Misleading campaign trying to con the UK about the horrific level of domestic violence committed by men against women

Ok, I apologise: I follow you now. But I still don't agree, and I still think you are excusing violence. We could spend all day (again) speculating about why violent men are violent. Do they seek control? Were they genetically predisposed? Was it society?

Your approach seems to be that we must concentrate on these speculations, and vaguely-defined 'help' and 'understanding'. Yet, you don't like the idea of a poster that is based on well-known statistics and effective previous campaigns, and you link this back to your speculations about causes.

Don't you see that as long as you keep doing this, you are providing cover for men who are violent, who get to keep on doing what they're doing and trotting out the same old excuses: 'it was so hard for me, I just couldn't control myself' or 'I needed help, she doesn't understand me, I just lashed out'. You're buying into those excuses and perpetuating them, and unless you can back that up with actual interventions - not vague suggestions - I don't see the point. It's damaging to keep these ideas in circulation. It gives them credibility.

Jeanne I did not claim perpetuators of violence need control, in fact rather the opposite. They need to learn how to cope not having control.

Wanting, seeking and asserting control is different to needing it.

You are excusing violence every time you insist it's to do with more than violent people deciding to be violent, I think.

I don't call perpetrators 'bastards', do I? You're now attacking someone who isn't me.

Anger doesn't imbue someone with power, no: but people who are prepared to be violent are powerful because they have decided they will hurt another person. Most of us don't do that, no matter how angry we are. And all the magic thinking in the world, all the platitudes about how you don't feel anger imbues someone with power, won't change that, will they?

Imbuing. Typo.

It does feel like a series of excuses. I do get that you may not intend that and you probably feel you're just being empathetic towards violent people, and not meaning to do any harm. But excusing violence is harmful.

But I don't excuse violence, so you have no reason to have a problem with me here.

From my observations over a few threads, I suspect this is because I do not project feelings of anger towards the perpetrators of violent crime. Calling perpetrators 'bastards' or similar seems to evoke a sense camaraderie across the boards. However this unsettles me as I don't associate anger as embueing someone with power.

I'm not twisting anything.

Read my post. I said, if your plan is put into a real life situation, then it becomes appalling. You said that violent people need to feel 'dominant and in control'. The point is, that sounds lovely when it's a vague idea about CBT, and some kind of 'help' you want to provide. It's less good when you think about the actual ramifications of making people feel that way, isn't it? So, if it would be a bad idea in practice, maybe it's worth considering it might be the wrong approach?

The issue I have with your 'reservations' is that they don't seem to rest on anything more complex than 'I don't like the idea that violence is gendered and I want to excuse violent men'. I accept you don't seem aware that this is how you're coming across, and I think you'd probably be quite shocked if you could see how your posts read. But it is a problem, especially on MN where lots of women are survivors of DV.

Jeanne

If you feel disturbed by the idea of someone reassuring a violent person he should be 'dominant', maybe you need to consider there's a problem with your plan, in that when it is put into a real life situation, it suddenly looks remarkably like excusing and encouraging violent men.

There isn't a problem with my plan because this isn't my plan. To suggest it is, is twisting my words.

I don't have a plan, I mainly talked about my reservations concerning the poster campaign. Discussing the validity of the poster, I thought was the point of the thread. There would be little to discuss if nobody talked about their reservations.

Ok. So, you're saying, we need CBT for violent people.

Sure, that's fair.

And why does that mean this campaign is a bad idea?

CBT works by helping people to change how they respond to situations. This poster is actually quite close to CBT's aims, in that it is giving violent men an image of themselves as strong if they avoid violence. It's a practical, simple encouragement to change behaviour.

I don't think it's perfect or the only possible solution, and I think we've covered that. What I don't understand is why, until you're backed into a corner, all you want to talk about is how hard it is to understand violence, how much nebulous 'help' violent men need, and how little we can trust stats or established approaches. It's only when I've pushed like crazy - and I'm sorry you feel pushed - that you spit out something practical, like CBT. And even then, it's impossible to see why this makes you disagree so much with the original point of the thread.

It does feel like a series of excuses. I do get that you may not intend that and you probably feel you're just being empathetic towards violent people, and not meaning to do any harm. But excusing violence is harmful.

Buffy I have said, I wholly am in favour of victims getting all the support they need. However on this thread I expect my, repeated, assurances of this have been ignored, because it is not at all controversial. So conversation has focussed on questioning me advocating those with the most dysfunctional behaviour getting support, I suspect because they are undeserving. However, if dysfunctional behaviour is to be tackled, the dysfunctional needs to be made functional.

No, I'm not twisting your words.

I am asking you what you actually think should be done - leaving aside the empty words, how do you propose this should be done?

If you feel disturbed by the idea of someone reassuring a violent person he should be 'dominant', maybe you need to consider there's a problem with your plan, in that when it is put into a real life situation, it suddenly looks remarkably like excusing and encouraging violent men.

Jeanne, you are twisting my words. No where on this thread have I indicated that I advocated just letting a perpetrator of violent crime remain dominant. If anxiety is contributing towards dysfunctional violent behaviour, I am advocating teaching the person affected (perpetrator) how to tackle their anxiety, through CBT or similar. They need to be taught how to cope with not being in control, which involves experiencing not being in control - opportunity to learn in practise being necessary for learning for learning to take place.

One example would be someone whose violence is about ensuring they are dominant and in control. For them making the right choice not to exert control through the threat of violence, might not feel good at all, it might cause high levels of anxiety. So they have to learn how to cope with this anxiety in order to want to choose to give up control. They may lack empathy, or repress it, because they do not ever allow themselves to be out in the position their victims are in - so appealing to their sense of empathy might have limited success. I don't view such dysfunction as permissible or excusable but I can understand how it might operate.

And how are you going to do this?

How is it incompatible with this campaign?

You claim you don't want to excuse violence, but don't you see that when you insist that current plans won't work, and can't work, and yet you have no concrete plans and no explanations for why you think they won't work, it comes across as dismissive?

If we all sat around say 'well, let's just ensure violent men are dominant and in control', what do you think would happen? Next time I hear things about my friend's marriage that make me worry for her safety, should I just tell her 'ensure he's dominant and in control, dear. It's very hard for him coping with his anxiety'.

Really?

And do you think it'd be a good idea for a professional working in this area to be saying that to her, either?

I think energy and resource is better spent doing something about men's mental health services etc

I agree, Buffy, this was what I was advocating up-thread.

put not out. Typo.

Jeanne

I am not attempting to justify violent crime, at all, it is wrong.I have repeatedly stressed this. Added to this, it is very clear to me that a culture that perpetuates violence against women and children is broken.

I don't believe it is "just too complicated and difficult for anyone to do anything about the problem of violence.", either. I just believe it is not as simple as telling perpetrators they are wrong and to choose to change their behaviour without ensuring they have the tools to do this. Any degree of punishment might not be enough motivation for them to stop. Prisons are full of serial offenders.

One example would be someone whose violence is about ensuring they are dominant and in control. For them making the right choice not to exert control through the threat of violence, might not feel good at all, it might cause high levels of anxiety. So they have to learn how to cope with this anxiety in order to want to choose to give up control. They may lack empathy, or repress it, because they do not ever allow themselves to be out in the position their victims are in - so appealing to their sense of empathy might have limited success. I don't view such dysfunction as permissible or excusable but I can understand how it might operate.

capsium, you're not actually saying anything here, are you? You're saying 'men might be more violent than women because Science Big Words' and hoping we'll all say, reverently, 'ah! Science Big Words! It must be true!'

Violence is not a matter of genetics. It is not located somewhere on the Y chromosome. It is partly a matter of socialisation, sure, I believe that - but that in no way explains why a poster encouraging fathers to feel that violence isn't macho, is a bad thing. You have talked a lot, very vaguely, about 'understanding' or 'individual cases'. You have not provided any actual answers, or any understanding of what contributes to a culture of gendered violence.

Do you actually have those things to say?

Because increasingly, your posts sound like ways of justifying this culture, making it sound as if it's just too complicated and difficult for anyone to do anything about the problem of violence.

"Whether you think that behaviour is caused by genetic tendencies or socialisation or victimhood or patriarchy, the solution at an individual level is still changing that behaviour. "

YY to this and the rest of your post.

I'm out now too, this is not a thread that's helping victims any more.

Domestic abuse is not a anger issue, it is a power and control issue.

Amen. Rape isn't about an uncontrolled urge for sex, DV isn't about an uncontrolled anger response.

My abuser somehow managed perfectly well to control his 'anger' and violence around everyone except me and his mother. Funny that. So even if it is a gene, even if there is some kind of hard-wired tendency, these men can in fact control themselves when they want to. There's something that prevents them from lashing out at absolutely everyone and only doing it in private with vulnerable (and often female) people. That is why it is a choice to commit violence and not some kind of uncontrolled, unrecognised, victim-themselves status.

For me, understanding why that man did what he did was completely secondary to reclaiming my life, confidence, self-esteem and power. Who cares why he did it? He was a deeply troubled misogynistic sadist - so what? Am I cured now? Is he?

At a society-wide level, the more support we give to victims, the better. The more we (sometimes using posters) say DV isn't OK, the better. The more light we shine on these issues, the better. The more DV isn't kept private, the better. The more we say we are not afraid of abusers, the better.

This poster is just saying that violent men can change their behaviour. That it is possible. Whether you think that behaviour is caused by genetic tendencies or socialisation or victimhood or patriarchy, the solution at an individual level is still changing that behaviour.

And if all abusers are victims, the focus should still be on helping and supporting victims. Not pussyfooting around perpetrators.

I've had enough now, I'm tapping out. I don't want to get so angry I go and beat someone up

Six generations of feudal privilege stirred in Lord Peter's blood and all that...?

Did cave people turn violence on their own family group (genes)? That would seem to be contraindicated by the selfish gene's best interests.

Although within sectors of society where male dominance and sense of ownership remains as a culture, this factor is not omitted, which feeds back into the group's physiological state.

Sorry ^the above is why I believe there can be a predisposition in the first place.

Triggers to activate a predisposition towards violence could be substance abuse and stress.

Centuries of male dominance and sense of ownership.