Society/Culture Domestic Violence

[Lebbo73]

Extract:

“We can all agree that domestic violence is abhorrent, and victims deserve support,” Leyonhjelm said.

“Given that the Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that 1 in 3 victims of domestic violence is male, do you think male victims deserve a proportional level of support services as female victims?”

Greens senator Larissa Waters loudly answered: “No.”
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS David Leyonhjeln

 

[Taylor]

Anything over 51% is a total majority in politics and the 49% don't matter.

 

[telsor]

Anything over 51% is a total majority in politics and the 49% don't matter.

I'm sure the indigenous members of our population are glad to hear that.

 

[Taylor]

I'm sure the indigenous members of our population are glad to hear that.

Its just issues that effect everyone.

 

[benchwarmer5]

damn the 5 %

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

*** the 5 %

What three letter word is a curse word? Unless it was an altered spelling of the F word.

 

[benchwarmer5]

What three letter word is a curse word? Unless it was an altered spelling of the F word.

Who knows
Last week I got banned from this forum for saying n*
What curse word is two letters that starts with a n ?
I was praising black love on tyron woodley and said he was a cool ass n*
Apparently I am a racists ?

 

[Chief]

What three letter word is a curse word? Unless it was an altered spelling of the F word.

Yes it was.

 

[Chief]

Extract:

“We can all agree that domestic violence is abhorrent, and victims deserve support,” Leyonhjelm said.

“Given that the Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that 1 in 3 victims of domestic violence is male, do you think male victims deserve a proportional level of support services as female victims?”

Greens senator Larissa Waters loudly answered: “No.”
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS David Leyonhjeln

ABS stats don't say that, far as I recall. Best stats say 1 in 5.

Leyonhelm is an idiot.

 

[cartwright]

ABS stats don't say that, far as I recall. Best stats say 1 in 5.

Leyonhelm is an idiot.

"Fact Check's survey of domestic violence data in Australia showed that one in six women and one in 20 men have experienced at least one incidence of violence from a current or former partner since the age of 15."

A lot of stats in this fact check - none of them good

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/fact-file-domestic-violence-statistics/7147938

Agree, Leyonhelm is an idiot.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

ABS stats don't say that, far as I recall. Best stats say 1 in 5.

Leyonhelm is an idiot.

It doesn't really matter if it's 1 in 3 or 1 in 5 though, does it? He asked whether male victims deserve a proportional level of support - whether that is 33% or 20% is insignificant to the question. I mean you could argue that he was being disingenuous with the statistics, but it doesn't change the fact that Waters, through her emphatic response, quite clearly doesn't give a s**t about male victims. Which is worse?

Interestingly though, on the triple J news this morning they spoke about the lack of support for LGBTQ victims of domestic abuse - highlighting the fact that there was little to no services available for gay male victims. I'm no alt-right/MRA/whatever, but I can't see any reason why their sexuality would be relevant; if there's no support for gay men, then it stands to reason that there is no support for straight men either. A victim is a victim, but it seems most of the stories I hear/read in the media are doing their best to avoid acknowledging that men can be the victims of abuse at the hands of females. Certainly it's far less common than the other way around, but why exclude them altogether?

 

[Chief]

It doesn't really matter if it's 1 in 3 or 1 in 5 though, does it? He asked whether male victims deserve a proportional level of support

Leyonhjelm also called on the government to dedicate more funding to male victims of domestic violence.

- Was that what she was answering?

The thing is that when men abuse women the results are more likely to be hospitalization or death than when women abuse men. So of course the funding can never be exactly proportional.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[little graham]

The thing is that when men abuse women the results are more likely to be hospitalization or death than when women abuse men.

Women kill more kids than men.

Is this one of the perks of running a website, you can invent anything you want?

Men and women report experiencing about the same levels of pain and need for medical attention resulting from domestic
violence.

http://australianmensrights.com/Dom...ety_Survey-University_of_Melbourne_study.aspx

it's a good study, i would implore you to read it, but you made it clear how close minded you are. So you won't.

Prospects for men receiving equal protection from domestic violence are poor. Among persons in the U.S. ages 15 to 44 in 2010, men suffered 31% more injury-related visits to hospital emergency departments than women did. Men suffered 59% more injury-related visits from violence than did women. Nonetheless, men have been largely missing from the U.S. national injury research agenda. Injuries to men matter little in public discourse

http://www.acrosswalls.org/men-ignored-domestic-violence-injuries/

 

[little graham]

Claims that men are a minority of domestic violence victims are often used to justify domestic violence gender stereotyping. Domestic violence authorities commonly show no concern for injuries to men. They ignore scholarly controversy about domestic violence, ignore credible, publicly available data on hospital emergency department visits, and assert that many times fewer men than women are victims of domestic violence.

That’s wrong. Moreover, ignoring or trivializing domestic violence against men because men are a minority among those injured is heartless and sexist.

http://www.acrosswalls.org/men-ignored-domestic-violence-injuries/

 

[little graham]

All three lead authors of the 1975 study suffered-long lasting personal attacks as result of their finding of gender symmetry in domestic violence. One of the lead authors more than two decades later observed:

our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present.

{The female lead author} received the brunt of the attacks—individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant funding be rescinded. All three of us became ‘non persons’ among advocates. Invitations to conferences dwindled and dried up. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to us. Librarians publicly stated they would not order or shelve our books.^

http://www.acrosswalls.org/bitter-scholarly-controversy-domestic-violence/?otxkey=post-6995

Does this sound like anyone you know Chief

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Leyonhjelm also called on the government to dedicate more funding to male victims of domestic violence.

- Was that what she was answering?

Not sure what you mean here. He suggested that male victims need more support, which I assume would require more dedicated funding. I'm only going on the post above and the (I assume) buzzfeed article I found when I searched for it, but based on those - that is what she was answering.

The thing is that when men abuse women the results are more likely to be hospitalization or death than when women abuse men. So of course the funding can never be exactly proportional.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Certainly agree with this. The inherent differences between the average man and the average woman means that men are more likely to do more damage, and funding/support/services should reflect this. The proportion or percentage of funding that is directed towards male victims compared with female victims is beside the point though, I think. Based on what I've read/heard/experienced my opinion is that more funding, support and especially awareness needs to be dedicated toward male victims. The proportion doesn't necessarily have to change - it doesn't have to be one or the other - but male victims are being largely ignored and for the life of me, I can't understand why.

 

[Chief]

Women kill more kids than men.

Is this one of the perks of running a website, you can invent anything you want?

So what does that have to do with male partners experiencing domestic violence?

You've stepped sideways into a different aspect of the issue, and tried to shame me over the facts I brought up about the actual issue.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Chief]

Not sure what you mean here. He suggested that male victims need more support, which I assume would require more dedicated funding. I'm only going on the post above and the (I assume) buzzfeed article I found when I searched for it, but based on those - that is what she was answering.

It looks to me like it could be dishonest reporting. In the article in BuzzFeed (and what has happened to this world that BuzzFeed is a source for political reporting?) that paragraph I quoted was prior to the 'proportional' question.

What question was she actually answering?

Female victims have a much higher incidence of severe injury or death, usually are financially more disadvantaged and so on, so strictly proportional funding based on raw proportions of victims doesn't make sense.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[little graham]

I'm not sure why people like rosie batty have to invent statistics?

The statistics show those affected by Family Violence tragically increased during the time I have been Australian of the Year. In my opening speech I spoke about 1 woman a week being murdered, and now I speak of 2 women. Someone’s mother or daughter, sister, friend or valued employee. A life tragically taken through the ultimate act of power, control and revenge.

http://www.msau-mdvs.org.au/2016/01/27/rosie-battys-outgoing-australian-of-the-year-speech/

That is hate speech, pure and simple.the two women a week thing has been proven lies. I know posters here who don't like hate speech, but then defend rosie batty. Chances are, some of those defending this rubbish, will have a male relative learn the hard way about domestic violence.

 

[kickazz]

"Fact Check's survey of domestic violence data in Australia showed that one in six women and one in 20 men have experienced at least one incidence of violence from a current or former partner since the age of 15."

A lot of stats in this fact check - none of them good

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/fact-file-domestic-violence-statistics/7147938

Agree, Leyonhelm is an idiot.

So just under a quarter of victims are men, surprisingly high.

The other key thing in that start is "at least one" so it says nothing about the gender distribution of sustained violence.

Actual damage done also needs to be taken into account, as does what any money spent is trying to achieve, whether it is preventative or after the fact, etc.

In one way it's a shame this is being politicised, but perhaps that is the best way to get funding for the issue.

 

[kickazz]

I'm not sure why people like rosie batty have to invent statistics?




http://www.msau-mdvs.org.au/2016/01/27/rosie-battys-outgoing-australian-of-the-year-speech/

That is hate speech, pure and simple.the two women a week thing has been proven lies. I know posters here who don't like hate speech, but then defend rosie batty. Chances are, some of those defending this rubbish, will have a male relative learn the hard way about domestic violence.

Did she cite a source for that stat?

 

[kickazz]

Female victims have a much higher incidence of severe injury or death, usually are financially more disadvantaged and so on, so strictly proportional funding based on raw proportions of victims doesn't make sense.

These are the sorts of answers that the public need to hear to Leyonhjelm's questions, instead of the terse "no".

 

[Watchyourwaite]

That is hate speech, pure and simple

Could you quote the hate speech? Or what your definition of hate speech is?

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

It looks to me like it could be dishonest reporting. In the article in BuzzFeed (and what has happened to this world that BuzzFeed is a source for political reporting?) that paragraph I quoted was prior to the 'proportional' question.

What question was she actually answering?

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm not trying to obtuse, but I genuinely have no idea what point you are trying to make here. The article says:

Leyonhjelm also called on the government to dedicate more funding to male victims of domestic violence.

“We can all agree that domestic violence is abhorrent, and victims deserve support,” Leyonhjelm said.

“Given that the Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that 1 in 3 victims of domestic violence is male, do you think male victims deserve a proportional level of support services as female victims?”

Greens senator Larissa Waters loudly answered: “No.”

Based on this (and I'm taking the article on face value - I know nothing about BuzzFeed and its journalistic accuracy or integrity), the only conclusion I can draw is that Waters' answer is in response to Leyonhjelm's question of whether she thinks male victims deserve a proportional level of support services as female victims. What question do you think her answer was in response to?

As I said earlier, I certainly take your point regarding the difference in damage caused and therefore the unsuitability of proportional funding and support. Just out of interest though, do you think there should be more support for male victims - whether through funding, services or simply just awareness of male victims?

 

[telsor]

ABS stats don't say that, far as I recall. Best stats say 1 in 5.

Leyonhelm is an idiot.

Does it really matter if it's 1 in 3 or 1 in 5? Both figures are massively out of sync with the level of recognition and resources used to deal with it.

Andrews announced a further $289Million for women and children yesterday (to $600m) while there is still $0 announced for male victims (remembering that the RC declared it could find no support services for male victims in the state).


Whatever the actual rate, surely we can agree that is disproportionate.