Rod,
I work in social research and I see this kind of statistical sophistry all the time. You HAVE to look at it with a critical eye. OK, let's see what you've got. You referred me to a pressure group which (a) has an agenda, and (b) is seeking funding. Hardly an impartial source then. They are called "Our Watch" and their slogan is "End Violence Against Women and Children". Why only women and children? I don't know about Australia, but there is a massive amount of research which I can show you that says men and teenage boys suffer far more violence than women and girls overall. But somehow they don't count. For some reason, in this supposed age of equality, violence against women is so much worse than violence against men. Not a good start, but let's look at their claimed data. I can't cover all of it otherwise this comment will be far too long, but I'll address some:
"On average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner, according to the most recent analysis of homicide statistics in Australia." First, how many men are murdered by their partners? Not as many I expect, but that's not mentioned. Second, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that lesbian partners violence is a massive problem:
https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawpreventio ... heet.shtml Remember that a current or former partner can be a woman. Third, the population of Australia is about 25 million. Say 5 million are children and half of the remainder are women, then that's 10 million women. It states that a woman a week is murdered by her partner, which amounts to 50 about 50 a year, so 50/10,000,000 = approx. 0.002% of women are murdered by a "partner or former partner" (of either sex) each year. That's probably less than die from being struck by lightning, so it's hardly a massive problem, and certainly in no way indicative of a culture of male violence. In the UK, about a third of domestic murders are committed against men, mostly by women.
"One in three Australian women has experienced physical violence, since the age of 15." Meaningless. It does not (a) define physical violence, so it could include very trivial incidents; (b) state the proportion of males that have suffered violence (almost certainly far higher); (c) indicate whether the assailant was male or female. It proves nothing and, again, it ignores male victims - but that comes later, I know.
"Women are at least three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner." They don't know that - how can they? This is exactly what I mentioned to you last time when I linked research which showed that there is huge under-reporting by males of intimate violence. This study from Harvard University suggests that 70% of domestic violence is committed by women against men:
http://www.newscastmedia.com/domestic-violence.htm Now I did see your link from abc.co.au (a politically aligned sire which is matched only by the US agency CNN in my experience). It says: "But apart from these anecdotal reports, there's only mixed evidence to back up this claim, with some studies showing men are more likely to report violence, and others showing they're less likely." Mixed evidence? So we can't say that "Women are at least three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner" if the evidence is mixed, can we? On close inspection, the claimant, one "Dr M Flood", uses a single citation to back up his claim by means of a PowerPoint presentation attributed to ..."Dr M Flood".
"Women are five times more likely than men to require medical attention or hospitalisation as a result of intimate partner violence, and five times more likely to report fearing for their lives." Again, this is what I said last time. Women are as likely to instigate violence, but males are physically much stronger and more likely to use their fists, which means more significant injuries.
The site gives a nodding acknowledgment of violence against men, and then it goes on to claim some statistics which appear to relate specifically to Australia. Although I would be interested to look at these in some detail because I know better than to take such claims at face value, I am also conscious that this relates to a culture that I know little about, i.e. the Australian culture. What I do know is that, when similar claims have been made in the UK and the US, they have been thoroughly debunked following a close analysis.
As for the spat between Senator David Lyonjhelm and Sarah Hanson-Young: I reckons she should reflect upon her own behaviour. Her statement that gave rise to his verbal attack on her was her assertion that "men cannot control themselves" and "men behave like morons and pigs" and "women wouldn't need pepper spray if men weren't rapists". Note she said "men"; that means men as a class. That means YOU, Rod, cannot, according to her, control yourself and you behave like a moron and a pig and also you are a rapist. She could have qualified it, but she chose not to. She could have clarified it later and made it clear that most men don't behave in this way, but she didn't. A video from one of your compatriots who calls himself "Bearing" highlights her hypocrisy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6VlDwbxNjc. We have recently seen a spate of women teachers sexually abusing young students in both the UK and the US. Now just imagine if a man had said: "women cannot control themselves" and "women behave like morons and pigs" and "boys wouldn't need pepper spray if women weren't paedophiles". If you have the misfortune to be mugged in London, statistics show that there is a 78% chance the mugger will be black. Again, imagine how people would react if you made a blanket statement about black people being unable to control themselves etc etc. It would of course be totally unacceptable but, somehow, attacking men as a single demographic class is regarded as absolutely fine. This is because feminists are identitarians and so believe all men are responsible for every evil act anyone with a penis does. Well, you will forgive me if I disagree.
Stu