Time to take the gloves off?

[spenaroo]

16 minutes ago, old man emu said:

I'm beginning to think that a lot of these so-called "experts" are only expert into conning other people into supporting the expert in a lifestyle the expert describes for themself. I reckon more attention should be given to the baby rather than the bathwater it sits in. Go to the real experts - the victims and the grassroots organisations that have to deal with the frantic knock on the refuge door at 2:00 in the morning.

 

My daughter-in-law had to deal with a similar situation from a previous relationship. I wonder how far a parent can push a school's Duty of Care towards a student in such matters. Should the parent protected by an AVO , tell the school of any conditions of the AVO that involve the protection of the child. I wonder if the fact that a person is subject to an AVO is something that is exempt from privacy laws. Afterall, if a person gets convicted for drink driving, or even if arrested for a newsworthy crime, the media will publish name and even photograph. 

I think it comes up in a police check - used to be standard part of employment with working in motorcycle dealerships.

from memory a former worker couldn't return due to it

[old man emu]

1 minute ago, spenaroo said:

I think it comes up in a police check

I don't understand what you are connecting with in my post.

 

There are several occupations that require a criminal history check, but a DV offender is not applying for employment in a school. However an AVO can have a condition that the subject is not to approach or contact any person having a relationship with the protected person - that includes children. 

 

It amazes me that women who are working in a school in a socio-economic area where everyone is either protected by an AVO or restricted by one, would not make sure that a child was not given into the custody of the wrong person. I suppose, however, that it is up to the protected person to pass on that information to the school. 

[octave]

It is important to rationally analyse the statistics.  Yes there has been a spike in intimate partner homicides last year and in the first part of this year.   This is against a background of falling domestic homicides.  I definitely don't want to diminish the severity and horror of this spike and we ought to be working on reducing and eliminating all violence.

 

https://theconversation.com/new-homicide-statistics-show-surge-in-intimate-partner-killings-and-huge-disparity-in-first-nations-victims-228890

 

The notion that it is a new problem caused by those youngns does not really stand up to scrutiny. If we look at the graph there is a downward trend with many ups and downs or spikes.

 

Edited May 3 by octave

[old man emu]

6 minutes ago, octave said:

It is important to rationally analyse the statistics. 

While I would not dispute the gross statistics, they don't say anything about causation, and that is what need to be addressed (attacked?). As I said, let's ask the victims what factors in their own relationship with an offender lead to its breakdown. At the same time we should ask the offender what factors they say contributed. Once we have those answers we can start to look at patterns and from identifying patterns, we can develop strategies.

 

The immediate implementation of measures such as tracking devices, or denial of liberty for subsequent DV offences may be the shock that could shake up the current crop of offenders.

 

Along with all this, I keep worrying about those cases where the female claims a minor assault (push and shove) while the temperature is up, but has had some part in creating the argument. I've seen too many examples of a female demanding police drag a bloke away and get her an AVO with restrictions on his approaching her, then a week or so later, before the matters have been settled in court, she's begging him to come back - thereby aiding and abetting a breach of the AVO. A couple of days later there's another screaming match, The Police are called and the bloke's up to his neck in it. I've never seen a female charged with aiding and abetting the breach.

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Go to the real experts - the victims and the grassroots organisations that have to deal with the frantic knock on the refuge door at 2:00 in the morning.

Again there's a conflation with the cause and the end result.  You're asking about causes.  The victims are suffering the end results and the grassroots organisations, which do a fantastic job on limited budget, know all about the effects of DV and how best to help victims after it happens, and about the DV itself - but they probably couldn't tell you what in the perpetrator's history turned them into the arsehole that belts their partner.

 

My point is that cause is a far more difficult thing to unravel so you need experts in the field(s).

[octave]

OME,  would agree though that the intimate homicide rate has dropped dramatically since 1989 with a recent uptick last year and this year?    Again I am not trying to diminish the recent incidences but the narrative that this is some new epidemic does not seem to be the case.  

[octave]

Something that concerns me as a man is it is not just a case of who is being killed but who is doing the killing.    It is not that we are all collectively guilty but we cant just brush this fact under the carpet.  

 

"First, there is a significant gender disparity: in 2022-23, 87 per cent of homicide offenders were male, while 69 per cent of homicide victims were male. Predominantly, men are killing men.

And while men were most likely to be killed by a friend, acquaintance or some other person who was not a family member, women were more likely to be killed by a former or current partner (49 per cent of all victims)."

 

https://lsj.com.au/articles/new-homicide-statistics-show-surge-in-intimate-partner-killings-and-huge-disparity-in-first-nations-victims/#:~:text=First%2C there is a significant,Predominantly%2C men are killing men.

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

As I said, let's ask the victims what factors in their own relationship with an offender lead to its breakdown.

You asked us to avoid specific personal cases. Therefore I cannot add to your argument.

[Litespeed]

I think specific cases should be discussed to provide context and real world experience.

 

Just create pseudonyms for names.

[octave]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Along with all this, I keep worrying about those cases where the female claims a minor assault (push and shove) while the temperature is up, but has had some part in creating the argument.

The graph I posted is specifically about intimate partner homicide both male and female.  I might be misinterpreting the above quote but it does  sound a little bit like  "perhaps they were asking for it."

[nomadpete]

11 minutes ago, octave said:

perhaps they were asking for it."

I disagree with your judgement.

 

Your graph of homicides is a report on the worst case scenario of outcomes.

 

OME is referring to one of several possible development pathways of abuses.

 

Different entirely, and in no way accepting the poor behaviour exhibited by either contributing party.

 

And, remember, EVERY conflict REQUIRES participation by BOTH  parties.

 

Again, that does not say he or she (depending on which one suffers worst) is to entitled to inflict harm to the other party in the difference of opinion.

[octave]

Nomad, My comment was in reference to the graph I posted about historical Intimate Partner homicide rate, males and females.  This seems relevant to be relevant the discussion.   If we are talking about lesser assaults then there can of course be questions about who did what to whom.    We can suppose things like I bet the alleged victim played a part in what happened.     Presupposing such things is not helpful.  It cuts both ways. In the case of a male victim, one could ask "What did he do to cause her to attack him."  

 

 

[old man emu]

44 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

You asked us to avoid specific personal cases.

What I meant was that in the search for information, the victims are asked by the researchers, not we here discussing it. My comments are meant to be taken as an overall approach to understanding why something that started out all lovey-dovey goes allhatey-hatey.

 

34 minutes ago, Litespeed said:

I think specific cases should be discussed to provide context and real world experience.

Not by us here. 

1 hour ago, octave said:

69 per cent of homicide victims were male.

That's something that is being overlooked in the discussion.  Perhaps female deaths at the hands of males is another of the very many topics related to inequality between males and females that we have been having our attention drawn to in recent years.

 

Of the 260 homicide offenders in 2022–23, 28 per cent identified as First Nations. These statistics merit repeating. First Nations people (3.8 percent of the population) comprised 20 percent of victims and 28 percent of perpetrators in homicide cases. Before going further with that statistic, I'd like to know where those homicides happened. Was it where those people are pretty well Westernised, or is it in remote areas? If it was in remote areas, then I would say tribal cultural norms may be factors. 

 

[octave]

The stand-out figure for me was that murder generally is a male vice.  87% of murders are committed by men.  I do think we have to have the courage to ask why.   I don't think we men need to be defensive about asking this question. I do not think it reflects badly on me.  Solve this conundrum and you could drastically cut the number of murders of men, women and children.   Am I wrong to ask this question? 

[facthunter]

What % of men never hurt anyone and what % of men hurt women and/or kids?   A considerable MAJORITY I would think. That's also a figure we should know.    Nev

[octave]

7 minutes ago, facthunter said:

A considerable MAJORITY I would think. That's also a figure we should know. 

Yep and we could also pose the question "What is the difference between those who do hurt others and those who don't"    

[red750]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13377481/waleed-aly-domestic-violence-crisis-Australia.html

[Bruce Tuncks]

I was surprised that murders have decreased since the 1990's. They have been going down since the 1790's and they are about the only reliable statistic. All the rest depend on how easy it is to report the event.

 Personally, I don't believe that there is a peaking-out in DV at the moment, but I agree that anything at all is too much.

The problem of the women and kids having to leave the family home and wait for weeks to collect the dole should be fixed with a few pen-strokes. Why not pay the dole etc to the woman?

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, red750 said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13377481/waleed-aly-domestic-violence-crisis-Australia.html

 

That's because my academic work was studying the roots of violence, where research overwhelmingly identifies factors like humiliation, shame and guilt as motivating drivers, not a lack of respect.'

 

After thinking about it, I come the the conclusion that Waleed has identified the very seed of all violence done by males. I realised that for a male to be humiliated is the spark that ignites the bad things men do to themselves and others. I know I said that we shouldn't give personal examples in this discussion, by having read Waleed's words, I realise that I have been disrupting my relationship with my son by what I meant as joking, but was humiliating for him.

 

Basically, and I suppose I should take the blame, I never put the time into my son to teach him how to use tools. We spent too much time in the batting nets while he developed his batting skills. His wife got that knowledge through her relationship with her dad. So now I try to joke and say that my son wouldn't know which end of a spanner to hold onto. Over the past couple of years he has completed a few projects that show that he can swing a hammer and drive a screw.

 

I suppose that next time we are together I'd better apologise for being an R Sole.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I haven't read Waleed's article nor this reply: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/oh-waleed-only-a-man-could-write-that-20240503-p5fotc.html

 

But the headline of the reply makes me tink this is sinlking into a gender war of some sort, on the assumption Waleed's article is remotely accurate.

 

One of the problems I have with humanity is that we are emotionally driven, and I count myself squarely in that corner, though lately, I am a fan of the numbers telling the story.

 

In terms of intimate partner homicide, the numbers tell the story that it has been reducing for some time., There is an uptick, yes, and we should be having rational conversations about the causes. If research shoes that the major root cause is as Waleed writes, then all of the sabre rattiling of men need to do this and that to stop the baddies is futile - why? Because, if a man is beating his wife in response to some sort of humiliation he is subject to, and we say to that bloke he shouldn't be doing it, it may trigger further humiliation and have the opposite affect.

 

Ad look at the graph of women killing men.. has anyone noticed, it is converging (except for the blip), despite trending downwards as well? In some stat I looked up, most of the women killing intimate male partners, the woman has been long-suffering in an abusive relationship. Fiven the wonward trend of that stat, would also imply that, at least as a percentage of the population, abuse is either coming down or women are putting up with it more (and without delving into the numbers, one can't tell).

 

Don't get me wrong, one killing through violence is too many - regardless of who does what. But all of society has to be open to what the root cause is.

 

Society has to rethink its approach to DV.. There was an article I read (of which the sentiment was echoed on a previous post not on this page) that the system is inherently weighted against the system because the woman has to leave with the kids and is disrupted, This is correct in theory, but when subject to DV, isn't immediate safety the greatest convern. If there are resources provided to allow her to leave rapidly with protection (easier said than done, granted), and a well resourced team that can almost by default slap an AVO on the alleged perpetrator and barring him from the house (i.e. court order to vacate, etc) then she can move in quickly. Of course, this sould be available to men suffering DV as well. Then you could secure the kids at least while a specialist unit deals with the case rapidly to establish the facts. With all of the types of techological coercian and electornic trails, it should not be hard to establish a pattern fairly quickly to deetermine if the whole thin was real or vexatious.

 

And then, as part of the process, if there is found to be DV on a sustained basis, clearly there is an issue (not just an extremely heated argument where someone snapped). Part of the consuequences through the criminal system would then have to include some sort of clinincalintervention to deal with the root cause to try and stop it from happening again. Of course, by this time, turning an adult around psychologically is a much harder proposition, but also if the kids have been exposed to it, they may well be desensitised to it, or even adopting some of the behaviors, so interventioon should also be considered on that basis. And of cours,e the victim may well be truamatised and also need intevention, too.

 

You can start seeing that the cure is costly and requires a lot of resources. But, hey, some of the billions iin corporate welfare paid out by the government each year could be redirected to build up and sustain an approach - coupled with education. After time, in theory, the cost should reduce as the levels of DV reduce (assuming it all is performed by competent and conscientious people).

 

It's just an idea that came to my head - not saying it is the right thing to do. But, if governments really want to sort things out, they have the means to prioritise accordingly... and getting them to priorotise it is best done by threatening losing their vote if they don't do anything.. Which is no doubt why there is dsabre rattling going on at the moment.. That sabre rattling has to be done in such a way that they don't alienate the people that should be helping them.

[octave]

I do have slight discomfort with the idea that a driver of violence is "humiliation" or "disrespect" It may well be but it should not be.  I think one of the problems is that these are subjective things.    Some people are quick to interpret things as being disrespectful or as rejection.  I think between myself and my wife I am quicker to define things friends or colleagues have said as "having a go" Fortunately this does not lead me to aggression.

 

I related a story about a female colleague whose partner wanted her to be home from work ASAP and couldn't tolerate her having a drink with her colleagues. This did lead to him hitting her after which she rightly left him.  In his eyes, he felt she was disrespecting him by not doing exactly what he wanted.  Anyone who uses violence against their partner will always believe there was a good reason.

 

I think we can all feel rejected, disrespected or humiliated, that is just life. the question is how do we deal with these feelings?    Humans of all genders and ages are rejected, humiliated or disrespected at some time but most do not react with violence.  I do hate the idea that we men are so emotionally fragile that we can't help ourselves. 

 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I must admit, I thought it was a little odd, too.. Which is why I mentioned if it is true.. However, just because most people don't act violently if they are rejected or humiliated does not mean the majority of those that do commit DV don't do it out of those feelings. In other words, for some reason, they may be particularly sensitive and emotionally fragile to those feelings even if the majority of men aren't; in the same way that not all men commit DV, not all men react the same way to any emotional upset. The point I am making is that whatever the experts have identified as the major root cause (or causes) is where the resources have to be put to in order to  slowly,  and hopefully prevent it happening in the future. But sabre rattling, rabble rousing or similar to cajole an emotional response in men to provide knee-jerk reactions may do more harm than good.

 

In the case of your friend having to go through what really is indefensible, her husband's jealousy may well be driven by fear of being humiliated by having her flirt with some co-workers and he may have been preventing being, in his perception, being humiliated. I honestly think a lot of controlling types of people are that through some form of insecurity; but it is what I think on anecdotal evidence and not ony any study I have read. My ex-fiancee was always trying to control me and even threw out the "if you go and play football with your mates, I'll kill myself" threat, She was always accusing me, of all people (because I wasn't terribly confident with the ladies), of having affairs and flirting. And she finally did try and lash out.. It all started nicely, but progressively got uglier; we didn't stay together for too long after her behavioiur deteriorated. My guess is they are already internally angry - self-provoked - and it doesn't take much to reach the threshold where they lash out. It is not defensible per se, but w have to try and understand the root cause.

 

My partner's father was the same with her mother (and he did bash her, and we ended up getting her mother out of the house bruised and beaten up); and her brothers were similar, too.. no bashing as far as I could tell, but totally domineering and worried their partners were off with every fella they laid eyes on. I was at a family gathering in the early days of the relationship, and one of the brothers brought his girlfirend along. The brother's girlfriend and I were sat next to each other at a long table of about 30-ish people that neither of us knew (except for the immediate family), and of course our other halfs were sat next to us. We had never met each other before, but as we were bored listening to family stories, we got talking to each other and were just having a laugh. After the festivities, my ex accused me of flirting with the bo's girlfriend and he accused her (separately  - I had no idea at the time) of flirting with me. She was nowhere near my type and I am sure the feeling was mutual. But it is not controlling per se, but the unease at the fact their partners could be having fun with someone else, which of course, though their insecurity (and both of them were) gets them perceiving a threat that their partners will run off into the sunset and the humiliation that will cause.

 

I have seen similar with others I know as well...  In contrast, the partners I have had and those of mates of mine that are confident of themselves seem to not have the same issues of needing to control people, and don't react as jealously when conversations of their partners have had have headed towards the flirting zone (not that I have any of those anymore). So, I am not so resistive to the findings, if they are well researched, of course.. but I admt it is still hard to fathom.

Edited May 4 by Jerry_Atrick

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well argued Jerry. I grew up in a household where the wife tried continually to goad her bloke into hitting her. She never succeeded, but I often wonder if her bloke did the right thing by not hitting.

[octave]

13 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

but I often wonder if her bloke did the right thing by not hitting.

 

As far as I am concerned the only justification for hitting someone is direct and immediate self-defence from a physical attack. 

[facthunter]

I used to be surprised how some women flirt outrageously even thought their husbands are right there. As I get older  the less things people do surprises me. at all.   Nev