Domestic Violence – “A Media Beat Up”

I do not want to get into any debate on this but will tell my story.

The girl next door is the victim of domestic violence. Two weeks ago,she locked herself on the balcony to get away from the bloke she lives with (he looks very very much like a current NRL player). She was screaming on the phone to someone and had a HUGE knife in her hand,ready to protect herself. I have called the police several times in the past because I could hear her screaming. I have told her that my mate used to live next door to a girl that was murdered 2 years ago by her partner and I did not want told her I did not see her go the same way.

Years ago I was married to a girl that had bi-polar...one minute good,the next minute fucking crazy. I have 8 stitches in my head from the night I was sleeping and she hit me with a metal jug. Another time she kneed me in the kidney and I spent 2 nights in hospital. Several other instances happened that involved injuries not as serious as those others. I have been divorced from her for 20 years but last week I stayed near her place in Queensland, and I had a massive urge to go around and punch her head in...absolutely cave her face in if I could... clearly I did not because I do not want to see ,hear or see her again,and I do not want any criminal record. But the urge was definately there.

I would like to see more acknowledgement that men can be victim as well.

I just like to say there have been 17 women killed by their male partners in the last 9 weeks :(
I think this is why the topic has resurfaced with more urgency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwally

I do not want to get into any debate on this but will tell my story.

The girl next door is the victim of domestic violence. Two weeks ago,she locked herself on the balcony to get away from the bloke she lives with (he looks very very much like a current NRL player). She was screaming on the phone to someone and had a HUGE knife in her hand,ready to protect herself. I have called the police several times in the past because I could hear her screaming. I have told her that my mate used to live next door to a girl that was murdered 2 years ago by her partner and I did not want told her I did not see her go the same way.

Years ago I was married to a girl that had bi-polar...one minute good,the next minute fucking crazy. I have 8 stitches in my head from the night I was sleeping and she hit me with a metal jug. Another time she kneed me in the kidney and I spent 2 nights in hospital. Several other instances happened that involved injuries not as serious as those others. I have been divorced from her for 20 years but last week I stayed near her place in Queensland, and I had a massive urge to go around and punch her head in...absolutely cave her face in if I could... clearly I did not because I do not want to see ,hear or see her again,and I do not want any criminal record. But the urge was definately there.

I would like to see more acknowledgement that men can be victim as well.

---

I forgot to mention that I did slap her face once and pushed her once as well,so I am no innocent either.

I wonder if the timing of the OPs post has anything to do with the legal aid funding cuts:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...06-13x8d1.html

In the past he has been a mouthpiece for liberal policy ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CunningLinguist

I wonder if the timing of the OPs post has anything to do with the legal aid funding cuts:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...06-13x8d1.html

In the past he has been a mouthpiece for liberal policy ...

---

Are you implying the OP might have been adversely impacted by the funding cuts ? Hence the rant ? ;) ;) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duksta

As usual, we see one fact poorly used to support a completely hysterical and unfounded opinion. So how about some actual facts.

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/bocsar/bocsar_mr_bb61.html

The actual stats (albeit a few years old) show that -
82% of all domestic assaults reported to police are perpetrated by Men.
20% of victims were between 10-24 years old
Rural and regional NSW is more likely to report assaults.
It's a serious problem in indigenous communities.
Alcohol is frequently associated.

None of these facts talk to misandry. Encouraging this sort of noise and nonsense is what breeds hate. Go look at yourself before criticising others.

---

You appear to be arguing with yourself here, rather than me. I agree entirely with the statistics on domestic violence. I agree that at the mortality end of the DV spectrum, women are being impacted upon more than men. What I, and others, are putting forward are two important facts: firstly, the DV media/political debate focuses almost exclusively on women to the detriment of men and children (remember men seldom report assaults from women, and neither do children) and secondly, when DV mortality rates are compared to other mortality rates for women, they look very small indeed. Thus, the media/political debate has lost all perspective and context on the issue when describing it as an “epidemic” “tsunami” and “plague.”

A hateful message is being sent to impressionable women, by misandrist feminists, to mistrust and fear men. Ultimately, if women respond by being more resentful, hostile and confrontational in their encounters with men, then there is likely to be a corresponding response. The debate is currently so skewed and “out of prespective” that it’s hard to see light at the end of the tunnel for anyone involved, other than the shit-peddling misandrist ideologues spreading their hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingwally

I do not want to get into any debate on this but will tell my story.

The girl next door is the victim of domestic violence. Two weeks ago,she locked herself on the balcony to get away from the bloke she lives with (he looks very very much like a current NRL player). She was screaming on the phone to someone and had a HUGE knife in her hand,ready to protect herself. I have called the police several times in the past because I could hear her screaming. I have told her that my mate used to live next door to a girl that was murdered 2 years ago by her partner and I did not want told her I did not see her go the same way.

Years ago I was married to a girl that had bi-polar...one minute good,the next minute fucking crazy. I have 8 stitches in my head from the night I was sleeping and she hit me with a metal jug. Another time she kneed me in the kidney and I spent 2 nights in hospital. Several other instances happened that involved injuries not as serious as those others. I have been divorced from her for 20 years but last week I stayed near her place in Queensland, and I had a massive urge to go around and punch her head in...absolutely cave her face in if I could... clearly I did not because I do not want to see ,hear or see her again,and I do not want any criminal record. But the urge was definately there.

I would like to see more acknowledgement that men can be victim as well.

---

I thoroughly commend you for offering your story, particularly in the current media climate where men and children are largely ignored.
It is very important for the ridiculous and frenzied media/political debate to be brought back into proper context and perspective. Your story
and more like it can help to do that, as will any impartial look at mortality statistics for women that clearly show how miniscule DV female deaths are when
viewed in proper perspective. The "epidemic" "tsunami" and "plague" of DV is more a media epidemic, tsunami and plague - a monumental "beat up."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timetogo

PP there is NO media beat up or debate, domestic violence happens! One death is too many. And mortality rates for women getting stung by a bee have nothing to do with domestic violence.

---

Maybe he meant the beehive's in her backyard ? ;) ;) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timetogo

PP there is NO media beat up or debate, domestic violence happens! One death is too many. And mortality rates for women getting stung by a bee have nothing to do with domestic violence.

---

Statistics on female mortality rates, no matter what the cause, put into clear perspective and context the severity or non-severity (as is the case) of the relative threat to women from domestic violence. This is just basic common sense, a comparative analysis delivers perspective. There it is.

As for there being "no media beat-up" as you suggest, well I can only say that you are mistaken. But I most certainly agree that one death is too many, whether adult female, male or a child. One would just like to see a little more discussion of children and men, rather than the terribly skewed focus on women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penitent Penetrator

You appear to be arguing with yourself here, rather than me. I agree entirely with the statistics on domestic violence. I agree that at the mortality end of the DV spectrum, women are being impacted upon more than men. What I, and others, are putting forward are two important facts: firstly, the DV media/political debate focuses almost exclusively on women to the detriment of men and children (remember men seldom report assaults from women, and neither do children) and secondly, when DV mortality rates are compared to other mortality rates for women, they look very small indeed. Thus, the media/political debate has lost all perspective and context on the issue when describing it as an “epidemic” “tsunami” and “plague.”

A hateful message is being sent to impressionable women, by misandrist feminists, to mistrust and fear men. Ultimately, if women respond by being more resentful, hostile and confrontational in their encounters with men, then there is likely to be a corresponding response. The debate is currently so skewed and “out of prespective” that it’s hard to see light at the end of the tunnel for anyone involved, other than the shit-peddling misandrist ideologues spreading their hate.

---

So is your point that the media and politicians use hyperbole to get attention for a serious issue? And that's apparently a "bad" thing? By using only one statistic you imply that the only result we should care about is if someone dies as a consequence of domestic violence - that trivialises the issue SO much more than your alleged "hateful" message.

I still struggle to see what is "hateful" about the message that domestic violence is unacceptable in ANY form. Tell me what "perspective" we should actually take about this, because your posts seem to suggest that you believe we should consider this "no big deal, because not many people die from it". To me, that is the only "hateful" view I've heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duksta

So is your point that the media and politicians use hyperbole to get attention for a serious issue? And that's apparently a "bad" thing? By using only one statistic you imply that the only result we should care about is if someone dies as a consequence of domestic violence - that trivialises the issue SO much more than your alleged "hateful" message.

I still struggle to see what is "hateful" about the message that domestic violence is unacceptable in ANY form. Tell me what "perspective" we should actually take about this, because your posts seem to suggest that you believe we should consider this "no big deal, because not many people die from it". To me, that is the only "hateful" view I've heard.

---

You don’t accept that the media/political debate has lost all perspective. You don’t accept the debate focuses almost exclusively on women to the detriment of children and men. You don’t accept that DV poses a miniscule threat to women’s lives when a comparative analysis is undertaken with other vastly more significant threats to female mortality. Therefore, you believe there is an “epidemic” and “plague” of DV in our midst, almost exclusively directed at women. I’m sure it’s comforting to know that you are showing the requisite compliance with the message demanded by the misandrist media lobby. And no need to let facts get in the way of the message being sent.

The frenzied media/political debate is not simply abandoning itself to exaggerated rhetoric, it is peddling a complete falsehood about the extent of the threat posed to women by domestic violence. This is an extremely dangerous thing to do. The message being sent to impressionable women (and men apparently) is that women should mistrust and fear men. The message attempts to induce a heightened level of resentment and hostility in women against men, by not simply by exaggerating but by actually lying about the real extent of the DV threat. This is the worst kind of scaremongering, and incredibly dangerous.

Ultimately, if women increasingly become resentful, hostile and confrontational in their encounters with men, then there is likely to be a corresponding response from men. The debate has been hijacked by the misandrist media & feminist lobby, resulting in a completely “out of perspective” politicized discussion which will, in all likelihood, cultivate a further growth in the problems that they say they seek to address.

Sheesh.. go back to your unabomber manifesto.... you're still just as useless as ever.

Still the same unsupported evidence. Still the same slippery slope and misrepresentation. Still the same refusal to engage in any sort of debate. Still the same "3 word slogan" method of proving your point.

Still nothing of consequence to say. Still no productive suggestions on what would be a better path to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duksta

Sheesh.. go back to your unabomber manifesto.... you're still just as useless as ever.

Still the same unsupported evidence. Still the same slippery slope and misrepresentation. Still the same refusal to engage in any sort of debate. Still the same "3 word slogan" method of proving your point.

Still nothing of consequence to say. Still no productive suggestions on what would be a better path to follow.

---

In other words, he is a troll!

duksta, many of those facts in the link you provided were quite eye opening and deserve to be posted directly.

Nineteen out of the top 20 NSW Local Government Areas for domestic assault are in rural or regional NSW. The top LGA for domestic assault was Bourke, with a recorded rate of domestic assault of 3,702 per 100,000 population. The only urban LGA found in the top 20 in 2010 was Campbelltown, which had a recorded rate of domestic assault of 680 per 100,000 of population.

So it is a direct link to either how aboriginal you are or how bogan you are that leads to the highest incidence of DV.

Forty-one per cent of all incidents of domestic assault are alcohol related. This percentage varies, however, from a low of 35 per cent in the Sydney Statistical Division to a high of 62 per cent in the Far West Statistical Division.

And also to how drunk you are.

The overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians as both victims and offenders of domestic assault has not changed over the last decade. The rate of recorded domestic assault for Indigenous women is more than six times higher than for non-Indigenous women.

So it is six times more an aboriginal problem than it is a white problem.

This means that PP makes a valid general point about media exaggerations but I think his conclusion about misandry motivating it is more massaging the facts and comparative statistics to fit his thesis.

Recorded rates of domestic assault over the last ten years have been either stable or declining, according to the Bureau's report.

If this still means that 100 women are murdered in nsw by their husbands every year, or about one every three days, then that is shocking. What is the road toll? 500? So the partner murder rate is a full fifth of the entire nsw road toll, and yet we whiz around in our cars tens of millions of kilometres at speed every year to reach that figure. But to kill 100 women apparently all that is needed are a few bogans and a few drunks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duksta

Sheesh.. go back to your unabomber manifesto.... you're still just as useless as ever.

Still the same unsupported evidence. Still the same slippery slope and misrepresentation. Still the same refusal to engage in any sort of debate. Still the same "3 word slogan" method of proving your point.

Still nothing of consequence to say. Still no productive suggestions on what would be a better path to follow.

---

What I have said is entirely supported by the statistical evidence provided in the original post. Clearly, the problem you have is that you just don't like it.
Female deaths by domestic violence are miniscule when compared to other mortality rates for women. There is no argument against this fact, so you go
on the attack, it's very common when people realise they are in trouble in any discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sextus

So it is six times more an aboriginal problem than it is a white problem.

This means that PP makes a valid general point about media exaggerations

---

Hi Sextus,

I agree with most of what you said, but not the above.

Firstly your comparison aboriginal vs white is not accurate, since there are other ethnic groups in Australia as well.
Those with a European ancestry (= the majority of the white) account for about 70 to 75 % of the population.
It would also be interesting to see the numbers per ethnic groups (not just aboriginals as a separate group).
How do for example people of Indian or Middle Eastern ethnicity rank.

Secondly, I don't really understand how the fact that domestic violence is more prevalent within aboriginals validate PP's point???
You do realize that only about 2% of the population are aboriginals.
Even totally speculatively when applying straight calculation of 2% of 100 deaths x 6 = 12, that still leaves 88 deaths for other ethnic groups.
Is 88 deaths then significantly lower than 100, and thus not a problem for "white" people???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penitent Penetrator

What I have said is entirely supported by the statistical evidence provided in the original post. Clearly, the problem you have is that you just don't like it.
Female deaths by domestic violence are miniscule when compared to other mortality rates for women. There is no argument against this fact, so you go
on the attack, it's very common when people realise they are in trouble in any discussion.

---

So, according to you, the issue of female death by domestic violence is so minuscule, the media shouldn't have covered it ? Nobody should be talking about it ? What are you afraid of about this " beat up " ?

If the " beat up " can help to raise the awareness of this issue, it's well justified. The only unwarranted " beat up " is for you to start this thread just to rally some attention to your miserable existence on this forum !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Licker

Hi Sextus,

I agree with most of what you said, but not the above.

Firstly your comparison aboriginal vs white is not accurate, since there are other ethnic groups in Australia as well.
Those with a European ancestry (= the majority of the white) account for about 70 to 75 % of the population.
It would also be interesting to see the numbers per ethnic groups (not just aboriginals as a separate group).
How do for example people of Indian or Middle Eastern ethnicity rank.

Secondly, I don't really understand how the fact that domestic violence is more prevalent within aboriginals validate PP's point???
You do realize that only about 2% of the population are aboriginals.
Even totally speculatively when applying straight calculation of 2% of 100 deaths x 6 = 12, that still leaves 88 deaths for other ethnic groups.
Is 88 deaths then significantly lower than 100, and thus not a problem for "white" people???

---

The ethnicity factor is interesting in some ways, but the DV media/political debate, as previously stated, has been made a gender issue specifically
claiming DV is a great threat to women. These claims are made by misandrist feminists and are then echoed by intellectual featherweights like Premier Baird
and other comparable lightweight politicians. The statisitical facts are beyond question, namely that mortality rates for women in Australia (as listed in the original post)
clearly demonstrate that DV represents a miniscule threat to women's lives. So, why are we told in the media that there is an "epidemic" "tsunami" and "plague" of
domestic violence perpetrated on women? This is categorically not true, so why are we being told this falsehood?

The answer is relatively simple; the misandrist feminist lobby is not interested in facts, evidence, or truth. They are interested in peddling the hateful message that
women should mistrust and fear men. In so doing, the seek to generate a heightened politicized sensitivity in women to the great breadth and scope of the horrible
threat posed by this thing called DV, which doesn't actually exist in any significant statistical context. This is the worst kind of fear mongering you could find, because
it will actively assist in generating the problems they say they seek to address. There is currently no "epidemic" and no "plague" of domestic violence against women.
The "epidemic" and "plague" is in the frenzied media/political debate, which is not a debate but a promotion of hate towards men by misandrist ideolgues with limited
cognitive ability but immense gender pride. Shame on them for their hateful ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Licker

I don't really understand how the fact that domestic violence is more prevalent within aboriginals validate PP's point???

---

I just meant that according to those stats it is confined proportionally to a much narrower slice of the population than is usually mentioned by the press. But yes, of course, an equation is not valid unless all the relevant numbers are included, and your 2% aboriginal population is the missing figure. I must have posted too late last night! So in actual numbers yes, it happens much more outside aboriginal populations.

Which brings me to this figure of 100 domestic murder rate. While PP was playing it down, the first time I read it, to me it seemed to be appallingly large! Where did this figure come from? That is one DV murder almost every 3 days! Where are the press reports every three days about these murders?

In fact, the entire nsw road toll is 350 and we drive tens of millions of kilometres per year to reach that figure. So the DV fatality rate, if it is true, is almost a third of the entire nsw road toll! Is that figure accurate? I'm thinking 10 or 15, or one per month might be closer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sextus

I just meant that according to those stats it is confined proportionally to a much narrower slice of the population than is usually mentioned by the press. But yes, of course, an equation is not valid unless all the relevant numbers are included, and your 2% aboriginal population is the missing figure. I must have posted too late last night! So in actual numbers yes, it happens much more outside aboriginal populations.

Which brings me to this figure of 100 domestic murder rate. While PP was playing it down, the first time I read it, to me it seemed to be appallingly large! Where did this figure come from? That is one DV murder almost every 3 days! Where are the press reports every three days about these murders?

In fact, the entire nsw road toll is 350 and we drive tens of millions of kilometres per year to reach that figure. So the DV fatality rate, if it is true, is almost a third of the entire nsw road toll! Is that figure accurate? I'm thinking 10 or 15, or one per month might be closer!

---

All the stats I provided in my original post are sourced and dated in the post. They are all national annual statistics from government & associated bodies.
The number of female deaths from domestic violence (< 100 per year) is the popular number currently being used in the media/political debate and I'm sure it is accurate.
I believe there were approx. 89 female deaths last year, and the 100 number is a predictive forecast for this year. (AIC stat I think) Either way it's around about 100 nationally.
Thus, when the national statistics on female mortality are given a comparative analysis, it is abundantly clear that deaths by domestic violence are miniscule when viewed
along side the other truly major threats to women's lives. There can be absolutely no rational argument on this statistical fact. Which begs the question, why do we have the talk
about "an epidemic" "the biggest threat to women" and "a plague" with respect to the threat domestic violence poses to women, in the current media/political debate?
I doubt whether any debate in Australia's history has been so politicized and entirely hijacked by any particular lobby, in this case the misandrist feminist lobby. The lack of perspective
in the debate is a shameful reflection of those proud misandrist ideologues peddling their hideous and hateful message to impressionable women. It is a contemptible thing to do.