You are making the mistake of assuming that DV is only represented by homicide counts. It's a bit like those anti-abortion campaigners who only use third-trimester abortion as their talking point, when third-trimester abortion accounts for less than 0.1% of abortions. Using the extreme case in place of the general case doesn't do anyone any favours. Your link does point out that violence swings both ways and that women tend to be the more violent partner, but it also points out that women are more likely to be injured. Men aren't getting dangerously injured by DV to the point where there's enough to support several battered men's shelters in every major city.

And you know something? "So what"? So what if women get this one in their favour? Who really gives a fuck? Men get plenty of other things in their favour, let the women 'win' one for once. I never see this kind of impassioned reasoning and stats-counting from men arguing for things that benefit women. Women's sport funding is an absolute joke in comparison to men's funding in this country, but I don't see frothy stats about that. Similarly there are government awareness programs targeting men's depression that women don't get. And is 20% more women graduating uni really that much of an advantage, given that men heavily outgun women in trades apprenticeships (more lucrative than many uni degrees, certainly more lucrative than mine), and degrees mean less and less as time goes on?

You talk about building respect, but you're also arguing against any effort that's not totally even-handed if it benefits women. Targeted campaigns work, and there's no reason why we can't have one for men in the future, but seriously, by demanding perfect you are being the enemy of good.

Yes, there's sexism against men. I remember in my early twenties when a woman who liked me punched me on the arm so hard it left a sizable bruise. I didn't mention it, because as a man you're 'supposed to just take it', and of course if I did the opposite it'd make the entire pub fall silent. Likewise, a hippy acquaintance of mine says that he feels like he can't watch children play in the park because people act like he's a paedophile, when he's just enjoying kids having fun. That doesn't mean we should mope about government initiatives because they don't target us. Do you decry any assistance aborigines get that white folks don't? Think that Abstudy is unfair compared to Austudy? Do you decry language assistance to immigrants because aussies don't get assistance to learn foreign languages?

I fully support the anti-domestic-violence ads, because they get this distasteful topic out into the open and overtly say "this is not on". I don't care that it's targeted to violence against women. It's a good thing in and of itself (the ads, not the violence :) ), and whether or not it's politically motivated is beside the point of the good it can do. And if you want actual gender equality, that means giving up a lot of things that us men take for granted, like the aforementioned sports funding.

Perhaps a better way for me to put it is this: stop whiteanting things that women have built to better their lot, and do something to better men's lot (or everyone's lot). I see this in a lot of complaints that men have about gender bias against men - they only start talking when women succeed at getting a project off the ground. I have never seen a man talk about DV in a public forum without DV against women starting that conversation, and a decade ago I used to do the same thing: pointing out DV against men and supplying links, but only in response to discussion of DV against women. Thing is though, those projects to help people do take a lot of work, and they're better for society in general. So instead of decrying the ones that do exist, people should promote ones that aren't off the ground yet if they feel there's an imbalance. Do something constructive for the men (or for all), rather than destroying something for the women. Inevitably the "what about the men" is forgotten about until the next time a women's initiative takes off. So rather than say "God, that's sexist!", say "Fucking about time we got into a public discussion about DV and how to stop it!". Talking about DV doesn't mean we can't also talk about mental health, and it may even help strengthen the push to improve mental health.

I do agree that the topic is more nuanced, but the media, government, and general public aren't into talking that level of nuance (to whit: One Nation is going to get two senators and possibly a lower house seat, and Hanson makes Trump look educated).