A Response To DR Michael Flood by Mens Health Australia

Executive Summary
The White Ribbon Foundation is an organisation that works to prevent male violence towards
women a goal that is extremely worthy and worth supporting. The White Ribbon website states
that all forms of violence are unacceptable, however in 2009 the organisation issued a
document to its male Ambassadors which used erroneous facts and statistics to downplay,
diminish and report incorrectly about male victims of violence. These Ambassadors use federal
government funding to take the White Ribbon message into regional, rural and remote
communities. These signicant errors could have led the Ambassadors, and through them the
general public via federal funding, to be misled about the nature and dynamics of interpersonal
violence in Australia.
Some of the dangerous myths about violence circulated in the document include claims that
men are less likely than women to experience violence within family and other relationships; that
we dont yet know the impact of violence on mens overall health; and that there is no evidence
that male victims are less likely to report domestic violence than are female victims.
Mens Health Australia Australias primary source of information about the social and
psychological wellbeing of men and boys contacted White Ribbon with its concerns about this
document. Mens Health believes that violence prevention is not a competition: that
governments and NGOs can work to prevent violence against women and violence against men.
We believe it isnt necessary for White Ribbon to downplay, diminish or report incorrectly about
male victims of violence in order to highlight the tragedy of female victims of violence. The
horric statistics about violence against women speak for themselves.
Mens Health Australia are fully supportive of all attempts to reduce violence against women.
However we believe it is essential that a high-prole organisation such as the White Ribbon
Foundation provides its Ambassadors and the general public with an accurate picture of
violence in Australian society, especially when in receipt of federal government funding. It is only
when we start with an accurate picture of violence that we can take the necessary steps to
reduce its incidence and impact. If we start with an inaccurate picture, our violence-prevention
strategies are bound to be less effective, and could potentially cause harm especially to
children.
White Ribbons initial response to our concerns was ve months of silence. Once we pursued
the matter we were sent a response to our concerns written by Dr Michael Flood a White
Ribbon Ambassador and Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Wollongong with a long
involvement in community advocacy and education work focused on mens violence against
women. This response failed to address our core concern: that it isnt necessary for White
Ribbon to downplay, diminish or report incorrectly about male victims of violence in order to
highlight female victims of violence.
In addition, Dr Floods response:
Failed to address a number of our specic concerns about statistical and factual errors
Contained more errors than the original document when responding to other specic concerns
Resorted to ad hominem attacks in an apparent attempt to discredit Mens Health Australia
Failed to successfully challenge any of Mens Healths specic concerns.

Fortunately the White Ribbon Foundation appointed a new CEO, Libby Davies in early 2011,
who appears to have adopted a fresh approach to working with mens organisations. Mens
Health met with her in May 2011 and discussed ways in which our two organisations might be
able to respectfully co-exist in the future. Some ideas oated included:
To agree on a common set of statistics/data on which to base our work

What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence:
A response to Dr Michael Flood by Mens Health Australia
Page 1 of 25
To both issue media releases in areas where we overlap (e.g. genuine respectful relationships
programs for boys and girls)
For both organisations, as much as possible, to avoid gender competition in our work (i.e.
men vs women thinking) and simply lobby for our respective constituents (e.g. instead of
saying women experience x times as much domestic violence as men, just say x% of
women experience domestic violence and likewise for men).
On 11th March 2012, the Fatherhood Foundations weekly e-Newsletter titled The High Cost of
Being Right re-published our November 2010 media release. As a result readers have contacted
us questioning the veracity of Dr Floods response to criticisms of White Ribbon materials made
by Mens Health Australia. We felt it appropriate to respond, not in any effort to attack the White
Ribbon Foundation, and certainly not to ignite any gender competition, but simply to set the
public record straight. This document is that response.
We are hopeful that this issue will now be put to rest and that White Ribbon and Mens Health
can move forward to work side-by-side to reduce all violence in Australia. White Ribbons core
concern is preventing male violence against women; Mens Healths core concern is preventing
violence against men and boys (by men and women); other organisations are working to prevent
child abuse, elder abuse, lesbian domestic violence and other forms of violence and abuse.
There should be no competition for victimhood all victims of violence and abuse deserve
services and support.
Full background
In November 2009, around the time of White Ribbon Day, the White Ribbon Campaign sent a
document titled What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence to its Ambassadors -
men who are using federal government funding to take the White Ribbon message into regional,
rural and remote communities. We believe this document contained a number of serious
statistical errors and unreferenced claims about gender and violence which have the effect of
downplaying the impacts of violence upon men and boys. We are concerned that these
signicant errors could have led the White Ribbon ambassadors, and through them the general
public via federal funding, to be misled about the nature and dynamics of interpersonal violence
in Australia.
Some of the dangerous myths about violence circulated in the document include claims that
men are less likely than women to experience violence within family and other relationships; that
we dont yet know the impact of violence on mens overall health; and that there is no evidence
that male victims are less likely to report domestic violence than are female victims.
We are fully supportive of all attempts to reduce violence against women. However it is essential
that a high-prole organisation such as the White Ribbon Foundation provides its Ambassadors
and the general public with an accurate picture of violence in Australian society, especially when
in receipt of federal funding. It is only when we start with an accurate picture of violence that we
can take the necessary steps to reduce its incidence and impact. If we start with an inaccurate
picture, our violence-prevention strategies are bound to be less effective, and could potentially
cause harm especially to children.
It isnt necessary for the White Ribbon Foundation to downplay, diminish or report incorrectly
about male victims of violence in order to highlight the tragedy of female victims of violence. The
horric statistics about violence against women speak for themselves. The Australian
Government has a responsibility to care for both male and female victims of violence - caring for
one gender should not mean neglecting the other.
On 4th November 2010 we wrote an open letter, co-signed by almost 20 professionals and
organisations working in the eld of family and domestic violence, to the Chairman and Board of
the White Ribbon Foundation about these errors and unreferenced claims but did not receive a
response.
Page 2 of 25
On 23rd November 2010 we sent another open letter, co-signed by more than 30 professionals
and organisations working in the eld of family and domestic violence, to the Hon Kate Ellis MP,
Minister for the Status of Women. This letter was CCd to all Federal MPs. It strongly urged the
Australian Government to reconsider whether the White Ribbon Foundation are an appropriate
agency to be funded to undertake violence-prevention work in the Australian community, and
requesting that she personally take steps to ensure that they do not mislead the public either
intentionally or unintentionally with false or misleading information about violence while in
receipt of public funding.
On 24th November 2010, we issued a media release titled Federal funding misused by White
Ribbon Campaign.
On 31st January 2011, an advisor to the Minister replied to us, completely ignoring the entire
substance of our open letter.
On 4th February 2011 we contacted the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) requesting new
data from the 2005 Personal Safety Survey to help us conrm the concerns made in our original
letters.
On 4th April 2011, we replied to the Minister, requesting a further response that addressed the
substance of our original letter.
On 20th April the ABS provided our data request, however on 3rd June they informed us that the
request would have to be reissued because of errors in the original data sent to us. The reissued
data was provided to us on 10th June, at which time we asked the ABS to conrm the validity of
a number of statistical charts and statements derived from the raw data. Most of these requests
were conrmed by the ABS by 18th October 2011 but one is still outstanding as of the date of
writing this document due to a change in ABS staff.
On 30th May 2011, the Ministers advisor wrote back, merely noting the issue our organisation
has raised.
Having heard nothing from the White Ribbon Foundation, we telephoned their Sydney ofce on
4th April 2011, and spoke with their National Marketing and Communications Manager, Kate
Alexander. She forwarded us a copy of the document A response to criticisms of White Ribbon
materials made by Mens Health Australia, authored by Dr Michael Flood.
Noting that the response document contained as many if not more statistical errors and
omissions as the original What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence document, we
sought a meeting with the new CEO of the White Ribbon Foundation, Libby Davies, and Ms
Alexander. This meeting took place on 2nd May 2011.
At the meeting, we talked about ways in which Mens Health Australia and the White Ribbon
Foundation might be able to respectfully co-exist in the future. Some ideas oated included:
To agree on a common set of statistics/data on which to base our work
To both issue media releases in areas where we overlap (e.g. genuine respectful relationships
programs for boys and girls)
For both organisations, as much as possible, to avoid gender competition in our work (i.e.
men vs women thinking) and simply lobby for our respective constituents (e.g. instead of
saying women experience x times as much domestic violence as men, just say x% of
women experience domestic violence and likewise for men).
Since the meeting there has been no further contact between Mens Health Australia and the
White Ribbon Foundation. White Ribbon has issued no further documents which downplay male
Page 3 of 25
victims of violence, so we take Ms Davies at her word, and assume that the Foundation is trying
to avoid gender competition in the spirit of co-operation generated by our meeting.
On 11th March 2012, the Fatherhood Foundations weekly e-Newsletter titled The High Cost of
Being Right re-published our November 2010 media release. As a result readers have contacted
us questioning the veracity of Dr Floods Response to criticisms of White Ribbon materials made
by Mens Health Australia document. We felt it appropriate to respond, not in any effort to attack
the White Ribbon Foundation, and certainly not to ignite any gender competition, but simply to
set the record straight. This document is that response.
Full response to Dr Flood
In the following section, please use this key to identify the authors of each paragraph:
"In contrast to men's exper|ence of v|o|ence, ma|e v|o|ence aga|nst women genera||y takes
p|ace w|th|n fam||y and other re|anonsh|ps"
Australian men and women were equally likely to be physically assaulted by persons
known to them during the last 12 months (ABS 2006: 30).
1hat v|o|ence aga|nst women |s more ||ke|y than v|o|ence aga|nst men to take p|ace |n the
context of fam||y and other re|anonsh|ps.
Men's PealLh AusLralla responds wlLh Lhe asseruon LhaL men and women are equally llkely Lo be
physlcally assaulLed by persons known Lo Lhem. 1hls ls false.
This is true. The complete correct statistic from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal
Safety Survey (ABS 2011a: 2) is as follows:
The 2005 ABS Personal Safety Survey found that there were no statistically signicant
differences in the prevalence rates between women and men experiencing physical
1ext |n b|ack bo|d represents a statement made |n the or|g|na|
November 2009 Wh|te k|bbon Campa|gn document nt|ed
!"#$ #&'($ $") *)+, !"-$) .-&&'+/ *)+ #+0 1-'2)+3).
Text in blue bold is Mens Health Australias original
November 2010 critique of the White Ribbon material.
1ext |n green bo|d |s Dr I|ood's paraphras|ng of the statement
from the or|g|na| Wh|te k|bbon document, made |n h|s
November 24 2010 document (rev|sed Iune 2, 2011).
1exL ln green ls ur llood's response made ln hls november 24
2010 documenL (revlsed !une 2, 2011).
Text in blue is Mens Health Australias current March 2012
critique of Dr Floods response.
Page 4 of 25
assault by known perpetrators in the last 12 months (2.6% or 198,500 women and 2.7%
or 203,100 men).
Among men and women who are physlcally assaulLed, women are far more llkely Lhan men Lo be
assaulLed by someone known Lo Lhem.
This is correct, however the original statement made by the White Ribbon Foundation did not
compare the experiences of men and women who are physically assaulted, it compared the
experiences of [all] men and women (as does Dr Floods response).
1here ls a sLark gender conLrasL ln Lhe proporuons of Lhe vlolence men and women experlence
whlch ls represenLed by perpeLraLors known Lo Lhem. llgures from Lhe AusLrallan 8ureau of
SLausucs' letsoool 5ofety 5otvey (2006) make Lhls clear.
Once again, the data cited by Dr Flood compares the experiences of men and women who are
physically assaulted, not the experiences of [all] men and women. It is not indicative of mens
[and womens] experience of violence.
1ables 1 and 2 (below - page 8) glve breakdowns for Lhe proporuons and raw numbers
respecuvely among perpeLraLors of physlcal assaulL ln Lhe lasL 12 monLhs. (8aw numbers were
calculaLed by Lhe AusLrallan 8ureau of SLausucs by exLrapolaung from lLs represenLauve sample
Lo Lhe enure populauon of AusLralla.)
As 1able 1 shows, among Lhe large numbers of men physlcally assaulLed each year, ln Lhe mosL
recenL lncldenL close Lo 70 per cenL were assaulLed by a sLranger.
The correct gures are that 66 per cent were assaulted by a stranger during the last 12 months
not just in the most recent incident (ABS 2006: 30).
ln conLrasL, among Lhe female vlcums of physlcal assaulL, 24 per cenL were assaulLed by a
sLranger (A8S 2006: 30).
The correct gures are that 22 per cent were assaulted by a stranger (ABS 2006: 30).
uslng Lhe raw numbers ln 1able 2, among men, abouL 330,000 of Lhe mosL recenL lncldenLs
lnvolved a perpeLraLor who was a sLranger.
The correct gures are that 319,100 males were physically assaulted by perpetrators who were
strangers during the last 12 months not just in the most recent incident (ABS 2006: 30).
Among women ln conLrasL, abouL 37,000 of Lhe mosL recenL lncldenLs lnvolved a sLranger.
The correct gures are that 52,900 females were physically assaulted by perpetrators who were
strangers during the last 12 months not just in the most recent incident (ABS 2006: 30).
1hus, women are more llkely Lhan men Lo be assaulLed by persons known Lo Lhem Lhan by
sLrangers.
This is correct, but this conclusion cant be drawn from the data cited above, which refers only
to females who have experienced physical assault, not to all women. The correct data from the
PSS that can be used to reach this conclusion is as follows:
The prevalence rate of women experiencing physical assault by known perpetrators in the
last 12 months was 2.6 per cent or 198,500 women (ABS 2011a: 2).
Page 5 of 25
The prevalence rate of women experiencing physical assault by strangers in the last 12
months was 0.7 per cent
1
or 52,900 women (ABS 2006: 30).
lndeed, women are more llkely Lhan men Lo be assaulLed by a parLner or ex-parLner Lhan by any
oLher caLegory of perpeLraLor.
This is incorrect. Here is the complete table of prevalence rates of physical assault by
perpetrator type for females during the last 12 months (ABS 2006: 30):
Table A (above) shows that Australian women were more likely to be physically assaulted during
the last 12 months by family or friends (prevalence rate 1.2 per cent) than by current or previous
partners (1.0 per cent), strangers (0.7 per cent) or other known persons (0.6 per cent).
Looklng aL 1able 1 (below), among female vlcums of assaulL, Lhe caLegory of perpeLraLor mosL
llkely Lo have lnlcLed Lhe assaulL ls male currenL or prevlous parLners (31).
ln oLher words, women are more llkely Lo be assaulLed by men Lhey know, parucularly male
parLners or ex-parLners, Lhan by any oLher caLegory of perpeLraLor.
This is correct. However the data cited above by Dr Flood, which refers only to women who
have experienced physical assault (not to all women) is not the best PSS data to demonstrate
this point. The data that can be used to reach this conclusion is as follows (ABS 2006: 30, ABS
2011a: 2, ABS 2011b: 1):
The prevalence rate of women experiencing physical assault by known male perpetrators
in the last 12 months was 2.2 per cent or 165,700 women, which is a higher rate than by
known female perpetrators (0.6 per cent or 46,900 women), male strangers (0.5 per cent
or 35,500 women) or female strangers (0.3 per cent or 21,900 women).
ln conLrasL, among men, less Lhan 3 were assaulLed by a female parLner or ex-parLner,
Table A: prevalence rates and raw numbers of females who experienced
physical assault during the last 12 months by perpetrator type
Prevalence rate
%
n 000
Stranger
Current partner
Previous partner
Total partner (a)
Family or friends
Other known persons (b)
0.7 52.9
0.4 30.7
0.6 43.3
1.0 73.8
1.2 89.1
0.6 49.7
(a) Where a person experienced assault by both a current and a previous partner they are counted once for total
partner in this table.
(b) Includes acquaintance or neighbour, counsellor or psychologist or psychiatrist, ex-boyfriend or girlfriend, doctor,
teacher, minister or priest or clergy, prison ofcer and other known person.
Page 6 of 25
1
Prevalence rates are easily calculated by dividing raw numbers by the total population then expressing the result as
a percentage. E.g. 52,900 women experienced physical assault by strangers in the last 12 months, divided by
7,693,100 entire population of Australian women = a prevalence rate of 0.7%.
Among men who experienced physical assault in the last 12 months (not among [all] men), 4.4
per cent were physically assaulted by a female partner or ex-partner (ABS 2006: 30).
and men are mosL llkely Lo be assaulLed by male sLrangers.
This is correct. However the data cited above by Dr Flood, which refers only to men who have
experienced physical assault (not to all men) is not the best PSS data to demonstrate this point.
The data that can be used to reach this conclusion is as follows (ABS 2006: 30, ABS 2011a: 2,
ABS 2011b: 1):
The prevalence rate of men experiencing physical assault by male strangers in the last 12
months was 4.2 per cent or 316,700 men, which is a higher rate than by known male
perpetrators (1.9 per cent or 141,000 men), known female perpetrators (0.9 per cent or
66,500 men) or female strangers (0.2 per cent or 13,000 men - estimate has a relative
standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution).
To summarise, the points made above by Dr Flood show that women were indeed more likely
than men to be physically assaulted by persons known to them than by strangers during the last
12 months. They also show that men were more likely than women to be physically assaulted by
strangers than by persons known to them during the last 12 months. However, it is also true that
men and women were equally likely to be physically assaulted by persons known to them during
the last 12 months.
keep ln mlnd LhaL Lhese A8S gures glve us only a parual ldea of pauerns of vlolence ln AusLralla.
Whlle Lhe gures above Lell us how many women and men experlenced aL leasL one physlcally
aggresslve acL ln Lhe lasL year, and who perpeLraLed Lhls, Lhey do noL Lell us abouL Lhe hlsLory,
conLexL, meanlng, or lmpacL of Lhese acLs. ln oLher words, Lhls daLa provldes only a llmlLed basls
on whlch Lo compare men's and women's experlences of vlolence.
Absolutely - we agree completely on this point.
Men's PealLh AusLralla would be on safer ground lf Lhey noLed LhaL among oll men and women ln
AusLralla, roughly slmllar numbers experlenced physlcal assaulL ln Lhe lasL year by someone
known Lo Lhem. ln Lhe mosL recenL lncldenL of physlcal assaulL, a LoLal of 168,700 males and
146,100 females experlenced assaulL by someone known Lo Lhem (A8S 2006: 30). erhaps Lhls ls
whaL Men's PealLh AusLralla meanL ln sLaung LhaL 'men and women are equally llkely Lo be
physlcally assaulLed by persons known Lo Lhem'.
This paragraph is heading in the right direction but is still contains errors - please refer to our
above critique.
Powever, for male vlcums of assaulL, 'persons known Lo Lhem' largely comprlse men Lhey know
and male famlly members or frlends. Men's PealLh AusLralla falls Lo acknowledge LhaL when men
are assaulLed by someone Lhey know, Lhls ls mosL llkely Lo be a male acqualnLance.
This is correct, however a signicant minority of known perpetrators (one third) are women. We
did not acknowledge this, because the gender of the perpetrator is irrelevant. We have never
claimed that persons known to them largely comprise women. We are not sure what point Dr
Flood is making here. Is he arguing that because male victims of assault are more likely to be
assaulted by men they know than by women they know, that the impact of the assault is
somehow less, or that they are somehow less deserving of services and support, or anti-
violence campaigns?
As 1able 2 documenLs, among men assaulLed by someone Lhey know who was oLher Lhan a
parLner or ex-parLner, ln 142,100 of Lhe mosL recenL lncldenLs Lhls lnvolved a male acqualnLance
Page 7 of 25
(summlng Lhe gures for male famlly members or frlends and male oLher known persons), whlle
ln 43,300 of Lhe mosL recenL lncldenLs lL lnvolved a female acqualnLance
2
.
1he daLa from Lhe SS also show clearly LhaL boLh men and women are mosL aL rlsk of physlcal
vlolence from men. Among male vlcums of physlcal assaulL ln Lhe lasL 12 monLhs, ve umes as
many were assaulLed by males as by females, and 20 umes as many were assaulLed by non-
parLner males or females Lhan by female parLners and ex-parLners (A8S 2006: 30). Among Lhe
males who were physlcally assaulLed ln Lhe lasL 12 monLhs and suered physlcal ln[ury (abouL
half of Lhem), 86 per cenL were ln[ured by mole perpeLraLors
3
.
Page 8 of 25
2
"# $%&%'()% )*%+% ,$-'%+. +-/ )*% ,$-'%+ 0#' 0(/123 /%/4%'+ #' 0'1%&5+ (&5 #)*%' 6&#7& 8%'+#&+9 :#' /(2%
;1<=/+. )*% ,$-'%+ 0#' /(2% (<>-(1&)(&<%+ ('% ?@.?AA 82-+ BC.DAA (&5 )*% ,$-'%+ 0#' 0%/(2% (<>-(1&)(&<%+ ('%
CE.AAA 82-+ B.CAA9
3
"*1+ 1+ <(2<-2()%5 0'#/ "(42% FG. 89 CA9 "*1+ )(42% 5#%+ &#) 8'#;15% 5%)(12 '%$('51&$ 7*%)*%' 8%'8%)'()#'+ 7%'%
+)'(&$%'+. 0(/123 /%/4%'+. 8(')&%'+. %)<
Once again, we are not sure what point Dr Flood is making here. Mens Health Australia has
never claimed that either men or women are most at risk of violence from women.
The point we were making was simply this: by claiming that in contrast to mens experience of
violence, male violence against women generally takes place within family and other
relationships, the White Ribbon Campaign potentially misled its Ambassadors into incorrectly
believing that men are less likely than women to experience violence within family and other
relationships. Whether this violence is perpetrated by males or by females is irrelevant.
"1here has yet to be any work done on the |mpact of v|o|ence on men's overa|| hea|th, |.e. |ts
contr|bunon to the burden of d|sease. We, therefore, don't yet know the |mpact of men's
v|o|ence aga|nst men from a pub||c hea|th po|nt of v|ew."
The contribution of violence to the burden of disease in both men and women has been
studied for many years. The most recent data from the Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare found that homicide and violence contributed 6,535 disability-adjusted life years
(DALYs) in male victims, and 2,686 DALYs in female victims (Begg et al 2007: 222).
1hat ||u|e |s known about the contr|bunon of v|o|ence to men's overa|| hea|th.
1hls ls correcL. vlcPealLh's sLudy of Lhe burden of dlsease among vlcLorlan women lmposed by
lnumaLe parLner vlolence remalns one of Lhe mosL slgnlcanL AusLrallan sLudles on Lhe burden of
dlsease generaLed by vlolence. We know less abouL Lhe conLrlbuuon of vlolence Lo men's overall
healLh.
We probably know less about the contribution of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) to mens health
than we do about the contribution of IPV to womens health, because historically almost no
attention has been paid to this issue by governments, researchers and NGOs (despite the fact
that at least one in three victims of family violence and abuse are male). However, we do know a
great deal about the contribution of [all] violence to mens overall health. The Australian Institute
of Health and Welfare has been studying the burden of disease and injury in Australia since
1999, including the impacts of violence upon the health and wellbeing of both men and women.
The World Health Organisation has been doing similar work on an international level.
Men's PealLh AusLralla noLes LhaL one sLudy suggesLs LhaL Lhe conLrlbuuon of vlolence Lo Lhe
burden of dlsease ln men ls over Lwo umes as hlgh as LhaL ln women.
The study we cited is just one of many. Every single study of the burden of disease, whether by
the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare or the World Health Organisation consistently nds
that the contribution of violence to the burden of disease in men is many times higher than that
in women (see for example World Health Organisation 2008).
?es, vlolence lmposes a very serlous cosL Lo men's healLh and wellbelng, as a vlslL Lo any hosplLal
emergency ward on a lrlday nlghL wlll auesL.
1he burden of dlsease among men generaLed by vlolence ls generaLed above all by vlolence by
otbet meo.
We have never argued otherwise. If the rationale behind the many violence against women
campaigns and policies by government and NGOs is to try to reduce violence against women
because of the disastrous impacts on their health and wellbeing; why then are there no violence
against men campaigns or policies if the contribution of violence to the burden of disease in
men is many times higher than it is in women. We dont stop caring about violence in Aboriginal
communities because the burden of disease among Aboriginals generated by violence is
generated above all by violence by other Aboriginals. We dont stop caring about IPV in lesbian
Page 9 of 25
relationships because the burden of disease among lesbians generated by IPV is generated
above all by violence by other lesbians. Who cares whether the violence is perpetrated by men
or by women: the health impacts are what counts.
Men's PealLh AusLralla consplcuously lgnores Lhe ways ln whlch men's healLh ls lmpacLed upon
by oLher men's vlolence.
1o Lhe exLenL LhaL Men's PealLh AusLralla's own webslLe addresses Lhe lssue of vlolence agalnsL
men, lL shows a perslsLenL focus on vlolence agalnsL men by womeo. 1hls ls remarkable glven Lhe
facL LhaL men are overwhelmlngly aL rlsk of vlolence from oLher men.
Men's PealLh AusLralla also neglecLs domesuc vlolence agalnsL men by male parLners, LhaL ls, ln
gay male relauonshlps, and Lhe sexual abuse of boys, agaln a form of vlolence perpeLraLed largely
by adulL men raLher Lhan women.)
The above three paragraphs form an irrelevant and inaccurate ad hominem attack not an
argument and as such there is no need to respond to them. However, to set the record
straight, we have argued and lobbied for many years for the introduction of campaigns and
policies to reduce violence against men (by all perpetrators - male and female) most recently at
the Australian Institute of Criminologys Meeting the Needs of Victims of Crime conference.
The reason why the Mens Health Australia website maintains a focus on violence against men
by women is that the mainstream press regularly reports on violence against men by men, and
violence against women by men, but conspicuously ignores violence against men by women. It
also regularly erroneously conates domestic violence with violence against women (much
violence against women is not domestic violence and much domestic violence is not violence
against women). We offer this focus to redress the imbalance in the media, not to downplay or
diminish violence against men by other men in any way whatsoever. As you will see from our
website, one of our key aims is to critique, analyse and, when appropriate, challenge mass
media statements and commentary and other forms of institutional, academic and government
literature and media that:
depict men or boys or masculinity in an unfair, negative or disparaging way
are misleading, inaccurate, or prejudicial towards men and boys
detract from a general positive afrmation of men, boys, and masculinity
undermine the endeavour to approach men and boys health and issues in an intelligent,
respectful, positive, equitable and constructive way.
We have always spoken of the need for services to support gay male victims of domestic
violence again, recently at the Meeting the Needs of Victims of Crime conference. Likewise our
website contains many articles on the sexual abuse of boys (the site has recently been
overhauled, so visitors would be best to use the search box to nd articles, rather than the
Topics and Issues listing which is as yet incomplete).
"[v|o|ence aga|nst women] |s |nternanona||y recogn|sed as a s|gn|hcant soc|a| prob|em
wor|dw|de and |n Austra||a - w|th one |n three women exper|enc|ng v|o|ence |n her ||fenme."
Violence is internationally recognised as a signicant social problem worldwide and in
Australia with two in ve women, and one in two men experiencing violence in their
lifetimes (ABS 2006: 17).
V|o|ence aga|nst women |s |nternanona||y recogn|sed as a s|gn|hcant soc|a| prob|em.
Page 10 of 25
Men's PealLh AusLralla responds LhaL vlolence agalnsL women ooJ men ls recognlsed as a serlous
soclal problem. ?es, boLh forms of vlolence are serlous and wldespread, and boLh deserve urgenL
acuon. 1he WhlLe 8lbbon Campalgn focuses on vlolence agalnsL women, whlle acknowledglng
LhaL men Loo are Lhe vlcums of vlolence and LhaL someumes women are Lhe perpeLraLors of
vlolence.
We agree on this point. Likewise, Mens Health Australia focuses on violence against men, while
acknowledging that women too are the victims of violence and that both men and women are
the perpetrators of violence. [Dr Flood has neglected here to acknowledge that the lifetime
estimates cited for women were incorrect].
Powever, Men's PealLh AusLralla seems Lo re[ecL any focus on vlolence oqolost womeo, as lf Lhls
somehow Lakes away from eorLs Lo address vlolence agalnsL men, and presumably agalnsL
chlldren. 1hls ls mlsgulded. LorLs Lo end vlolence agalnsL women are mouvaLed by Lhe
fundamenLal bellef LhaL no one, female or male, should have Lo llve wlLh vlolence.
Once again, this is an irrelevant and inaccurate ad hominem attack not an argument
nevertheless, to set the record straight, we have never rejected any focus on violence against
women. We have always taken great care to state that violence against women programs are
desperately needed (and in many cases are sorely lacking). We are however extremely
concerned that there are no violence against men programs in Australia, and few around the
world, when men are the group most impacted upon by violence.
"Canad|an research te||s us that women are three nmes more ||ke|y to be |n[ured, hve more
nmes ||ke|y to be hosp|ta||sed and hve nmes more ||ke|y to report fear|ng for the|r ||ves as a
resu|t of [|nnmate partner] v|o|ence"
These statistics are taken from an out-of-date Canadian survey (Statistics Canada 2003).
The latest edition of this survey, Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical
Prole (Statistics Canada 2009: 26), found that major assault was more common among
male victims of spousal violence than among female victims, with 23% and 13%,
respectively... One possible reason for this difference may be that male victims of spousal
violence were more likely to have had a weapon used against them (15% of male victims
versus 5% of female victims).
Dr Flood has not addressed this critique, yet the White Ribbon Ambassadors and presumably
the rural and regional populations they have visited remain potentially misled by it some 2 1/2
years since its circulation.
"What makes V|o|ence aga|nst Women d|erent?. V|o|ence aga|nst women |s most ohen
susta|ned, based on ma|nta|n|ng power and contro| and contextua||sed by psycho|og|ca| and
emonona| abuse."
The recent Australian Intimate Partner Abuse of Men study found that all these
characteristics applied equally to male victims (Tilbrook et al 2010).
V|o|ence aga|nst women |nvo|ves eorts to ma|nta|n power and contro| and |s character|sed by
not on|y phys|ca| but a|so psycho|og|ca| and emonona| abuse.
Men's PealLh AusLralla responds LhaL lnumaLe parLner vlolence agalnsL men lnvolves Lhe same
characLerlsucs. 1here ls no doubL LhaL some men experlence Lhe classlc slLuauon of domesuc
vlolence, whaL researchers lncreaslngly call 'lnumaLe Lerrorlsm' or 'coerclve conLrol'. ln such
slLuauons, Lhe vlcum ls sub[ecLed Lo a varleLy of vlolenL and conLrolllng behavlours by an abuslve
parLner. ln Lhese slLuauons, Lhe vlolence Lends Lo be more severe, one-slded, Lo escalaLe over
Page 11 of 25
ume, and ln[urles are more llkely. Men may be sub[ecLed Lo such vlolence from female or male
parLners (llood 2006).
We couldnt agree more. However, the statement sent to the White Ribbon Ambassadors asked
What makes Violence against Women different? [our emphasis] implying that men dont
experience intimate terrorism or coercive control. Also, the White Ribbon statement didnt
explain that it was talking [only] about intimate terrorism or coercive control, or even [only]
about domestic violence it appeared to be talking about the entire spectrum of violence.
AL Lhe same ume, lL ls also clear LhaL women are far more llkely Lhan men Lo llve wlLh lnumaLe
Lerrorlsm from an oLher-sex parLner. When women are sub[ecLed Lo domesuc vlolence by a male
parLner, Lhey are more llkely Lhan men sub[ecLed Lo vlolence by a female parLner Lo llve ln fear, Lo
be ln[ured, and Lo suer negauve psychologlcal consequences (llood 2006).
AusLrallan and lnLernauonal research nds LhaL when men are sub[ecL Lo domesuc vlolence by
women, Lhe vlolence ls noL as prolonged and nor ls lL as exLreme, Lhey are far less llkely Lo be
ln[ured, and Lhey are less llkely Lo fear for Lhelr own safeLy Lhan when women are sub[ecL Lo
domesuc vlolence by men. ln addluon, men sub[ecLed Lo domesuc vlolence by women rarely
experlence posL-separauon vlolence and have more nanclal and soclal lndependence.
Rather than address these points here, I would refer to One in Three Campaign Fact Sheets No.
1 to 5 (attached to this paper as an Appendix) which address these issues in detail.
WheLher female or male, and wheLher sub[ecLed Lo vlolence by men or women, vlcums of
lnumaLe parLner vlolence deserve sympaLhy, supporL, and servlces. 1hls should go wlLhouL
saylng.
We agree completely with this point.
AL Lhe same ume, we slmply do noL have Lo assume LhaL men are a subsLanual proporuon of
vlcums of lnumaLe parLner vlolence ln order Lo recognlse and respond Lo male vlcumlsauon.
True, we dont. However, the facts are that men do make up a substantial proportion of victims
of family and domestic violence and abuse. And until now, there have been hardly any efforts by
governments to recognise and respond to male victimisation, based entirely on the premise that
in the overwhelming majority of cases [domestic violence] is perpetrated by men against
women and children.
Again: we simply do not have to downplay or diminish male victims of violence in order to
highlight the tragedy of female victims of violence. The horric statistics about violence against
women speak for themselves. The Australian Government has a responsibility to care for both
male and female victims of violence - caring for one gender should not mean neglecting the
other.
"Innmate artner V|o|ence |s the |ead|ng contr|butor to death and d|sab|||ty among women
aged 1S to 44."
Intimate partner violence is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in
Victorian women aged 1544. The omission of the word illness here is critical. The source
study found that deaths from intimate partner violence (femicide and suicide) made up
2.3% and 12.9% of the disease burden respectively; physical injuries just 0.7%; substance
abuse (tobacco, alcohol and drug use) 10.2%; sexually transmitted infections and cervical
cancer 2.2%; and poor mental health (depression, anxiety and eating disorders) 71.8%
Page 12 of 25
(Vos et al 2006, page 742). i.e. The vast majority of the contribution to the burden of
disease in young Victorian women from intimate partner violence is from illness.
the rural and regional populations they have visited remain potentially misled by it some 2 1/2
"1here |s no ev|dence that ma|e v|cnms are more ||ke|y to under-report [domesnc v|o|ence]
than fema|e v|cnms"
The large-scale South Australian Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Survey found that
females (22.0%) were more likely to report the [domestic violence] incident(s) to the
police than males (7.5%) (Dal Grande et al 2001: 10). Likewise The 2004 [Canadian]
General Social Survey (GSS) on victimisation found that fewer than 3 in 10 (28%) victims of
spousal violence reported the abuse to the police (36% of female victims and 17% of male
victims) (Statistics Canada 2009: 24). Also, the 2008-09 Scottish Crime and Justice
Survey: Partner Abuse found that Men were signicantly more likely not to have told
anyone about the abuse they suffered in the last 12 months (40% compared with 21% of
women) and Around one in ve (21%) who experienced partner abuse in the last 12
months said the police did come to know about the most recent / only incident. Again, this
gure was signicantly higher among women (35% compared with eight per cent of
men) (Macleod et al 2009: 29-30).
1hat there |s no ev|dence that ma|e v|cnms are more ||ke|y to under-report the domesnc
v|o|ence they exper|ence than fema|e v|cnms.
1he WhlLe 8lbbon Campalgn's lnformauon sheeL for WhlLe 8lbbon Ambassadors noLes LhaL boLh
women ooJ men are llkely Lo under-reporL Lhelr sub[ecuon Lo domesuc vlolence, because of
soclal sugma and oLher facLors. 1he lnformauon sheeL goes on Lo sLaLe LhaL Lhere ls no evldence
LhaL male vlcums are more llkely Lo under-reporL Lhan female vlcums". 1hls could be worded Lo
sLaLe LhaL Lhere ls Jebote regardlng wheLher male vlcums are more llkely Lhan female vlcums Lo
under-reporL Lhelr vlolence.
Men's PealLh AusLralla llsL several sLudles ln whlch lower proporuons of men Lhan women who
had experlenced physlcal aggresslon by a parLner reporLed Lhls Lo pollce. 1he gures ln Lhese
sLudles do supporL Lhe clalm LhaL male vlcums are more llkely Lo under-reporL Lhan female
vlcums. Powever, oLher sLudles suggesL LhaL men Lend Lo over-esumaLe Lhelr parLner's vlolence
and under-esumaLe Lhelr own, whlle women do Lhe reverse (klmmel 2002).
The controversial point (see One in Three Fact Sheet No. 4 for evidence countering it) that men
tend to over!estimate their partners violence and under!estimate their own, while women do the
reverse is a completely different issue entirely. The White Ribbon information sheet for their
Ambassadors talks about mens and womens reluctance to report their victimisation for a
number of reasons. It is not talking about mens and womens estimation of their own and their
partners violence levels when responding to research questions.
1hus, Lhere ls debaLe regardlng Lhls lssue, raLher Lhan a denluve posluon elLher way.
Dr Flood hasnt provided any evidence of such debate (see analysis below). As such we
continue to argue that the evidence shows male victims are much more likely than female
victims to under!report their victimisation to the police and other authorities.
Page 13 of 25
A fundamenLal llmlLauon here ls LhaL Lhere has been llule research whlch examlnes women's and
men's reporung of domesuc vlolence Lo pollce as parL of a subsLanual examlnauon of Lhls
vlolence lLself. We know llule abouL wheLher Lhe facLors shaplng under-reporung are slmllar or
dlerenL for women and men, and how reporung behavlour may be shaped by characLerlsucs of
Lhe vlolence lLself, such as lLs severlLy and Lhe levels of fear and ln[ury lL produces.
This is quite true (as far as we are aware). More research is denitely needed.
ln Lhe sLudles clLed by Men's PealLh AusLralla, lower proporuons of men Lhan women reporL Lo
pollce Lhe physlcal aggresslon Lhey have experlenced. lL ls posslble LhaL men ln Lhese sLudles
were less llkely Lhan women Lo reporL Lhese lncldenLs because Lhey dld noL see Lhem as setloos
or tbteoteoloq.
Yes, it is possible, however this is complete conjecture as there is no evidence that we are aware
of to support this claim from within the studies themselves. In fact, in the South Australian study
(Dal Grande et al 2001), respondents who did not leave their partner as the result of the violence
were asked their reasons for staying in the abusive relationship. 28 per cent of males and 20.8
per cent of females answered violence not serious enough slightly higher for males but not
signicantly so (page 144). Respondents who had left or stayed apart because of the violence
and abuse were asked their reasons for leaving. 50 per cent of males and 64.1 per cent of
females answered continuation of violence/abuse once again slightly higher for females but
not signicantly so (page 140).
In the Scottish survey (Macleod et al 2009), respondents were asked their reasons for not
informing the police about the violence. Unfortunately there is no gender breakdown of these
gures, but 26 per cent said it was a private, personal or family matter; 25 per cent said they did
not report it because they dealt with the matter themselves; 23 per cent felt it was too trivial / not
worth reporting; and fewer than one in ten mentioned a range of other reasons including the
police not being interested (9 per cent), it being too much trouble (7 per cent), being frightened
of making matters worse and because the police could have done nothing about it (both 5 per
cent).
If we are going to hypothesise without direct evidence, it is also possible that the men in these
studies were less likely than women to report these incidents because of well-documented
factors (for example, Tilbrook et al 2010) such as:
Not knowing where to seek help
Not knowing how to seek help
Feeling there is nowhere to escape to
Feeling that they will not be believed or understood if they report, or that their experiences will
be minimised
Feeling that they will be blamed for the abuse
Feeling that services would be unable to offer appropriate male-friendly help
Feeling they might be falsely arrest because of their gender (and their children would be left
unprotected from the perpetrator)
Feeling ashamed or embarrassed to be a male victim of domestic violence
The social stigma of being a male victim of domestic violence
Feeling less of a man because they have been unable to protect themselves
Feeling less of a man because of the loss of independence involved in seeking help
Page 14 of 25
Fearing being laughed at or ridiculed
Feeling weak or wimpy
Being in disbelief, or denial that they are a victim of domestic violence, or making excuses for
it.
There is also evidence that male and female victims of domestic violence in Australia are likely to
suffer similar injuries, providing evidence that men might indeed see attacks on them as serious
or threatening. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (People, 2005) found that
between 1997 and 2004, 28.9 per cent (almost one in three) victims of domestic assault in NSW
were male. Men and women suffered similar percentages of injuries and similar injury types as
illustrated below.
lor example, ln a 8rlush sLudy among heLerosexual couples, Lhe researchers rsL used Lhe
ConlcL 1acucs Scale (a popular, alLhough conLroverslal, measure of vlolenL 'acLs' ln relauonshlps)
Lo measure men's and women's experlences of domesuc vlolence. 1hls found, as mosL C1S
Page 15 of 25
sLudles do, LhaL slmllar proporuons of men and women had experlenced aL leasL some physlcal
aggresslon by a parLner ln Lhe lasL year. Powever, Lhe researchers wenL on Lo lnLervlew Lhe men
and women abouL Lhelr experlences. ln dolng Lhls, Lhey found powerful conLrasLs beLween men's
and women's experlences. 1he women sub[ecLed Lo vlolence by Lhelr male parLners felL
frlghLened, helpless, and Lrapped. Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhe men sub[ecLed Lo vlolence by Lhelr
female parLners were 'noL boLhered', saw lL as lnslgnlcanL or ludlcrous or even admlrable, and
saw lLs lmpacL as largely lnconsequenual (uobash and uobash 2004).
This claim is outrageous. The Dobash and Dobash sample was of convicted male perpetrators
and their female victims (p. 334). This in no way can be used to draw conclusions such as these
about the general population. It is like comparing male members of Mensa (the high IQ society)
with women from the supermarket and saying it proves men are more intelligent! It also cannot
be used as evidence of problems with the use of the CTS in general populations.
CLher sLudles ldenufy slmllar pauerns (8elknap and MelLon 2003).
We have read the Belknap and Melton paper but could not nd any evidence of studies where
CTS data was gender equal, but where interviews revealed stark gender differences between
men and womens experiences.
1hus, lf men are more llkely Lhan women Lo noL go Lo Lhe pollce when Lhey have experlenced
vlolence by a parLner, lL may be because Lhls vlolence ls less severe, less LhreaLenlng, and even
mlnor or Lrlvlal.
We have addressed this point above. And in any case, this point doesnt challenge the fact that
men are more likely than women to not go to the police when they have experienced violence by
a partner: it just gives some possible reasons for it.
Cf course, oll vlolence ln relauonshlps ls unaccepLable, regardless of who perpeLraLes lL. Women
and men have Lhe rlghL Lo llve free of vlolence ln Lhelr relauonshlps and famllles.
We agree wholeheartedly with this point. Regretfully rights have yet to translate into services in
Australia. Just this week we received the following email from a male survivor of domestic
violence:
I have just managed to take out a domestic violence order against my ex-girlfriend. It has
been a horric experience. I was told at the courthouse in Beenleigh QLD that they would
not help me ll out the application because I am a man and they are only funded to help
woman. The blatant discrimination is atrocious.
"1h|s type of v|o|ence [v|o|ence aga|nst women] has |ts roots |n the |nequa||nes of power and
contro| re|ated to our gender ro|es"
We are concerned that the above claim is unreferenced. The document suggests that all
statistics are drawn from the ABS Personal Safety Survey 2005, unless noted otherwise,
but this claim does not appear to be contained in the Survey.
See below for Dr Floods response.
"1he common cause of men's v|o|ence aga|nst both men and women |s |n the way we current|y
express mascu||n|ty - r|g|d mascu||ne norms promote and excuse aggress|on and th|s has the
potenna| to damage and ||m|t both young men and women."
Page 16 of 25
1hat men's v|o|ence aga|nst women |s based |n gender |nequa||nes and r|g|d gender norms.
1hls ls correcL. 1he sLaLemenL by Men's PealLh AusLralla complalns LhaL Lhls and slmllar
sLaLemenLs are unreferenced. 1he WhlLe 8lbbon documenL ls an lnformauon sheeL for WhlLe
8lbbon Ambassadors, noL an academlc publlcauon for a scholarly audlence. neverLheless, Lhere
ls abundanL evldence LhaL men's vlolence agalnsL women lndeed ls based ln gender lnequallues
and rlgld gender norms.
ConLemporary scholarshlp on men's vlolence agalnsL women Lakes as glven LhaL Lhls vlolence ls
shaped by a varleLy of facLors whlch operaLe aL personal, slLuauonal, lnsuLuuonal, and soclal
levels.
Why werent these variety of factors cited in the White Ribbon document? Why only cite
gender inequalities and gender norms while omitting all other factors? Why misinform the White
Ribbon Ambassadors by omission? It cannot be expected that White Ribbon Ambassadors
high prole men from the community at large are versed in contemporary scholarship on mens
violence against women.
AL Lhe same ume, lL ls well documenLed LhaL gender lnequallues and gender norms are lnuenual
deLermlnanLs of vlolence agalnsL women. 1hls ls Lrue aL Lhe level of relauonshlps and famllles, ln
local conLexLs and communlues, and ln socleues as a whole (Pelse 1998).
We have never argued that gender inequalities and gender norms are not inuential
determinants of violence. We would, however, argue that they should always be cited alongside
all other signicant determinants so as not to mislead the uninformed reader. We would refer
once again to One in Three Campaign Fact Sheet No.4 where referenced evidence is provided
that:
Dominance by either partner is a risk factor for IPV (both minor & severe). It is the injustices
and power struggles that are associated with inequality in relationships that give rise to
violence, not just the inequality of male dominance
Empirical research on American couples has found that the vast majority of relationships
involve equal power between partners. Relationships in which one partner is dominant are in
the minority, and are just as likely to be female-dominant as male-dominant
Egalitarian couples are the least violent, while both male and female dominance are associated
with increased IPV
Both husbands and wives who are controlling are more likely to produce injury and engage in
repeated violence
Coercion (control and domination) is a frequently cited reason by women for their own use of
IPV, and by male victims for their partners use of IPV
Even in research samples selected for high rates of male aggression (such as shelter samples),
women sometimes report using comparative frequencies of controlling behaviour.
1hls lnslghL also ls endorsed by lnuenual pollcy documenLs and prevenuon frameworks ln
AusLralla lncludlng:
-
vlcPealLh's prevenuon framework lteveouoq vloleoce 8efote lt Occots (2007),
Page 17 of 25
-
1lme lot Acuoo. 1be Nouoool coooclls lloo fot Aosttollo to keJoce vloleoce oqolost womeo
ooJ tbelt cbllJteo 2009-2021 (2009),
-
A klqbt to kespect. vlctotlos lloo to lteveot vloleoce oqolost womeo 2010- 2020 (2009),
1hls lnslghL also ls endorsed by key lnLernauonal documenLs such as:
-
World PealLh Crganlzauon. (2004). lteveouoq vloleoce. A qolJe to lmplemeouoq tbe
tecommeoJouoos of tbe wotlJ tepott oo vloleoce ooJ beoltb. Ceneva: World PealLh
Crganlzauon.
-
World PealLh Crganlzauon. (2009). vloleoce lteveouoo. 1be evlJeoce. Ceneva: World PealLh
Crganlzauon (Seven brlengs).
lor example, ln a recenL revlew of Lhe evldence regardlng vlolence prevenuon, Lhe WPC noLes
LhaL romoung gender equallLy ls a crlucal parL of vlolence prevenuon. gender lnequallues
lncrease Lhe rlsk of vlolence by men agalnsL women and lnhlblL Lhe ablllLy of Lhose aecLed Lo
seek proLecuon."
Once again, Mens Health Australia has never argued that gender inequalities and gender norms
are not inuential determinants of violence. We would, however, argue that they should always
be cited alongside all other signicant determinants so as not to mislead the uninformed reader.
For example, page 4 of Preventing Violence: A guide to implementing the recommendations of
the World report on violence and health (cited above by Dr Flood) provides a wonderful
ecological model showing shared risk factors for sub-types of interpersonal violence, of which
gender inequality and cultural norms that support violence are just two factors:
Page 18 of 25
"8ecause th|s v|o|ence [v|o|ence |n the home] |s part of a pauern of abuse, |t can |eave some
women and g|r|s vu|nerab|e to re-v|cnm|sanon."
the rural and regional populations they have visited potentially remain misled by it some 2 1/2
Cther cr|nc|sms
Men's PealLh AusLralla asserLs LhaL 1hls ls noL Lhe rsL ume Lhe WhlLe 8lbbon loundauon has
been caughL uslng lncorrecL and mlsleadlng sLausucs." 1hls ls an absurd and hosule exaggerauon
of a mlnor error ln an earller reporL whlch was qulckly correcLed.
We apologise if the inclusion of this error was interpreted as hostile. We merely wished to point
out that errors and omissions (however innocent and unintended) appear to be regularly made
by Dr Flood and the White Ribbon Foundation when it comes to facts and statistics about
violence as this document once again demonstrates.
1he WhlLe 8lbbon loundauon's reporL Ao Assoolt oo Oot lotote (2008) conLalned a small error
regardlng one aspecL of young people's amLudes Lowards vlolence. AL one polnL, Lhe reporL
sLaLed LhaL 31 of young men agreed LhaL 'when a guy hlLs a glrl lL's noL really a blg deal', buL
here 'guy' and 'glrl' had been Lransposed (nauonal Crlme revenuon 2001: 63). unforLunaLely,
Lhls mlsLaken sLausuc was hlghllghLed ln a medla release (noL wrluen by Lhe reporLs' auLhors)
and Lhus compounded ln medla coverage. 1he error was correcLed as soon as lL was known and
Lhe reporL was re-released.
The media release was however written and issued by the White Ribbon Foundation even if the
authors differed from those of the report, so our criticism still stands. Although the error was
corrected as soon as it was known and the report was re!released, the misleading media
headlines such as the following three examples cant be taken back from the public
consciousness and in most cases have not been corrected on the web:
It's OK to Hit Girls and Rape Flirts - Survey Findings
Boys Thinking It's OK to Hit Girls Demands Ongoing Community Education
One in every three boys believes it is acceptable to hit girls.

1hls mlnor error dld noL Lake away from Lhe maln message of Lhe reporL: LhaL young people are
exposed Lo vlolence ln Lhelr famllles and relauonshlps aL dlsLurblngly hlgh levels, LhaL Lhls
vlolence has profound and long-lasung eecLs, LhaL vlolence ls susLalned ln parL by some young
people's vlolence-supporuve amLudes, LhaL young males have more vlolence-supporuve
amLudes Lhan young females, and LhaL prevenuon eorLs can sLop Lhls vlolence from occurrlng
and conunulng (llood and lergus 2008). 1he full reporL ls avallable here: hup://
www.whlLerlbbon.org.au/uploads/medla/AssaulLonourluLurellnal.pdf.
The main message of the report was not about young people being exposed to violence in their
families and relationships at disturbingly high levels: it was about young women being so
exposed. Young men and boys victimisation levels are conspicuously absent from the report
(see our critique below).
Page 19 of 25
lndlvlduals assoclaLed wlLh Men's PealLh AusLralla and Lhe 'Cne ln 1hree' webslLe spenL
conslderable energles ln 2008-09 hlghllghung one mlsLaken sLausuc ln Lhe orlglnal reporL. 1hey
were sllenL regardlng Lhe oLher, very conslderable evldence ln Lhe reporL regardlng Lhe facL LhaL
young males have more vlolence-supporuve amLudes Lhan young females. lor example,
-
Cne ln Lhree boys (33) belleve LhaL 'mosL physlcal vlolence occurs ln daung because a parLner
provoked lL', compared Lo 23 of glrls (nC 2001: 63).
This statement does not talk about the acceptability or otherwise of violence, only the perceived
causes of it.
-
13 per cenL of males (buL only 4 of females) agree LhaL 'lL ls okay Lo puL pressure on a glrl Lo
have sex buL noL Lo physlcally force her' (nC 2001: 63).
-
Cver one ln elghL boys (12) belleve LhaL 'lL ls okay for a boy Lo make a glrl have sex, lf she's
lrLed wlLh hlm, or led hlm', compared Lo only 3 of glrls (nC 2001: 63)
4
.
-
7 of males (buL only 2 of females) agree LhaL 'lL's alrlghL for a guy Lo hlL hls glrlfrlend lf she
makes hlm look sLupld ln fronL of hls maLes' (nC 2001: 63).
Because these questions werent asked in the reverse (e.g. do you believe that it is okay for a
girl to make a boy have sex, if hes irted with her, or led her), we dont know what young
peoples tolerance is of specic types of female-to-male violence (only of violence in general
see below).
lndeed, ln hlghllghung Lhe mlsLaken sLausuc above, Men's PealLh AusLralla do noL acknowledge
LhaL ln facL Lhere ls greaLer Lolerance for females' vlolence agalnsL males among yoooq meo Lhan
young women. Close Lo one-Lhlrd (31) of boys and young men agreed LhaL 'when a glrl hlLs a
guy lL's noL really a blg deal', compared Lo 19 of females (nauonal Crlme revenuon 2001: 63).
1hls may reecL a more general Lolerance for vlolence espoused by young males.
We have never argued that young males do not have more violence!supportive attitudes than
young females (which is not surprising in a culture where men are raised to carry out all of the
pro-social violent roles such as front line military, police, security ofcers, etc, in order to protect
women, children, other men and property). However we nd such evidence far less important
than crucial evidence from the original Young People and Domestic Violence study (National
Crime Prevention 2001) such as the dot points listed below, which was completely ignored by
both Dr Floods report and the subsequent White Ribbon Foundation media release (and
therefore the published news stories in the media):
Considering physical violence only, nearly a third (31.2 per cent) of young people had
witnessed one of the following: a male carer being violent towards his female partner; a female
carer being violent to her male partner; or both carers being violent.
While 23 per cent of young people were aware of domestic violence against their mothers or
step-mothers by their fathers or step-fathers, an almost identical proportion (22 per cent) of
young people were aware of domestic violence against their fathers or step-fathers by their
mothers or step-mothers
Page 20 of 25
4
"*% )(42% #& 89 EG 8'#5-<%+ ( ,$-'% #0 FHI 0#' 4#3+. 4-) )*% +-//('3 )%J) #& 89 E? '%8#')+ )*1+ (+ F?I9
14.4 per cent of young people reported that this violence was perpetrated both by the male
against the female and the female against the male. 9.0 per cent reported that violence was
perpetrated against their mother by her male partner but that she was not violent towards him.
7.8 per cent reported that violence was perpetrated against their father by his female partner
but that he was not violent towards her.
Most reported parental violence seemed to be minor, in that no effects were reported by the
majority of child witnesses. Where outcomes were reported, the most likely outcome was the
separation of the parents. The most severe disruptions on all indicators occurred in those
households where both male to female and female to male violence was reported (i.e. two-way
couple violence). The 2nd most severe disruptions were caused by male to female violence,
and the 3rd most severe by female to male violence (the effects of male to female violence
were twice as severe as female to male violence measured by: the rate of relationship break
Page 21 of 25
up; hospitalisation; children missing school; children receiving counselling; and the rate at
which the young person/witness has told another about the incident).
Where young people had, or were experiencing parental domestic violence, a third of them
had not told anyone about it. This rate was higher amongst boys than girls and higher
amongst the 12 and 13 year olds than the mid or older teens.
Witnessing parental domestic violence had a signicant effect on young peoples attitudes and
experiences. Witnessing was also the strongest predictor of subsequent perpetration by young
people. The best predictor of perpetration was witnessing certain types of female to male
violence, whilst the best predictor of victimisation in personal relationships was having
witnessed male to female violence.
The last dot point above is crucial: if we want to break the cycle of violence we must work to
prevent female to male family and domestic violence in order that young people dont grow up
to perpetrate violence themselves in their adult relationships. We must also, of course, keep
working to prevent male to female family and domestic violence.
When the study examined the incidence of conict/violence within young peoples own
relationships, it found that many forms of conict/violence - including many at the severe end
of the spectrum - were experienced at similar rates by males and females (e.g. threw
something at you, kicked, bit or hit you, hit, or tried to hit you with something, beat you
up, threatened you with a knife or gun, used a knife or red a gun, and physically forced
you to have sex).
Page 22 of 25
Overall, an almost identical proportion of young females (16 per cent) and young males (15 per
cent) answered yes to the statement Ive experienced domestic violence.
Young people were more likely to say a woman is right to, or has good reason to, respond to a
situation by hitting (68 per cent), than a man in the same situation (49 per cent).
While males hitting females was seen, by virtually all young people surveyed, to be
unacceptable, it appeared to be quite acceptable for a girl to hit a boy.
Female to male violence was not only viewed light-heartedly, it was also seen as (virtually)
acceptable.
Greg Andresen
Researcher and Media Liaison
Mens Health Australia
30th March 2012
References cited by Mens Health Australia:
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011a). Customised report. Based on Australian Bureau of
Statistics data from Personal Safety Survey, Australia, 2005 (cat.no. 4906.0). Retrieved March
23, 2012 from http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/storage/les/PSS_Charts_v3.0.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011b). Customised report. Australian Bureau of Statistics
Personal Safety Survey, Australia, 2005 (cat.no. 4906.0). Retrieved March 30, 2012 from http://
www.menshealthaustralia.net/storage/les/PSS_2011.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Personal Safety Survey Australia: 2005 Reissue 4906.0.
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (Original work published August 10, 2006) Retrieved
September 21, 2009, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4906.02005
(Reissue)?OpenDocument
Begg, S., Vos, T., Barker, B., Stevenson, C., Stanley, L., & Lopez, A. D. (2007). The burden of
disease and injury in Australia 2003. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10317
Dal Grande, E., Woollacott, T., Taylor, A., Starr, G., Anastassiadis, K., Ben-Tovim, D., et al. (2001).
Interpersonal violence and abuse survey, september 1999 . Adelaide: Epidemiology Branch,
Dept. of Human Services. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.health.sa.gov.au/
pros/portals/0/interpersonal-violencesurvey.pdf
MacLeod, P., Kinver, A., Page, L., & Iliasov, A. (2009, December). 2008-09 Scottish Crime and
Justice Survey: Partner Abuse. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Retrieved January 15,
2010, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/296149/0092065.pdf
National Crime Prevention (2001). Young people and domestic violence : National research on
young people's attitudes to and experiences of domestic violence. Barton: Attorney-General's
Dept. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/
ncphome.nsf/Page/Publications
People, J. (2005). Trends and patterns in domestic violence assaults. Crime and Justice Bulletin,
89. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/
ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb89
Statistics Canada (2003). Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Prole 2003. Ottawa: Statistics
Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Ministry of Industry. Retrieved September 21,
2009, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2003000-eng.pdf
Page 23 of 25
Statistics Canada (2009, October). Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Prole 2009. Ottawa:
Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Ministry of Industry. Retrieved August
29, 2010, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2009000-eng.pdf
Tilbrook, E., Allan, A., & Dear, G. (2010, May 26). Intimate partner abuse of men. East Perth:
Men's Advisory Network. Retrieved May 26, 2010, from http://www.man.org.au/Portals/0/docs/
Intimate%20Partner%20Abuse%20of%20Men%20Report.pdf
Vos, T., Astbury, J., Piers, L. S., Magnus, A., Heenan, M., Stanley, L., et al. (2006). Measuring the
impact of intimate partner violence on the health of women in Victoria, Australia. Bulletin of the
World Health Organization, 84(9), 739-44. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://
www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/9/06-030411ab/en/index.html
World Health Organisation (2008, October). The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update.
Geneva: World Health Organisation. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.who.int/
evidence/bod
References cited by Dr Flood:
ABS (2006) Personal Safety Survey Australia. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics (Cat.
4906.0).
Belknap, J., and H. Melton. (2005). Are Heterosexual Men Also Victims of Intimate Partner
Abuse? VAWnet National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women, Applied Research
Forum, March. http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/les/Belknap,%20Are%20heterosexual
%20men%20also.pdf
Dobash, R. P., and R. E. Dobash. (2004). Womens Violence to Men in Intimate Relationships:
Working on a Puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, May, Vol. 44 Iss. 3, pp. 324!349. http://
www.xyonline.net/sites/default/les/Dobash,%20Women%27s%20vi olence.pdf
Flood, M. (2006). Violence Against Women and Men in Australia: What the Personal Safety
Survey can and cant tell us about domestic violence. Domestic Violence and Incest Resource
Centre Newsletter, Summer: 3!10. http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/les/Flood,%20Violence
%20against %20women%20PSS.pdf
Flood, M., and L. Fergus. (2008). An Assault on Our Future: The impact of violence on young
people and their relationships. Sydney: White Ribbon Foundation. http://
www.whiteribbonday.org.au/media/documents/AssaultonourFutureFinal.pdf
Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence Against Women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence
Against Women, 4(3), June, pp. 262!283.
Kimmel, M. S. (2002). Gender Symmetry in Domestic Violence: A Substantive and
Methodological Research Review. Violence Against Women, 8(11), November, pp. 132!163.
http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/les/Kimmel,%20Gender%20symmet ry%20in
%20dom.pdf
National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. (2009). Time For Action:
The National Councils Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children
20092021. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/
violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/default.aspx
National Crime Prevention. (2001). Young People & Domestic Violence: National research on
young peoples attitudes and experiences of domestic violence. Canberra: Crime Prevention
Branch, Commonwealth Attorney!Generals Department. http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/
agd/WWW/ncphome.nsf/Page/Publications
Page 24 of 25
Ofce of Womens Policy (2009). A Right to Respect: Victorias Plan to Prevent Violence against
Women 20102020. Melbourne: Ofce of Womens Policy, Department of Planning and
Community Development. http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/women/womens!safety/prevention!plan
VicHealth. (2007) Preventing Violence Before It Occurs: A framework and background paper to
guide the primary prevention of violence against women in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Health
Promotion Foundation (VicHealth). http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/Programs!and!Projects/
Freedom!fromviolence/Preventing!violence!before!it!occurs.aspx
World Health Organization. (2004). Preventing Violence: A guide to implementing the
recommendations of the World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health
Organization. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241592079.pdf
World Health Organization. (2009). Violence Prevention: The evidence. Geneva: World Health
Organization (Seven briengs). http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/
4th_milestones_meeting/publications/en/index.html
Page 25 of 25
Contrary to common beliefs, up to One in Three victims of
sexual assault and at least One in Three victims of family
violence is male (perhaps as many as one in two). When
reading the following quantitative statistics it should be remembered that
family violence is extremely complex and doesn't just boil down to who
does what to whom and how badly. The context of the violence and
abuse is extremely important. Abuse can occur without the use or threat
of physical violence. Please refer to oneinthree.com.au/faqs for a more
detailed and nuanced analysis of family violence and abuse.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey
(2006)
1
is the largest and most recent survey of violence in
Australia. It found that:
29.8% (almost one in three) victims of current partner
violence since the age of 15 were male
24.4% (almost one in four) victims of previous partner
violence since the age of 15 were male
29.4% (almost one in three) victims of sexual assault
during the last 12 months were male
26.1% (more than one in four) victims of sexual abuse
before the age of 15 were male
The SA Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Survey (1999)
3
found that:
32.3% (almost one in three) victims of reported domestic
violence by a current or ex-partner (including both
physical and emotional violence and abuse) were male
19.3% (almost one in ve) victims of attempted or actual
forced sexual activity since they turned 18 years of age
were male (excluding activity from partners or ex-
partners).
Both this survey and the Personal Safety Survey excluded the
male prison population where over one quarter of young
inmates experience sexual assault
7
.
The Crime Prevention Survey (2001)
10
surveyed young
people aged 12 to 20 and found that:
while 23% of young people were aware of domestic
violence against their mothers or step-mothers by their
fathers or step-fathers, an almost identical proportion
(22%) of young people were aware of domestic violence
against their fathers or step-fathers by their mothers or
step-mothers
an almost identical proportion of young females (16%) and
young males (15%) answered yes to the statement Ive
experienced domestic violence
an almost identical proportion of young females (6%) and
young males (5%) answered yes to the statement my
boyfriend/girlfriend physically forced me to have sex.
The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (2005)
11
found that 28.9% (almost one in three) victims of domestic
assault were male.
The Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission (2005)
2
found that 32.6% (almost one in three) victims of family
violence reported to police were male.
The Australian Institute of Criminology (2008)
4
found that
48.7% (almost one in two) adult victims of family homicide
and 35.4% (over one in three) victims of intimate partner
homicide in 2006-07 were male.
The Victorian Victims Support Agency (2008)
16
found that
31% (almost one in three) persons admitted to Victorian
Public Hospitals for family violence injuries were male.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (1999)
17
observed
that, post-separation, fairly similar proportions of men (55
per cent) and women (62 per cent) reported experiencing
physical violence including threats by their former spouse.
Emotional abuse was reported by 84 per cent of women and
75 per cent of men.
Fact Sheet No.1
Overview of recent family violence
research findings
F
a
c
t

S
h
e
e
t

N
o
.
1
:

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

r
e
c
e
n
t

f
a
m
i
l
y

v
i
o
l
e
n
c
e

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
n
e
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
.
c
o
m
.
a
u
She would kick me in the genital area,
she'd bite me on the shoulders and scratch my
face and neck. She'd threaten to kill herself if I
didn't give her the gambling money. Then shed
threaten to kill our son. In the middle of her
screaming fits she would tell me and my son
that I wasn't his father, even though we both
knew he was. She also threatened to have
someone bash me up.
Raymond
9
I thought of my options. Lock her out of the
house as she did to me? The cops would come
and take me away. Complain of domestic
violence? She was too pretty and dainty for that
to work. Leave? I could not abandon my kids. I
would rather have died, and thought of it. Fight
back? Somehow I couldn't see myself doing it. I
don't know if it was cowardice, chivalry or
intellect saying lay a finger on her even once
and all hell will break loose.
Alan
9
The next thing I knew there were two police
officers at the door. They saw the lump on my
head, the black eye, and the bleeding and I told
them what had happened. They said my wife
had made a complaint that I had assaulted her,
so they handcuffed me and put me in a
paddywagon. At the station the police said there
was a high degree of probability that I would
assault my wife again!
Michael
9
A University of Melbourne / La Trobe University study
(1999)
6
found that men were just as likely to report being
physically assaulted by their partners as women. Further,
women and men were about equally likely to admit being
violent themselves. Men and women also reported
experiencing about the same levels of pain and need for
medical attention resulting from domestic violence.
An extensive study of dominance and symmetry in partner
violence by male and female university students in 32 nations
by Murray Straus (2008)
14
found that, in Australia, 14 per
cent of physical violence between dating partners during the
previous 12 months was perpetrated by males only, 21 per
cent by females only and 64.9 per cent was mutual violence
(where both partners used violence against each other).
Fergusson & Mullen (1999)
5
, in Childhood sexual abuse: an
evidence based perspective, found that one in three victims
of childhood sexual abuse were male.
The Queensland Government Department of Communities
(2009)
12
reported that 40% of domestic and family violence
protection orders issued by the Magistrate Court were issued
to protect males.
A study of risk factors for recent domestic physical assault in
patients presenting to the emergency department of
Adelaide hospitals (2004)
15
found that 7% of male patients
and 10% of female patients had experienced domestic
physical assault. This nding shows that over one in three
victims were male (39.7%).
The Australian Institute of Family Studies evaluation of the
2006 family law reforms (2009)
8
found that 39% (more than
one in three) victims of physical hurt before separation were
male; and 48% (almost one in two) victims of emotional
abuse before or during separation were male.
These 14 authoritative sources agree that up to one in three
victims of sexual assault and at least one in three victims of
family violence is male (perhaps as many as one in two). Yet
the current government appears unable to acknowledge or
offer any services for these victims. This conscious neglect is
in itself a form of social violence the Australian
Governments human rights obligations require it to cater
equitably for the needs of all, regardless of gender. One in
three is enough to reject the politics of ideology. It is time to
care for all those in need, whether male or female.
To send a message to the Australian Government that all
victims of violence deserve services and support, go to
oneinthree.com.au/action.
REFERENCES
1 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Personal safety survey australia: 2005 reissue 4906.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (Original work published
August 10, 2006) Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4906.02005 (Reissue)?OpenDocument. Significant
problems with this survey include, (a) only female interviewers were used, (b) a much smaller sample of male informants was used compared to female informants, and
(c) no data was published on types of violence or injuries or threats received by male victims.
2 Crime and Misconduct Commission (2005, March). Policing domestic violence in queensland: Meeting the challenges. Brisbane: Crime and Misconduct Commission.
Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/73653001131400781353.pdf
3 Dal Grande, E., Woollacott, T., Taylor, A., Starr, G., Anastassiadis, K., Ben-Tovim, D., et al. (2001). Interpersonal violence and abuse survey, september 1999 . Adelaide:
Epidemiology Branch, Dept. of Human Services. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.health.sa.gov.au/pros/portals/0/interpersonal-violence-survey.pdf
4 Dearden, J., & Jones, W. (2008). Homicide in australia: 2006-07 national homicide monitoring program annual report. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/mr/1-20/01.aspx
5 Fergusson, D. M., & Mullen, P. E. (1999). Childhood sexual abuse: An evidence based perspective. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
6 Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in australia: Are women and men equally violent?. Australian Monitor, 2(3). Retrieved November 7,
2009, from http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13y.htm
7 Heilpern, D. (2005). Sexual assault of prisoners: Reflections. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 28(1), 286-292. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from http://
austlii.law.uts.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/2005/17.html
8 Kaspiew, R., Gray, M., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Hand, K., & Qu, L. (2009, December). Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms. Melbourne: Australian Institute of
Family Studies. Retrieved July 5, 2010, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fle/evaluationreport.pdf
9 Lewis, A. (2000). An enquiry into the adult male experience of heterosexual abuse. Unpublished M.A. thesis submitted to the University of Western Sydney, NSW.
10 National Crime Prevention (2001). Young people and domestic violence : National research on young people's attitudes to and experiences of domestic violence.
Barton: Attorney-General's Dept. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/ncphome.nsf/Page/Publications
11 People, J. (2005). Trends and patterns in domestic violence assaults. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 89. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://
www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb89
12 Queensland Government Department of Communities (2009, October 9). Domestic and family violence orders: Number and type of order by gender, queensland,
2004-05 to 2008-09. [Letter]. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/files/Magistrates_Court_data_on_QLD_DVOs.pdf
13 Sarantakos, S. (1998). Husband abuse as self-defence. [Paper]Montreal: International Congress of Sociology
14 Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30,
252-275. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41-PR41-Dominance-symmetry-In-Press-07.pdf
15 Stuart, P. (2004). Risk factors for recent domestic physical assault in patients presenting to the emergency department. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 16(3), 216-224.
16 Victims Support Agency (2008). Victorian family violence database (volume 3): Seven year trend analysis report. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of
Justice. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJ+Internet/Home/Crime/Research+and+Statistics/JUSTICE+-+Victorian
+Family+Violence+Database+-+Seven+Year+Report+-+PDF
17 Wolcott, I., & Hughes, J. (1999). Towards understanding the reasons for divorce. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Working Paper, 20. Retrieved November 1,
2009, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/wolcott6.html
o
n
e
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
.
c
o
m
.
a
u
F
a
c
t

S
h
e
e
t

N
o
.
1
:

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

r
e
c
e
n
t

f
a
m
i
l
y

v
i
o
l
e
n
c
e

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
Up until dad left, she held the reins in the
house. It was unbearable; her pedantic
scrutinies were like police interrogations. He
practically made the bloody money, he would
give her the lot and than beg for pocket money.
Everyone knew of her moods, and dad played
always by ear and we managed to get by with
little disruption on her part. But there were
times when it didn't work. Then... poor dad. I
had seen him walking naked in the back yard at
night all upset and embarrassed; and I had seen
him crawling under the bed to escape her
vicious attacks, and I have seen him nursing his
fresh wounds in the toilet, and he would say no
word against her... When he left mom, I was very
sad because I knew that I would miss him, but I
felt also happy, because I knew that he was a
decent man and that he deserved better.
(Son talking about his parents)
13
International studies show that, on average
Overall, women are injured more than men, but men are
injured too, and often seriously
2
The overall physical and psychological effects of IPV are
similar for men and women
1 2 5
Women and men who use IPV hurt their partners in
similar ways (kicking, biting, punching, choking, stabbing,
burning, etc), however men are as likely or signicantly
more likely than women to experience assaults using a
weapon
2 5 6
Male perpetrators are more likely to produce minor
injuries, but less likely to produce severe injuries
2
Male victims are more likely to suffer serious injuries, while
female victims are more likely to suffer minor injuries
1 2
Women are slightly more likely than men to seek medical
treatment for their injuries
2
Men and women bear similar intentions when using IPV,
leading to similar results when their average differences in
physical strength are taken into account (such as when
weapons are used)
3 7
Men, having greater strength on average, are more likely
to use direct physical violence, while women are more
likely to use a weapon to compensate for their lack of
strength
2
Women are more likely than men to retaliate to IPV
10
Reducing womens use of violence will reduce womens
rates of injury from violence because a womans
perpetration of IPV is the strongest predictor of her being
a victim
7 11 12
Children witnessing IPV by either their fathers or their
mothers are more likely to grow up to use violence
themselves
7
.
If men are injured less than women, is this a reason to
deny them protection?
Dont all victims of IPV deserve protection, not just those
who are physically injured?
Does only addressing the outcome of violence (physical
injury) distract from addressing the process of violence
which can include verbal, emotional, psychological,
nancial, and other forms of control and abuse?
Does a focus upon injury ignore the fact that people who
use IPV do so to control their partner, not necessarily to
injure them? In fact, control of ones partner is often
achieved without the use of violence.
Does a focus upon injury ignore the fact that victims of
IPV are often hurt more by the violation of the bond of
trust and love between them and their partner, than by the
physical injury itself ?
Does a focus upon injury in effect give a hitting license to
weaker partners, who may eventually be severely injured,
should their stronger partner retaliate (regardless of the
gender of the partners)?
Fact Sheet No.2
Is mens intimate partner violence (IPV)
more severe, and more likely to inflict
severe injury?
F
a
c
t

S
h
e
e
t

N
o
.
2
:

S
e
v
e
r
i
t
y
Is focusing on the severity of physical
injuries the best approach to reducing
violence?
REFERENCES
1 Dutton, D. G. (2010). The gender paradigm and the architecture of antiscience. Partner Abuse, 1(1), 5-25.
2 Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1the conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 10(6), 680-714.
3 Felson, R. B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence?. Contexts, 5(2), 21-25.
4 Felson, R. B., Ackerman, J., & Yeon, S. -J. (2003). The infrequency of family violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 622634. Cited in Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls,
T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1the conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680-714.
5 George, M. J., & Yarwood, D. J. (2004, October). Male domestic violence victims survey 2001. Ascot, UK: Dewar Research.
6 Hines, D. A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 63-72.
7 Kelly, L. (2002). Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: How women batter men and the role of the feminist state. Florida State University Law Review, 30, 791.
8 Pimlatt-Kubiak, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2003). Gender, victimization and outcomes: Reconceptualizing risk. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(3), 528
539. Cited in Dutton & Nicholls (2005).
9 Sarantakos, S. (2001). Domestic violence policies: Where did we go wrong?. Nuance, 3, 44-69.
10 Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1992). How violent are American families? In M. A. Straus, & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 95108).
New Brunswick, NJ7 Transaction Publishers. Cited in Dutton & Nicholls (2005).
11 Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal
and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. Am J Public Health, 97(5), 941-7.
12 While this may sound like victim-blaming, it is simply stating the research evidence finding that women who perpetrate violence suffer greater injuries than those
who do not. If a woman hits her partner who then hits her back and injures her, both people are responsible for their own use of violence. Perpetrating violence is a risk
factor for women's injury.
o
n
e
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
.
c
o
m
.
a
u
The authors concluded that their findings
argued against theories of greater female
vulnerability to pathological outcomes.
8
we also observe evidence that contradicts the
idea that violence by male partners tends to be
more serious
4
Concentrating on severe violence only
ignores the fact that the primary intent of
fighting spouses is not to injure their partner...
but to hurt... Their focus is on getting their way...
and making the partner comply with their
demands rather than on causing physical
injury.
9
Although it cannot be denied that there are cases in which
women and men abuse their partner in self-defence,
international studies have found that
Self-defence is cited by women as the reason for their use
of IPV (including severe violence such as homicide) in a
small minority of cases (from 5 to 20 per cent)
1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 12

In a study where self-defence was given as a reason for
womens use of IPV in a large number of cases (42%), it
was cited as a reason for mens IPV more often (56%)
12
Rather than self-defence, reasons commonly given by both
women and men for their use of IPV include
!
coercion (dominance and control)
!
anger
!
punishing a partners misbehaviour
!
jealousy
!
confusion
!
to get through (to ones partner)
!
to retaliate
!
frustration
6 7 8 9 12

Rather than self-defence, reasons commonly given by
women for their use of IPV include
!
disbelief that their male victims would be injured or
retaliate
!
they wished to engage their partners attention
(particularly emotionally)
!
their partner not being sensitive to their needs
!
their partner being verbally abusive to them
!
their partner not listening to them
3 8 9
Reciprocal partner violence (which makes up
approximately 50 per cent of all IPV and is the most
injurious to women) does not appear to be only comprised
of self-defensive acts of violence
2 3 13
Men and women initiate IPV (both minor and severe) at
around the same rates and women are equally likely or
more likely to perpetrate violence against a non-violent
partner
2 3 11
Women are more likely than men to hit back in response
to provocation
2
Women are more likely than men to kill their partner in
self-defence, however overall, only 10 to 20 per cent of
womens partner homicides are carried out in self-defence
or in response to prior abuse
4 11
Womens use of IPV, rather than being reactive to male
violence, is predictable by kindergarten age, and certainly
by the teenage years. Aggressive girls grow up to be
aggressive adults. High incidence rates of personality
disorders are found in both male and female court-
mandated samples of IPV perpetrators. Women who kill
their husbands are just as likely to have criminal records as
women who kill in other circumstances.
2 4 11 12
Fact Sheet No.3
Is womens intimate partner violence
(IPV) more likely to be self-defence or
a pre-emptive strike against a violent
male partner?
F
a
c
t

S
h
e
e
t

N
o
.
3
:

S
e
l
f
-
d
e
f
e
n
c
e
REFERENCES
1 Carrado, M., George, M. J., Loxam, E., Jones, L., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression in british heterosexual relationships: A descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22(6).
Behavior, 10(6), 680-714.
5 Follingstad, D., Wright, S., Lloyd, S., & Sebastian, J. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40, 51-57.
6 Hines, D. A., & Malley-Morrison, K. (2001). Psychological effects of partner abuse against men: A neglected research area. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2(2),
75-85.
8 Medeiros, R. A., & Straus, M. A. (2006). Risk factors for physical violence between dating partners: Implications for gender-inclusive prevention and treatment of family
violence. In J. Hamel, & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family approaches to domestic violence: A practioners guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment. (pp. 59-85).
Springer.
9 Sarantakos, S. (1998). Husband abuse as self-defence. [Paper]Montreal: International Congress of Sociology.
10 Sarantakos, S. (2004). Deconstructing self-defense in wife-to-husband violence. The Journal of Men's Studies, 12(3), 277-296.
11 Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence. (pp. 67-87).
Newbury Park: Sage.
252-275.
13 Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal
and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. Am J Public Health, 97(5), 941-7.
o
n
e
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
.
c
o
m
.
a
u
Studies... found that a relatively low
percentage of women endorsed self-defence as
a primary motive for violence.
13
Women report using violence against male
partners repeatedly, using it against non-violent
male partners, and using it for reasons other
than self-defence.
3
Important is the finding that womens
allegations of DV were proven to be false. In
most cases, the initial allegations of DV were
modified considerably by them during the
course of the study, particularly when they were
faced with the accounts of their children and
mothers, admitting in the end that they were
neither victims of violence nor acting in self-
defence.
10
International studies show that,
Dominance by either partner is a risk factor for IPV (both
minor & severe). It is the injustices and power struggles that
are associated with inequality in relationships that give rise
to violence, not just the inequality of male dominance
1 2 9 13

Empirical research on American couples has found that
the vast majority of relationships involve equal power
between partners. Relationships in which one partner is
dominant are in the minority, and are just as likely to be
female-dominant as male-dominant
9
.
Egalitarian couples are the least violent, while both male
and female dominance are associated with increased IPV
13
Both husbands and wives who are controlling are more
likely to produce injury and engage in repeated violence
5
Coercion (control and domination) is a frequently cited
reason by women for their own use of IPV, and by male
victims for their partners use of IPV
9
Even in research samples selected for high rates of male
aggression (such as shelter samples), women sometimes
report using comparative frequencies of controlling
behaviour
7 9
Risk factors for IPV for both women and men include
dominance, but also include youthfulness, self-defence,
angry and antisocial personalities; alcohol and illicit drug
use; conict with partner; communication problems;
criminal history; jealousy; negative attributions about the
partner; partner abuse, sexual abuse and neglect histories;
relationship satisfaction; stressful conditions; depression;
traditional sex-role ideology and violence approval
2 9 11
.
Factors associated with the use of controlling behaviours
include socioeconomic status, ethnicity, education level,
age and length of marriage (but not gender)
5
Female IPV is not a response to male aggression but, like
male IPV, follows developmental trajectories including
crystallising into personality disorders. Aggressive girls
grow up to be aggressive adults (as do aggressive boys)
1
After analysing for verbal aggression, fear, violence and
control by each gender, husbands are found to be no more
controlling than wives
1 2 7 9 13
. Men and women may differ
in their methods of control, but not their motivation to
control
5
. Men are more likely to prevent their partner from
knowing about or having access to family income even
when they ask; and prevent their partner from working
outside the home. Women are more likely to insist on
knowing who their partner is with at all times; insist on
changing residences even when their partner doesnt want
or need to; and try to limit their partners contact with
family and friends. Relatively few men or women engage
in any of these controlling behaviours
4
.
Fact Sheet No.4
Is mens violence towards women
most often an attempt to control,
coerce, humiliate or dominate by
generating fear and intimidation, while
womens intimate partner violence
(IPV) is more often an expression of
frustration in response to their
dependence or stress, or their refusal
to accept a less powerful position?
F
a
c
t

S
h
e
e
t

N
o
.
4
:

D
o
m
i
n
a
n
c
e

&

U
n
d
e
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
o
n
e
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
.
c
o
m
.
a
u
The results of this study suggest important
conclusions about two widely held beliefs: that
partner violence is an almost uniquely male
crime and that when men hit their partners, it is
primarily to dominate women, whereas partner
violence by women is an act of self-defence or
an act of desperation in response to male
dominance and brutality. These beliefs were not
supported by the results of this study.
9
Abuse was not just a sum of violent acts,
but in almost all cases it constituted a system
that was imposed upon the abused spouse, that
dominated his whole life. The study reported
that abusive women assumed total control of
the relationship, e.g. by getting hold of power
producing resources, imposing themselves
upon the husband by enforcing authority over
him or indirectly making serious threats to
frighten him into submission.
10
Partner violence is more a gender-inclusive
systemic problem than it is a problem of a
patriarchal social system which enforces male
dominance by violence.
13
The... hypothesis that dominance by either
partner, not just the male partner, is a risk
factor for violence was also supported. In fact,
this study found that dominance by the female
partner is even more closely related to violence
by women than is male-dominance. The results
on dominance as a risk factor for violence, like
the results on symmetry and asymmetry in
perpetration, apply to both minor violence and
severe violence. This contradicts the belief that
when women hit, the motives are different, and
that male-dominance is the root cause of
partner violence. Thus, the results in this paper
call into question another basic assumption of
most prevention and treatment programs.
13
REFERENCES
Behavior, 10(6), 680-714.
Behavior, 10(6), 680-714. Cited in Medeiros & Straus (2006).
5 Felson, R. B., & Outlaw, M. C. (2007). The control motive and marital violence. Violence Vict, 22(4), 387-407.
6 Felson, R. B., & Outlaw, M. C. (2007). The control motive and marital violence. Violence Vict, 22(4), 387-407. Cited in Dutton (2010).
7 Graham-Kevan N (2007). Power and control in relationship aggression. In Hamel J and Nicholls TL (eds.): Family Interventions in Domestic Violence. New York:
Springer Publishing Co.
Springer
10 Sarantakos, S., & Lewis, A. (2001). Domestic violence and the male victim. Nuance, 3, 1-15.
11 Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic
review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65-98.
12 Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence. (pp. 67-87).
Newbury Park: Sage.
252-275.
Controlling behaviours exhibited by abusive women
include
!
the use of threats and coercion (threatening to kill
themselves or their husbands, threatening to call the
police and have the husband falsely arrested, threatening
to leave the husband)
!
emotional abuse (making the victim feel bad about
himself, calling him names, making him think he is
crazy, playing mind games, humiliating him, making him
feel guilty)
!
intimidation (making him feel afraid by smashing things,
destroying his property, abusing pets, displaying
weapons)
!
blaming the men for their own abuse or minimising the
abuse
!
using the court system to gain sole custody of the
children or falsely obtain a restraining order against the
victim
!
isolating the victim by keeping him away from his family
and friends, using jealousy to justify these actions
!
controlling all of the money and not allowing the victim
to see or use the chequebook or credit cards
8
In a large recent Canadian study, victimisation by
repeated, severe, fear-inducing, instrumental violence
(often called intimate terrorism) was reported by 2.6% of
men and 4.2% of women in the last ve years. Equivalent
injuries, use of medical services, and fear of the abuser
were also discovered, regardless of the gender of the
perpetrator and the victim
1
.
International studies show that,
Both sexes tend to over-report minor acts of violence they
commit, under-report serious acts they commit, and over-
report serious acts they suffer
2
The same results are obtained regarding the relative
frequency of mens and womens violence regardless of
whether men or women are the ones being questioned
2
.
Do men who are violent in intimate
relationships typically underreport
their violence?
F
a
c
t

S
h
e
e
t

N
o
.
4
:

D
o
m
i
n
a
n
c
e

&

U
n
d
e
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
o
n
e
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
.
c
o
m
.
a
u
The same distortion of the scientific
evidence by selective citation applies to
discussion of dominance and control. Only
studies showing male use of violence to coerce,
dominate, and control are cited despite a
number of studies showing that this also
applies to violence by female partners.
3
The rate of minor assaults by wives was 78
per 1,000 couples, and the rate of minor
assaults by husbands was 72 per 1,000. The
Severe assault rate was 46 per 1,000 couples
for assaults by wives and 50 per 1,000 for
assaults by husbands. Neither difference is
statistically significant. As these rates are
based exclusively on information provided by
women respondents, the near equality in
assault rates cannot be attributed to a gender
bias in reporting.
12
International studies demonstrate that
Males are taught by sex-role conditioning not to admit
fear, making it appear that women are more fearful simply
because they report fear more freely than men
1 2

Women and men have different perceptions of danger and
use fear-scales quite differently. Women are twice as likely
as men to fear death from a partner, when the actual
probability of being killed is the same. Women may over-
react to objective threat, while men probably under-react
1 2
.
Womens greater fear of male violence, where it exists,
could also simply stem from the greater average size and
strength of men, rather than from any difference in
motives between men and women who use IPV
4
.
Men have rarely had their fear of female violence assessed.
One of the few studies to do this found that a substantial
minority of male victims of IPV feared their partners
violence and were stalked. Over half the men were fearful
that their partners would cause them serious injury if they
found out that he had called the domestic violence
helpline
2 3
.
Another such study of male victims of IPV found that
perpetual fear and being on guard were experienced by
most participants
5
It is important to note that mens fear
is often internalised and thus invisible to the outside
observer.
There is little evidence to support the assertion that all
male violence is designed to generate fear in women to
enable coercion. In fact the data shows that both men and
women have much more complex motives behind their use
of IPV
2
.
Fact Sheet No.5
Are male victims of intimate partner
violence (IPV) far less likely to be afraid
or intimidated than female victims?
F
a
c
t

S
h
e
e
t

N
o
.
5
:

F
e
a
r

&

I
n
t
i
m
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
REFERENCES
Behavior, 10(6), 680-714.
Springer.
5 Sarantakos, S., & Lewis, A. (2001). Domestic violence and the male victim. Nuance, 3, 1-15.
o
n
e
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
.
c
o
m
.
a
u
In most cases, the wife's intent to control
and dominate the husband entailed efforts to
induce fear in him relating to his personal safety
as well as the fate of the children and property
in general. She would often threaten to burn the
house down, hurt the children or animals, or kill
herself, him or the children: she would often
drive dangerously to frighten him, and make
him realise how serious and dangerous she
could be. This generated intimidation,
insecurity, and fear in the husbands and the
family members in general.
5
Men reported also symptoms such as
tightness in the stomach, muscular pain, racing
pulse, thought distortion, and panic attacks.
Perpetual fear and being 'on guard' were
experienced by most participants. Other
commonly expressed reactions were, feelings
of lack of control and inadequacy and constant
denigration of the man, which often caused him
to accept his partner's view of him, and to lose
self esteem.
5
The feminist view is that all male violence is
designed to generate fear to enable coercion.
The data suggest a motivational profile for use
of violence by either gender is far more
complex. The question for feminists remains
given that research indicates high levels of
female violence, much of it against non-violent
males and hence not in self-defence; how is
that violence any different from male violence?
How can male violence still be depicted as
being in pursuit of power and control when
female violence is also frequent and, according
to the women themselves, not defensive?
2
Analog studies of fear induction in
response to intimate conflicts found that
women would report more fear even when
exposure to the stimulus (a videotaped conflict
between others) could not possibly be
threatening or endangering... Men use fear
scales differently and are less likely to report
fear as opposed to other emotions. Creating
police responses based on who is most afraid
means perpetrators can be arrested based on
reported internal reactions that cannot be
corroborated.
1

A Response To DR Michael Flood by Mens Health Australia

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Response To DR Michael Flood by Mens Health Australia

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Executive Summary

Resorted to ad hominem attacks in an apparent attempt to discredit Mens Health Australia

Failed to successfully challenge any of Mens Healths specic concerns.

To agree on a common set of statistics/data on which to base our work

To agree on a common set of statistics/data on which to base our work

depict men or boys or masculinity in an unfair, negative or disparaging way

are misleading, inaccurate, or prejudicial towards men and boys

detract from a general positive afrmation of men, boys, and masculinity

Not knowing where to seek help

Not knowing how to seek help

Feeling there is nowhere to escape to

Feeling that they will be blamed for the abuse

Feeling that services would be unable to offer appropriate male-friendly help

Feeling ashamed or embarrassed to be a male victim of domestic violence

The social stigma of being a male victim of domestic violence

Fearing being laughed at or ridiculed

Feeling weak or wimpy

It's OK to Hit Girls and Rape Flirts - Survey Findings

Boys Thinking It's OK to Hit Girls Demands Ongoing Community Education

One in every three boys believes it is acceptable to hit girls.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen