Society/Culture Domestic Violence

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Chief said:
The campaigns don't work because male victims aren't emphasised enough?
Click to expand...

Male victims partly, but also children, and other aspects. This notion of a DV epidemic is almost Trumpist too, since DV like most crimes is on a long term decline.
 
Lethality said:
Male victims partly, but also children, and other aspects. This notion of a DV epidemic is almost Trumpist too, since DV like most crimes is on a long term decline.
Click to expand...
You don't think awareness, campaigns, funding resources, and social change (either from the campaigns or general empowerment of women) has contributed to this decline?
 
Chief said:
Plenty of people doing that job for me.

Endlessly returning to Rosie Batty for example. Insinuating she doesn't care about children or men.

Why aren't the Heart Foundation called The Health Foundation? Why oh why do they not care a jot for people with prostate cancer??


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...


Ignorant analogy

The correct analogy would be the Heart foundation claiming that heart disease is the sole killer in Australia and only women are the victims of it.
And all data and evidence to support this claim are gained from organisations who have a vested and financial incentive to perpetuate this false narrative.
 
La Dolce Vita said:
Ignorant analogy

The correct analogy would be the Heart foundation claiming that heart disease is the sole killer in Australia and only women are the victims of it.
And all data and evidence to support this claim are gained from organisations who have a vested and financial incentive to perpetuate this false narrative.
Click to expand...
FACT!
 
La Dolce Vita said:
Ignorant analogy

The correct analogy would be the Heart foundation claiming that heart disease is the sole killer in Australia and only women are the victims of it.
And all data and evidence to support this claim are gained from organisations who have a vested and financial incentive to perpetuate this false narrative.
Click to expand...
lol that's laughable.
 
Chief said:
You don't think awareness, campaigns, funding resources, and social change (either from the campaigns or general empowerment of women) has contributed to this decline?
Click to expand...
I think a lot has, including empowerment, but that the ad campaigns themselves are not connecting people the way they seem to think. I see comments from men and women on the exclusion and demonization of men, as well as bemusement that certain ads still get reposted on social media, so it's not just MRA groups.
 
Chief said:
I would say look at it from the angle of primary carer.

Women as primary carer are very much under represented as abusers of children compared with males. Where the male is primary care giver they are much more likely to abuse a child. You don't like to think about that, or even that idea as a valid point of consideration. But the simple fact is that if you want to improve the situation, broadly, give the kids to the mum and don't let her new partners near the kids. This is indiscriminate and generalised, not taking account of other factors, so of course it can't be any sort of policy if it could even be enforced.

But we've had this argument and the MRAs went away crowing about victory without having proven a single thing.

Males are also much more likely to severely injure or kill their victim in spousal abuse. So a male on female abuse situation is, on average, not as severe as female on male abuse. It simply isn't, on average.

80 to 100 female DV deaths a year compared with what? Sweet FA?

This from NSW in 2015: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-24/domestic-violence-findings-nsw-police-training/6342152

The report also found that 60 per cent of the homicides were considered "intimate partner homicides", where almost all of the women that had been killed had been victims of domestic violence.

Of the 35 men killed in this category, 29 were killed by a current or former female partner. Almost all of the men killed in that context had been the domestic violence abuser in the relationship.​

This is not to say there aren't examples of males being killed or severely injured by abusive spouses.

Kids are not ignored in the debate:
"All the pieces of the puzzle have to be put together in order for us to be able to make an impact on the way domestic and family violence is responded to, particularly when we think about that in relation to the deaths of children."

She said a $100 million investment is needed over the next three years to incorporate all sectors involved, including housing, health, justice, young people and those at high risk.

"We really need to put some money into this," Ms Baulch said.​

And before we start claiming solid statistics on who is abusing and killing kids:

Data on those who abuse children is limited in Australia. The main sources of evidence are from statutory child protection reports, child abuse and neglect prevalence studies, and police statistics of criminal offences relating to child physical and sexual assault. Each of these sources has limitations. For example, child protection reports and police statistics are based on reported cases of child abuse and neglect and are therefore unable to provide an accurate picture of the total incidence of abuse and neglect. Information on the characteristics of those who abuse children is also rarely provided in statistical reports.

Research suggests that both mothers and fathers may physically abuse children. Findings from the ABS Personal Safety Survey (2005) indicated that of participants who had experienced physical abuse before the age of 15, 55.6% experienced abuse from their father/stepfather and 25.9% experienced abuse from their mother/stepmother. A further 13.7% experienced abuse from another known person and the remainder were family friends, other relatives, or strangers (ABS, 2005).
​
Look at that again:
* mother/stepmother: 26%
* father/stepfather: 55%

fathers or father surrogates are responsible for more severe physical abuse and fatalities than female perpetrators (US Department of Health and Human Services [US DHHS], 2005). Other researchers such as Daly and Wilson (1999) have argued that biological parents are less likely than step-parents to physically abuse their biological offspring due to their greater investment in the genetic continuity of their family.​


Over all we will both agree that specifically the response and assistance for male victims of DV probably isn't well aligned with their needs. But generally in this board, the loudest complaints are heard from people who tack on things like women have it better than men anyway, bitter rants about women being favoured in the courts and so on.
Click to expand...


Irony...you rant about people who believe women are favoured in courts while highlighting their favourtism..lol

Men unlike women don't have the privilage of blaming their victim for their violent crime
It does not take a genius to work out why a large % of female murderers claim DV

Spend 20 years in jail (oh wait 6 if your a woman) or play my gender specific "Get out of Jail Free ' Card..Tough decision

This bias does not apply to killing your children though...oh wait it does

Its a pity facts disprove your propaganda hey..Feminists hate facts
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chief said:
Over all we will both agree that specifically the response and assistance for male victims of DV probably isn't well aligned with their needs.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much all I'm saying, but I would expand that to the overall conversation about family violence, not just assistance for male victims. I understand that there's a grey area when the abuse is mutual or a woman has been victimized long term and then lashes out, and it's probably because of this that there's a reluctance to include female v male in the conversation, but it does happen (I can vouch for that personally) and should be acknowledged.

All the numbers you're quoting about males being more dangerous than females reads a lot like gender profiling to me. It's not really any different to targeting a specific racial or religious group as likely perpetrators of a particular crime. And if you're going to profile like that, why not go all the way? "Men" is a pretty diverse group to target when you could focus in on certain types of men in certain types of family situations and have a much higher strike rate of abusers.
 
fpcookie said:
Where have White Ribbon, Batty, etc have said that domestic violence is only perpetrated by men?
Click to expand...
https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/stop-violence-against-women/

A clue could be found in the fact that the foundation is all about ending violence against women. That is their mission statement. So even if they begrudgingly confess that a not so tiny minority of victims of abuse are male, they refuse to say they wish to end violence against men and certainly have no intention of raising awareness of or funding for male victims.
How can you pretend otherwise? You are just trolling.
 
Chief said:
Sooo... why isn't the Heart Foundation doing more to protect children from liver disease?
Click to expand...

OMG! Are you serious?
When you have a campaign run on a health issue which is gender specific like Ovarian cancer no men would raise an eyebrow, in fact they would most likely reach into their pockets and donate to the cause. If however, a campaign on lung cancer or heart disease or the road toll focused exclusively on supporting/educating/protecting one gender over another, when the disease or problem affects both genders, that would be a disgraceful example of bigotry.

Family violence affects men, women and children. Almost all campaigns, websites and government funding goes toward protecting, supporting and funding women. Males are ignored.

And you think that is perfectly reasonable?
o_O
 
ABSOLUTE MADMAN said:
BTW we are seeing Chief enter the "de-rail thread" mode when the information posted goes against his world view but he cannot argue against the whole.

Notice how he is trying to focus on one little thing to deflect attention from the rest of that post and engaging in pure semantics. This is a common move by this poster repeated ad nauseam on this site.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
Chief said:
But when have they expressly said that only women suffer from abuse?
Click to expand...
You have lost the plot. So if somewhere on their website, they begrudgingly confess men can be victims too, yet still go ahead with their mission to only end male violence against women-that makes their stance even more shocking! It is one thing to be ignorant about something and therefore not see a need for assistance, but when you know there is a demographic being abused and ignored and continue to do nothing, I would call that evil.

By the way, the only reason there is any reference to males on their website is so they cover their backsides in case pushy MRA's draw attention to their bigotry. They are scum.

Would you support a World Vision campaign to end the hunger of women and girls?
 
Kynge of Begrem said:
*checks back into thread*
Hmmmn, same crap from same MRA's...except for the Domus who seems to be new. If this wasn't an AFL forum, I would swear he was Mark Latham. See you all in a month or two :):hearts::thumbsu::rainbow:
Click to expand...

Constructive post. See ya. I keep saying that facts are scary and many people like you need a long break after reading them.
 
Chief said:
You don't think awareness, campaigns, funding resources, and social change (either from the campaigns or general empowerment of women) has contributed to this decline?
Click to expand...
But the government and Rosie Batty (and others involved with the family violence industry) keep saying things are getting worse and we are facing an epidemic. Why are they lying?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top