Violence against women - how we tune out of it..

(115 Posts)
Pan Sat 02-Nov-13 12:51:19

Interesting TED Talk about this issue and how we see such violence as women's issues.
It's about 17 mins long BUT your attention will be grabbed within seconds.

What do we think?

It covers the whole matter much in the way as I see it.

Backonthefence Sat 02-Nov-13 15:09:28

Well I watched all of it, makes some good points although the comment about silence meaning consent will not go down well with feminists.

Anyway enough about feminists and their issues, personally I do have one issue he assumes all men are confident and leaders.

Personally I feel that the best way to deal with male violence would be to start with the young, violence will never disappear it is as much a part of us as say empathy is obviously it will vary between people. We can start by giving boys constructive outlets for agression in a team building way backed up with motivational speeches by male role models.

Imagine someone like David Beckham said something similar to a bunch of 12year olds they would hang on his every word.

Pan Sat 02-Nov-13 15:30:26

Agree massively about role models stepping in and that would be great.

I also read 'leaders' also as men being their own 'leaders' and doing what is right by example.
Outlet for aggression? I'm not sold on that idea to be honest.

Backonthefence Sat 02-Nov-13 15:48:15

Well after reading the thread about boys and rugby and many people on there saying how their sons were less aggressive generally or that it helped them somewhat I feel that an outlet can be beneficial as long as it is managed correctly.

Pan Sat 02-Nov-13 16:07:00

oh sure you may be right, though I didn't see that thread.

I just query the idea that boys are more naturally aggressive than girls - I think if they are it's due to being socialised into it - it's 'expected'.

Younger I played A LOT of footie up to representative 'county' level. I loved it and never saw it as an outlet.

OTOH....by sister played hockey. It was carnage.grin

Husbandplus3 Mon 04-Nov-13 12:26:51

Well I just watched that. He is correct. Violence against women is a men's issue.
I know he concentrated on violence against women by men. But there is another issue, largely swept under the carpet. And that issue is violence against men by women. Why? Coz men won't acknowledge it. It's not "manly" to admit that a man has been beaten by a woman.
And in both instances, where does it start? Why does or can become a woman brasher? It can start out as friendly physical play between the two. But then it gets out of hand. What starts out friendly finishes up violent. What was it my mum and dad use to say? "Keep your hands to yourself".

TiggyD Mon 04-Nov-13 18:32:38

Husbandplus3 - What you seem to be saying is 'yes, violence against women is bad, but let's forget about that for a bit and talk about women abusing me.' It's a bit like going to the scene of a famine and telling the staving masses how bad you have it because your hotel minibar was badly stocked. In a thread with a title that starts "Violence against women" it's probably best to stick to violence against women.

And as for your belief that physical abuse is physical play that gets out of hand...

...

...good grief! Please find out more about such a sensitive subject before you post such truly idiotic statements again.

Pan Mon 04-Nov-13 19:41:41

Fuckin' hell Tiggy. Make sure you don't take any prisoners will you!

I'd think eviscerating someone's offering isn't really the way to go as a rhetoritician is it? confused. You'll be accused as being a radfem at that rate..
Husbandplus3 - yes the OP was about male violence as a thing that fades out the perpetrators in practice, largely, and it really isn't good enough to say it's a womans issue with support of 'nice men' here and there. So we'd agree it's a male thing, NOT a female thing.

and yes the notion of it being play fights that go too far does come across as not really able to explain how come so many women die at the hands of their male partners, or ex-partners. There's something more difficult and 'systematic' at play there, and the video wasn't offering a perspective on female violence (which happens) rather it asks 'what is it that men can do to recognise their problem'.

There is another TED Talk on how that violence affects us as men, but I can't find it right now. I'm offering those as 1. they say stuff much more eloquently than me and 2. it saves typing stuff. grin

Husbandplus3 Mon 04-Nov-13 20:58:36

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

TiggyD Mon 04-Nov-13 21:10:11

Now go back to this thread and discover what they think.

elportodelgato Mon 04-Nov-13 21:15:56

Husbandplus3, I think Tiggy is trying to make the point that SO MANY issues / threads like this are quickly hijacked by men saying something along the lines of 'but what about the menz?'

It does tend to get women's backs up, perhaps you should think on

APartridgeAmongThePigeons Mon 04-Nov-13 22:02:46

Why does or can become a woman brasher? It can start out as friendly physical play between the two. But then it gets out of hand. What starts out friendly finishes up violent. What was it my mum and dad use to say? "Keep your hands to yourself".

That's definitely the most likely reason...nothing to do with men having issues with control and then beating the shit out of their wives becase they haven't got their ways..like big spoiled toddlers.

How come "woman bashers" are usually "child bashers" too? Is that because they were rough housing with a baby and took it too far?

Women don't tend to play fight with men who turn it in to beating them.

angry

FFS

Daddyofone Mon 04-Nov-13 22:16:03

I think a large part of what he's proposing a man does really depends on the company you keep. Obviously his job brings him into contact with men like that, I personally don't and am a complete softie. I choose my friends carefully. I don't hang out with racist / sexist gits or the kind of blokes who think slapping their partners is acceptable. If I did I'd challenge them, but I don't. I don't go to poker nights or sports events etc.

I'm also not a leader in the way he described ( football coach etc ) , so other than challenging the extremely rare ( for me ) random derogatory comment I might hear from a stranger ( after assessing if they're likely to kick my head in or not ) , I'm personally not sure what I can do in the way he's proposing.

I did step into a situation once where a guy was hitting a woman in a club which was obviously the right thing to do, but I then got my head kicked in by him as I'm not at all experienced in hitting people. In the famous words of Michael Jackson , I'm a lover not a fighter.. Not of small children obviously.

I agree with what he's saying, that these attitudes should be challenged ( as should racism etc ) , and i'd like to think myself and my close friends would do this anyways, already, but I think it probably has limited scope in terms of the root causes of violence, especially in the home which is where the vast majority of it goes on. Behind closed doors.

Personally I think it'd be more productive if the genders joined against violence per say rather than making it about violence towards one gender which seems to what he's saying overall.

Hi by the way. :-)

Husbandplus3 Tue 05-Nov-13 11:20:31

Ok, so my one of my posts got deleted. I'll get over it.. However, Mumsnet, if your going to do so, please do me the curtesy of writing to me and telling me what I said that was against the rules. As far as I can remember, I did not attack any one personally. All I did was to answer Miss Tiggy, who doesn't appear to like me. Like I said, I'll get over it. Really, I will.
I made a point, quite valid, regarding the video. I stand by that point. Violence goes both ways. Men against women and women against men. Both should be condemned. This person has honed in on men. He made valid points. But balance please.
Oh, and I don't get in here very often. Unlike some, I have a life to live. I get on for a few minutes late in the evening.

Paleodad Tue 05-Nov-13 11:25:50

Thanks for posting this Pan, very interesting, and i think, very true.

Backonthefence i missed the bit about "silence meaning consent", so i'll listen again later and try to pick up on that.
However, and this is just my take, i didn't think he was assuming that "all men are confident and leaders", but that anyone in leadership roles have a greater responsibility to engage with these issues.
Putting aside the debate about boys/girls and aggression (i feel that in this case this is a separate issue, but i tend to agree with Pan here), i think that you are in fact in broad agreement with Katz: he is advocating that leadership and education must come from authority figures; in your example, Beckham is an authority figure and able to communicate to an engaged audience the absolute unacceptability of sexism and abuse.

husbandplus3 i don't think that any thing is being "swept under the carpet", but as Tiggy says, Katz' focus here is on violence toward women and the knock on effects to children caught up in this abusive cycle. As for "friendly physical play" that gets out of hand, i think you need to spend some time on the relationships board (lurking not posting!) to get some perspective and see how often this is true (like never)

Pan Tue 05-Nov-13 11:29:15

Husband - a deleted post in dadsnet is a rare event indeed.

I'd put the video here as it was relevant for us chaps IF there were an improvement it will come from us. tbh I wasn't pursuing 'balance', just an interesting take on one aspect of violence. I don't mind consideration of female violence, but that wasn't what was being questioned here.

Pan Tue 05-Nov-13 11:31:54

Miss Tiggy? Tiggy I know as a testosterone driven hunk, and as rough as a bear's arse. Your confusing him with someone else.

Husbandplus3 Tue 05-Nov-13 11:48:10

Paleodad I don't know about the UK, but here in Oz, many years ago, rough play was a known starting point to violence, particularly toward women. As I said, what started out as friendly rough housing turned ugly, when one hit a bit harder than intended. That's not excusing men, coz its not. Violence is violence is violence is violence and should never be condoned. Studies apparently also suggest that people can become accepting of the violence and eventually believe they deserve what they get. Which you and I both known is utter crap.
At one time here we were taught about the dangers of rough play.
Oh and while I am in this thread, my apologies to TiggyD. Your comments led me to the conclusion I made. I guess my assumption made an ass out of me! I did judge the book by its cover.

TiggyD Tue 05-Nov-13 12:05:48

Firstly, I don't hate you.

Secondly, I didn't report your post so it got deleted. That can be done by anyone. (And can be a bit annoying sometimes.)

Thirdly, I'm not upset if somebody mistakes me for a woman, however, Miss Tiggy makes me sound like the pig from the Muppets.

Fourthly, my intentions were to give you advice on what to avoid saying so you don't piss off all the women on here and get thought of as a sexist ninny.

Fifthly, I think you really need to back to the thread you were mansplaining in after your first ever post on this site. (Link above).

Paleodad Tue 05-Nov-13 12:06:43

i can honestly say that i have never heard of "rough play" being a starting point to violence, and to be perfectly honest it sounds like the kind of excuse an abuser/MRA might use (not that i'm accusing you of being either of course). I would also say it is both patronising toward, and belittles the experiences of, abused people of either sex.

Paleodad Tue 05-Nov-13 12:08:34

Arghh, x-post
not accusing either tiggyd or h+3 of being an MRA ect. promise wink

Paleodad Tue 05-Nov-13 12:09:08

shit, etc.

Good thread Pan smile

I'm a woman who's been the victim of DV, and grew up in a household where my father hit my mother. Rough play didn't ever come into it.

APartridgeAmongThePigeons Tue 05-Nov-13 13:14:54

Hmmm if you don't know someone's marital status the correct title is Ms. Or if they ask for you to call them Ms, then it's also Ms.

It isn't Miss.

Assuming someone is a woman purely because they aren't behaving in a knobish sexist way says you don't think much of your sex.

However as we aren't so formal as to use real (or imagined) titles on MN should I assume actually miss was meant as an insult? Not just a woman..but a young unmarried woman?

Pan Tue 05-Nov-13 13:16:28

Partridge - have you mis-threaded at all?

Pan Tue 05-Nov-13 13:25:54

Husband , must admit to being with others in not recognising the 'play fight' analysis. Yes for some lads who are belting each other and when asked why they say "Because we're mates!"...which can be quite smile on one level.
In reality the explanations go like this generally:
- I was pissed (sometimes deliberately so..)
- I thought she fancied/was shagging someone else, veeerry common.
- she knows how to push my buttons
- it was just a slap and she fell over hence the injuries.
- I have an anger management problem ( though only shows any evidence of hitting women)
- I only hit her because I love her so much.

Appreciate this isn't news just in to lots of folk, it seemed worth saying though to separate out the reality from 'play fights gone too far' notions.

Pan Tue 05-Nov-13 13:34:07

Also:
- I was under stress, it was out of character. (well it's just been evidenced that it's actually part of your character...)

Paleodad Tue 05-Nov-13 13:40:22

not a mis-thread but perhaps a correct identification of a pejorative (if unintended?) use of the noun, assuming that partridge interprets Husband's use of 'Miss' in a 'silly young woman' kind of way?
Not to heap more criticism on Husband, but it does seem to be thus.

Pan Tue 05-Nov-13 13:41:42

oh I seeee! Missed that. Thanks Paleo.

APartridgeAmongThePigeons Tue 05-Nov-13 13:46:45

What Paleo said. (but in a cleverer way)

Paleodad Tue 05-Nov-13 13:48:58

thanks, but not cleverer (had to google correct spelling pejorative....)

Paleodad Tue 05-Nov-13 13:50:33

see: *of pejorative

Pan Tue 05-Nov-13 13:57:43

If anyone's got further stomach for it, here's the other TED I'd lost.
about the recognition of sexually abusive conduct
I like esp. the bit 2 mins in where he asks 'what do men do on a daily basis to ensure they aren't molested'.

A sceptic could say 'well these are rich successful m/c men spouting off to the less successful in life'. One defensive posture, yes. But,
- they are doing it when they could be doing something else/earning more money.
- they are speaking up and as likely getting judged and insulted on-line for it.
- it's more effective when a man says it, for lots of reasons.
- importantly, it doesn't change the message whatsoever.

Back to "working at home for the day". Ha.

APartridgeAmongThePigeons Tue 05-Nov-13 14:04:31

I had to google cleverer!

I wrote it then it looked just like clevererererer in my head. And I wasn't sure if I wanted to say more clever. Wiki answers assures me my cleverer is right though.

Paleodad Tue 05-Nov-13 14:19:53

not to derail, but 'cleverer' does just look/sound just wrong doesn't it, i checked too.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Tue 05-Nov-13 16:14:05

It's an interesting talk, Pan, and one I have seen before. However, I think this one gets closer to the root of the problem;

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVI1Xutc_Ws

Let me know what you think.

Pan Wed 06-Nov-13 11:07:47

Well that was hard-hitting wasn't it Biggedy!

I'd agree with a lot of it, especially the alexithymia notion, that men are prone to not be able to produce a description of how they are feeling esp at times of high emotion and will rather walk away from that challenge. And certainly that a cause of that is a discouragement to not reflect on our own feelings, and so not have a 'vocabulary' for them. I'd recognise that in me from time to time, where I'd take a time-out and order myself better when others have an easier avenue to how they express themselves.

The first 3 elements he talked of (sports achievement, money and sexual prowess) are a bit tricky, in that overall, women often give credence to those things too, with other things being equal. And those 'validations' are immediate and gratifying so become rather attractive, imo. They don't require much emotional effort, or challenge, but the 'rewards' are satisfying in the short term and when young that's the time period people tend to think in.

I'd also question the 'team' ideal of mutual respect and dignity bit. Successful teams do not have to even like other team members. Conflict is a useful engine to manage improved performance. As a manager/leader I'd spent waaay too long under this illusion, and wasted time in trying to resolve differences etc (and these are/were female-dominated teams). Until realising I don;t care too much about how/what you think of each other, only at how any of that impinges on the quality of service our client group gets.

Backonthefence Fri 08-Nov-13 01:46:45

Hey pale,

I see you and pan are of the same mind in that aggression in males is totally socialised. Whilst I would agree that the level of aggression a population may have will be affected by their society I still believe males on average have a higher tendency for aggression.

This is because hormone levels between the sexes differ and hormones have a huge impact on behaviour. Many people think that humans are on some higher plane we are not virtually all our basic behaviour and actions is similar to other mammals.

In virtually all mammals the males of the species are more aggressive. You then have the fact that the males are on average larger than the females for the sole purpose of aggression and generally against males of their own kind.

Now I am not saying violence is enivitable just that we should set up a plan with the right goal and not go for an unrealistic and unobtainable goal.

Backonthefence Fri 08-Nov-13 01:46:49

Hey pale,

I see you and pan are of the same mind in that aggression in males is totally socialised. Whilst I would agree that the level of aggression a population may have will be affected by their society I still believe males on average have a higher tendency for aggression.

This is because hormone levels between the sexes differ and hormones have a huge impact on behaviour. Many people think that humans are on some higher plane we are not virtually all our basic behaviour and actions is similar to other mammals.

In virtually all mammals the males of the species are more aggressive. You then have the fact that the males are on average larger than the females for the sole purpose of aggression and generally against males of their own kind.

Now I am not saying violence is enivitable just that we should set up a plan with the right goal and not go for an unrealistic and unobtainable goal.

Backonthefence Fri 08-Nov-13 01:46:57

Hey pale,

I see you and pan are of the same mind in that aggression in males is totally socialised. Whilst I would agree that the level of aggression a population may have will be affected by their society I still believe males on average have a higher tendency for aggression.

This is because hormone levels between the sexes differ and hormones have a huge impact on behaviour. Many people think that humans are on some higher plane we are not virtually all our basic behaviour and actions is similar to other mammals.

In virtually all mammals the males of the species are more aggressive. You then have the fact that the males are on average larger than the females for the sole purpose of aggression and generally against males of their own kind.

Now I am not saying violence is enivitable just that we should set up a plan with the right goal and not go for an unrealistic and unobtainable goal.

Backonthefence Fri 08-Nov-13 01:47:06

Hey pale,

I see you and pan are of the same mind in that aggression in males is totally socialised. Whilst I would agree that the level of aggression a population may have will be affected by their society I still believe males on average have a higher tendency for aggression.

This is because hormone levels between the sexes differ and hormones have a huge impact on behaviour. Many people think that humans are on some higher plane we are not virtually all our basic behaviour and actions is similar to other mammals.

In virtually all mammals the males of the species are more aggressive. You then have the fact that the males are on average larger than the females for the sole purpose of aggression and generally against males of their own kind.

Now I am not saying violence is enivitable just that we should set up a plan with the right goal and not go for an unrealistic and unobtainable goal.

Backonthefence Fri 08-Nov-13 01:47:08

Hey pale,

I see you and pan are of the same mind in that aggression in males is totally socialised. Whilst I would agree that the level of aggression a population may have will be affected by their society I still believe males on average have a higher tendency for aggression.

This is because hormone levels between the sexes differ and hormones have a huge impact on behaviour. Many people think that humans are on some higher plane we are not virtually all our basic behaviour and actions is similar to other mammals.

In virtually all mammals the males of the species are more aggressive. You then have the fact that the males are on average larger than the females for the sole purpose of aggression and generally against males of their own kind.

Now I am not saying violence is enivitable just that we should set up a plan with the right goal and not go for an unrealistic and unobtainable goal.

Backonthefence Fri 08-Nov-13 01:49:23

Omg stupid phone sorry some major mishap there.....

Daddyofone Fri 08-Nov-13 07:14:49

I'd agree with all of it. I think the underlaying reasons are partly socialised , partly biological and partly socio-economic. I'd throw religious dogma in there too.

I'd note that in the OPs original video the guy mentions the military a lot. I'd think that if you ask someone to be a professional killer, and put them in a war zone , and then ignore their PTSD and fly them home, it's a recipie for disaster.

At a guess I'd bet that cases of DV in military families shoots up after troops return home. I suppose you could argue that this is socialisation in that we largely ask men to do the dangerous unpleasant stuff. But I think the solution there is more in supplying specialist professional help like the guy in the original video offers ( I think )

That's not to say men shouldn't be vocal about how unacceptable DV is, but I don't agree it's purely down to socialisation or any kind of prevailing attitude towards women. I think a lot of factors come into play.

I agree with you Daddy that a lot of factors come into play. And I've heard a lot about DV in soldiers: I agree too that there needs to be lots of help for people returning from war zones. I think PTSD isn't well supported in the main, and I'm sure that contributes to the number of ex-service personnel becoming homeless.

I don't think there are any easy answers.

Backonthefence Fri 08-Nov-13 13:58:44

Accepting it will lead to a greater understanding rather than trying to hide it or believe it is not an issue.

I personally feel for something like this you would need to target boys earlier. Its a bit like when elderly people make racist comments, people tend to ignore it and say they are stuck in their ways.

But how can you reduce violence against women without trying to reduce violence in general. Men assault and kill other men in greater numbers than they do women. Would it not be best to aim to reduce violence overall?

lostdad Fri 08-Nov-13 17:08:49

I'm an old-fashioned soul. I think violence against anyone regardless of their gender is unacceptable.

I would also question the motives of anyone who considers violence against one particular section of the population is worse than violence against any others too.

Pan Fri 08-Nov-13 17:33:52

lostdad evening!

yeah of course any violence is unacceptable, irrespective of gender.

I'm a bit curious about wot you mean about the last bit - I'm failing to see anywhere here where there is a competition for importance being set up?

Can I guess at what you mean? Is it because the video didn't address female violence? Or violence in general?

I'd think the video maker was pretty straight-foward about what he was looking at, and not looking at. As I was when I saw it. He had 20 mins max ( I think that's the TED limit) and so did his stuff on one aspect.

or have I guessed utterly wrongly?grin

RE the 'importance' I would say that violence where most damage is caused would appear on a hierarchy of violence. Where children are hit or witness abuse, where it is done by someone much bigger onto someone much smaller, where other more vulnerable people suffer, and where it is regular and 'hidden'. I'd wouldn't be 'suspicious' of the motives of people who wish to prioritise on gender lines once they have explained themselves perhaps.

Am I catching your drift at all? < 70's refugee here..>

Pan Fri 08-Nov-13 18:24:24

In fact, to add, I wouldn't mind commencing a thread about female violence and it's profile. I've been subject this, and one accusation of committing an act of violence on a female partner, so if/when I have the space yes.
Violence and the fear/threat of it is so compromising of a good quality of life.

Daddyofone Fri 08-Nov-13 22:57:06

backonthefence but don't you think boys are already ingrained with the idea that 'hitting girls' is unacceptable ? It certainly was when I was a lad.

You could hit boys of course, or be hit by them. But if a boy started hitting a girl he would have been demonised by virtually the entire school.

I've a fuzzy recollection that the DV figures in the UK have a very large slant towards poorer areas. And I can well imagine that if you take a couple who possibly aren't that well suited, put them in an acutely cramped home, take away any chance of work, introduce drugs and alcohol , stress, and offer a crap education, a crap childhood, It's like a tinderbox just waiting to go off.

I think everyone is capable of it if you push them enough.

lostdad I agree wholeheartedly. Any violence is terrible. I know the feminists bring up the 2 women a week figure a lot, which is terrible truly, but if you have a son and a daughter, your son is far more likely to be murdered. But it doesn't really help to find a solution to just focus on one gender. We're all potentially at risk from mad violent fuckers.

Pan Fri 08-Nov-13 23:14:03

Daddy, it isn't just the feminists who raise the 2 women killed per week by an ex or current partner. It;s raised by anyone who works in the field of violence and general abuse. The stats are clear and not 'owned' by anyone.

and no to be honest. Who will kill you isn't random. We aren;t all equally at risk from the 'mad violent fuckers'. It's fairly specific. Women, for example, don't get killed by other women. They get killed by the men they know. That's pretty plain isn't it? Hence the video, and who is responsible and who has to change,

So yes really difficult socio-economic circumstances are challenging. But when you say "like a tinder box waiting to go off" who actually 'goes off'??

Pan Fri 08-Nov-13 23:26:43

and yes, a son of yours is more likely to be murdered. By another man. My daughter, statistically, is more likely to be murdered by a partner, or ex-partner. Not a female friend.

So no, as much as we would like to say 'violence is awful', we don't individually experience it in equal measure from a random set of people. It's very specific.

Daddyofone Fri 08-Nov-13 23:35:57

Most people get killed by someone they know Pan. And in most cases in the home. I didn't say it was random.

When you say ' we aren't all equally at risk from the mad violent fuckers' well I totally agree. But whoever does it, and i don't disagree its largely men, they are statistically more likely to kill a male by a factor of around 4 men for every female. All of which is terrible.

And when I mention tinder boxes, I'd say everyone is susceptible. Males sadly tend to have the physical strength though.

If you want to focus purely on females being killed, fine. I just thought this being dadsnet and all it might be ok to talk about the menz who get slaughtered too.

Pan Fri 08-Nov-13 23:47:33

Daddy, it isn't a competition - the thread title was about male violence on females.
Yes most people do get killed by people they know, in the home. This notion we are all at risk of violent fuckers, yes but it isnt 'general'. At all. It's specific, as I have said.

Yes being Dadsnet and all, lets talk about the menz who get slaughtered and by who, especially. Do you know their murdering/manslaughtering profile at all? Even a bit?

Pan Sat 09-Nov-13 00:02:38

Daddy I missed this bit, sorry :

"And when I mention tinder boxes, I'd say everyone is susceptible. Males sadly tend to have the physical strength though."

What do you mean by 'everyone is susceptible'? You mean the male as a victim? Which crystal clearly isn't the case. Or as the person most likely to 'go off'? Which is true, but of no detriment immediately to himself.

I am fairly regularly astounded by my fellow mans inability to comprehend facts about violence. The video in the OP goes some way to explain it, but it isn't difficult to work it out for ourselves.

lostdad Sat 09-Nov-13 12:17:34

Pan - in response to you.

`Stop violence against women'.

No one is really going to disagree with that. Including not me. But let's turn it around.

What would you say if I said `Stop violence against white people'? I am guessing you are picturing me wearing a Union Jack t-shirt, skinny jeans, DMs and have a shaved head.

`Stop violence against non-Jews'? A nice smart blackshirt and a 30's 'tache perhaps?

`Stop violence against Protestants?' Maybe a bowler hat, orange sash and white gloves whilst I march through a Catholic area of Belfast?

Violence doesn't have a gender. That's my point. The moment you assign it one you are prioritising one gender over the other. It's utter BS. If there needs be conflict (and I mean that in a `difference of opinion' kind as opposed to anything else it sure as hell ain't a `gender war'. It should be between people who understand that there is good and bad in all...and those who want the war.

Erin Pizzey had it right in the 1960s...but all she got for pointing out that men and women are equally bad was her dog killed, death threats and having to live in America for a long time.

It isn't rocket science.

lostdad Sat 09-Nov-13 12:22:47

Pan - `and yes, a son of yours is more likely to be murdered. By another man. My daughter, statistically, is more likely to be murdered by a partner, or ex-partner. Not a female friend.'

Statistically you're more likely to be killed by a man. Stastically you're more likely to be killed by a right hander. In the UK you're (likely) statistically more likely to be killed by a white person.

...so accepting all of the above is true why is gender the only identity group that concerns you? What does that say the main motivator is? A wish to see less domestic violence...or a wish to portray one gender as `worse' than the other?

Daddyofone Sat 09-Nov-13 17:25:28

Yep, pretty much what lostdad says.

It's not about having a competition about which gender gets killed more, it's about not completely ignoring one gender when it comes to murder simply because most of the perpetrators share the same gender.

Because if you do, most intelligent men are more likely to tune out.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 09-Nov-13 22:54:47

why is it that when people quote the 2 women are killed they get the actual quote wrong?

(one death from DV is one death too many)

Pan Sun 10-Nov-13 10:52:26

Must say I'm rather surprised at the deflection shown here. As I'd said in the OP and further down that the matter raised in the vid was about how we tune out of male violence to females.

One aspect of male violence. In regard to the other gender. NOT a 'profiling' of male or female violence overall, nor of female violence, nor of left-handed, Catholic, anti-Semitic. And certainly not a race to the bottom of who's worse, or who kills most or what are the socio-economic frameworks wherein violence occurs.

But then violence does bear scrutiny - it happens in all sorts of circumstances and between all sorts of people.

In this matter, violence does have a gender profile. It just appears that raising it here has garnered a response that 'violence is awful and why are you 'picking on' the men who do it'. I'm not. I'd posted a vid about how we are encouraged to tune out of it, and gave examples of how we (men) explain away our violence to partners. Yes, overall we do it more, with the worst consequences, often on people who aren't able t odefend themselves best. That isn't trying to make us 'look bad'. It's an acknowledgement of facts and the vid is an explanation of how we distance ourselves from it, no matter what handed, skin colour, rich or of what religious creed you are.

lostdad Sun 10-Nov-13 13:00:36

Pan - `Yes, overall we do it more'

Unless things have changed drastically in the last 5 years the British Crime Survey found that men are the victim of DV 40% of the time. A slightly higher number were found to be the victim of `severe force' in the majority of the cases too.

Off the top of the head I also remember statistics that women are more likely to initiate domestic violence but also more likely to suffer major injuries.

Furthermore - men are much more likely to be a victim of domestic abuse by an ex who denies contact with children (with or without a court order) - this being recognised by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

So it's not black and white.

Can I ask why you feel it is noteworthy that `we' tune out of male violence? And furthermore who `we' are?

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 10-Nov-13 13:48:04

from what I have read on the thread, its not deflection, just a desire to see all violence acknowledged and tackled.

And

that if people are going to specify an area (DV) that some women can be as bad as some men without "what about the menz" rearing its patronising head.

Pan Sun 10-Nov-13 13:54:22

lostdad - I didn't say it was black and white at all. And have never undermined or ignored the profile of female violence, DV or otherwise. It just wasn't the subject of this thread. IF you feel quite strongly about this issue, on this site or section, you could always commence a discussion about it as a thread?

You do seem determined to dodge this issue, and deflect away from anything in the vid. - and those items you quote are v misleading, sourceless and incomplete, fwiw.

To answer your questions, 'tuning out' of male violence on women means we are likely to think it's a womens problem, not ours ( see the analogy use re sexual orientation and race ), and by 'we' I mean us men. Very much including you, it seems.

Pan Sun 10-Nov-13 13:57:36

BBJ - in that case commence a thread about how awful violence is and how it should be tackled.
and you're too late re the 'what about the menz' - lostdad has taken the honours.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 10-Nov-13 14:03:01

Its never too late to point out the nature of posters who think a derogatory comment to deflect or shut a poster up is a good argument.

Pan Sun 10-Nov-13 14:14:32

Expand if you wish BBJ?

FFS, one can see why it's so easy for the feminists to mock.

Gosh is it really so difficult to discuss one form of violence independently of another? It's hardly prioritising of form over the other to simply open a conversation about it surely?

Has anyone whos' sense of fairness objects to this thread leapt onto a discussion about violence against children to rail about the unfairness of not including violence against the elderly in that particular conversation? Of course not! It's a preposterous idea in any other subject matter that discussing one somehow detracts from the other, so why is it acceptable here?

There are, and have been, many discussions about violence against both sexes. It just so happens that this thread, due to a piece of media that has captured Pan's interest, is about violence against women by men. Nothing more, nothing less.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 10-Nov-13 14:52:43

FlankShaftMcWap
"Gosh is it really so difficult to discuss one form of violence independently of another"

Within the context of pan's thread yes it is. What the (few) posters that have replied seem to be saying is that they (I) see violence as a wider issue, DV should be tackled as DV genders removed. Sorry can't say that because it doesn't tackle violence against women (*FlankShaftMcWap*), it does however show that it VAW is "tuned out" because I and many men do not separate the issue in to gender.

The problem is that when men deviate and try to put this point across it becomes "what about the menz" or how you should start a different thread about it, Its not about the "menz" its about how the issue should be tackled so that all victims benefit from it.

Pan Sun 10-Nov-13 15:13:20

BBJ, it's frankly absurd to state gender should be 'removed' from any analysis of domestic violence/abuse. It doesn't happen spontaneously, randomly or with an equal consequence. Throwing a blanket over it ( Oh it's all so awful and should stop) entirely clouds the dynamics. That might suit some people to do that, as it fits in with the thrust of the video i.e. we tune ourselves out of it.

But then the OP isn't providing a 'hierarchy'. It was showing how groups (race, gender, sexual orientation) make themselves 'invisible', which you appear to be supporting.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 10-Nov-13 15:51:33

"it's frankly absurd to state gender should be 'removed' from any analysis of domestic violence/abuse."

the numbers show that DV/DA happens in large percentages to both genders.

"It doesn't happen spontaneously, randomly or with an equal consequence."

It doesn't happen "spontaneously, randomly" to either gender.

as for equal effect if we are back to the two deaths every week maybe we should examine the way that the "statement" is misquoted to give a 25%+ variant in the number.

lostdad Sun 10-Nov-13 16:27:24

Pan - `and those items you quote are v misleading, sourceless and incomplete, fwiw.'

They were from the British Crime Survey.

What statistics would you find acceptable?

Backonthefence Sun 10-Nov-13 16:42:43

I have no issue with tackling violence by men,but why should I prioritise violence by men towards women rather than violence by men in general.

I just don't see how violence towards women would be reduced when it is unlikely to target the root of the problem as it is just one subset of violence by men.

Pan Sun 10-Nov-13 19:35:30

lostdad , the crime survey looks at lots of sources, NOT recorded or reported crimes, so that is what I mean by incomplete etc, it's unreported crimes and general attitudes to crime. The ABPO note is something unsourced at all?

It doesn't look like we are going to have a consensus here at all, does it? Still, no matter if you wish to 'throw a blanket' over the profile of violence, the vid is still authentic in demonstrating how mens violence to women gets seen as a 'womens issue' rather than ours.

lostdad Sun 10-Nov-13 20:48:54

Fair enough. As you've asserted `Yes, overall we do it more' you obviously have a source of information that is more accurate than the British Crime Survey.

Could I ask what it is?

lostdad Sun 10-Nov-13 20:58:46

As for the `ABPO note' (presumably you mean ACPO):

www.fnf.org.uk/downloads/McK75.pdf

`A father who is denied contact (without good cause) to his children is,
under both ACPO and Cafcass definitions, a victim of D.V. and has a
right to have it recorded by the police.'

And in case you dismiss FNF as a `Men's Rights Organisation' that has a bang to drum how about this from the Women's Aid site:

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200410001&itemid=1272&itemTitle=What+is+domestic+violence

`Pressure tactics: sulking, threatening to withhold money, disconnect the telephone, take the car away, commit suicide, take the children away'

...so taking children away is counted as domestic violence. As is isolating people from their families...which includes preventing children seeing their fathers.

Pan Sun 10-Nov-13 21:05:24

I'm aware you are a FNF member and contributor, and I'm sure as an org. it does much good work. There's a highly respected single dad poster round here who has benefited from them.

I'd refer to back to the OP though. IF you wish to discuss things in there, great. I found it quite interesting and a confirmation of things I find in RL.
OTOH, I don't have much inclination, or more time, to engage in an internet table tennis game - you'll have to find someone else to play with.

lostdad Mon 11-Nov-13 08:43:45

Fair enough. I can understand you not wanting to discuss this because it is does appear that some of your assertions seem to be more based on your personal believes rather than actual data.

Cognitive dissonance I think it is called...wink

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep Tue 12-Nov-13 20:10:27

I watched the video all the way through, Pan, thanks for posting it.

Was interesting, I've never really heard that idea expressed before but of course it makes a lot of sense.

Basic summary for those who haven't watched - it's not enough to say, 'Yeah, violence is bad, mmkay?' - men should be challenging their fellows whenever they come out with sexist or disrespectful stuff.

Although in fact, when I was in my 20s, colleagues would come out with stupid sexist jokes/comments and I would laugh along, because no-one wants to be That Guy, the one with no sense of humour (and I'm a woman...)

So I guess he's right saying it's a leadership issue. It's only when you develop the confidence and the seniority to say, 'Actually you're wrong there' that you can start to gradually change the prevailing culture.

Pan Tue 12-Nov-13 20:41:56

yes Boulevard it manages to re-analyse the way we often assume stuff without actually thinking about it.

On the leadership thing, here is a 3 min clip that bowled me over. In it the leader manages to address just about everything that a leader should, at all times, and esp at a time of crisis. Shared leadership, culture setting, performance issues, PR, boundary setting, inclusiveness, moral standards, public service. The stuff Jackson pointed toward at the end.

Speaks passionately for 3 minutes, hardly blinking

It could be the bases of seminars on a whole variety of leadership topics, incl abusive behaviours.

SagaciousOne Sat 16-Nov-13 11:24:36

I'm Sorry this a long post but I feel that this really needs to be read before we start to say violence is a male problem.... I got this from the Guardian.

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals
Campaign group Parity claims assaults by wives and girlfriends are often ignored by police and media

Denis Campbell
The Observer, Sunday 5 September 2010

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY WOMEN AGAINST MEN
Assaults on men represent more than 40% of domestic violence in the UK. Photograph: Sakki/Rex Features/Sakki/rex

About two in five of all victims of domestic violence are men, contradicting the widespread impression that it is almost always women who are left battered and bruised, a new report claims.

Men assaulted by their partners are often ignored by police, see their attacker go free and have far fewer refuges to flee to than women, says a study by the men's rights campaign group Parity.

The charity's analysis of statistics on domestic violence shows the number of men attacked by wives or girlfriends is much higher than thought. Its report, Domestic Violence: The Male Perspective, states: "Domestic violence is often seen as a female victim/male perpetrator problem, but the evidence demonstrates that this is a false picture."

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.

Similar or slightly larger numbers of men were subjected to severe force in an incident with their partner, according to the same documents. The figure stood at 48.6% in 2006-07, 48.3% the next year and 37.5% in 2008-09, Home Office statistics show.

The 2008-09 bulletin states: "More than one in four women (28%) and around one in six men (16%) had experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16. These figures are equivalent to an estimated 4.5 million female victims of domestic abuse and 2.6 million male victims."

In addition, "6% of women and 4% of men reported having experienced domestic abuse in the past year, equivalent to an estimated one million female victims of domestic abuse and 600,000 male victims".

Campaigners claim that men are often treated as "second-class victims" and that many police forces and councils do not take them seriously. "Male victims are almost invisible to the authorities such as the police, who rarely can be prevailed upon to take the man's side," said John Mays of Parity. "Their plight is largely overlooked by the media, in official reports and in government policy, for example in the provision of refuge places – 7,500 for females in England and Wales but only 60 for men."

The official figures underestimate the true number of male victims, Mays said. "Culturally it's difficult for men to bring these incidents to the attention of the authorities. Men are reluctant to say that they've been abused by women, because it's seen as unmanly and weak."

The number of women prosecuted for domestic violence rose from 1,575 in 2004-05 to 4,266 in 2008-09. "Both men and women can be victims and we know that men feel under immense pressure to keep up the pretence that everything is OK," said Alex Neil, the housing and communities minister in the Scottish parliament. "Domestic abuse against a man is just as abhorrent as when a woman is the victim

Pan Sat 16-Nov-13 12:54:43

Sagacious - I see you've been busy across DN with the same post on other threads, but this isn't what the subject of this thread is. No-one is underplaying the incidence of female violence. IF you wish to draw attention to that, I'd politely suggest you commence a thread about it.

I have also asked "what about the menz" on other DV threads. Sometimes it is a point that does need to be made.

However, I don't agree that DV by a woman against a man is a problem of the same magnitude. It is true that men are, in general, stronger than women. If Mrs Toad tried to slap me around, she would get nowhere. If I tried (God forbid) to slap Mrs Toad around, there would be very little she could do.

The point is clear: men are responsible for using their strength responsibly.

There is of course non-physical violence, and women can engage in that too. It is interesting that while traditionally, it was legal for a man to beat his wife, society sanctioned the wife who scolded her husband. So, while society was quite happy for the shrew to be put into a scold's bridle, it approved of the man who gave her a black eye her in response to her scolding. The sad truth is that the man who is beaten up by his wife isn't going to get much of a hearing against this historical background, and probably won't until it is clear that most DV is perpetrated by women against men.

So come folks - DV against anyone is a foul crime, but if men were to turn away from it en masse there would be no hiding place for women who continued to perpetrate it against men or, for that matter, children. Therefore it is quite proper for DV to considered by men as a men's issue for men to respond to.

Re above post: for "sanctioned" please read "condemned" - the latter being a less ambiguous term. Apologies.

Paleodad Sat 16-Nov-13 20:01:20

Jesus Christ sagacious stop posting this! if you have actually rtft then you'll see this has been discussed several times!
as Pan says, start a thread if you want, but don't wake the zombies just to ram home your point.

Paleodad Sat 16-Nov-13 20:02:20

<less polite than pan>

Seconded.

Sagacious - you've made your point.

TheDoctrineOfWho Sat 16-Nov-13 20:12:02

British crime survey 2010-11

Figures from p21 onwards. By my calculations, they work out at around 30% of partner violence victims being male, with no info on the sex of partners.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 17-Nov-13 10:55:11

"The sad truth is that the man who is beaten up by his wife isn't going to get much of a hearing against this historical background, and probably won't until it is clear that most DV is perpetrated by women against men."

Does that mean that you think that we should just ignore it? that we should "une it out"?

SigmundFraude Sun 17-Nov-13 12:06:57

It is definitely tuned out. As long as men are classed as disposable, it will be..

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Male_Power

Pan Sun 17-Nov-13 12:48:35

SF - that link, nor the overall work of the author, adds nothing to the authentic and recognisable proposal of how men 'tune out' of their involvement, and JK demonstrates that.
Again, if you think men are classed as disposable objects, that could be a worthy subject on another thread you could commence.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 17-Nov-13 13:37:41

but toad has posted about how he wouldn't see being slapped by his partner as violence, or at very least not the same sort of DV as women suffer.

SigmundFraude Sun 17-Nov-13 13:41:00

'Again, if you think men are classed as disposable objects, that could be a worthy subject on another thread you could commence.'

This sort of sounds as though you are telling me where I can and can't post.

As for the rest, it looks like you could be right, it doesn't add anything to the proposal, however the link has stand alone value.

And I believe that education is never a waste.

TheDoctrineOfWho Sun 17-Nov-13 13:43:01

He didn't say wasn't violence, just acknowledged that between him and his DW, he had greater physical strength and that this was generally true in a man-woman couple.

SigmundFraude Sun 17-Nov-13 13:50:53

'The point is clear: men are responsible for using their strength responsibly.'

What do you think women are responsible for?

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 17-Nov-13 14:11:57

He said that is wasn't of the same magnitude, is it violence or is it not?

Is a male slap equal to a female slap, how many slaps does a woman get before it becomes DV?

What magnitude does the violence have to take before we are allowed to notice?

TheDoctrineOfWho Sun 17-Nov-13 14:34:46

He said the problem wasn't of the same magnitude and went on immediately to illustrate the point about relative strengths.

My interpretation of that was, say, a bruised cheek was not of the same magnitude as a broken cheekbone. Ie a similar blow from a stronger person could cause more damage,which did not mean that only one was DV.

I guess you read the post differently though, BBJ.

TheDoctrineOfWho Sun 17-Nov-13 14:38:57

<in case it's not obvious, I think any person slapping their partner is committing DV>

Pan Sun 17-Nov-13 14:41:26

no SF I couldn't care less actually where you post.

It's just that it's pretty annoying when posters habits are characterised by not commencing their own discussion but instead leech off the effort, energy and idea of others in order to throw an obstacle in considering the topic. You aren't the only one who does this.

So it's fair to suggest that IF men are seen as disposable then go off and commence a discussion about it.

I'll emphasise my last point again: DV is foul regardless of the gender of the perpetrator and the victim. No, I do not think we should "tune out" in respect of DV perpetrated by women against men. I've said on other threads that male victims of DV need to be taken more seriously than they are currently (ie, not taken seriously at all).

However, this does not detract from my main point, which is that in the average relationship, if a man and a woman get into a fight, the man is far more likely to inflict serious harm on the woman than vice versa. Men are generally physically stronger than women, and as such should not abuse that advantage.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 17-Nov-13 16:07:02

"Men are generally physically stronger than women, and as such should not abuse that advantage."

IMO if a man is the perpetrator of DV he isn't going to care about abusing that advantage

All for more reason for men to do something about it.

BoneyBackJefferson Mon 18-Nov-13 06:41:51

Toad

What exactly do you want men to do?

Pan Mon 18-Nov-13 08:31:34

Oooh I don't know BBJ - why don't you have a think about your own question?

BoneyBackJefferson Mon 18-Nov-13 17:17:11

pan

that is side stepping the question.
I could list what I have done, it may surprise you, not only what I have done that the outcome are not what you would expect.

But I wouldn't expect all men to follow me lead (so to speak). So what exactly do you want me to do?

Stop hitting women? Support each other and find ways of not hitting women?

If I may answer pan's question, perhaps think of ways you could assist in a collective effort (if you are a man yourself).

lostdad Tue 19-Nov-13 16:23:15

I would say it is everyone's job to support anyone getting hit regardless of gender.

Seems straightforward to me unless you are more concerned with gender issues rather than trying to better the lot of your fellow humans...

BoneyBackJefferson Tue 19-Nov-13 18:03:57

so is "stop hitting women" aimed at all men? if so you already have a huge success rate.

If its aimed at me, its already a success, even when my Ex was beating me with a pan, I didn't hit back.

Or is it aimed at those that hit women? in which case it needs to be directed at those that hit women.

I already assist in a collective efforts (which will seem strange to some due to what I post), I volunteer in the background of phone lines and help groups, support those that have organised (women only) marches.
I have spoken at rallies and at help groups for abusers.
I have intervened when I have seen women attacked and in some cases where it was just noise through a wall.

And yet I am considered the "enemy" for taking about female on male DV and men that can't see their children because their ex's are obstructive.

I am glad to hear it. In fact I am somewhat surprised that you should feel the need to ask me what you should do. But given your involvement, I do not understand why you feel the need to overlook the most obvious dimension of DV, specifically that is is mostly done by men on women. If rates of DV are to be reduced, it is really nothing more than common sense to concentrate one's efforts on assisting men not to do it. As you say, there has been much success but I think you will agree there is further to go.

I am sorry for what has happened to you (sincerely).

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 24-Nov-13 13:54:04

If we concentrate our efforts on stopping men, then we are failing a significant number of men by ignoring that DV happens to them.

If we are to say that one woman suffering DV is one too many then we have to say the same regarding the men that suffer DV as well.

I'm no expert on the issue. However I have an opinioni (which may be miles out).

I think if you asked 1000 men whether hitting their partner was acceptable all but a few* would probably say no. Therefore are people wasting their time "assisting" men not to do it when they already know that its wrong and unacceptable?

I'm not saying do nothing, but support for victims IMO has much more impact.

We are never going to be violence-free as a species, sadly there will always be violence (yes, mainly perpetrated by men) and I dont think any amount of education will eradicate it. I think helping victims and punishing those that commit violence is more important.

*usualy followed by an excuse i.e. yes, if they hit me first.

lostdad Tue 26-Nov-13 12:20:42

AlbertGiordiano - `sadly there will always be violence (yes, mainly perpetrated by men).

What are your figures to back this assertion up?

I assume you mean figures to show that men are the main perpatrators of violence? Rather than figures pertaining to the constant nature of violence and how it will continue? (Balls to you if you think I'm clever enough to back that up with sound psychological argument - I'm not BTW)

I dont have any figures to show that most violence is done by men, I just assumed that this was a given. I will howerver try and find some, just for you lostdad

sorry for the american (and old) nature of this but as an illustration, provides some figures (and also some interesting "other stuff") to back up my assertions. Tables 38 and 44 are where I got my info.

?U.S. Department of Justice. "Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2007 Statistical Tables." National Crime Victimization Survey. (Aug. 31, 2010)

lostdad Tue 26-Nov-13 16:17:44

Fair enough - assuming you're in the UK here's Office of National Stuff for 2011/12

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_298904.pdf?

Some 7% of women and 5% of men were estimated to have experienced domestic abuse in the last year, equivalent to an estimated 1.2 million female and 800,000 male victims.

...so you're right that there are more women that suffer domestic violence than men according to reported crime. Of course it doesn't take into account the fact that men are much less likely to report incidents on the grounds that they won't be taken seriously (I have first hand experience of this) and are expected to `man up'. means that it is likely more even than the above figures.

In addition to this - things like denial of contact with children counts as domestic violence...but once again is often not logged at all. Ironically, this particular example is listed on the Woman's Aid website.

Violence is not only physical.

I've worked with both men and women...and have come to the conclusion that they are just as bad as each other. I can never understand why someone would automatically assume men are more violent than women.

You wouldn't suggest black people commit more muggings, Jews are stingier or Irish people are thicker than anyone else...so why is it OK to perpetuate stereotypes about men? confused

If you had the figures why did you ask? confused

I dont disagree with you about perpetuating stereotypes.

It was my understanding that we were talking specifically about men hitting their partners. Hence my comments. Of course all types of violence are wrong, and bad, but it is beyond my comprehension to meaningfully discuss howe we as a society can reduce all types of violence committed by all people for all reasons.

As I said before, I think it is more meaningful to punish/rehabilitate (another thread) those responsible and care for the victims - rather than build awareness that violence is wrong (which is well known - sorry no figures)

Trust this clarifies my position.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now