Dustin Martin

[To the top]

The responses on here are interesting, as is their continuation.

The subject matter touches a nerve with me, for very particular reasons.

So I'll come clean in that I have made a submission to the Royal Commission into Domestic Violence, quoting from a Family Report attended by the Family Court of Australia and other independent documentation provided to me including responses from jurisdictions.

So, we will see how that plays out in the Final Report.

In regards Batty, I have gone to her Website (run by a Public Relations Consultant) and quoted from that Family Report, and asking for a response.

I have heard nothing in response.

And, therein lies the problem.

There is absolutely no speculation about the positions I quote - they are direct references and there is no input by me.

As I have said before on this thread, everyone has a story to tell and there needs to be recognition and respect given to all parties (and especially children).

There is no simple remedy, because the contributing factors are many and varied.

And, for every action there is a re-action.

I was fortunate because, some 25 years ago, I was able to successfully apply to the Family Court of Australia and then to exit the work place (from a very senior position) to parent my children full time.

I mention that because my circumstances were and are different from others - and I only know the impact on me so whilst I may say "I understand" to others I have no idea of the pressures they are under and the impact on them.

This is not under the guise of "excuse".

It is under the guise of "learn what we are dealing with and why. What is contributing and why?"

Until we address the full gambit of those questions we will not address the issue and its remedy.

[markp]

Oh, sorry. You're right. The incident had nothing to do with gender. How dare I?


I give you the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse (happening now) and its highlighting of the power structures within the church (men) that enabled these appalling abuses to occur.

And in the Defence Forces.

I give you the report tabled yesterday about Victoria Police and its institutionalised harassment/discrimination by male police officers against female officers over decades, and which remains today.

I give you the complete imbalance of women represented at all levels of parliament/ corporations/ boards/ management/ 'society.'

Or, hello, SKFC's board. Just because there are no women of 'merit' available apparently.


I give you 78 women killed by their male partners so far this year. I give you Rosie Batty, Jill Meagher, seen as 'respectable' women and seemingly 'acceptable' to posters here and who didn't 'deserve' what happened to them. But, clearly, they didn't listen to discussions and advice about how they could have minimised, or indeed, avoided, what happened to them. Silly of them, but, well, if only they had had the advantage of being part of this forum.

Because we now know it's inconceivable that it could possibly be a 'gender' (dare I say 'male violence against women' problem?) and happily acknowledge that the Dustin Martin incident has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

I give you 78 women killed by their male partners so far this year.

Incidentally,if you are going to quote things like this you may want to get it right.

There have been in 2015 78 women killed in Australia.However, 28 of these are not domestic related, and 10 are killed by other women. This leaves 40 women who are known to have been killed in domestic or family violence.

So not only are the 78 actually 40 killed by a partner (or former partner), but 10 of them were killed by other women !!

As a side note to this, as at 11 Dec, 2015 women have killed 40 people, 19 men, 10 women, and 11 children.

Of course men are murdered at twice the rate women are, but you seem only concerned with the 40 female victims in domestic homicides...

Wow.

So instead of saying 78 women killed by their male partners, Miskycat should have perhaps said 68 women killed by men.

And while men have killed 68 women, women have killed 19 men (assuming these figures are correct... source?). That's 3.6 to 1.

Good work.

[Bunk_Moreland]

[So instead of saying 78 women killed by their male partners, Miskycat should have perhaps said 68 women killed by men.

And while men have killed 68 women, women have killed 19 men (assuming these figures are correct... source?). That's 3.6 to 1.

Good work.

Those 68 all probably asked for it anyway markp. Don't you know it is always the women's fault.

[markp]

[So instead of saying 78 women killed by their male partners, Miskycat should have perhaps said 68 women killed by men.

And while men have killed 68 women, women have killed 19 men (assuming these figures are correct... source?). That's 3.6 to 1.

Good work.

Those 68 all probably asked for it anyway markp. Don't you know it is always the women's fault.

Yup, and now they wanna bleat on about it.

Well sorry sisters but men kill more men than they do women so this is obviously all about men.

Now please put your bra back on (nice tits btw, cant say I don't love women!), un-knot your knickers, and put the kettle on while us men figure out how to address this.

Oh and maybe if you're lucky we'll give you a few helpful tips on how to best avoid provoking men in the first place.

[#gosaintas]

Maybe if she had an ounce of common sense this would have all been avoided

[markp]

Maybe if she had an ounce of common sense this would have all been avoided

You're preaching to the choir, brother!

Amen.

[Dis Believer]

Oh, sorry. You're right. The incident had nothing to do with gender. How dare I?


I give you the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse (happening now) and its highlighting of the power structures within the church (men) that enabled these appalling abuses to occur.

And in the Defence Forces.

I give you the report tabled yesterday about Victoria Police and its institutionalised harassment/discrimination by male police officers against female officers over decades, and which remains today.

I give you the complete imbalance of women represented at all levels of parliament/ corporations/ boards/ management/ 'society.'

Or, hello, SKFC's board. Just because there are no women of 'merit' available apparently.


I give you 78 women killed by their male partners so far this year. I give you Rosie Batty, Jill Meagher, seen as 'respectable' women and seemingly 'acceptable' to posters here and who didn't 'deserve' what happened to them. But, clearly, they didn't listen to discussions and advice about how they could have minimised, or indeed, avoided, what happened to them. Silly of them, but, well, if only they had had the advantage of being part of this forum.

Because we now know it's inconceivable that it could possibly be a 'gender' (dare I say 'male violence against women' problem?) and happily acknowledge that the Dustin Martin incident has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

I give you 78 women killed by their male partners so far this year.

Incidentally,if you are going to quote things like this you may want to get it right.

There have been in 2015 78 women killed in Australia.However, 28 of these are not domestic related, and 10 are killed by other women. This leaves 40 women who are known to have been killed in domestic or family violence.

So not only are the 78 actually 40 killed by a partner (or former partner), but 10 of them were killed by other women !!

As a side note to this, as at 11 Dec, 2015 women have killed 40 people, 19 men, 10 women, and 11 children.

Of course men are murdered at twice the rate women are, but you seem only concerned with the 40 female victims in domestic homicides...

Wow.

So instead of saying 78 women killed by their male partners, Miskycat should have perhaps said 68 women killed by men.

No smartarse, what she should have been saying was "sorry, I was trumpeting a false figure of nearly double the truth, 78 women weren't killed by partners or former partners, it was actually 40".

But maybe you can explain to me why you're so horrified by the homicides of 78 women, but don't seem fussed by the fact that double that number of men have been murdered - I am still trying to get my head around why the gender of the victim matters - they are all dead, so why are the dead females deemed so much more worthy of our concern than the dead males, of whom there are twice as many?

[markp]

You're the one presenting stats that you really like and you think you can distort to support your bitter agenda.

By all means discuss men on men issues if that's you're thing, but so far all you're doing is attacking someone (in a really vile way) who sees this as an example of man on woman violence, which is an entirely valid position, and entirely relevant in this case.

Still waiting to hear how much of all this violence is perpetrated by men, too, btw.

[Bunk_Moreland]

[So instead of saying 78 women killed by their male partners, Miskycat should have perhaps said 68 women killed by men.

And while men have killed 68 women, women have killed 19 men (assuming these figures are correct... source?). That's 3.6 to 1.

Good work.

Those 68 all probably asked for it anyway markp. Don't you know it is always the women's fault.

Yup, and now they wanna bleat on about it.

Well sorry sisters but men kill more men than they do women so this is obviously all about men.

Now please put your bra back on (nice tits btw, cant say I don't love women!), un-knot your knickers, and put the kettle on while us men figure out how to address this.

Oh and maybe if you're lucky we'll give you a few helpful tips on how to best avoid provoking men in the first place.

And I tell you woman, don't do any of the above and you will get a right slapping like you fully deserve. Obey or face the consequences

[Bunk_Moreland]

You're the one presenting stats that you really like and you think you can distort to support your bitter agenda.

By all means discuss men on men issues if that's you're thing, but so far all you're doing is attacking someone (in a really vile way) who sees this as an example of man on woman violence, which is an entirely valid position, and entirely relevant in this case.

Still waiting to hear how much of all this violence is perpetrated by men, too, btw.

How is it relevant? Just because Martin is a man and the woman is well a woman. Oh I see........

How many half way houses are there for men who have been victims of domestic violence compared to womens' refuges?

This skewing figures and trying to compare mens deaths to domestic violence and the death of women is very strange and very worrisome.

I would also like to see the stats on how much all this violence is perpetrated by men as well, apparently only selective stats have been used so far.

Any stats on male violence compared to female violence?

[White Winmar]

The responses on here are interesting, as is their continuation.

The subject matter touches a nerve with me, for very particular reasons.

So I'll come clean in that I have made a submission to the Royal Commission into Domestic Violence, quoting from a Family Report attended by the Family Court of Australia and other independent documentation provided to me including responses from jurisdictions.

So, we will see how that plays out in the Final Report.

In regards Batty, I have gone to her Website (run by a Public Relations Consultant) and quoted from that Family Report, and asking for a response.

I have heard nothing in response.

And, therein lies the problem.

There is absolutely no speculation about the positions I quote - they are direct references and there is no input by me.

As I have said before on this thread, everyone has a story to tell and there needs to be recognition and respect given to all parties (and especially children).


There is no simple remedy, because the contributing factors are many and varied.

And, for every action there is a re-action.

I was fortunate because, some 25 years ago, I was able to successfully apply to the Family Court of Australia and then to exit the work place (from a very senior position) to parent my children full time.

I mention that because my circumstances were and are different from others - and I only know the impact on me so whilst I may say "I understand" to others I have no idea of the pressures they are under and the impact on them.

This

is not under the guise of "excuse".

It is under the guise of "learn what we are dealing with and why. What is contributing and why?"

Until we address the full gambit of those questions we will not address the issue and its remedy.

Brilliant, TTP. I too, have attempted to contact the Batty camp, without success. As with you, all I want is to present some facts about family violence. These facts obviously don't sit well with her handlers. I work with the male victims of female inflicted violence. Yes, they do exist and are more common than you think. TTT, don't let the truth get in the way of the gospel according to St.Rosie.

[White Winmar]

You're the one presenting stats that you really like and you think you can distort to support your bitter agenda.

By all means discuss men on men issues if that's you're thing, but so far all you're doing is attacking someone (in a really vile way) who sees this as an example of man on woman violence, which is an entirely valid position, and entirely relevant in this case.

Still waiting to hear how much of all this violence is perpetrated by men, too, btw.

Markp, there is an ugly hidden truth about family violence. I've worked in the area as both investigator and counsellor for 25 years. Women are more than capable of inflicting violence and do so far more than the truthmakers would have us believe. Women abuse differently to men. Men are more violent, that is not in dispute. That's the tragic conesquence of the way we, as a gender, tend to manifest anger and frustration. No one is saying it's not reprehensible, nor in need of resolution.

Women tend to abuse men through psychological methods. Humiliation, degradation and the use of sex as a weapon. It's one of the reasons that men commit suicide at 4 times the rate of women. Men are more "successful" at suicide (hate that term, but you get my drift) because they use more violent means. Let's not also forget men also suffer other forms of abuse at the hands of women and the system. Financial, legal (the use of intervention orders to deny access and gain leverage at Family Court hearings, etc.) denial of access to children, anxiety about parenting. I could go on. As a child, you are 4 times as likely to be murdered by your mother than your father. You're far more likely to be abused and neglected by your mother, than your father. Uncomfortable truths that are reflected in the stats. My source? The Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Miskycat is right to be frustrated. Women do cop a raw deal in so many areas of life. I have a 21 year old daughter. I worry about her safety far more than that of my 23 year old son. He has told me recently, though, that the pub conversations he has with his mates centre around how they're so sick of being demonised and feminised in the media. I can't help thinking that the likes of Rosie and her handlers, while rightly working on a vital issue, are shutting 50% of the population out of the debate with their distortions, and unfortunately in some cases, outright falsehoods. Men have been labeled as the cause of the problem. No mention of women as perpetrators, especially against children. That's what drives the problem. If you keep denigrating and blaming one side, you'll get the inevitable backlash.

[loris]

The responses on here are interesting, as is their continuation.

The subject matter touches a nerve with me, for very particular reasons.

So I'll come clean in that I have made a submission to the Royal Commission into Domestic Violence, quoting from a Family Report attended by the Family Court of Australia and other independent documentation provided to me including responses from jurisdictions.

So, we will see how that plays out in the Final Report.

In regards Batty, I have gone to her Website (run by a Public Relations Consultant) and quoted from that Family Report, and asking for a response.

I have heard nothing in response.

And, therein lies the problem.

There is absolutely no speculation about the positions I quote - they are direct references and there is no input by me.

As I have said before on this thread, everyone has a story to tell and there needs to be recognition and respect given to all parties (and especially children).

There is no simple remedy, because the contributing factors are many and varied.

And, for every action there is a re-action.

I was fortunate because, some 25 years ago, I was able to successfully apply to the Family Court of Australia and then to exit the work place (from a very senior position) to parent my children full time.

I mention that because my circumstances were and are different from others - and I only know the impact on me so whilst I may say "I understand" to others I have no idea of the pressures they are under and the impact on them.

This is not under the guise of "excuse".

It is under the guise of "learn what we are dealing with and why. What is contributing and why?"

Until we address the full gambit of those questions we will not address the issue and its remedy.

Respect you for this post TTT. Loris

[Dis Believer]

But maybe you can explain to me why you're so horrified by the homicides of 78 women, but don't seem fussed by the fact that double that number of men have been murdered - I am still trying to get my head around why the gender of the victim matters - they are all dead, so why are the dead females deemed so much more worthy of our concern than the dead males, of whom there are twice as many?

I see the signed up Feminists and their white knights still aren't prepared to answer the questions?

Why does gender matter? Why, when males are murdered at twice the rate of females, are there deaths somehow less important?

And the answer to the question is - there are no shelters for male victims of domestic abuse, despite the fact that at least one third of all Australian victims are male. And more reliable figures from the USA and Western Europe from hundreds of studies over many years indicate the truer figure is more like 45%.

But of course that doesn't fit the desired narrative so there's thing you can can have a crack at without actually ever addressing it.

Incidentally, no-one yet has indicated how Martin was actually violent - did he punch the woman, or kick her, or strike a blow with a cudgel?

So far I've only actually heard that he mouthed off, but everyone is talking about "men's violence to women" so there must be way more to it than that.........yes???

[miskycat]

Perhaps this article will help explain how 'Martin was actually violent,' True Believer. Or will you dismiss it out of hand because you suspect it's written by one of those evil 'Feminists?'



'Dustin Martin row exposes double standards on attitudes to violence'

December 15, 2015 12:00am
Susie O’BrienHerald Sun

“BUSINESS as usual for Dusty”. Last Friday’s afl.com.au headline tells us everything we need to know about society’s attitude towards violence against women.

The message is clear. Disgraced Richmond player Dustin Martin is allowed to keep training as usual while allegations of violence against him are being investigated by the AFL and the police.

In fact, he’s in Queensland right now on a training camp.

Just one day earlier afl.com.au reported on the fact that “AFL requests police investigate Dustin Martin over chopstick stab threat”.

But give it 24 hours and Martin was already back to being “Dusty” and Richmond’s “star” player.

Dustin’s in trouble. Dusty’s a mate.

A 30-year-old woman from Sydney has claimed Martin stood over her and threatened to stab her in the eye with a chopstick at Japanese restaurant Mr Miyagi. She says he said: “I’ll f---ing stab you.” She also claims he slammed his hand against a wall behind her head when she told him she would report him to the club.

Despite the seriousness of her claims, it’s clear the football community has closed ranks behind their mate Dusty.

Even Richmond president Peggy O’Neal said the club was “concerned” for the star. Shouldn’t she be more concerned about the welfare of the woman Martin is alleged to have violently threatened while intoxicated?

The AFL Players Association is also offering “help and support” to Martin, despite insisting there’s “no excuse for violence”. What’s it doing to help the woman?

Richmond skipper Trent Cotchin also admitted it “isn’t ideal” to have such an incident occur in mid-December. Why? Because it upsets the summer training schedule?

Even reporters are calling Martin Richmond’s “bad boy”, which severely underplays the severity of the situation.

At least Richmond CEO Brendon Gale admitted the incident was extremely serious. Gale has come out and said that any “threat of physical violence against a woman — or any member of the public for that matter — is completely unacceptable”.

He’s said both the club and Martin are “disappointed”. So why not take a stronger stand right now rather than waiting another week?

Why can’t everyone get on the front foot and state clearly what’s going to happen to Martin if the woman’s version of events is backed up by police?

Why is a former player like Kevin Bartlett the only one to stand up and say what punishment Martin should get if the incident is verified? Bartlett wants Martin banned for 12 months and to pay $50,000 to an appropriate anti-violence organisation. This would be a good start and would send a strong message.

Letting him hang out with his teammates in the Queensland sunshine just isn’t good enough.

Star Cats recruit Patrick Dangerfield, who is an anti-violence advocate, even urged people not to judge Martin: “Until we know all the facts, we can’t really hang someone out to dry.”

Martin has admitted he was drunk. There is evidence of him being escorted out of the restaurant. He has even apologised to the woman involved and to managers of the restaurant.

If he didn’t do anything, then why did he apologise?

Martin said he is willing to “take responsibility” for his behaviour and is “deeply embarrassed”.

“If anything I have said or done has caused anyone to feel threatened then that is totally inappropriate,” Martin said.

It’s time for him to come clean and explain exactly what happened. If he really is sorry he should voluntarily stand himself down and pledge a donation to the Luke Batty Foundation or White Ribbon.

With this much evidence already in the public domain, at the very least Martin should be stood down immediately until the matter is resolved.

Here we have a high-profile player who’s allowed to continue training as if nothing has happened while he’s under investigation by police for threatening a woman with violence. These men are in the public eye and a strong message must be sent to footy fans that such behaviour is not acceptable.

Making matters worse, the woman who accused Martin of threatening her has said she felt pressured by the AFL to water down her story and protect a club’s star player.

Yet again, the process protects the alleged male perpetrator while hanging the female victim out to dry.

Time and again female victims of violence say they are distressed at the way their complaints are handled.

In many cases it is so bad that they feel as if they are being abused all over again.

It’s no wonder women feel so powerless.

Another woman has spoken out this week, criticising the taxi industry for its terrible handling of a complaint against a driver who asked if he could “touch” her and wanted to take her photo.

The woman can’t even find out if the man is still driving because his privacy is more important than her right to feel safe and to protect other passengers.

It’s time violence against women is taken seriously. It’s time to stop vilifying victims and protecting perpetrators. Until this happens, the cycle of violence will continue.

SUSIE O’BRIEN IS A HERALD SUN COLUMNIST

[miskycat]

Perhaps this article will help explain how 'Martin was actually violent,' True Believer. Or will you dismiss it out of hand because you suspect it's written by one of those evil 'Feminists?'



'Dustin Martin row exposes double standards on attitudes to violence'

December 15, 2015 12:00am
Susie O’BrienHerald Sun

“BUSINESS as usual for Dusty”. Last Friday’s afl.com.au headline tells us everything we need to know about society’s attitude towards violence against women.

The message is clear. Disgraced Richmond player Dustin Martin is allowed to keep training as usual while allegations of violence against him are being investigated by the AFL and the police.

In fact, he’s in Queensland right now on a training camp.

Just one day earlier afl.com.au reported on the fact that “AFL requests police investigate Dustin Martin over chopstick stab threat”.

But give it 24 hours and Martin was already back to being “Dusty” and Richmond’s “star” player.

Dustin’s in trouble. Dusty’s a mate.

A 30-year-old woman from Sydney has claimed Martin stood over her and threatened to stab her in the eye with a chopstick at Japanese restaurant Mr Miyagi. She says he said: “I’ll f---ing stab you.” She also claims he slammed his hand against a wall behind her head when she told him she would report him to the club.

Despite the seriousness of her claims, it’s clear the football community has closed ranks behind their mate Dusty.

Even Richmond president Peggy O’Neal said the club was “concerned” for the star. Shouldn’t she be more concerned about the welfare of the woman Martin is alleged to have violently threatened while intoxicated?

The AFL Players Association is also offering “help and support” to Martin, despite insisting there’s “no excuse for violence”. What’s it doing to help the woman?

Richmond skipper Trent Cotchin also admitted it “isn’t ideal” to have such an incident occur in mid-December. Why? Because it upsets the summer training schedule?

Even reporters are calling Martin Richmond’s “bad boy”, which severely underplays the severity of the situation.

At least Richmond CEO Brendon Gale admitted the incident was extremely serious. Gale has come out and said that any “threat of physical violence against a woman — or any member of the public for that matter — is completely unacceptable”.

He’s said both the club and Martin are “disappointed”. So why not take a stronger stand right now rather than waiting another week?

Why can’t everyone get on the front foot and state clearly what’s going to happen to Martin if the woman’s version of events is backed up by police?

Why is a former player like Kevin Bartlett the only one to stand up and say what punishment Martin should get if the incident is verified? Bartlett wants Martin banned for 12 months and to pay $50,000 to an appropriate anti-violence organisation. This would be a good start and would send a strong message.

Letting him hang out with his teammates in the Queensland sunshine just isn’t good enough.

Star Cats recruit Patrick Dangerfield, who is an anti-violence advocate, even urged people not to judge Martin: “Until we know all the facts, we can’t really hang someone out to dry.”

Martin has admitted he was drunk. There is evidence of him being escorted out of the restaurant. He has even apologised to the woman involved and to managers of the restaurant.

If he didn’t do anything, then why did he apologise?

Martin said he is willing to “take responsibility” for his behaviour and is “deeply embarrassed”.

“If anything I have said or done has caused anyone to feel threatened then that is totally inappropriate,” Martin said.

It’s time for him to come clean and explain exactly what happened. If he really is sorry he should voluntarily stand himself down and pledge a donation to the Luke Batty Foundation or White Ribbon.

With this much evidence already in the public domain, at the very least Martin should be stood down immediately until the matter is resolved.

Here we have a high-profile player who’s allowed to continue training as if nothing has happened while he’s under investigation by police for threatening a woman with violence. These men are in the public eye and a strong message must be sent to footy fans that such behaviour is not acceptable.

Making matters worse, the woman who accused Martin of threatening her has said she felt pressured by the AFL to water down her story and protect a club’s star player.

Yet again, the process protects the alleged male perpetrator while hanging the female victim out to dry.

Time and again female victims of violence say they are distressed at the way their complaints are handled.

In many cases it is so bad that they feel as if they are being abused all over again.

It’s no wonder women feel so powerless.

Another woman has spoken out this week, criticising the taxi industry for its terrible handling of a complaint against a driver who asked if he could “touch” her and wanted to take her photo.

The woman can’t even find out if the man is still driving because his privacy is more important than her right to feel safe and to protect other passengers.

It’s time violence against women is taken seriously. It’s time to stop vilifying victims and protecting perpetrators. Until this happens, the cycle of violence will continue.

SUSIE O’BRIEN IS A HERALD SUN COLUMNIST

[miskycat]

Perhaps this article will help explain how 'Martin was actually violent,' True Believer. Or will you dismiss it out of hand because you suspect it's written by one of those evil 'Feminists?'



'Dustin Martin row exposes double standards on attitudes to violence'

December 15, 2015 12:00am
Susie O’BrienHerald Sun

“BUSINESS as usual for Dusty”. Last Friday’s afl.com.au headline tells us everything we need to know about society’s attitude towards violence against women.

The message is clear. Disgraced Richmond player Dustin Martin is allowed to keep training as usual while allegations of violence against him are being investigated by the AFL and the police.

In fact, he’s in Queensland right now on a training camp.

Just one day earlier afl.com.au reported on the fact that “AFL requests police investigate Dustin Martin over chopstick stab threat”.

But give it 24 hours and Martin was already back to being “Dusty” and Richmond’s “star” player.

Dustin’s in trouble. Dusty’s a mate.

A 30-year-old woman from Sydney has claimed Martin stood over her and threatened to stab her in the eye with a chopstick at Japanese restaurant Mr Miyagi. She says he said: “I’ll f---ing stab you.” She also claims he slammed his hand against a wall behind her head when she told him she would report him to the club.

Despite the seriousness of her claims, it’s clear the football community has closed ranks behind their mate Dusty.

Even Richmond president Peggy O’Neal said the club was “concerned” for the star. Shouldn’t she be more concerned about the welfare of the woman Martin is alleged to have violently threatened while intoxicated?

The AFL Players Association is also offering “help and support” to Martin, despite insisting there’s “no excuse for violence”. What’s it doing to help the woman?

Richmond skipper Trent Cotchin also admitted it “isn’t ideal” to have such an incident occur in mid-December. Why? Because it upsets the summer training schedule?

Even reporters are calling Martin Richmond’s “bad boy”, which severely underplays the severity of the situation.

At least Richmond CEO Brendon Gale admitted the incident was extremely serious. Gale has come out and said that any “threat of physical violence against a woman — or any member of the public for that matter — is completely unacceptable”.

He’s said both the club and Martin are “disappointed”. So why not take a stronger stand right now rather than waiting another week?

Why can’t everyone get on the front foot and state clearly what’s going to happen to Martin if the woman’s version of events is backed up by police?

Why is a former player like Kevin Bartlett the only one to stand up and say what punishment Martin should get if the incident is verified? Bartlett wants Martin banned for 12 months and to pay $50,000 to an appropriate anti-violence organisation. This would be a good start and would send a strong message.

Letting him hang out with his teammates in the Queensland sunshine just isn’t good enough.

Star Cats recruit Patrick Dangerfield, who is an anti-violence advocate, even urged people not to judge Martin: “Until we know all the facts, we can’t really hang someone out to dry.”

Martin has admitted he was drunk. There is evidence of him being escorted out of the restaurant. He has even apologised to the woman involved and to managers of the restaurant.

If he didn’t do anything, then why did he apologise?

Martin said he is willing to “take responsibility” for his behaviour and is “deeply embarrassed”.

“If anything I have said or done has caused anyone to feel threatened then that is totally inappropriate,” Martin said.

It’s time for him to come clean and explain exactly what happened. If he really is sorry he should voluntarily stand himself down and pledge a donation to the Luke Batty Foundation or White Ribbon.

With this much evidence already in the public domain, at the very least Martin should be stood down immediately until the matter is resolved.

Here we have a high-profile player who’s allowed to continue training as if nothing has happened while he’s under investigation by police for threatening a woman with violence. These men are in the public eye and a strong message must be sent to footy fans that such behaviour is not acceptable.

Making matters worse, the woman who accused Martin of threatening her has said she felt pressured by the AFL to water down her story and protect a club’s star player.

Yet again, the process protects the alleged male perpetrator while hanging the female victim out to dry.

Time and again female victims of violence say they are distressed at the way their complaints are handled.

In many cases it is so bad that they feel as if they are being abused all over again.

It’s no wonder women feel so powerless.

Another woman has spoken out this week, criticising the taxi industry for its terrible handling of a complaint against a driver who asked if he could “touch” her and wanted to take her photo.

The woman can’t even find out if the man is still driving because his privacy is more important than her right to feel safe and to protect other passengers.

It’s time violence against women is taken seriously. It’s time to stop vilifying victims and protecting perpetrators. Until this happens, the cycle of violence will continue.

SUSIE O’BRIEN IS A HERALD SUN COLUMNIST

[markp]

Who is denying women can be and are violent, and towards men?

Who? Where?

What we've got here is an alleged act of violence by a man against a woman (and if you can't accept the events as reported or alleged as violence, then geez....) and several people addressing the discussion in those terms.

But some other people seem to have a real problem with that, when I'd have thought it's entirely reasonable.

Somehow it's not ok to even have a seperate discussion about, or category of violence against women.

Maybe you have a problem with breast cancer awareness campaigns too, because men also get breast cancer, and prostate cancer... or save the whales, because there are other endangered creatures out there.

Talk about your men's issues all you like, but why (and how can you) deny and denigrate the issue of male on female violence?

[ripplug66]

Susie has always been such a good columnist. She was extra good when she wrote about the violence at the soccer. Its not emotive to say he is in the Queensland. Of course he should be allowed to train. Actually I'm unsure the article has much merit at all.

[Dis Believer]

Who is denying women can be and are violent, and towards men?

Who? Where?

What we've got here is an alleged act of violence by a man against a woman (and if you can't accept the events as reported or alleged as violence, then geez....) and several people addressing the discussion in those terms.

But some other people seem to have a real problem with that, when I'd have thought it's entirely reasonable.

Somehow it's not ok to even have a separate discussion about, or category of violence against women.

Maybe you have a problem with breast cancer awareness campaigns too, because men also get breast cancer, and prostate cancer... or save the whales, because there are other endangered creatures out there.

Talk about your men's issues all you like, but why (and how can you) deny and denigrate the issue of male on female violence?

Why - why does it matter that he's male - would it have been less traumatic for the victim if the aggressor had been a large, muscular female? What I want to know is why is the gender of the alleged perpetrator and victim relevant. I would suggest the biggest issue facing our society in terms violence is the massive Ice epidemic

I fail to see why if someone punches you in the face and breaks your nose it makes any difference if your assailant had hairy knuckles or wore nail-polish? I also fail to see why your gender will cause any difference to the pain you feel if someone breaks your nose?

Tell me why Rosie Batty is in the paper weekly and getting awards while a Cairns woman that butchered 8 children in Cairns just twelve months ago was out of the press within about 8 weeks and has rated a mention since.

I am not saying there can be no discussions, but personally I think the whole supposed epidemic of "men's violence against women" is largely a "created" crisis. And it is created by those with skin in the game. Those with their eyes on the hundreds of millions in funding that means the continuation of their well paid and comfortable jobs running research studies within "Gender Studies" departments, and those with well paid executive positions running "awareness" and "support" programs.

The majority of violence is perpetrated by males. Partly that's driven by testosterone and will never fully be addressed.The vast majority of men are not violent however. But the fact is that some people are violent, and feel no empathy, both male and female. To most of those people the gender of their victim is irrelevant, and they behave that way because they have missed out on either the opportunity or the capacity to be able to learn to handle things non violently.

The other fact is that those that treat people who are smaller and weaker than themselves differently form how they treat someone who is larger and stronger are cowards - they know what they are doing is wrong, and no amount of "educating" them will change that.......

[desertsaint]

Who is denying women can be and are violent, and towards men?

Who? Where?

What we've got here is an alleged act of violence by a man against a woman (and if you can't accept the events as reported or alleged as violence, then geez....) and several people addressing the discussion in those terms.

But some other people seem to have a real problem with that, when I'd have thought it's entirely reasonable.

Somehow it's not ok to even have a seperate discussion about, or category of violence against women.

Maybe you have a problem with breast cancer awareness campaigns too, because men also get breast cancer, and prostate cancer... or save the whales, because there are other endangered creatures out there.

Talk about your men's issues all you like, but why (and how can you) deny and denigrate the issue of male on female violence?

markp i think the argument proposed is that you can't seperate male violence against women from violence fullstop, let alone from male violence. To ignore the latter in order to concentrate on the former will achieve nothing. Speak out against violence in all forms or it will simply continue to fester if somehow magically expected to be banished in just one form.
My sister (a pretty strong feminist that works with domestic offenders) sees violence as mainly prepertrated through control, and physical violence is actually pretty low in comparison. She sees it mainly as a male against female phenonemon - mainly due to traditional norms whereby the man is king of the house. These norms must be shattered. But we differ, her and I, on where the focus should be. I believe in approaching it from a gender neutral perspective because, as she admits, the traditional 'masculine' role is sometimes taken by the female. To ignore victims on the basis of gender is discrimination and allows the problem to continue.

[st.byron]

But maybe you can explain to me why you're so horrified by the homicides of 78 women, but don't seem fussed by the fact that double that number of men have been murdered - I am still trying to get my head around why the gender of the victim matters - they are all dead, so why are the dead females deemed so much more worthy of our concern than the dead males, of whom there are twice as many?

I see the signed up Feminists and their white knights still aren't prepared to answer the questions?

Why does gender matter? Why, when males are murdered at twice the rate of females, are there deaths somehow less important?

And the answer to the question is - there are no shelters for male victims of domestic abuse, despite the fact that at least one third of all Australian victims are male. And more reliable figures from the USA and Western Europe from hundreds of studies over many years indicate the truer figure is more like 45%.

But of course that doesn't fit the desired narrative so there's thing you can can have a crack at without actually ever addressing it.

Incidentally, no-one yet has indicated how Martin was actually violent - did he punch the woman, or kick her, or strike a blow with a cudgel?

So far I've only actually heard that he mouthed off, but everyone is talking about "men's violence to women" so there must be way more to it than that.........yes???

TB, it's not that male deaths are less important. And I get what you're saying about male victimhood being swept under the carpet in the light of White Ribbon and other causes designed to raise awareness of violence against women. There's no question that services catering to male victims are very very thin compared to those supporting women - it's also very much the case in cases of sexual assault. And there's no doubt that there is a cultural narrative of belittling men and portraying them as stupid, violent and bumbling. As a man I find this painful and frustrating.

But.......the fact is that men perpetrate the violence way more than women do. This is the guts of it. I feel women have very very legitimate reasons to be pointing the finger at men. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for a moment and switch the stats around. If women were perpetrating violent crimes at 4 times the rate of men - and if men were victims of violent crime at 4 times the rate of women (I don't accept removing the sexual assault figures from the equation), if those were the circumstances, don't you think as a man you might have a beef with the female gender and you might respond to a woman complaining about unacknowledged female victims with WTF ?

[st.byron]

Incidentally, no-one yet has indicated how Martin was actually violent - did he punch the woman, or kick her, or strike a blow with a cudgel?

So far I've only actually heard that he mouthed off, but everyone is talking about "men's violence to women" so there must be way more to it than that.........yes???

And re the above......do you not regard threatening someone with stabbing and slamming a fist into a wall next to their head as violent?

[markp]

So the violence perpetrated against men is mostly by men, and sometimes women.

And the violence perpetrated against women is mostly by men, and sometimes women.

There are a plethora of distinctive issues surrounding each of these variations, relating to things like sex and power and ingrained cultural dynamics. In each of them

But we can't, and women can't, have a seperate discourse or campaign for violence against women (the group that suffers most from a disparity), and men can't support it.

Ok.

[White Winmar]

Who is denying women can be and are violent, and towards men?

Who? Where?

What we've got here is an alleged act of violence by a man against a woman (and if you can't accept the events as reported or alleged as violence, then geez....) and several people addressing the discussion in those terms.

But some other people seem to have a real problem with that, when I'd have thought it's entirely reasonable.

Somehow it's not ok to even have a seperate discussion about, or category of violence against women.

Maybe you have a problem with breast cancer awareness campaigns too, because men also get breast cancer, and prostate cancer... or save the whales, because there are other endangered creatures out there.

Talk about your men's issues all you like, but why (and how can you) deny and denigrate the issue of male on female violence?

Sorry, markp, but I don't think you are being objective. I've clearly stated that violence against women is wrong and that we need to do everything we can to stop it. It's just the way the "debate" (by definition a debate needs two sides) is being conducted, you'd be forgiven for thinking that men are solely to blame and can somehow fix the problem. The facts show that it is far from a single gender issue when it comes to causes and outcomes. The stats I've quoted are consistent with my personal experience of the issue over 25 years as a "first responder".