Might be worth switching the link to the academic paper he references at the end. The academics are a bit more detail oriented:

> Greater equality has reduced severe partner violence against women, allowed them to resist abuse more effectively, and made it easier for women to separate from abusive men”

And

> In case there is any confusion, we want to make it clear that we do not dispute the link between gender inequality and gendered violence. Gender inequality is both a cause and a consequence of gendered violence. However, we know from international evidence (and history) that greater rates of gender equality are necessary but not sufficient for the prevention of gendered violence. We are not suggesting that the gendered violence sector abandon the project of gender equality as an important goal, but we do dispute a disproportionate focus on ‘gendered drivers’ of violence, both in analysis of the problem and the parameters of the prevention response.

https://jesshill.substack.com/p/rethinking-primary-preventio...

I'm neither an Aussie, nor tuned in to the news or trends down there...but from skimming the article, I get the sense that the whole subject has turned into an ideological war - where more victims of violence is "good", because it makes the warriors feel more important.

Hopefully that's not the case, and the author is just doing some meta-musing?

Well, if you're fighting some injustice, in some sense having more of it happen is "good", because it will make make your cause more public, and so has a better chance of reducing it in the future. These "warriors", as you refer to them, most likely don't wish for more violence, but also recognize that something good can come out of it.

This doesn't mean you should become cynical or suspicious of the cause, it's just how the publicity game is played. If you're far removed from the subject, it probably comes off as calculating and cold, but in reality it probably also feels very bad for the "warriors".

It's also what's wrong with the 'self esteem' movement.

If everyone is taught how special they are, it sets them up for humiliation, shame, and possible violence or radical identity politics when they find out they are not, other than being unique.

Are there that many violent offenders walking around thinking there so special? Like the problem with their childhood is that people treated them so well they just had such a high self-esteem??? but didn’t do anything to justify it? That’s not my impression of violent offenders but I’m no expert.

Isn't this exactly what the article is saying, the problem is when people don't get the respect they think they deserve in some incident.

Huh? Which part of the article is saying that specifically???

They think they deserve? I don't think the article questions the validity of their desire to be treated with respect...only the validity of violence as response.

So... sounds like you think self esteem is the problem? So people should not expect to be treated with respect?

That seems like the kind of toxic position.

But I also think it's confusing the main issue: it seems unlikely that violent offenders are the type of people who were raised with an abundance of self esteem, you think they were treated so well that they felt so great about themselves that they reached for violence in response to insult? I'm no expert, but my view of violent offenders is they must come from very difficult circumstances, in general. Cycle of violence, right? Or you don't think so? Hahaha! :)

Kind of sounds like you're saying self esteem is the problem that leads to violence? So you think people shouldn't expect to be treated well? To not be humiliated? Shamed? Disrespected?

I think the problem is more: who is doing this humiliation, shaming and disrespect and that the response to that should not be violence.

On the whole tho it does not seem that people raised in a feel good environment, with an abundance of self-esteem would reach for violence as the response to not being treated well. The problem is not self esteem, but rather the abusers who are humiliating, shaming, and dispecting, or normalizing that -- and the choice of violence as response to that.

as Margaret Atwood said, 'men are afraid that women will laugh at them, women are afraid that men will kill them'

which group are the delicate snowflakes really?

Hahahaha! :) Sure, but if that's true isn't saying "delicate snowflakes" judging that? I mean, we should respect people's reasonable feelings right?

Otherwise that would be abusive. Shaming people for having feelings by calling them 'delicate snowflakes'? Part of the problem. Hahahaha! :) Otherwise that normalizes dismissing/minimizing people's feelings and saying 'oh it's not the abuse/shaming/humiliation that's the problem, it's how they feel about that that's the problem.' I mean, that's not good. That's like victim blaming, right? Hahaha! :)

I mean, me, as a man, I'm not afraid of women laughing at me. I like women laughing at me, that's good right? But I am afraid of them being cruel, lyin' about me, and lawfare: you know, alimony, that kind of stuff. Although, so far, I have a had lot of luck with many of the women in my life and I've no complaints about women in general. Tho those are some things to watch out for, I think - judging by the experience of others! Hahaha! :)

I mean it's catchy what Margaret Atwood says, but not sure how true that is. Kind of biased tho? Hahahaha! :) have a good one eh :)

The newspaper uses two titles for this, the alternate is: 'Waleed Aly: To reduce domestic violence rates in Australia, we should be looking past the respect spectrum argument'

There's other discussion here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13377481/waleed-aly...