The Law Domestic violence, the memorial thread.

MC Bad Genius

No, not THAT MC Bad Genius. The other one.
Apr 15, 2008
16,604
28,431
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Your rant, most of which can be ignored and provides a rather disturbing insight into your thought processes, fails to provide a reason why men kill their kids.
Why do men kill their kids when things don't work out for them?
Why are they punishing the kids?

What sort of a f'king hero kills their kids just because they don't get their way?
It doesn't matter how hard it is, how many things you think are against you, there is absolutely no reason EVER to kill your own children. NONE. NEVER.

The only reason they kill their kids is because they want to get back at their partners.
Everything else is just a BS excuse.

In a nutshell, that's the kind of mindset most of these DV heros have. It's all about me. What I want is the only thing that matters.
I'm not arguing that Domestic Violence isn't heavily slanted towards males being perpetrator, but you should check the stats that Malifice shared early on in the thread about the filicide being gender neutral:
Filicide is actually oddly gender neutral form of murder with roughly a 50/50 split in offending between the genders.

That said, the majority of family homicides occur between intimate partners (60 per cent, with Filicide making up the next highest percentage at 16 percent), and three-quarters of intimate partner homicides involve males killing their female partners, often after she's had to endure a long period of control and violence.

Family homicide in Australia (aic.gov.au)
 
I'm not arguing that Domestic Violence isn't heavily slanted towards males being perpetrator, but you should check the stats that Malifice shared early on in the thread about the filicide being gender neutral:

The discussion was specifically about men killing their kids.
Men killing their kids has been justified with all kinds of BS, including women do it too, like that makes it OK.

I have not read one post in this thread attempting to excuse women who kill their kids.
The only people excusing the killing of kids are the ones trying to paint men as being the real victims.
 

MC Bad Genius

No, not THAT MC Bad Genius. The other one.
Apr 15, 2008
16,604
28,431
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
The discussion was specifically about men killing their kids.
Men killing their kids has been justified with all kinds of BS, including women do it too, like that makes it OK.

I have not read one post in this thread attempting to excuse women who kill their kids.
The only people excusing the killing of kids are the ones trying to paint men as being the real victims.
The point is that if we're talking about killing children, we shouldn't just talk about why men kill children, but why anyone kills children. It's a horrific crime and I'm not ashamed to admit that I cried when reading the article about the baby girl that was murdered by her father jumping off the whispering wall. It's simply unfathomable to me.

However, when we talk about domestic and family violence more generally, I definitely agree that we can talk mostly about men as the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are men.
 
The point is that if we're talking about killing children, we shouldn't just talk about why men kill children, but why anyone kills children. It's a horrific crime and I'm not ashamed to admit that I cried when reading the article about the baby girl that was murdered by her father jumping off the whispering wall. It's simply unfathomable to me.

However, when we talk about domestic and family violence more generally, I definitely agree that we can talk mostly about men as the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are men.

There is a big difference between discussing all the issues on the one hand, and on the other hand, using one issue as a means of justifying another issue.
 

MC Bad Genius

No, not THAT MC Bad Genius. The other one.
Apr 15, 2008
16,604
28,431
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
There is a big difference between discussing all the issues on the one hand, and on the other hand, using one issue as a means of justifying another issue.
I agree with you there. Either way, this thread was started in poor taste and very quickly turned into a dumpster fire, so I think I'll just check back out now.
 
The discussion was specifically about men killing their kids.

That is misrepresentation at best.
The rest of your post I agree with totally.
This thread was started specifically about "Domestic Violence".
To highlight two unforgivable atrocities against two humans.
One undeniably innocent in every sense no matter what weird drum you want to beat.


Quite few idiots made it into a "she killed, he killed" pissing contest.

Absolutely nothing, period, makes it OK, justifies, ameliorates or minimises the horror of the two crimes highlighted in the OP.
 
That is misrepresentation at best.
The rest of your post I agree with totally.
This thread was started specifically about "Domestic Violence".
To highlight two unforgivable atrocities against two humans.
One undeniably innocent in every sense no matter what weird drum you want to beat.


Quite few idiots made it into a "she killed, he killed" pissing contest.

Absolutely nothing, period, makes it OK, justifies, ameliorates or minimises the horror of the two crimes highlighted in the OP.

A part of the discussion, specifically between Ned and somebody else, was about men killing kids....which kicked off the she killed, he killed pissing contest.
 

Farm Boy

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 6, 2015
5,027
6,026
AFL Club
St Kilda

Doubt there will be any nationwide memorial services and protests.

She had limited contact with her son. It’s a motivational factor behind many DV killings. Gender only comes into it because it is men who mostly receive limited contact with their children. Our broken family law system is partly to blame for much of this mess, and that starts at the top - politicians and their inability to fix this mess. Until then, sadly, it will never stop.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,473
42,019
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton

Doubt there will be any nationwide memorial services and protests.

You know ignoring the repeated male on female DV and only coming in here to post about the rare times a woman does it to a bloke makes you look like a s**t bloke right?

She had limited contact with her son. It’s a motivational factor behind many DV killings. Gender only comes into it because it is men who mostly receive limited contact with their children.

The only men that get limited contact with their kids after separation are the s**t blokes (meth, DV, controlling knobs etc).

The law requires the Family court to start at a position of equal and shared parental responsibility and 50/50 time between mum and dad, and its only when one of the parents is a s**t parent does this change.

Sound familiar for any reason?

Generally speaking, mothers get more time and contact because generally speaking its the women who tend to stay home and raise and care for the kids while dad works, and when the parties separate, shes got them more or less full time while Dad moves out to a bachelor pad.

Our broken family law system

There are things I would change about the Family Court (namely time and expense factors) but allowing s**t parents more access to their kids, is not one of them.
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,473
42,019
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
In the same days newspaper:

Detectives have found what appear to be human remains as part of their investigation into the disappearance of Melbourne woman Ju "Kelly" Zhang.

A 35-year-old Doncaster man was charged with one count of murder later in February.

Police find apparent human remains in search for missing Melbourne woman Ju 'Kelly' Zhang - ABC News

The articles also reported allegations Mr Roberts-Smith bullied SAS colleagues and committed an act of domestic violence against a woman in a Canberra hotel room in 2018.

Ben Roberts-Smith admits 'mistake' in giving evidence about death of Afghan man with prosthetic leg - ABC News

A North Queensland man who stood on his former partner's neck in steelcapped boots and attempted to suffocate her has been sentenced to six years behind bars.

Shannon Leslie Capner jailed for 'appalling' acts of domestic violence over eight-year period - ABC News

But hey; lets focus on the male victims. Women are three times more likely to suffer violence at the hands of men. Approximately one in four women experienced violence by an intimate partner, compared to one in thirteen men.

From 1980 to 2008, nearly 1 out of 5 murder victims were killed by an intimate partner. In fact, available research shows that women are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner (husband, boyfriend, same-sex partner, or ex) than by anyone else.

Approximately 2 out of 5 female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner. Men can also be victims of intimate partner homicide. In recent years, about 4.9% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate partner

https://vawnet.org/sc/scope-problem-intimate-partner-homicide-statistics

5 percent of male homicides are by their partner. 20 percent of all female homicides are by their partner.

Men are three times more violent towards women, and four times more likely to kill their partner than women are on men.

I'm not diminishing the violence on men by women, but in context we're hardly talking about the same thing.
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,473
42,019
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
You're implying that I would care about what losers online think.

Why post it online if you don't care? Clearly you do.

This week is mens mental health week. I have not heard anything from anyone regarding this.

Start a thread on it then. Its a worthy cause and something that needs to be talked about.

But what's that got to do with DV?
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,367
46,595
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
You know ignoring the repeated male on female DV and only coming in here to post about the rare times a woman does it to a bloke makes you look like a sh*t bloke right?



The only men that get limited contact with their kids after separation are the sh*t blokes (meth, DV, controlling knobs etc).

The law requires the Family court to start at a position of equal and shared parental responsibility and 50/50 time between mum and dad, and its only when one of the parents is a sh*t parent does this change.

Sound familiar for any reason?

Generally speaking, mothers get more time and contact because generally speaking its the women who tend to stay home and raise and care for the kids while dad works, and when the parties separate, shes got them more or less full time while Dad moves out to a bachelor pad.



There are things I would change about the Family Court (namely time and expense factors) but allowing sh*t parents more access to their kids, is not one of them.
You say it’s usually 50 - 50 but then in the next paragraph say it’s usually always the mum that gets the most time cos she often didnt bother to work. That’s not 50- 50.

which is it? Those two comments are inconsistent.
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,367
46,595
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
In the same days newspaper:



Police find apparent human remains in search for missing Melbourne woman Ju 'Kelly' Zhang - ABC News



Ben Roberts-Smith admits 'mistake' in giving evidence about death of Afghan man with prosthetic leg - ABC News



Shannon Leslie Capner jailed for 'appalling' acts of domestic violence over eight-year period - ABC News

But hey; lets focus on the male victims. Women are three times more likely to suffer violence at the hands of men. Approximately one in four women experienced violence by an intimate partner, compared to one in thirteen men.



https://vawnet.org/sc/scope-problem-intimate-partner-homicide-statistics

5 percent of male homicides are by their partner. 20 percent of all female homicides are by their partner.

Men are three times more violent towards women, and four times more likely to kill their partner than women are on men.

I'm not diminishing the violence on men by women, but in context we're hardly talking about the same thing.
Those stats are just shares. They tell you nothing about actual rates of deaths. Do you have them? The 5 per cent could be higher than the 20 percent for all we know looking at that.
 

skybeau

Club Legend
Oct 3, 2006
1,415
241
Preston
AFL Club
Richmond
You say it’s usually 50 - 50 but then in the next paragraph say it’s usually always the mum that gets the most time cos she often didnt bother to work. That’s not 50- 50.

which is it? Those two comments are inconsistent.

Firstly, Malifice didn't say "she didn't bother to work", you said that. That's an obvious projection on your behalf.

Secondly, not going to speak for Malifice here, but the 50-50 arrangement is in terms of who is responsible for care of the kids. So, one week with the father, one with the mother. In reality, if the father is working and the mother isn't, the mother will naturally spend more time with the children while they are in her care.
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,367
46,595
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
Firstly, Malifice didn't say "she didn't bother to work", you said that. That's an obvious projection on your behalf.

Secondly, not going to speak for Malifice here, but the 50-50 arrangement is in terms of who is responsible for care of the kids. So, one week with the father, one with the mother. In reality, if the father is working and the mother isn't, the mother will naturally spend more time with the children while they are in her care.
So that’s not 50-50 then is it.

and why does the father have to work but the mother not when they are seperated? How does the mother provide for her self?
 

skybeau

Club Legend
Oct 3, 2006
1,415
241
Preston
AFL Club
Richmond
So that’s not 50-50 then is it.

and why does the father have to work but the mother not when they are seperated? How does the mother provide for her self?

Yes, it's 50-50. The courts cannot allocate time based on how many hours each parent has available for the children, that's absurd.

The father doesn't *have* to work, he can quit if he likes. The same way that the mother can (and often does) obtain a job to help support herself and her children.

Your language on this topic is very interesting. Mothers don't bother to work, fathers have to work but mothers don't. Why is that?
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,473
42,019
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
and why does the father have to work but the mother not when they are seperated? How does the mother provide for her self?

Thats not a legal requirement; it's just what tends to happen in real life. Mothers tend to be the ones that sacrifice their careers and take time off to raise the kids while fathers (who dont have to give birth or produce milk to feed the kids) continue with their careers like nothing happened.

It's not always like that - some dads are stay at home dads etc. But generally it works the way it does above.

And when the parties separate, its usually Dad that moves out of the family home alone, while the kids stay with Mum.

That being the case (Dads working, the Kids are established with Mum who has been their primary caregiver) BEFORE separation, then that contributes to care arrangements AFTER separation. If Dad was the primary caregiver, the inverse would be true.

In addition to that, 50/50 can only work when the parties are talking to each other, and can make week on/ week off work, and it's not too disruptive to the kids (both parents live close to the kids schools and friends, both parents have adequate space in the home, both parents work schedules permit it etc). If the matter is being litigated in Family Court we can usually say that the parties are not on good terms, and there are almost always other issues (DV, drugs, alcohol) that make 50/50 improbable to say the least.

The fact remains though, if you're a decent bloke, who communicates with his ex partner, has no history of DV or drug abuse, lives close to her and the kids and the school etc and your work schedule allows for it, you're likely going to get 50/50 if that's what you want, and the Court agree that this is in the best interests of the children.
 

Herne Hill Hammer

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 22, 2008
24,580
21,272
AFL Club
Geelong
Your rant, most of which can be ignored and provides a rather disturbing insight into your thought processes, fails to provide a reason why men kill their kids.
Why do men kill their kids when things don't work out for them?
Why are they punishing the kids?

What sort of a f'king hero kills their kids just because they don't get their way?
It doesn't matter how hard it is, how many things you think are against you, there is absolutely no reason EVER to kill your own children. NONE. NEVER.

The only reason they kill their kids is because they want to get back at their partners.
Everything else is just a BS excuse.

In a nutshell, that's the kind of mindset most of these DV heros have. It's all about me. What I want is the only thing that matters.

 
Jun 14, 2015
17,456
38,122
In a house with a sausage dog Trevor
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Power
How I picture the posters here who enter a thread about Domestic Violence to sook and cry about how hard it is being a man:

iu
 

Saint

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 1, 2006
9,275
16,632
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Thats not a legal requirement; it's just what tends to happen in real life. Mothers tend to be the ones that sacrifice their careers and take time off to raise the kids while fathers (who dont have to give birth or produce milk to feed the kids) continue with their careers like nothing happened.

It's not always like that - some dads are stay at home dads etc. But generally it works the way it does above.

And when the parties separate, its usually Dad that moves out of the family home alone, while the kids stay with Mum.

That being the case (Dads working, the Kids are established with Mum who has been their primary caregiver) BEFORE separation, then that contributes to care arrangements AFTER separation. If Dad was the primary caregiver, the inverse would be true.

In addition to that, 50/50 can only work when the parties are talking to each other, and can make week on/ week off work, and it's not too disruptive to the kids (both parents live close to the kids schools and friends, both parents have adequate space in the home, both parents work schedules permit it etc). If the matter is being litigated in Family Court we can usually say that the parties are not on good terms, and there are almost always other issues (DV, drugs, alcohol) that make 50/50 improbable to say the least.

The fact remains though, if you're a decent bloke, who communicates with his ex partner, has no history of DV or drug abuse, lives close to her and the kids and the school etc and your work schedule allows for it, you're likely going to get 50/50 if that's what you want, and the Court agree that this is in the best interests of the children.

I agree with most of this. But the only exception I've seen is that I've seen some very, very ordinary mothers retain custody of children when fathers in the same position would have every-other-weekend type arrangements.
 
Back