Advanced search

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.

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. 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.


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.

FlankShaftMcWap Sun 10-Nov-13 14:17:36

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

"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):

`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:

`Pressure tactics: sulking, threatening to withhold money, disconnect the telephone, take the car away, commit suicide, take the children away' taking children away is counted as domestic violence. As is isolating people from their families...which includes preventing children seeing their fathers.

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