Domestic Violence - Far from gender neutral

Firstly, I think it's shocking that the ONS have the opinion that violent crime shouldn't be counted if it's the sixth or subsequent incident in a series of incidents. It's just as bad the sixth time as it is the first time. What were they thinking?

Secondly, as someone who has experienced violence directed towards me from my then intimate partner, I do think that there is in general a qualitative difference between domestic violence inflicted on a woman by a man, compared to the reverse, in addition to the quantitative difference.

Even after having a pint glass thrown at me, or being knocked around the head with a metal pole, I never felt scared that my life was in danger, and I always felt as though I could defend myself if I needed to, because as a man I was nearly a foot taller and physically stronger. That seems like a pretty important difference to me.

Is there a "feminist" position on DV? Surely there are just "facts" - 2 women a week killed in the UK by current or ex partners.

Someone remind me how many men are murdered each week by their partners.......

So you agree that DV is a gendered crime then DWH. Good.

I think you could cut the UK '40% of domestic violence victims are male' to 20%, but that's as low as it could go.

I've just re-read, apologies.

DancingBear suggested the situation for men was being minimised on the second post on this thread.

It isn't. It has been hugely over exaggerated when compared to the situation for women.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that men's situation has been minimised and definitely no one was suggesting people were trying to ha men.
All I was saying was it is a issue for men as well and regardless of the percentage that suffer, any percentage is too much. Same as for women.
I shouldn't put words dancing bears mouth but I think he was just suggesting that funding overall for DV should be increased and the increase should go to women.

That was what I was thinking Scallops. DD was sexually harassed multiple times in year seven by the same acquaintance, as were her friends. I am resigned to sexual harassment not being dealt with swiftly, but I assume violent crime is beyond harassment.

I'm not being very clear here, but I'm just trying to work out what pattern of victimisation and lack of response it falls into.

It is shocking, however inevitable it is. And it is inevitable.

Puffins, it was the reversal that shocked me. The news is that DV against women in particular has been minimised comparatively to men's, and this has somehow been turned around on this thread to claiming that it is men's situation that has been particularly minimised.

Oh, and before I get leapt upon for being mean to men, or not understanding the issue, I really wasn't having a dig at anyone on this thread.

Repeat acquaintance violence situations are sometimes reported. There have been some carried out against disabled women that got into the papers, but as it is much more common than is realised, how do we prepare ourselves - look out for potential perpetrators and watch out for signs someone else may be experiencing it? I don't think it gets much as discussion as DV, or at least I don't feel as aware of it.

Why has this thread become about male victims?

Because women are never, ever allowed to discuss DV or any other deeply gendered phenomenon without having to reframe it around men. Not on Twitter, in the real world nor on the feminism part of a parenting forum. It's not even men's fault, it's what they are socialised to do from birth so I completely don't blame bear and the other man (sorry, can't remember the handle) for doing it, but it does show why women's only spaces are so important when talking about things like this.

I would like to see the original figures. I am pretty shocked by the whole thing.

I had always believed, as is commonly said, that men were at far greater risk of violent crime. This research is saying women are almost half of the victims.

I also want to know about the 100% increase in acquaintance violent crime against women. Is that DV or things like violence related to stalking from a man the woman has never been in a relationship with?

Right, so by analogy you'd cut funding on traffic wardens or something and increase it to refuges?

Spot on. Sorry, I've obviously not expressed myself well. But surely you'd agree with this?

I think the thrust of the article is that DV is a. a far more serious issue than previously believed and that b. it is very much a gendered issue connected to sexism in society. As such, there needs to be something done about sexism in society and violence against women because of the vastness of the problem.

Right, so by analogy you'd cut funding on traffic wardens or something and increase it to refuges?

The writer of the article isn't a minster who can make those decisions though. And I still don't think she is advocating cutting male refuge spending in preference to increasing overall funding. We've obviously interpreted it differently.

If the ratio of violent crime victims male:female is 12:33 (if I've done my maths properly from those articles, it's not totally clear what the actual ratio is, nor is it clear how it applies specifically to domestic violence), then surely for every £12 spent on male victims of violence there should be £33 spent on women? That wouldn't 40% on men, it's more like 25%. So if 40% of an available pot is being spent on men and the pot isn't getting any bigger why would it be unfair to redistribute the 15% back to women?

Yonic, if I ran a hospital that was fucked for both stroke and cancer patients, I would be letting orthodontists and podiatrists go. It's unpalatable but better than the alternative.