(Note that this post remains a working draft – to be continued)
Whilst browsing in Twitter today I came across a mention of a new study that sounded rather interesting. Here is a link to the tweet I saw, plus a link to the relevant page in the web site of an organisation as ANROWS (Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Limited). It appears that ANROWS commissioned the study.
Additional information about the project can apparently also be found on the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre website. As it turned out, the study was more interesting (and disappointing) in relation to what it didn’t say, rather than what it actually said.
Here is a link to the ‘Research Summary’ which I will now address in this post. If I have sufficient time & energy then I might also review the ‘Research Report’.
Let’s start with a document word search. ‘Men’ appeared 51 times, generally with words like ‘department’ or ‘women’. An exception were references to men as perpetrators of domestic violence (p3). ‘Women’ appeared 14 times, mostly within titles of reports or organisations. One exception was “the judicial officer as a powerful voice in a good position to capture the attention of the perpetrator and to denounce violence against women and their children” (p6). The term ‘victim’ did not appear once.
Next, what topics would I hope to see, and perhaps even expect to see, addressed in a project like this?
– the accuracy or otherwise of judicial officers understanding of the nature, extent and trends with regards to domestic violence – and particularly with regards to gender differences
– the virtual absence of perpetrator intervention programs for female offenders
– the shortage of refuges or treatment facilities for male victims (some with children)
– the apparent gender inequity with regards to being taken to a police station, arrest, sentencing, etc.
– gender differences in the cause and/or underlying factors common to perpetrators of abuse and/or violence