Another important and really disturbing article, Bettina. You may already know this, while the 2016 Personal Safety Survey may say only a tiny number of people are physically assaulted by their partner each year it should be noted that this survey result is likely to be inflated for a number of reasons. For example, as per the previous 2…
Another important and really disturbing article, Bettina. You may already know this, while the 2016 Personal Safety Survey may say only a tiny number of people are physically assaulted by their partner each year it should be noted that this survey result is likely to be inflated for a number of reasons. For example, as per the previous 2011 survey, the report shows three times as many women as men were surveyed and only women could do the survey interviews (unless, by some miracle, a man was requested). It also notes there was significantly less people who participated in the 2016 survey than was planned for. The reduced numbers resulted in a ridiculously high margin for error for that survey. With less than a third of the popular vote, the ALP and its allies believe they have a mandate for another wholesale attack on the family. Ironically, not for the first time, safety is being used as a political weapon. By removing fathers from families they can keep mothers and their children married to, and entirely dependent on, the state. The ALP is the party of failure.
All these surveys are intended to show a high level of violence towards women by their husbands / boyfriends etc. but fail and the best the feminists can come up with is " 1.5 % of women are assaulted in domestic situations".
This is very low and does not say whether or not the women were hurt and could be just a push or a slap , serious injury is even more rare, less than 1% .
This is such a low percentage it is not worth worrying about , women in Australia are now the safest they have ever been .
And anyway many women provoke or instigate domestic violence themselves, but this is the subject politicians and most journalists are afraid to raise, for fear of incurring the wrath of radical feminists who control Canberra and most of the media .
You make a good point that is consistent with Bettina's interview with a policewoman who was in the DV unit as I recall it. I think it's very likely the statistics we often see in the media are manipulated to exaggerate the numbers in favour of the narrative being pushed. If it doesn't say what it's supposed to we would never see it.
Police forces are being used as tools in the political war against men, DV units are full of vicious young women who take great pleasure in kicking a man out of his own house on no evidence apart from lies and exaggerations . But fair minded and decent police officers are browbeaten to conform.
Even high ranking police officers are too scared to rock the feminist boat and so the injustices continue .
DV laws allow for the legal owner of a property to be denied possession and use of that property under threat of jail, this is a threat to democracy and I wonder why it has not been challenged in the high court.
The right to peaceful possession of one's own property is a foundation stone of a free society.
A NSW magistrate in 1999 said words to the effect that women often provoke DV by nagging and bitching , this magistrate was telling it as she { it was a woman} saw it.
This caused an uproar from feminist politicians and this magistrates was attacked for speaking the truth.
A senator, Amanda Vanstone was especially vocal in her condemnation of this female magistrate, but Vanstone was a Liberal and this at least confirms that BOTH major parties were hostage to feminists.
And robust research that has been rigourously peer reviewed over the past 3 or 4 decades finds that 75% (+/- 5%) of domestic violence is reciprocal ~ i.e. both partners are perpetrators.
Further, the peer reviewed research that was commissioned by the UK Home Office to support the "committee" (all were militant feminists except for one token male) in their recommendations to the UK government, was rejected by this militant feminist committee, becuase 1. The research findings surprised them and 2. The research findings did not support the recommendations they intended to make to the UK government on (latest female privilegeand "fem-splaning") "coercive control". The commissioned research found that there is gender symmetry arround the perpetration on domestic violence and coercive control and that there is
gender symmetry arround the victimisation from domestic violence and coercive control; not what militant feminists want ro hear, especially those in AU like Qld AG fentiman (still don't know why a toxic feminist has "man" in her name)who shriill "only men..." obviously this woman doesn't intend to yave sons
Ironically this flawed UK legislation is being used /touted throughout AU and the rest of western world to support the introduction of draconian "coercive control" laws were only a male is a perpetrator and a female can profiteer from her claimed victimhood
So Queensland has a woman AG, another example of the recent and rapid increase in women in power.
There should be nothing wrong with that but you could assume that a lot of these women have strong feminist sentiments.
They are mostly of an age where the feminist influence would have affected them in education and the media .
Also the way women behave in big organisations is a worry . They can be very "catty", alliances are made and dissenters are frozen out of the "clique", backbiting , character assassination etc, far worse than men.
These laws coming up will pass if the feminist influence has affected enough of these new women in power.
As you say, these things are happening in all Western countries and that deserves a closer look, is this part of a bigger picture?, a "war on the West" in the words of Douglas Murray.
A.K.A. also known as "research" (cough) based on "the dependent variable". Or to put it another way, asking a question in such a way that the answer can be construed to support whatever narrative the authors of the so-called "research" wish to falsely claim. This type of misandristicly biased so-called "research" has become the mainstay for feminist /women's studies research for the past decade if not 6 and the woke drones and political parties /political hacks that spruik that "only [marxist] feminism has all the answers”.
Who was it who said "there are lies and then there are statistics". I agree with you Joe that these polls/surveys are biased from the start and we are now seeing a lot more of data abuse. From the weather to history, it is all being re-written to suit someone's agenda. And for the sake of what? Bringing down society, electing an incompetent Party, subscribing to something which does not exist? What sort of world do these people want to live in......a false one???
It was Benjamin Disraeli (twice UK PM) who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I'd add a fourth and fifth; "AU family court orders and AU DV allegations"
Thanks Verity - this survey is a good example of what you are saying. It was interesting to see how the ABS adjusted the survey participant shortfall in such a way that they were able to maintain the same 3 to 1 proportion, which I think shows where their priority was. Getting the right outcome was far more important than getting an accurate outcome. Gave the game away I think. As you could probably guess, I'm a little dubious of survey results these days.
Another important and really disturbing article, Bettina. You may already know this, while the 2016 Personal Safety Survey may say only a tiny number of people are physically assaulted by their partner each year it should be noted that this survey result is likely to be inflated for a number of reasons. For example, as per the previous 2011 survey, the report shows three times as many women as men were surveyed and only women could do the survey interviews (unless, by some miracle, a man was requested). It also notes there was significantly less people who participated in the 2016 survey than was planned for. The reduced numbers resulted in a ridiculously high margin for error for that survey. With less than a third of the popular vote, the ALP and its allies believe they have a mandate for another wholesale attack on the family. Ironically, not for the first time, safety is being used as a political weapon. By removing fathers from families they can keep mothers and their children married to, and entirely dependent on, the state. The ALP is the party of failure.
All these surveys are intended to show a high level of violence towards women by their husbands / boyfriends etc. but fail and the best the feminists can come up with is " 1.5 % of women are assaulted in domestic situations".
This is very low and does not say whether or not the women were hurt and could be just a push or a slap , serious injury is even more rare, less than 1% .
This is such a low percentage it is not worth worrying about , women in Australia are now the safest they have ever been .
And anyway many women provoke or instigate domestic violence themselves, but this is the subject politicians and most journalists are afraid to raise, for fear of incurring the wrath of radical feminists who control Canberra and most of the media .
Scare? Or don't want to?
You make a good point that is consistent with Bettina's interview with a policewoman who was in the DV unit as I recall it. I think it's very likely the statistics we often see in the media are manipulated to exaggerate the numbers in favour of the narrative being pushed. If it doesn't say what it's supposed to we would never see it.
Police forces are being used as tools in the political war against men, DV units are full of vicious young women who take great pleasure in kicking a man out of his own house on no evidence apart from lies and exaggerations . But fair minded and decent police officers are browbeaten to conform.
Even high ranking police officers are too scared to rock the feminist boat and so the injustices continue .
DV laws allow for the legal owner of a property to be denied possession and use of that property under threat of jail, this is a threat to democracy and I wonder why it has not been challenged in the high court.
The right to peaceful possession of one's own property is a foundation stone of a free society.
A NSW magistrate in 1999 said words to the effect that women often provoke DV by nagging and bitching , this magistrate was telling it as she { it was a woman} saw it.
This caused an uproar from feminist politicians and this magistrates was attacked for speaking the truth.
A senator, Amanda Vanstone was especially vocal in her condemnation of this female magistrate, but Vanstone was a Liberal and this at least confirms that BOTH major parties were hostage to feminists.
And robust research that has been rigourously peer reviewed over the past 3 or 4 decades finds that 75% (+/- 5%) of domestic violence is reciprocal ~ i.e. both partners are perpetrators.
Further, the peer reviewed research that was commissioned by the UK Home Office to support the "committee" (all were militant feminists except for one token male) in their recommendations to the UK government, was rejected by this militant feminist committee, becuase 1. The research findings surprised them and 2. The research findings did not support the recommendations they intended to make to the UK government on (latest female privilegeand "fem-splaning") "coercive control". The commissioned research found that there is gender symmetry arround the perpetration on domestic violence and coercive control and that there is
gender symmetry arround the victimisation from domestic violence and coercive control; not what militant feminists want ro hear, especially those in AU like Qld AG fentiman (still don't know why a toxic feminist has "man" in her name)who shriill "only men..." obviously this woman doesn't intend to yave sons
Ironically this flawed UK legislation is being used /touted throughout AU and the rest of western world to support the introduction of draconian "coercive control" laws were only a male is a perpetrator and a female can profiteer from her claimed victimhood
So Queensland has a woman AG, another example of the recent and rapid increase in women in power.
There should be nothing wrong with that but you could assume that a lot of these women have strong feminist sentiments.
They are mostly of an age where the feminist influence would have affected them in education and the media .
Also the way women behave in big organisations is a worry . They can be very "catty", alliances are made and dissenters are frozen out of the "clique", backbiting , character assassination etc, far worse than men.
These laws coming up will pass if the feminist influence has affected enough of these new women in power.
As you say, these things are happening in all Western countries and that deserves a closer look, is this part of a bigger picture?, a "war on the West" in the words of Douglas Murray.
A.K.A. also known as "research" (cough) based on "the dependent variable". Or to put it another way, asking a question in such a way that the answer can be construed to support whatever narrative the authors of the so-called "research" wish to falsely claim. This type of misandristicly biased so-called "research" has become the mainstay for feminist /women's studies research for the past decade if not 6 and the woke drones and political parties /political hacks that spruik that "only [marxist] feminism has all the answers”.
Who was it who said "there are lies and then there are statistics". I agree with you Joe that these polls/surveys are biased from the start and we are now seeing a lot more of data abuse. From the weather to history, it is all being re-written to suit someone's agenda. And for the sake of what? Bringing down society, electing an incompetent Party, subscribing to something which does not exist? What sort of world do these people want to live in......a false one???
It was Benjamin Disraeli (twice UK PM) who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I'd add a fourth and fifth; "AU family court orders and AU DV allegations"
Thanks Verity - this survey is a good example of what you are saying. It was interesting to see how the ABS adjusted the survey participant shortfall in such a way that they were able to maintain the same 3 to 1 proportion, which I think shows where their priority was. Getting the right outcome was far more important than getting an accurate outcome. Gave the game away I think. As you could probably guess, I'm a little dubious of survey results these days.