Australia: How Victoria's family violence system fails some victims – by assuming they're perpetrators

Article here. Excerpt:

'The research found a proliferation of “systems abuse” by male perpetrators of family violence. This refers to the manipulation of the legal system by perpetrators of family violence. The National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book recently identified this as a form of family violence.

Participants suggested there was a strong link between police misidentifying women as primary aggressors and male perpetrators manipulating the intervention order system. This can occur when police responding to a family violence incident are misled by the genuine perpetrator to believe that the woman has committed family violence and an intervention order should be taken out against her.'

up
63 users have voted.
I like this

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

SSDD

"Always arrest the man"

That kitchen knife sticking out of his back? Self-inflicted.

up
6 users have voted.
I like this

When being a victim of domestic violence is an act of violence

Its hard to imagine how police could make this mistake, given police protocols have included a presumption of male guilt in domestic violence situations for many years, and require that males be removed from domestic dwellings in almost all cases of DV (including those involving the coroner and a body bag for the male).
But what a clever ploy. Recasting being a victim of domestic violence as an act of violence on the basis of sex alone.
Clearly men who appear to be victims must be evil violent manipulators and women never manipulate the system!
A similar ploy was successfully used in the Family Court of Australia when a veritable bucket load of third wave feminist academics screamed from the roof tops that violent men were manipulating the Family Law in order to expose women and THEIR children to domestic violence (i.e. the act of having contact or residence with their fathers).
But down to facts. This study is fundamentally flawed as the participants were selected on the basis of a significant characteristic. In other words, the authors deliberately selected participants from a biased population (lawyers acting for female victim/perpetrators), and then extrapolated these opinions to the broader population (very naughty).
Whoever designed this study intended to reach one and only one conclusion. That men are perpetrators even when they are victims, because they are men.
So the author, a PhD student from Monash University, should be be expecting some criticism and instruction from her supervisors. Not likely. The author specialises in criminology based on feminist theories of male violence and hegemonic masculinity; i.e. men are invariably guilty by virtue of their DNA (Connell said so, and he wasn't bitter), and if the facts do not support this view, then the facts just need energetic beating around the head with a third wave stick until they agree.
The mere fact that this PhD candidate would be considered, and that this field of study would be considered valid, suggests there is a deeply ingrained and unquestioned culture of gender hatred and vilification alive and nurtured at Monash University. When any society assumes guilt by virtue of race, sex or sexual preference, there is something very sick and dangerous growing and gaining power.
I thought Australia had just emerged from this kind of primitive tribal hatred, but appears we are just switching around who we hate.

up
5 users have voted.
I like this