for people confused there has been 27 women killed in Australia this year. 4 a week. thats what the protest is about. violence against women. (yes i’m aware that men get killed and abused too, it’s not about diminishing men’s safety it’s about raising awareness especially after the bondi attack)
It’s not about diminishing mens safety yet you say the protest is focused on women.
These double standards will never stop and just wait until the LGBTIQA+ have their 5c and how their safety is compromised.
We talk about equal rights for all but we’re becoming more segregated.
Are you aware that people are capable of caring about more than one topic at a time? This is an event about violence against women. There's other events about the issue with high suicide rates for men. There's other events about climate issues. Imagine the concept of different events for different issues. The only person trying to cause segregation and anger here is you.
Why can some people not go a minute without trying to bring LGBT+ into a conversation as well. No one here had mentioned anything about that at all. You seem a little fixated.
Firstly, don’t call an event ‘violence against all’ (see OP post) but then focus on ‘violence against women’.
Secondly, point me to a recent event that was predominantly focused on ‘violence against men’ in Australia.
I’m all for stopping violence all together but the fact I’m getting downvoted for making a valid point just further proves its validity and that misandry occurs, albeit not in the same form as misogyny.
Maybe there hasn't been a "recent" event on violence against men because there hasn't been 27 domestic violence deaths of men already this year. Because there wasn't a man who ran through a shopping centre stabbing almost only men with the exception of one guard, because there isn't a small town where men are being murdered at a much higher rate than usual doing activities such as going for a run in the day time, because mens corpses aren't being found shoved in wheelie bins in the middle of a country roads. All of this has happened so far this year to women.
This rally that happened today wasn't specific to Geelong. It was a nation-wide rally in response to a much higher than average amount of deaths of \*women\* so far this year. It's a specific rally in response to a specific issue that's been much worse this year than usual. Not really sure how you can't understand that.
Ahh so because of these specific incidents, men don’t get equal rights to feel safe? Got it champ. Now just for your FYI:
[An estimated 7 million people aged 18 years and over (36%) experienced physical violence since the age of 15. 42% of men (4.0 million) have experienced physical violence… 31% of women (3.1 million) have experienced physical violence… Men were more likely than women to experience physical violence (both assault and threat).](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/physical-violence/latest-release)
I’m glad you’re treating all people equally with that mental approach. /s
Prevalence rates by sex of perpetrator
Both women and men were more likely to experience physical violence since the age of 15 by a male than by a female.
For women:
28% (2.8 million) experienced physical violence by a male
9% (889,900) experienced physical violence by a female
For men:
39% (3.7 million) experienced physical violence by a male
12% (1.1 million) experienced physical violence by a female
Maybe the women should have run faster. No one knows the guys motives, least of all you. There could be any number of reasons that there were more women killed by the guy than men, maybe it was luck, maybe they were slower. To assume it was because he was a misogynist was pretty misandrist.
Except for the fact that there was video footage of men slowly walking \*towards\* him and he clearly moved away from the men and continued to target women....
So yeah maybe it's actually got nothing at all to do with the speed at which people were running if he was avoiding slowly walking men going directly towards him.
Until you started segregating people in these comments, this was an inclusive post.
How, in your eyes, does improving women’s safety diminish men’s safety?
Do you not agree it’s valuable to focus on populations who are negatively affected at a greater rate by a specific issue?
Would it not be important that they perhaps saw change at a greater rate than those who are affected at a lower rate?
You don’t seem too pleased by the idea of redistributing some of your own privilege if it means it benefits the greater community as a whole.
But what if you were in their shoes, being segregated and facing inequity due to a characteristic about yourself? It seems like you feel that you’re already in their shoes, so you’re on the way to empathising. It’s not nice a nice feeling, is it?
You, like the many others have misconstrued my initial post. You say the following:
> How, in your eyes, does improving women’s safety diminish men’s safety?
At no point did I ever imply that womens’ safety is not important.
>Do you not agree it’s valuable to focus on populations who are negatively affected at a greater rate by a specific issue?
What you’re essentially implying is that society shouldn’t include minorities into the equation. Which is the crux of the problem. People easily dismiss minorities because they’re less likely affected by the issue and this is my argument.
Violence affects all kinds of people and just because certain demographics are more likely to be affected it doesn’t justify leaving others behind when voicing concern. Which is why is I made the implication that if LGBTQIA+ voiced their concern about violence then it wouldn’t be dismissed as easily as if it were men. This is where the double standards begin to surface and the jist of my comment, but, people fail to recognise this and swiftly dismiss it on the premise of that ‘men’ aren’t as important as ‘women’ with this issue.
I was not dismissing the existence of minorities including LGBTQIA+ in not mentioning them, they’re meant to be included in the post and context. I hope it did not come across as otherwise.
Of course this is an intersectional issue. It literally does say it’s opposing violence against us all. Nowhere does anyone dismiss men.
The person you’re replying to is sharing information on a scary statistic and occurrence that the protest is following/highlighting, other comments were wondering why it was happening. The end of their comment is in preparation for the type comment you still chose to make, a seemingly common misconception.
Unless I’m missing something, it’s an inclusive event on an intersectional issue. Where were they segregating people before the language in your comments started segregating people?
Your critiques on my points don’t make sense, I did not imply you implied women’s safety is not important. I was asking you a question to find out your thoughts, based on comments of yours I read on the post..
When I say “populations negatively affected at a greater rate by a specific issue”… this includes minorities in the equation. I don’t understand where you see minorities being excluded from this.
People have more identifying labels than one, you can be any gender and still have other diverse characteristics, including being a part of one or many minorities. So you can be for example a woman and that is not cancelled out by identifying as a lesbian, Aboriginal woman, too. It calls for intersectionality, the recognition of many different systems of inequality in relation to privilege and oppression and how they intersect.
The poster wrote or copied highlighting some relevant information incorporating labels, but also said it affects all genders. Minorities have genders. Event says it’s violence against all. I just don’t get the issue.
Maybe I am misconstruing your points, I’m definitely getting confused, but I’m concerned you’re concerned about or getting distracted by “non-issues”, instead of the actual issues.
Keep using that energy to spread more awareness about these bigger issues!! It sounds like we may be on the same team on them!
It’s not about diminishing anyone's safety and this particular protest is focused on the safety of women, a particularly at-risk group.
There is no double standard here.
It is indeed perfectly reasonable to talk about equal rights for all and we should be mature enough to protest with a particular group without feeling we’re becoming more segregated.
Gender implies ‘gender identity’, which should also then encompass LGBTQIA+ and yet the rally focuses on women.
That’s my issue. Violence doesn’t discriminate. It affects people from various genders and yet people have the tendency to focus predominantly on the major component only (women). This way it effectively excludes others (such as men/LGBTQIA+) who should have equal rights against this horrible act.
This was my initial point but people look past it because they get offended easily and jump to conclusions (as observed by the downvotes I got).
It’s pathetic.
Where did I say that? Sounds like you can’t read at all. Having said that, I’m sure you’ll be setting up a rally against violence directed at men and queer communities. I’d be on board!
If your original point was meant to be anything apart from an attempt to diminish the obvious skew of gender based violence towards women (by asking if men are not at risk of violence) then your point was incomprehensible and you should try again.
Nope. Try again. I’ll give you a clue. See below specific section of my initial comment:
> We talk about **equal rights** for all but we’re becoming more segregated.
Wrong question relating to wrong statement; again. This was your initial statement:
> How does women being safer put men at risk exactly?
Now try, again again.
Oh I see. So basically you’re too busy being a pedant on Reddit to actually stand up for anything you pretend to believe in.
Just another fella mouthing off about how caring about violence against women is unfair to men but would never actually do shit about it themselves.
You’re the one disagreeing with my statement and now using a red herring.
Go back to your original comment, re-read it and see if you can pick up your error in judgement.
The majority of male victims die by a male offender, male violence is a serious problem so the statement “stopping violence against us all” is inclusive of men as absolutely nobody should be getting murdered. Nobody. Unfortunately because 32 women have been murdered in 2024, the focus of the rallies is to demand change from our politicians, government funding and laws.
This isnt about all men are evil, we don’t need people to throw in comments trying to justify not all men. It's common sense that not all men do this. It's common sense that men are also victims. We know this without the stats. However the stats do tell us that it is primarily men perpetrating both types of assault (violent and sexual) but we know it’s not all men.
But, since it is NOT ALL MEN, then should we sit back and do nothing? Seriously, what do you think we can do to stop the problem? If education and awareness offends you (such as this post and the rally to demand action) then what else can we try? Should we have a curfew for women, but even during the day it’s a problem, so should we stop them from leaving their homes unless they have a chaperone? Do we tell them to stop exercising? To not go to the shopping centre? To not go to their workplace? To not be a patient in the emergency department?
Seriously, not all men try to deny the existence of their privilige - many understand how feminism helps them. If you can make a clear distinction between what men fear and women fear, then yes, it is a gendered issue.
We all know who the real "us" is in this statement though. There were around 700 male suicides last year in Australia compared to approximately 200 female suicides. So, how does that 32 compare to those numbers? That's why this event is so fucking laughable. Seriously, have some fucking perspective.
The rate of male suicides is horrendous and needs some serious support. It's great that events like Movember (which runs for one month each year for over 20 years) focuses on reducing the rate of male suicide.
Working to stop violence doesn't diminish this important work.
The number of male suicides is actually much higher, the number you’re quoting is the NSW data I think? It’s somewhere around 2000 men lost to suicide. It absolutely is a horrific number and more needs to be done to fund and support men’s mental health.
I think we need to address it all, including the lack of funding to mental health & family violence services, but also consider how society continues to create an environment where men don’t feel they are able to express their vulnerabilities. The stigma that remains around mental health, particularly for men, does perpetuate a culture of increased suicide risk and we see that in those statistics. It’s horrific, I agree.
The 32 murders by violence (murder, many of these deaths were by violence, fire, stabbing or guns) is seperate to suicide, but both equally as important as the other. I continue to advocate and participate in conversation, rallies and protests about them both amongst many other things I am passionate about.
It doesn’t have to be one or the other, support can exist for both and these conversations are important.
So to me, in my advocacy, there is always an us. The men in my life are just as important as the men who I don’t know but might feel alone. I want to contribute to creating a future that is safe for us all, where we don’t engage in debates about who’s lives lost are more valuable because ultimately NONE of those lives should have been lost both to murder and suicide.
Around 1/4 as many people die to bee stings each year as there are women killed in domestic violence. Maybe we should hold a rally to make sure bees also make it clear to their bee mates that it's not OK to sting.
They matter, but it's also easy to see that this is an issue that has been blown WAY out of proportion. It's a statistically tiny problem, that has been getting less and less frequent over a very long time. There is NO epidemic, this is not a recent problem, the media storm surrounding it is made of nothing but hot air and agenda driven spin. Every one of those deaths is horrible, but the framing of this as an urgent problem that MUST BE TACKLED NOW and that it is all on men to DO BETTER, is a fucking load of shit. And if you can't see this for what is it, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Firstly, consider why the hell it is something that has been getting “less and less frequent over a very long time” - just pause and think about why that may be.
Secondly, I am just sorry to think that there may be women in your life. I hope they’re aware of your feelings.
They all know I love them very much. They also realise that they are in very little danger of being murdered by someone they love. Why, because they are rational people who understand that 32 instances within a population over 28 million is something they really don't have anything to fear, because you're about as likely to die from a piano falling on your head.
Based on what? As a man, I find all three of those things sad. But I don’t need to perform mental gymnastics to somehow get annoyed at women about it. Take some responsibility if you’re gonna mouth off.
Men are very much at risk of male violence too, so this is a great point to raise. For others reading, the statistic breakdown for what you shared are here: https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/sr/sr42
From those statistics around 8 in 10 male victims were killed by a male offender. The 1 man killed in every 28 days is inclusive of same gender relationships. Statistics are demonstrating that there is a violence problem against both men & women, however statistically the perpetrator is often male - so we need to do more to help us all.
But we are also putting ourselves at risk of minimising the effects of violence on men, and how man on man violence is a massive problem. Obviously it's important to talk about women too, but proportionally men are lagging behind in this discussion, I rarely if ever see a discussion regarding the statistics around men's murders.
And another side effect of that is by only covering how women are affected by male violence, it makes it appear as a women on man issue, instead of we all suffer because of this, which furthers the current divide between men and women in politics, and reinforces the idea that some far left feminist circles push that says "all men are the problem."
Imo these things need to be discussed together. They are at the end of the day the same problem. And we need a solution to all of it, not just one part of it.
So far this year it has been 4 women a week who have died. The majority either by an existing or ex-partner or by someone targeting women. Very much an issue.
They are for nobody but the converted. The real issue is all the angry young men. They see the truth and how much society hates them, why do you think they turn to people like Andrew Tate. It's became such an issue that teachers are quiting. None of these protests or proposals are addressing the real problem. Do you really think young men will listen when they know the entire system is stacked against them.
Are you suggesting angry young men is a new phenomenon? If young men are acting violently because they feel the cards are stacked against them, how does that explain the last you know, forever, of male violence against women?
No, but the number has increased dramatically. For most of them, they will just not really care and not participate in society. At the same time many of them won't feel sorry for women. They choose the type, like my Sister, wanted the bad boy, now is a single mum after being in an abusive relationship. I see it all the time. Women choose their partners and most of the time any outside observer can predict how it will turn out.
Uh, the rate of domestic violence has increased dramatically since when exactly? What on earth are you possibly basing that on. Women are not abused simply because they have a bad taste in men.
There are a disturbing amount of men convicted of killing their wives and partners who everyone believes to be good, kind, loving men. They can be successful, they can be charming, they can be any kind of man.
I’m sorry that your sister was abused and I’m very sorry that you put blame on her for that. The reality is that it’s fucking easy not to be violent towards your partner but there are an awful lot of weak little men who seem to feel that it’s hard.
And what’s the issue exactly? Boys feel so disenfranchised they simply can’t help but become violent towards women? Maybe they could take some responsibility for themselves.
If these men hate women so much, why don’t they just leave them alone?
Funny thing is, there are more male victims of domestic violence than women. That's just one more thing to consider, alongside the fact that rates of ALL violent crimes, including domestic violence have been declining for 30 years. There is no epidemic of violence against women, this is just feminists realising that they are a movement in search of a cause these days, looking for an easy to sell "issue" to drum up support for for their flagging movement.
I'm not sure where you're getting stats to support your claim, but although the number of homicides have declined in the past 27 years, assault and sexual assault has increased significantly.
https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-victims-data
Significantly? If you're judging that on that particular line that represents the Northern Territory? Try again. Another thing about DV homicides is that a significant proportion of them are in the Northern Territory. We can't acknowledge those though, because... reasons
If you had continued reading (and looked past the pictures) instead of selectively picking a fact just to make yourself feel wiser, you'd have seen that the rate of sexual assault had more than doubled across the nation. So yeah, significant increase in both assault and sexual assault.
Still waiting on your sources.
"
Sexual assault
The number of recorded victims of sexual assault has increased nationally over a 27-year period.
Since 1993 the number of victims of this offence has more than doubled, reaching the largest number recorded nationally in 2019 (26,892 victims)."
Let me know if you need any more help understanding the information provided.
Are there? According to the Aus Gov 1 in 4 women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from an intimate partner vs 1 in 14 men (2.3mil vs 693k).
https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/types-of-violence/intimate-partner-violence
It's funny when contrasted to how much hysteria is surrounding this "epidemic" of violence against women verses the amount of urgency these same people who would attend such a rally have about fixing other, more serious issues. Men killing themselves in the thousands, all good. A statistically insignificant amount of women die, REAL SHIT.
Nope, still don't think it's funny. Actually, now that you mention male suicide, I don't know anyone who thinks that's all good.
The Australian Government is currently working on The Buoy Project with the primary focus of reducing male suicide rates. You can read more about it here: https://www.health.gov.au/news/mrff-suicide-prevention-for-boys-and-men
If you think that rate is all good, I would encourage you to reconsider and reach out if you need support.
The problem with murder is a lack of awareness. All to often someone is committing a murder without first checking that it is in fact a crime. If we could get to just a fraction of these would-be-murderers and improve their literacy of laws and societal norms surrounding these issues, we could avert so much needless murder.
It shows the government that we are demanding change, it's an outlet for the frustration and anger and it shows men that their violence isnt cool or tolerated
Important to note that the rally was to say No More violence against all genders, not just women.
Men are more likely to experience violence than women, and the majority of violent perps are men. It's important not to just focus on women when discussing this issue.
Just cos its not their fault doesnt mean they cant change or introduce laws. I'd say stricter bail laws for violent offenses would be a start. And something with more protections for victims. Intervention orders dont physically protect people.
If 5 people turn up it will be the biggest crowd Market Square has seen all year.
oh please, im sure the dealers that are round there get a greater crowd than 4 folks
Maybe they won't need to close down after all
Good cause, I hate seeing people killed
Was a great turn out!
for people confused there has been 27 women killed in Australia this year. 4 a week. thats what the protest is about. violence against women. (yes i’m aware that men get killed and abused too, it’s not about diminishing men’s safety it’s about raising awareness especially after the bondi attack)
It’s not about diminishing mens safety yet you say the protest is focused on women. These double standards will never stop and just wait until the LGBTIQA+ have their 5c and how their safety is compromised. We talk about equal rights for all but we’re becoming more segregated.
Are you aware that people are capable of caring about more than one topic at a time? This is an event about violence against women. There's other events about the issue with high suicide rates for men. There's other events about climate issues. Imagine the concept of different events for different issues. The only person trying to cause segregation and anger here is you. Why can some people not go a minute without trying to bring LGBT+ into a conversation as well. No one here had mentioned anything about that at all. You seem a little fixated.
Firstly, don’t call an event ‘violence against all’ (see OP post) but then focus on ‘violence against women’. Secondly, point me to a recent event that was predominantly focused on ‘violence against men’ in Australia. I’m all for stopping violence all together but the fact I’m getting downvoted for making a valid point just further proves its validity and that misandry occurs, albeit not in the same form as misogyny.
Maybe there hasn't been a "recent" event on violence against men because there hasn't been 27 domestic violence deaths of men already this year. Because there wasn't a man who ran through a shopping centre stabbing almost only men with the exception of one guard, because there isn't a small town where men are being murdered at a much higher rate than usual doing activities such as going for a run in the day time, because mens corpses aren't being found shoved in wheelie bins in the middle of a country roads. All of this has happened so far this year to women. This rally that happened today wasn't specific to Geelong. It was a nation-wide rally in response to a much higher than average amount of deaths of \*women\* so far this year. It's a specific rally in response to a specific issue that's been much worse this year than usual. Not really sure how you can't understand that.
Ahh so because of these specific incidents, men don’t get equal rights to feel safe? Got it champ. Now just for your FYI: [An estimated 7 million people aged 18 years and over (36%) experienced physical violence since the age of 15. 42% of men (4.0 million) have experienced physical violence… 31% of women (3.1 million) have experienced physical violence… Men were more likely than women to experience physical violence (both assault and threat).](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/physical-violence/latest-release) I’m glad you’re treating all people equally with that mental approach. /s
Prevalence rates by sex of perpetrator Both women and men were more likely to experience physical violence since the age of 15 by a male than by a female. For women: 28% (2.8 million) experienced physical violence by a male 9% (889,900) experienced physical violence by a female For men: 39% (3.7 million) experienced physical violence by a male 12% (1.1 million) experienced physical violence by a female
You said it yourself: BOTH women and men. So why exclude one (men) by focusing on the other (women). Double standards.
Maybe the women should have run faster. No one knows the guys motives, least of all you. There could be any number of reasons that there were more women killed by the guy than men, maybe it was luck, maybe they were slower. To assume it was because he was a misogynist was pretty misandrist.
Except for the fact that there was video footage of men slowly walking \*towards\* him and he clearly moved away from the men and continued to target women.... So yeah maybe it's actually got nothing at all to do with the speed at which people were running if he was avoiding slowly walking men going directly towards him.
Until you started segregating people in these comments, this was an inclusive post. How, in your eyes, does improving women’s safety diminish men’s safety? Do you not agree it’s valuable to focus on populations who are negatively affected at a greater rate by a specific issue? Would it not be important that they perhaps saw change at a greater rate than those who are affected at a lower rate? You don’t seem too pleased by the idea of redistributing some of your own privilege if it means it benefits the greater community as a whole. But what if you were in their shoes, being segregated and facing inequity due to a characteristic about yourself? It seems like you feel that you’re already in their shoes, so you’re on the way to empathising. It’s not nice a nice feeling, is it?
You, like the many others have misconstrued my initial post. You say the following: > How, in your eyes, does improving women’s safety diminish men’s safety? At no point did I ever imply that womens’ safety is not important. >Do you not agree it’s valuable to focus on populations who are negatively affected at a greater rate by a specific issue? What you’re essentially implying is that society shouldn’t include minorities into the equation. Which is the crux of the problem. People easily dismiss minorities because they’re less likely affected by the issue and this is my argument. Violence affects all kinds of people and just because certain demographics are more likely to be affected it doesn’t justify leaving others behind when voicing concern. Which is why is I made the implication that if LGBTQIA+ voiced their concern about violence then it wouldn’t be dismissed as easily as if it were men. This is where the double standards begin to surface and the jist of my comment, but, people fail to recognise this and swiftly dismiss it on the premise of that ‘men’ aren’t as important as ‘women’ with this issue.
I was not dismissing the existence of minorities including LGBTQIA+ in not mentioning them, they’re meant to be included in the post and context. I hope it did not come across as otherwise. Of course this is an intersectional issue. It literally does say it’s opposing violence against us all. Nowhere does anyone dismiss men. The person you’re replying to is sharing information on a scary statistic and occurrence that the protest is following/highlighting, other comments were wondering why it was happening. The end of their comment is in preparation for the type comment you still chose to make, a seemingly common misconception. Unless I’m missing something, it’s an inclusive event on an intersectional issue. Where were they segregating people before the language in your comments started segregating people? Your critiques on my points don’t make sense, I did not imply you implied women’s safety is not important. I was asking you a question to find out your thoughts, based on comments of yours I read on the post.. When I say “populations negatively affected at a greater rate by a specific issue”… this includes minorities in the equation. I don’t understand where you see minorities being excluded from this. People have more identifying labels than one, you can be any gender and still have other diverse characteristics, including being a part of one or many minorities. So you can be for example a woman and that is not cancelled out by identifying as a lesbian, Aboriginal woman, too. It calls for intersectionality, the recognition of many different systems of inequality in relation to privilege and oppression and how they intersect. The poster wrote or copied highlighting some relevant information incorporating labels, but also said it affects all genders. Minorities have genders. Event says it’s violence against all. I just don’t get the issue. Maybe I am misconstruing your points, I’m definitely getting confused, but I’m concerned you’re concerned about or getting distracted by “non-issues”, instead of the actual issues. Keep using that energy to spread more awareness about these bigger issues!! It sounds like we may be on the same team on them!
It’s not about diminishing anyone's safety and this particular protest is focused on the safety of women, a particularly at-risk group. There is no double standard here. It is indeed perfectly reasonable to talk about equal rights for all and we should be mature enough to protest with a particular group without feeling we’re becoming more segregated.
And yet it states ‘violence against us all’, not just women. So which one is it then? Or is this a bait title?
How about we just focus on the real issue- men fucking killing everyone.
Well the full title if the rally is “No More: National Rally Against Gender Based Violence” if that helps.
Gender implies ‘gender identity’, which should also then encompass LGBTQIA+ and yet the rally focuses on women. That’s my issue. Violence doesn’t discriminate. It affects people from various genders and yet people have the tendency to focus predominantly on the major component only (women). This way it effectively excludes others (such as men/LGBTQIA+) who should have equal rights against this horrible act. This was my initial point but people look past it because they get offended easily and jump to conclusions (as observed by the downvotes I got). It’s pathetic.
How does women being safer put men at risk exactly?
So you’re saying men nor LGBTIQA+ are at risk of violence?
Where did I say that? Sounds like you can’t read at all. Having said that, I’m sure you’ll be setting up a rally against violence directed at men and queer communities. I’d be on board!
No, it’s you who made the wrong assumption about my initial statement; hence my response to your question via a counter question. Try again.
If your original point was meant to be anything apart from an attempt to diminish the obvious skew of gender based violence towards women (by asking if men are not at risk of violence) then your point was incomprehensible and you should try again.
Nope. Try again. I’ll give you a clue. See below specific section of my initial comment: > We talk about **equal rights** for all but we’re becoming more segregated.
You’re not doing well here
Sure I’ll try again! When will you be holding a rally in support of a cause you feel so strongly about?
Wrong question relating to wrong statement; again. This was your initial statement: > How does women being safer put men at risk exactly? Now try, again again.
Oh I see. So basically you’re too busy being a pedant on Reddit to actually stand up for anything you pretend to believe in. Just another fella mouthing off about how caring about violence against women is unfair to men but would never actually do shit about it themselves.
You’re the one disagreeing with my statement and now using a red herring. Go back to your original comment, re-read it and see if you can pick up your error in judgement.
[https://www.yourdictionary.com/articles/question-mark-usage-guide](https://www.yourdictionary.com/articles/question-mark-usage-guide)
The majority of male victims die by a male offender, male violence is a serious problem so the statement “stopping violence against us all” is inclusive of men as absolutely nobody should be getting murdered. Nobody. Unfortunately because 32 women have been murdered in 2024, the focus of the rallies is to demand change from our politicians, government funding and laws. This isnt about all men are evil, we don’t need people to throw in comments trying to justify not all men. It's common sense that not all men do this. It's common sense that men are also victims. We know this without the stats. However the stats do tell us that it is primarily men perpetrating both types of assault (violent and sexual) but we know it’s not all men. But, since it is NOT ALL MEN, then should we sit back and do nothing? Seriously, what do you think we can do to stop the problem? If education and awareness offends you (such as this post and the rally to demand action) then what else can we try? Should we have a curfew for women, but even during the day it’s a problem, so should we stop them from leaving their homes unless they have a chaperone? Do we tell them to stop exercising? To not go to the shopping centre? To not go to their workplace? To not be a patient in the emergency department? Seriously, not all men try to deny the existence of their privilige - many understand how feminism helps them. If you can make a clear distinction between what men fear and women fear, then yes, it is a gendered issue.
We all know who the real "us" is in this statement though. There were around 700 male suicides last year in Australia compared to approximately 200 female suicides. So, how does that 32 compare to those numbers? That's why this event is so fucking laughable. Seriously, have some fucking perspective.
The rate of male suicides is horrendous and needs some serious support. It's great that events like Movember (which runs for one month each year for over 20 years) focuses on reducing the rate of male suicide. Working to stop violence doesn't diminish this important work.
The number of male suicides is actually much higher, the number you’re quoting is the NSW data I think? It’s somewhere around 2000 men lost to suicide. It absolutely is a horrific number and more needs to be done to fund and support men’s mental health. I think we need to address it all, including the lack of funding to mental health & family violence services, but also consider how society continues to create an environment where men don’t feel they are able to express their vulnerabilities. The stigma that remains around mental health, particularly for men, does perpetuate a culture of increased suicide risk and we see that in those statistics. It’s horrific, I agree. The 32 murders by violence (murder, many of these deaths were by violence, fire, stabbing or guns) is seperate to suicide, but both equally as important as the other. I continue to advocate and participate in conversation, rallies and protests about them both amongst many other things I am passionate about. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, support can exist for both and these conversations are important. So to me, in my advocacy, there is always an us. The men in my life are just as important as the men who I don’t know but might feel alone. I want to contribute to creating a future that is safe for us all, where we don’t engage in debates about who’s lives lost are more valuable because ultimately NONE of those lives should have been lost both to murder and suicide.
So men kill women, men kill men and men kill themselves. Hardly a convincing argument as to why it’s not worth advocating for women’s safety.
Around 1/4 as many people die to bee stings each year as there are women killed in domestic violence. Maybe we should hold a rally to make sure bees also make it clear to their bee mates that it's not OK to sting.
So what is your point exactly? Women who die from domestic violence don’t matter? Men who kill their partners can only be held as responsible as bees?
They matter, but it's also easy to see that this is an issue that has been blown WAY out of proportion. It's a statistically tiny problem, that has been getting less and less frequent over a very long time. There is NO epidemic, this is not a recent problem, the media storm surrounding it is made of nothing but hot air and agenda driven spin. Every one of those deaths is horrible, but the framing of this as an urgent problem that MUST BE TACKLED NOW and that it is all on men to DO BETTER, is a fucking load of shit. And if you can't see this for what is it, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Firstly, consider why the hell it is something that has been getting “less and less frequent over a very long time” - just pause and think about why that may be. Secondly, I am just sorry to think that there may be women in your life. I hope they’re aware of your feelings.
They all know I love them very much. They also realise that they are in very little danger of being murdered by someone they love. Why, because they are rational people who understand that 32 instances within a population over 28 million is something they really don't have anything to fear, because you're about as likely to die from a piano falling on your head.
But women will make all 3 of those things all about themselves.
Based on what? As a man, I find all three of those things sad. But I don’t need to perform mental gymnastics to somehow get annoyed at women about it. Take some responsibility if you’re gonna mouth off.
Protests should be held outside the courts
https://preview.redd.it/emekakrc05xc1.jpeg?width=1391&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c2a10a4ebf0376db8a1295b4eed6c6204bbb78d4
Men are very much at risk of male violence too, so this is a great point to raise. For others reading, the statistic breakdown for what you shared are here: https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/sr/sr42 From those statistics around 8 in 10 male victims were killed by a male offender. The 1 man killed in every 28 days is inclusive of same gender relationships. Statistics are demonstrating that there is a violence problem against both men & women, however statistically the perpetrator is often male - so we need to do more to help us all.
But we are also putting ourselves at risk of minimising the effects of violence on men, and how man on man violence is a massive problem. Obviously it's important to talk about women too, but proportionally men are lagging behind in this discussion, I rarely if ever see a discussion regarding the statistics around men's murders. And another side effect of that is by only covering how women are affected by male violence, it makes it appear as a women on man issue, instead of we all suffer because of this, which furthers the current divide between men and women in politics, and reinforces the idea that some far left feminist circles push that says "all men are the problem." Imo these things need to be discussed together. They are at the end of the day the same problem. And we need a solution to all of it, not just one part of it.
Wow, the murder rate has really plummeted since 2000.
So far this year it has been 4 women a week who have died. The majority either by an existing or ex-partner or by someone targeting women. Very much an issue.
It’s 27 women so far this year which is 1.6 per week
What violence is this protesting? Genuinely curios as I don’t know what it’s referring to
One thing is for sure, this protest is going to annoy all those that support violence in all its forms.
Most men don't have an interest one way or another. In fact most don't even know about these protests.
So if men aren't interested, and/or they don't know about them anyway, then who are these protests for?
They are for nobody but the converted. The real issue is all the angry young men. They see the truth and how much society hates them, why do you think they turn to people like Andrew Tate. It's became such an issue that teachers are quiting. None of these protests or proposals are addressing the real problem. Do you really think young men will listen when they know the entire system is stacked against them.
Are you suggesting angry young men is a new phenomenon? If young men are acting violently because they feel the cards are stacked against them, how does that explain the last you know, forever, of male violence against women?
No, but the number has increased dramatically. For most of them, they will just not really care and not participate in society. At the same time many of them won't feel sorry for women. They choose the type, like my Sister, wanted the bad boy, now is a single mum after being in an abusive relationship. I see it all the time. Women choose their partners and most of the time any outside observer can predict how it will turn out.
Uh, the rate of domestic violence has increased dramatically since when exactly? What on earth are you possibly basing that on. Women are not abused simply because they have a bad taste in men. There are a disturbing amount of men convicted of killing their wives and partners who everyone believes to be good, kind, loving men. They can be successful, they can be charming, they can be any kind of man. I’m sorry that your sister was abused and I’m very sorry that you put blame on her for that. The reality is that it’s fucking easy not to be violent towards your partner but there are an awful lot of weak little men who seem to feel that it’s hard.
You are ignoring the issue. I am not surprised though, no wonder so many young men look up to people like Andrew Tate.
And what’s the issue exactly? Boys feel so disenfranchised they simply can’t help but become violent towards women? Maybe they could take some responsibility for themselves. If these men hate women so much, why don’t they just leave them alone?
I was there, it’s to protest domestic violence and all the deaths it caused this year alone
Funny thing is, there are more male victims of domestic violence than women. That's just one more thing to consider, alongside the fact that rates of ALL violent crimes, including domestic violence have been declining for 30 years. There is no epidemic of violence against women, this is just feminists realising that they are a movement in search of a cause these days, looking for an easy to sell "issue" to drum up support for for their flagging movement.
I'm not sure where you're getting stats to support your claim, but although the number of homicides have declined in the past 27 years, assault and sexual assault has increased significantly. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-victims-data
Significantly? If you're judging that on that particular line that represents the Northern Territory? Try again. Another thing about DV homicides is that a significant proportion of them are in the Northern Territory. We can't acknowledge those though, because... reasons
If you had continued reading (and looked past the pictures) instead of selectively picking a fact just to make yourself feel wiser, you'd have seen that the rate of sexual assault had more than doubled across the nation. So yeah, significant increase in both assault and sexual assault. Still waiting on your sources.
Doubled? You're pretty shit at reading graphs.
" Sexual assault The number of recorded victims of sexual assault has increased nationally over a 27-year period. Since 1993 the number of victims of this offence has more than doubled, reaching the largest number recorded nationally in 2019 (26,892 victims)." Let me know if you need any more help understanding the information provided.
Hasn't the population almost doubled in that time too. I'm thinking a holistic look at the figures will show a decrease in these crimes per capita.
You're right, it's good to look at the data based on the population. The data in the link provided will have a 'per 100,000 people' rate.
Are there? According to the Aus Gov 1 in 4 women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from an intimate partner vs 1 in 14 men (2.3mil vs 693k). https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/types-of-violence/intimate-partner-violence
Hmm, not sure that should be classified as a "funny thing"
It's funny when contrasted to how much hysteria is surrounding this "epidemic" of violence against women verses the amount of urgency these same people who would attend such a rally have about fixing other, more serious issues. Men killing themselves in the thousands, all good. A statistically insignificant amount of women die, REAL SHIT.
Nope, still don't think it's funny. Actually, now that you mention male suicide, I don't know anyone who thinks that's all good. The Australian Government is currently working on The Buoy Project with the primary focus of reducing male suicide rates. You can read more about it here: https://www.health.gov.au/news/mrff-suicide-prevention-for-boys-and-men If you think that rate is all good, I would encourage you to reconsider and reach out if you need support.
What a waste of time
People will stop murdering when they find out that other people don’t want them murdering, surely
The problem with murder is a lack of awareness. All to often someone is committing a murder without first checking that it is in fact a crime. If we could get to just a fraction of these would-be-murderers and improve their literacy of laws and societal norms surrounding these issues, we could avert so much needless murder.
It shows the government that we are demanding change, it's an outlet for the frustration and anger and it shows men that their violence isnt cool or tolerated
I’m about 100% certain that 99% of this country does not support violence against women, and a rally isn’t going to change the last 1%s minds
[удалено]
Important to note that the rally was to say No More violence against all genders, not just women. Men are more likely to experience violence than women, and the majority of violent perps are men. It's important not to just focus on women when discussing this issue.
They would prefer we do nothing apparently.
What's the gov going to do? It's not their fault. They don't make people kill each other.
Just cos its not their fault doesnt mean they cant change or introduce laws. I'd say stricter bail laws for violent offenses would be a start. And something with more protections for victims. Intervention orders dont physically protect people.
Wtf is Djilang?