course of action possible.

        Once charged and convicted, their ability of doing it again is hindered and the chance ruining another womans life reduced.

        Alert moderator

        • Statikk:

          08 Jun 2016 11:24:30am

          "Does everything they say ring true?

          Are they egotistic?

          What aspects of their character are potentially undesirable?"

          Just as valid questions for men to ask themselves before committing to any relationship.

          Alert moderator

  • pH:

    07 Jun 2016 1:34:51pm

    Rather then have the same old debate that follows these ideological pieces, can I just ask everyone a question:

    What happens when the contemporary, politically correct approach to tackling domestic violence inevitably fails, and how do we define when we get to this point?

    Do we keep pushing this same ideological mantra for a decade, two, five? Do we have a clear point at where we say we've won the battle?

    At what point do the people who are leading the public debate about domestic violence start to address the issue from a neutral point? By addressing all relevant factors and removing their Marxist gender ideology from the discussion where the primary goal is to portray women as victims, never as adults with their own agency.

    Your claims to be fighting for the 'victims' can only hold water for so long.

    Alert moderator

  • pH:

    07 Jun 2016 1:46:57pm

    When we discuss such broad and complicated social issues, we must learn to remove emotion from the debate. People often approach cause and effect type questions, by answering them with a point in morals or ethics.

    Q: Is it wrong to hit someone?

    A: Yes.

    (Moral/ethical response)

    Q: Can someones actions cause a violent response from another person?

    A: Yes.

    (Cause and effect response)

    Morals and ethics are absolutely part of the discussion, but are highly susceptible to ideological interference.

    Cause and effect is the approach that is needed when one wants to properly understand and mitigate a complex social issue. Ones analysis cannot be blind to facts, no matter how inconvenient.

    Alert moderator

    • Alpo:

      07 Jun 2016 3:04:27pm

      "Q: Can someones actions cause a violent response from another person?

      A: Yes."...... and a Judge in a Court of Law will determine whether that "Yes" was within the limits of the Law.

      Alert moderator

      • pH:

        07 Jun 2016 3:39:45pm

        Not entirely sure how this response is relevant in the context of my comment...

        Alert moderator

        • Alpo:

          07 Jun 2016 5:23:19pm

          I explain. The victim (e.g. a woman) may have triggered a violent response by somebody else (e.g. a man) by calling that person names or swearing at him for instance, or perhaps by doing nothing, just standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet, a judge will determine the legality of that physically violent reaction after due process in court. Thus this takes the issue within the realm of the law and away from "morals and ethics" that are "highly susceptible to ideological interference".

          A judge will take all the facts into consideration and apply the law to deliver a verdict.

          Alert moderator

  • Ian:

    07 Jun 2016 1:47:40pm

    You lost me at "women & their children". I have no tolerance for that term for two reasons. The first is the fact is that children are not the property of women. Children have a mother & a father. Neither parent is more important nor necessary than the other.

    The other reason is the fact that the majority of child abuse is committed by women, particularly mothers. This lumping the two together as if they are both helpless victims is not just offensive but also a deliberate attempt to frame the issue.

    Women are not victims any more than men. They are adults who also participate in violence & abuse. They should expect to be held to account for their own actions, if they wish men to be held to account for theirs.

    In this regard, it is not just the media that has questions to answer but also the courts & government policy makers. Take the Catherine Pallin case for example; a mirror image of Rosie Batty's. A mother with no history of mental illness drowns her baby in the bath & obviously understanding the seriousness of her actions, hides the body in bushland.

    Was the unfortunate child's father made Australian of the Year?

    Were we lectured by our leaders about the violent tendencies of women & their sense of entitlement?

    Were measures introduced to protect fathers & THEIR children from this scourge of female violence that we have all witnessed on the news many times since?

    No.

    Catherine was conveniently deemed temporarily insane & walked laughing from court a free woman.

    And we see it over & over again. Every time a woman kills a child - & let's face it the fact it isn't that uncommon - their is no song & dance in the media. It is all carefully managed & suppressed to ensure the female victim agenda is not challenged. The excuses are rolled out & even the child killer becomes the victim.

    Alert moderator

    • Desert Woman:

      07 Jun 2016 2:29:11pm

      Ian, so nice to see a man who acknowledges no human being should be the property of another.

      Far too many men believe their woman and children are their property. It is one of the determinants of their violence.

      Now if we could just that understanding of mental illness up the same level, we might be getting somewhere.

      Alert moderator

      • Forrest Gardener:

        07 Jun 2016 3:42:25pm

        DW, have you ever heard of cases where women regard men and children as their property?

        See how loaded your comment is?

        Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          07 Jun 2016 4:21:35pm

          FG, for hundreds of years in the West, and still in many other countries, women are officially the property of their husbands.

          Apparently some men here are slow learners and still believe they have property rights. I've heard them say it.

          It goes along with believing that women should do what men tell them to do because they are not held to be a self determining person but some form of property, slave, serf or social appendage. And if they do not do it, they can be punished.

          A little social history might help you along.

          Alert moderator

    • From the Fortress:

      07 Jun 2016 2:52:36pm

      She wasn't 'conveniently deemed temporarily insane'. She was found to be suffering from severe psychosis, mentally incompetent to stand trial and not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. Insanity is not temporary. Drugs help alleviate it, perhaps to the point where she knows what she did and now she lives with it. The temptation not to take the drugs? But she remains under a court order, perhaps forever but at least as long as sentence for murder. Maybe if you had a look at the movie Shutter Island you might understand something, but I suspect not.

      Alert moderator

      • Ian:

        07 Jun 2016 3:48:52pm

        That is why she went to such great lengths to hide the body. Because she didn't know what she was doing.

        Sorry, I don't buy that for a moment. She had no history of mental illness & the court did rule her insanity to be only temporary. Those are the facts.

        Alert moderator

      • Ian:

        07 Jun 2016 3:54:53pm

        In other words, like Luke Batty's father. I am glad you that made that point because many of us have been saying that his case was a mental health issue but we were shouted down by those determined to draw comparisons between him & every other bloke in the country.

        Why is it Catherine Pallin's case is a mental health one but the Batty case is a DV one?

        Alert moderator

  • Rex Smith:

    07 Jun 2016 1:49:24pm

    I always find stories about dosmetic violence in the media one sided and unrealistic. We hear about how women and children suffer at the hands of "men who need to be taught the difference between right and wrong".

    Until we live in a dystopian big-brother state, there will always be domestic violence. There will always be horrible people (of all sexes) who slip through the cracks and commit heinous crimes DESPITE knowing better.

    Talking on a personal level, I know more men who have suffered domestic abuse than women. Go figure.

    Alert moderator

    • JessC:

      07 Jun 2016 5:50:24pm

      Domestic violence? If a type of violence is so prevalent that it gains its own category, then maybe DV would disappear if couples didn't live together (guaranteed to test one's patience); get married (guaranteed to produce an 'ownership' problem); or produce children (ditto).

      Once SSM comes into force, I wonder if DV escalates and more men become victims?

      Alert moderator

  • themongrel:

    07 Jun 2016 1:59:16pm

    Seems that no matter what the provocation, whatever verbal and physical abuse a woman may subject someone to, if that person retaliates, its not her fault, she is a victim. Bulldust. If you torment a dog often enough and hard enough until he bites, don't blame the dog. Domestic violence by either party is abhorrent, but it is way past time for people to accept some responsibility for their own behaviour, and that includes women. You are not all perfect little princesses, some of you are dead-set bitches, wake up to the fact, and lets concentrate on wiping out ALL domestic violence.

    Alert moderator

    • whogoesthere:

      07 Jun 2016 2:39:22pm

      A person is not a dog. As has been mentioned in other comments, short of defending yourself, there is no excuse for using violence against another person in our society. People who can't control themsleves are weak immature cowards and no excuse justifies their behaviour. If peson A hits person B because person B verbally provokes them, then person B is the victim. No excuses.

      I agree that people should take responsibility for themselves and not put themselves in harms way as much as is possible. But responding to verbal provocation with violence is just plain wrong.

      My partners ex-wife verbally abused him for years, then left him and took the kids. He was devastated. He never, ever hit her. That's because he is a strong person who can control his emotions. Apart from anything else, hitting someone doesn't 'solve' anything. People who lash out violentally are weak.

      Alert moderator

    • Zing:

      07 Jun 2016 3:27:02pm

      "If you torment a dog often enough and hard enough until he bites, don't blame the dog."

      We can and do.

      Biting dogs are expected to tolerate society. Society is not expected to tolerate biting dogs. That's why dogs who bite end up taking a trip to the vet.

      Alert moderator

      • themongrel:

        07 Jun 2016 4:39:46pm

        Yes zing, we do, but should we?. Even the most placid will react to sufficient provocation, then it goes to the vet. Who is the victim here? . Its the poor bloody dog, not the tormentor. As for whogoesthere, retaliation as self defence is common with both sexes in domestic violence. Everyone has a right to protect themselves, especially when the attacker has lost control of themselves. As an ex-cop, who spent hundreds of hours trying to resolve domestic issues, I can assure you that women are equally as bad as men when it comes to initiating domestic bunfights. To try to promote the idea that all women as "victims" are not at fault is crap. Like the poor bloody dog, who only retaliated in self defence, some men find themselves in the same situation. Obviously many do not possess your iron control in the face of severe provocation.

        Alert moderator

        • whogoesthere:

          07 Jun 2016 5:16:06pm

          I said self defence was fine. I was clear that I was talking about verbal provocation only.

          Alert moderator

        • themongrel:

          07 Jun 2016 5:52:06pm

          Fair enough, I agree that a bit of verbal name calling, yelling and insults are no grounds for violence. But provocation comes in many guises, in particular psychological abuse, threats with regards to children, financial abuse etc. It can and will lead to a violent response if used incessantly. I have no tolerance for men who hit women, took some satisfaction in locking them up, but I can and will sympathise with those pushed beyond their limit in those kinds of circumstances. Like the poor bloody dog. This current idea that the poor little woman is never to blame is rubbish, sometimes they are, and it is time all parties realised this. Take responsibility for ones actions, and stop trying to blame someone else.

          Alert moderator

        • whogoesthere:

          07 Jun 2016 7:13:14pm

          Fair enough too.

          Alert moderator

  • Steven Bates:

    07 Jun 2016 2:06:17pm

    American Journal of Public Health, 2007

    Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence

    "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases."

    "Reciprocal partner violence does not appear to be only comprised of self-defensive acts of violence. Several studies have found that men and women initiate violence against an intimate partner at approximately the same rate."

    It is easy to view domestic violence campaigns as divisive when they omit such information.

    Alert moderator

  • jbrizzle:

    07 Jun 2016 2:08:36pm

    Not many women commenting on here. Of course plenty of "not all men" advocates, as usual. If you don't hit women and the nobody is attacking you personally (just abusive men), why do you guys get your back up about efforts to reduce domestic violence?

    Alert moderator

    • pH:

      07 Jun 2016 2:17:19pm

      Consider the possibility, that these men you bemoan actually have the same intentions. That they genuinely want to help mitigate the complex social issue that is domestic violence, but believe a slightly different approach is needed.

      Alert moderator

    • Ian:

      07 Jun 2016 2:27:45pm

      Because violence committed by women is blatantly ignored. This tells us that the agenda is something else. What's worse, in manipulating this issue, Feminists deny society the opportunity to defend the most vulnerable which are of course, children.

      Alert moderator

    • Politically Incorrect:

      07 Jun 2016 2:51:33pm

      Because there are plenty of SJW's out there who still persist that "men are the problem": Clementine Ford being one of them.

      There is simply a word for this: misandry.

      And they try to justify it under some vague notion of "privilege" which seems to be the new boogieman like the Satanist cults were in the 80's: invisible to all but seen everywhere by this new cult of intersectional femenism.

      Alert moderator

    • James Picone:

      07 Jun 2016 5:38:53pm

      JBrizzle, consider:

      The majority of suicide victims are male, by a factor of ~3 to 4. That is, about 80% to 75% of people who kill themselves are men.

      Imagine a hypothetical world where the vast majority of stories on suicide and suicide rates implicitly assumed it was a male problem. They use male pronouns for victims exclusively. Articles on suicide have links for suicide support hotlines in them, named things like "Men's Support League". They might have a link for women whose partner is suicidal, so they can learn how to support them better.

      If you comment on a story about suicide and say "But what about female suicide victims?", you get a bunch of people accusing you of hating men. "How you can you be so cruel to suicide victims?" they say. And you have to admit, there are segments of society where suicide is looked upon as shameful and people are expected to suffer in silence. But you're not one of them; you just think maybe some attention should be paid to female suicide victims, too.

      Feel free to extend the analogy at your leisure; I think you get the point. And note that domestic violence is actually less gendered than suicide! About 1/3 to 2/5ths of DV victims in Australia are men.

      (also women /attempt/ suicide more than men; IIRC there are substantial differences in methods between genders. You could analogise that to emotional abuse and other controlling behaviours, which are much closer to gender parity than violence)

      Alert moderator

  • Grant:

    07 Jun 2016 2:19:54pm

    Women have to be taught the warning signs to spot in men who are domestic abusers. They have to stop forgiving the men who beat them and stop going back to them afterwards. Once a woman basher always a woman basher. It's just common sense. The courts have to then start doing some real sentencing for violent crime

    Alert moderator

  • JamieK:

    07 Jun 2016 2:26:52pm

    Wow...just wow. Read the article most of you? Keeping it simple, yes people hurt each other in a variety of ways and yes some domestic violence is perpetrated by women. When it's closer to 60-40 than the current ratio of male to female perpetrators we should seek nuance and equity.

    Fact is the actual, physical, hospital and morgue filling violence is overwhelmingly by men on women. We all (including the media) need to call it and report it as "brutal assault", as "attempted murder" and avoid any context reporting that seeks to mitigate it.

    If I snapped at work no-one would ask if my victims had caused my actions. Julia is right - the axe didn't do it and I'd bet dollars to dog **** it wasn't a woman either.

    Alert moderator

    • Mark:

      07 Jun 2016 2:52:06pm

      No, your "facts" are incorrect.

      More men are murdered than women.

      Men kill more men and more women.

      Women kill more children.

      Look it up.

      Alert moderator

    • pH:

      07 Jun 2016 2:54:09pm

      So your only worried about physical violence perpetrated by men, not psychological violence perpetrated by men as well?

      Consider the possibility, however emotionally distressing, that such an approach might not actually be adequate for mitigating domestic violence on a society wide level.

      "If I snapped at work no-one would ask if my victims had caused my actions."

      Yes, they would.

      Alert moderator

    • Son of Zaky:

      07 Jun 2016 3:00:59pm

      "If I snapped at work no-one would ask if my victims had caused my actions"

      If that were so, then you should consider a safer place to work. Knowing the cause of something that serious would seem to be eminently sensible - or am I perhaps displaying too much nuance?

      Probably also an overabundance of nuance on my part by pointing out the hypothetical proposition that your victim COULD have "caused" it you seem to be undermining your argument that everyone should unquestioningly just shut up and condemn in strict black-and-white terms.

      I also feel a bit sad for all those who are going to miss out on "equity" when it's only 62-38 or 61-39 because it hasn't yet reached your approved ratio - more nuance from me again, obviously.

      And by way of closing, I should point out that "context reporting that seeks to mitigate it" is standard practice when it comes to women who murder "abusive husbands". You may have shot your own "side" in the foot (so to speak) by going hard on that one - a lot of women do quite well legally by that form of "blaming the victim".

      Alert moderator

  • Tator:

    07 Jun 2016 2:37:01pm

    As someone with experience at the pointy end with DV, it is interesting to see how organizational philosophies have changed over the last 3 decades.

    When I first graduated, the main aim with attending DV incidents was to basically stop the current fight and return the household to some form of peace.

    A few years in, this changed to police have to take some form of action against the "perpetrator", whether this was removing him from the premises by using various combinations of laws, or just arresting them if a substantial offence had been alleged or evidence of a substantial offence was present without any allegations. But once the circumstances of the offending was dealt with, little followup was done.

    Slowly this changed with implementation of specialist DV units which followed up with victims. These units developed research into causes of DV.

    Now after several systemic failures with DV cases. SAPOL has now implemented a multi agency program to deal with DV which covers Families SA, SA Housing Trust, Education Department and other agencies to provide victims of DV a safe route out of violent relationships.

    Many may wonder, why don't the police do more with DV??

    Studies have shown that around 40% of general duties policing is DV related. Police are trained in the cycle of violence that surrounds DV but it is difficult to police DV when it is estimated that less than half of the incidents are reported to police for a variety of reasons.

    There is also the factor that a very high percentage of DV charges laid are withdrawn by the complainants who recant on what they have given in previous statements or just do not wish to continue for one reason or another.

    It was not uncommon for police to attend at a DV incident, lock up the perpetrator only to find out that the victim has decided to withdraw the charges even before the charging process hadn't finished. Many experienced officers became cynical about attending addresses with frequent DV incidents after a couple of cases like this.

    Changes were made early in the 2000's so that DV victims actually had to attend court to have the charges withdrawn. But the number of DV files pulled in such cases didn't drop by much.

    In the end, I have divided DV victims into three categories;

    Genuine DV victims who report offences in the hope of getting a better life away from the offender

    Alleged DV victim who uses DV reports in an attempt to control their partner

    Hidden DV victims who cannot report DV to the police for one reason or another. It is this last category who are truely unsafe. I dealt with a file for one girl who was in such a bad relationship where she had constant threats to kill her, was raped continuously, socially isolated, financially isolated and the only way she could get away was when the perp covered her in petrol and threatened to set her on fire, she basically gave up and jumped onto the flame. This cre

    Alert moderator

    • Alpo:

      07 Jun 2016 3:13:37pm

      Thanks, Tator! That was an excellent insight into this issue from the policing perspective. I have one question about this: "Many experienced officers became cynical about attending addresses with frequent DV incidents after a couple of cases like this.".... What's the liaison between the Police and Welfare Agencies/Departments to follow-up on cases that the Police regard of concern, on the basis of recurrent events of domestic violence? Do you think that there is good coordination between agencies? What areas should be improved?

      Alert moderator

      • Tator:

        08 Jun 2016 12:06:43am

        The current protocols with the MAP system seem to be working pretty well.

        As for improvements. Apart from getting more victims to continue through the court process and then getting the judiciary to give decent sanctions for AVO/IO breaches so that the little bits of paper have real teeth rather than some of the petty outcomes like being found guilty without conviction, convicted without penalty or even fines or bonds, but put the perps in gaol for a month or two as a starting point, just to give the victims a bit of breathing space and time to organise leaving.

        The biggest issue that I can see is educating the victims and preventing further abuse. Many go back to their abuser, using the AVO/IO as a tool to ensure compliance. Many go back because of promises from the abuser that they will change for the better, it rarely does. Getting people to recognise the signs of abuse early enough so they can avoid getting trapped in toxic and abusive relationships would be the best outcome of all. Preventing abuse is better than trying to put humpty dumpty together again.

        Alert moderator

  • Michael:

    07 Jun 2016 3:08:08pm

    Balance is needed with domestic violence but we don't get it. My wife was hit by her first husband, I have have been hit by an ex girlfriend, my brother in law has been hit by his girlfriend now his wife (stupid decision to marry someone who is violent) I saw my sister hit an ex boyfriend and my male and female cousins both told me that their ex wife and husband used to hit them. My male cousin had a tooth knocked out and had the worse injury of everyone. Domestic violence is common but women might be killed more by men and have greater injuries because usually the male is stronger and bigger but woman are just as likely to use violence as men. Which is proven by the statistic that just over half the children killed are killed by the mother. Instead of using domestic violence to push an anti male, hate all males agenda the goal should be to stop all violence by everyone.

    Alert moderator

    • Ian:

      07 Jun 2016 3:46:45pm

      Yes. That is the exact stance any rational person would take. It is pretty simple really.

      The fact that the DV issue is framed differently than that tells us that it isn't really about reducing violence at all. It is about something else: manipulating perceptions & using them to gain political power. Feminists are prepared to sacrifice the children you mention slain by mothers in pursuit of their goals. They are prepared to see countless innocent fathers excluded from the lives of their children, they are prepared to see the consequentially high rate of suicide & murder-suicides that result from this & they are prepared to withold information, spread misinformation & frame the debate in calculated language in pursuit of their aims.

      Alert moderator

  • firthy:

    07 Jun 2016 3:13:24pm

    Fair call indeed - the media do have a lot to answer for here. But don't stop there. Earlier today I'm reading the story of the committal hearing on the Geelong rape case which involves a 14 year old girl. The defense counsel asks one of the prosecution witnesses whether the girl in question was wearing make up. WTF? Make up has NOTHING to do with it. Consent does as it would mean a different (and lower) level of offending; it doesn't however matter whether the girl was wearing make up or revealing clothes. And it simply isn't acceptable that defense counsel can run this line of argument (basically that she looked older so was fair game) - as such they should be called out on their pathetic behaviour. Our legal fraternity has a lot to answer for in this country...

    Alert moderator

    • Forrest Gardener:

      07 Jun 2016 3:50:54pm

      Firthy, at age 14 the charge may be statutory rape. In that case one of the mitigating factors is a genuine belief that the victim was in fact able to give consent and purported to do so.

      On the other hand, at a committal hearing the question is whether the accused has a case to answer. That would make a genuine belief irrelevant to the question.

      Don't be so quick to judge. These things are almost always more complex than they appear.

      Alert moderator

  • dr dig:

    07 Jun 2016 3:50:10pm

    How does this narrative fit with those that say Trump supporters were partly to blame for being attacked and physically assaulted by left-wing protesters?

    The left are very selective for when it is ok to 'victim blame' it appears.

    Alert moderator

    • H:

      07 Jun 2016 4:24:29pm

      Now, now Dr D, you don't expect the selective lefties to behave logically or consistently ?

      Alert moderator

    • Alpo:

      07 Jun 2016 5:31:44pm

      The lefties defend the right to protest. Physical assault? Show me the bruises in Trump's body, please!

      The protests are justified by the ideas and policies of Donald Trump. Trump is not a "victim", he is a truly dangerous guy!

      Alert moderator

  • JessC:

    07 Jun 2016 5:02:46pm

    Julia Zemiro: "as many as one in five people think women are somehow to blame for the violence inflicted upon them if they had been drinking or flirting or out alone"

    Not unsurprising considering that one in five people resident in Australia's big cities come from cultures which do not allow women to drink, flirt or go out alone.

    Alert moderator

    • Son of Zaky:

      07 Jun 2016 6:10:37pm

      Since when did the Amish collect here in such numbers?

      For the record, I didn't see a single horse and buggy whilst I was out on the roads today - clearly they're all in your neighbourhood.

      Alert moderator

  • foxlike:

    07 Jun 2016 6:14:04pm

    Oh, lord, here we go. Any mention, any at all, about the epidemic of violence and murder against women by men who are assumed to be their loved ones, partners, husbands, and what do we get? Instant outbursts of hysterical rubbish from a brigade of men - who presumably trawl the media checking for any story sympathetic to women.

    All this stuff about 'violent' women 'asking for it' is the most deliberate and intolerable self-serving, woman-hating falsehood. Yes, women nag. Yes, they shout. Yes, they say awful things about a man's manhood. . Gee, have any idea what the men say to the women? About killing the pets, or the kids, or cutting her throat?

    Sometimes, women even hit back but mostly not - they know what is likely to happen.

    And just how often do women murder their husband when he attempts to flee the 'abuse'? Check the facts before you launch into a hateful, dishonest diatribe against women. There are millions of us, and frankly, we have had enough.

    Alert moderator

    • dr dig:

      08 Jun 2016 7:55:43am

      foxlike, I don't see anyone excusing DV or blaming women. These hoards of men you talk of don't exist. They don't exist because they don't do what you accuse them of. All that is constantly put forward is that framing the problem as men is erroneous. And it is.

      There may be a small number of men like that which you describe, but they would be countered by the same number of men-haters and probably even out-numbered these days.

      Alert moderator

  • Regionalgranny:

    07 Jun 2016 6:33:59pm

    Advice to anyone who is the victim of abuse by a life partner is to get out of there the first time it happens, report the abuse to the police, seek help to relocate and never consider returning or taking such a person back into your life. There should be no reason why a person would consider resuming a relationship with someone who had previously abused them. I would rather be financially broke than physically broken.

    I do not think it matters whether you are male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, a parent or not. Nothing could be worse than living your life being abused either physically or otherwise or the dread of, if and when, abuse will happen again. Everyone has the right to live free of fear.

    I find the tendency of people to keep score or excuse the conduct of abusers by claiming the percentage of one gender abusing the other is substantial and the so called feminists are not acknowledging the actions of their own gender, as such a weak argument. The facts are that many more females are killed by their life partner or permanently scarred than are males. Keeping score does not solve the problem. Only by owning the problem as a society will we be able to move forward.

    Alert moderator

  • dylan:

    07 Jun 2016 6:50:22pm

    Never has the saying "don't read the comments" been more true. What an ugly group of DV apologists. What a delusional group of men. No wonder DV is so high when so many men are not grown up enough to take responsibility for disgusting behaviour.

    Julia, thankyou for writing this article. You are an incredible human being.

    Alert moderator

    • themongrel:

      07 Jun 2016 7:13:59pm

      So in your opinion Dylan I am a delusional apologist for domestic violence. A couple of facts my friend. I am an ex cop who spent hour after hour, shift after shift, attending domestic disputes. I have been confronted by knife wielding women and firearm toting men. I can assure you that domestic violence is very much a two sided thing, and the figure of 60-40 is about right in my experience. That does not take into account elderly parents or children, who also fall victim to violence perpetrated by either sex. Before you cast judgment, consider this, I have been in the "front line" as they call it, and have seen enough to last a life time. Have you?

      Alert moderator

    • Crisso:

      07 Jun 2016 8:39:49pm

      dylan "No wonder DV is so high when so many men are not grown up enough to take responsibility for disgusting behaviour."

      Well dylan you are right about one thing - dont read the comments. But the problem with articles like this, and comments like yours, is that they don't suggest that violent women should do the same.

      The debate is tired, old, and not showing any signs of changing from it's 'men bad, women victims, children victims (but only if perpetrator is a man)' mantra.

      Alert moderator

  • Tigerthorn:

    07 Jun 2016 7:32:25pm

    Once again, the comment section on an article about a predominantly female issue turns straight away into a whingeing session about how women aren't doing enough to help men.

    A whole lot of armchair experts on how women couldn't possibly still have it that bad or need feminism anymore because these issues aren't affecting the 'experts'.

    I would love to say; 'yawn, the lot of you ignorant sods bore me', but i can't. Because the truth is; the outstanding amount of ignorance displayed here gives me actual physical pain and not only that, these attitudes are damaging.

    Women aren't "taking your kids"... the court system that was created by a PAtriarchal society is taking them. Change societal attitudes towards parental roles!

    And yes we are aware that there are male victims of domestic violence, these men need as much championing as the women. But if men aren't taking resposibility for it happening to women...why on earth would it be women's resposibilty to take care of it happening to men?? Yes, take it to your own council, create your own refuges..check out the history on how women started if you actually care. If you don't you are simply being arrogant and trying to derail a legitimately alarming issue by say "not all men" and "what about violence towards men". Someone responded to an earlier post; "how about women get of their backsides"...well hey how about men do!!

    Alert moderator

    • Crisso:

      07 Jun 2016 9:30:40pm

      Tigerthorn - "about a predominantly female issue"

      And that is the reason I write my comments.... because female perpetrators are continually provided with a get out of jail free card on this issue. Is it a 'predominantly female issue' for child victims? I can see you've not bothered to look by language you use? Google 'one in three' and see what you think. They provide sources for their statistics.

      "Yes, take it to your own council, create your own refuges..check out the history on how women started if you actually care."

      So women should only care about women, and men should only care about men... hey, and and that leaves it to the kids to care for the kids. Call me modern and feminist, but I'd suggest both genders should care about both genders, and adults look after the kids, and... how about we expect accountability from both genders.

      I feel the same as you about being tired of the same old 'here we go again' feeling I get whenever I read the monthly sexist tripe 'men are bad, women are good' article, but like you, I can't leave it alone. Though, I may save some time by skipping the article, and go straight to the comments section next time...

      Alert moderator

  • Mitor the Bold:

    07 Jun 2016 7:33:49pm

    "one in five people think women are somehow to blame for the violence inflicted upon them if they had been drinking or flirting or out alone"

    Did they really say they thought women were wholly to blame? Or did they simply allude to 'contributory negligence'? If you walk scantily clad into a mosque in Riyadh are you to blame for the stoning that happens afterwards? What about if you walk alone through Miami after dark wearing expensive jewellery and get mugged? How about if you leave your car unlocked with a satnav on the dashboard?

    A man who attacks a woman is to blame for the attack - there is no mitigation from facts like 'she was pretty' or 'she was drunk'. But that is not to say that 'she was reckless' should be an unsayable thing. Women have a duty of care for themselves.

    You would not allow your seven-year old daughter to roam the streets at night - why? Is it because, regardless of the fact that an attacker is wholly to blame for an attack, that you would consider yourself negligent if you had willingly allowed her to be exposed to such a situation? Is it because you know the streets after dark are not entirely safe, that there are prowlers who intend harm, that some people will take advantage of the situation to use your daughter like an object to satisfy dark urges?

    So, when it is your own safety and welfare why is it that you do not consider that your behaviour is contributing to the situation?

    I would like it if the streets were safe after dark (or even in the light). But if my daughter stumbled home alone after dark in a party dress I would be furious with her. I would tell her she was reckless and stupid and exposing herself to unnecessary danger. I would tell my son the same thing. You cannot whine the streets safe, the streets are not safe. You have a duty of care for which no amount of 'it's not fair' bleating will substitute.

    Alert moderator

    • Tigerthorn:

      07 Jun 2016 10:01:12pm

      Once again, apparently people need constant reminding that women aren't veihicles, or unattended valuables, or buildings.

      Women. Are. People. Not just, sisters, daughters, mothers. We are humans on our own with our own right to safety and space.

      If a 'scantily clad' women was to walk Anywhere in Any society it is STILL the perpetrators fault! Wholly and fully the perpetrators fault! If someone mugs you wearing expensive stuff??? The perpetrators fault! No one, anywhere is entitled to do anything to anyone else without consent.

      No, i'm not delusional. I understand bad people aren't suddenly going to just decide "hey, i better not".

      But the point is it should not be solely on women to moderate their behaviour, because.... humans aren't lockable. Women in third world countries that aren't allowed to leave the house, drive, drink, or wear anything that resembles the female shape; are still beaten and raped hourly.

      Adjusting our behaviour does little to nothing to change the inevidible, so how about we stop making assumptions that it does and start attempting to change the behaviour and attitudes of those around us.

      Alert moderator

      • Mitor the Bold:

        08 Jun 2016 6:40:57am

        If you wish to relinquish your duty of care for your own welfare then that is your choice, but that is a very different thing to assuming every violent offender is out to get you because you are a woman. I also have a "right to safety and space" but would no more walk alone in a dark alley in a dodgy part of town than I would walk across a busy road blindfolded.

        I would also not return to the home of someone who had abused me and I would not deliberately put myself in harm's way if I had another choice.

        We are all someone's something, while still being independent human beings, but this does not make us invulnerable. The world isn't safe for anyone, it is less safe for those of us less physically able to discourage attackers. No one but attackers are to blame for an attack, but you are the only person responsible for your own safety. You can take responsibility for your safety or you can cross your fingers and hope that an attacker has a sudden attack of conscience. Again, it's your choice.

        Alert moderator

  • Crisso:

    07 Jun 2016 8:27:46pm

    "And interestingly, male perpetrators of violence were often rendered largely invisible in the news"

    Surely not as invisible as the female perpetrators though. Maybe it's a step towards gender equality?

    Alert moderator

  • Maxx:

    07 Jun 2016 9:12:25pm

    Maybe if we hadn't committed the last four plus decades to socially engineering boys and young males we would have much less of a problem. Instead of trying to feminise them or make them gender-neutral we should have been providing them with positive encouragement and exceptional role models to enhance their growth, development and self-esteem as young men. This ongoing experiment has effectively ostracised them and turned them into second-class members of the community. We may never eliminate violence, including domestic violence but perhaps it is time to take a wider view.

    Alert moderator

    • jack II:

      08 Jun 2016 11:23:38am

      Exactly right.

      It's going to be very amusing when the masculinised young women reach retirement age, and wonder why there are no men present in their latter years. A lonely old dotage.

      Very few young men now see marriage or raising children as a viable option. ( statistics back me up, BTW.)

      Education and Feminism have a lot to answer for in our dysfunctional society.

      Alert moderator

  • Cesca:

    08 Jun 2016 7:43:38am

    Aah Zing. You've missed the point. "The information about the woman's behaviour is usually added for context, so we can figure out exactly why the guy went nuts." No matter her behaviour, the man should not go nuts and feel that it is perfectly ok for him to inflict damage - either physical or psychological.

    Alert moderator

  • SG:

    08 Jun 2016 8:30:01am

    Not sure about Julia's quals in this area. I have been doing criminal law work for the best part of 20 years and see just as many crazy women as men in domestic violence situations. It is not that uncommon to hear the stories from the blokes and see the results where they have been bitten, punched, stabbed, hit with hammers and bottles. Usually one or both parties have a history of alcohol abuse and mental health issues. By and large Police don't want to know about it and the male victims just suck it up. The starting point in all dv matters is that the female is the victim or has been subject to provocation.

    Alert moderator

  • Big Ben:

    08 Jun 2016 9:05:28am

    "And (sic) interestingly, male perpetrators of violence were often rendered largely invisible in the news;"

    Yeah, the standard of journalism in Australia is quite pathetic quite frequently, and interestingly, female perpetrators of violence are often rendered largely invisible in the news. The classic example is the 'one-car crash' story.

    Boys' Version: He drove his car off the road and killed a tree before he died. (he deserved it for what he did to the tree)

    Girls' Version: The vehicle in which she was tragically the sole occupant suddenly left the road and a tree killed her. (sue the council for not clearing all the trees off the roadside. She was just a woman driver, after all, not her fault she can't always drive straight when sending SMS messages at high speed at 'that' time of the month, y'unnerdstand peeps?)

    I used to get angry at these sorts of things too, back when I had some childish notion of human decency, but now I have come to the understanding that most people are dirty scum just out to get what they can for themselves, I find it all quite funny because I know what to expect before I switch on the tele now. That is why they call it the 'Idiot Box' because it's a box full of silly little idiots just there to make you laugh.

    Alert moderator

  • Snufkin:

    08 Jun 2016 10:21:43am

    In view of the title of this article, I suggest that the author reads British psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple's 2001 book - "Life at the Bottom." In particular; chapters 1 & 3. "The Knife Went In" and: "Reader, She Married Him - Alas."

    Further recommended reading for Julia is located in Bettina Arndt's recent criticisms that the media, (specifically the ABC), uses "..wrong, misleading statistics, a truth they choose to ignore."

    "More than 1700 articles in peer-reviewed journals conclude domestic violence is not a gender issue... women often initiate violence and it isn't simply self-defence."

    "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."

    As someone who had an abusive mother, a fact which would be readily verified by my G.P. sister, I can't help wondering why there is so much ill-informed commentary from the ABC and its misguided supporters, on family violence.

    Does the author believe this one-sided approach is likely to be helpful rather than divisive? Is it meant to be some form of feminist revenge, or is it simply about guaranteeing future funds based upon a toxic "feminist" victimology?

    Have a good one.

    Alert moderator

  • ij:

    08 Jun 2016 10:31:40am

    Let us know when the media discovers that 30-40% of domestic violence is against men.

    In some communities, it is higher.

    Alert moderator

  • jack II:

    08 Jun 2016 11:01:18am

    The current DV industry model is designed to be continually funded and fail in it's core purpose. What incentive is there to actually reduce DV?

    The answer is none.

    The DV industry model is based on the constant demonisation of males, and the perpetual victimhood and infantilization of women.

    In the end, it's all about money. Male DV victims are apparently unworthy of recognition and funding. Pure sexism manifest.

    That is why male victims of female DV are ridiculed or ignored.

    Alert moderator

Comments for this story are closed.

'Axe slashes family apart' and other strange stories about domestic violence
See What You Made Me Do: why it’s time to focus on the perpetrator when tackling domestic violence
Why we need to call bullshit on the way media reports on violence against women
Lori Loughlin's Legal Problems Might Get A Whole Lot Worse
God of War’s biggest changes, explained
Cameron's Vow to Slash Benefits for Under 21s Will Force Young People Onto the Street
House GOP votes to axe Planned Parenthood funding, defang EPA
Game of Thrones season 8, episode 1 - reviewed by a complete novice
Corporate week in review, December 8
Florida Man Set Pregnant Ex-Girlfriend On Fire In Front Of Her 2 Young Kids, Cops Say