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

So there is a combination of sources, environmental ones (socialisation, diet, stress factors) and inherited physiological state. Both sources interact with each other and with the person experiencing them.

Because of the nature of epigenetic gene expression means environment (and our response to it), affects the way genes can be expressed. So a physiological state can be passed on, to some extent, but given the right environmental conditions, dysfunction might never arise.

www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/scientists-discover-how-epigenetic-information-could-be-inherited

*not all men are violent, not 'not all men are gendered'.

Though, frankly, I know why I made that slip and I'm pretty sure gender is the root cause.

Yes, thank you for glossing your terminology, in case I'm really slow of thinking. I appreciated that.

Unfortunately, I did also think it made you sound as if you had neither an argument, nor a response.

Do you have one?

Why exactly is it that violence is gendered - ignoring the fact that (as we all know), not all men are gendered, and some aren't?

Why is it that this violence disproportionately affects women and children?

No more flannel answers that reduce to 'uh, some men aren't violent', please.

^where I said. Typo.

Jeanne you've completely ignore where the epigenetic, meta stability I talked about.

If something is inherited epigenetically the gene expression can be varied, in that it can be affected by environment. Which means some people will be affected and some won't by the same gene due to the possibility of epigenetic variance in the expression.

Ah, 'simplistically'.

So you are saying men are naturally violent, and unable to overcome their animal instincts to batter their women and children.

Sorry, no. I don't believe it for a moment.

If humans were unable to deviate from the worst of animal behaviour, we would also have no issues with murder or racism. We'd kill the elderly and we'd eat our young.

I always find it interesting that those who follow the 'it's nature innit' argument never look at the fact that animals have also been seen to ostracise violent members of the group, especially those who harm children, to care for their elderly and young, and for weaker members of the group.

What you are proposing are excuses, not explanations.

Jeanne I am saying there is no one easy answer. Each case will be individual and complex.

But simplistically:

Why gendered? Socialisation over many generations leading to physical propensities which might develop dysfunctionally, depending upon the environmental conditions affecting gene expression epigenetically (so a meta stable propensity)

Why violence happens? It is a primal animalistic instinct. It happens in other species.

Why women and children are affected? They are typically vulnerable - in that they rarely fight back in defence.

But you are refusing to explain anything.

Can you explain why violence happens?

Can you explain why it is gendered?

Can you explain why it affects women and children so disproportionately?

Jeanne

You seem to conflating 'excuse' with 'explain'.

People who have problems managing their emotions and behaviour are often able hold it together for limited amounts of time, with purposeful effort, but are not so good at sustaining this effort. So they let their 'guard down' at home as they feel safer. They might not like going out in public either.

I don't excuse this at all. But don't find this phenomenon surprising either.

Yet it's so uncontrolled that you only attack your partner and in most cases have worked out if he/she is going to be easy to manipulate and abuse by date 3

This.

Any answer to that one, capsium? What exactly is it about this 'uncontrolled' anger that you seem to imagine excuses everything, that means it affects people's partners/children and doesn't seem to extend to the wider community who believed 'he was such a nice man'?

I never suggested choices should never be addressed. However this cannot be done in isolation, that is without acknowledging and tackling addictions, anxieties, deluded thinking, unresolved anger, fears and whatever else has contributed to the abusive behaviour.

Many men who are violent with their intimate partners when drunk or high do not commit violence against anyone else when in that state. If you treat their addiction without addressing their choice to use violence, you will likely just have a clean and sober batterer.

I thought you were worried about the posters triggering a sudden loss of control?

That is a concern too. I have said before, I don't believe the problem of DV is one dimensional.

We should concentrate on the female killers, obviously more of them are getting away with it.

Not no posters, rather they should not be seen as the primary course of action. When funds are scarce, I fear that creating posters is a bit like ticking boxes. They can make it look like a problem is being tackled more than it is.

Yet it's so uncontrolled that you only attack your partner and in most cases have worked out if he/she is going to be easy to manipulate and abuse by date 3

I thought you were worried about the posters triggering a sudden loss of control?

So - no posters? They are a waste of time?

Public health, safety and crime prevention posters have a long history; impacts will have been measured.

Do you feel the same about drink driving posters?

Who said uncontrolled anger always involves a sudden loss of control? I suspect anger can build over a long period of time.

There are no 'magic' words and images, Yonic, that was rather my point.

Helping people who need help, who often ask for help but do not receive it. Putting the money into the services, which deal with mental health and substance abuse, is where I feel the focus should be.

No, I am suggesting that violence arises from unresolved and uncontrolled anger
Domestic abuse is not a anger issue, it is a power and control issue.

The vast majority of domestic abusers do not have convictions or a history of violence towards anybody else other than the woman/men they are in a intimate relationship with, it is not just bosses or friends or strangers they are not violent towards it is sisters mothers and other family members. A huge amount of the time people will not believe the victim because nobody else other than a wife or girlfriend has ever witnessed any sign of it.

Have you ever spent any time at all facilitating perpetrator programs?

anger management is not a stratigy they tend to use because teaching anger management to domestic abusers can be very dangerous.

Over the years I have been a facilitator I'm pretty sure I have not attended one group where a member hasn't attempted to go with the uncontrollable anger stance and not been verbally challenged by most of the other members.

A huge huge amount of domestic violence (and I'm using that term as I'm now referring solely to the violent aspect) is premeditated sometimes hours in advance.

Like the man who planned to throw a pan of boiling peas over his wife's legs having earlier ordered her to wear shorts, or the one who would intentionally move stuff to give him an excuse to break his girlfriends nose, the one I hear more of than anything else is the pick your clothing one, who will order you to wear a skirt them beat you because men are looking at you.

cap, you didn't 'only' equate them in those terms. You equated them.

You still seem to think the root 'problem' is the inexplicability, or lack of understanding of, anger.

It's not.

The root problem is violence. Let's stop explaining it away with misguided speculations, and admit that it is the problem.

Well, all this empathy is lovely.

Do you know what's lovelier? Stopping the violence.

Capisum, what would be in your poster to stop the violence? What are the magic words, the magic images?