202 women killed by partners or ex partners

[GabbyLoggon]

That was in one year. It suprised me the figure so high. Thats 2 womenkilled every week by someone close to them....I can understand why womans hour went bananas

"Agree it's very annoying that this seems to happen any time there's a discussion on (male) violence against women, it gets derailed into an argument with men about men, making them the centre of attention once again."

Also is that the case here?
What with it being anonymous it's tough to know the genders of posters but isn't Gabbyloggon who started this thread a man?
Is fabbychic (the first person to mention female on male dv) a man or a woman?

Oh do give over Ephiny.

This didnt become a thread about women on men DV until some posters refused to acknowledge its seriousness, tried to belittle anyone talking about it (as the attitude in your post does), or continued to post with language implying it was a male only crime.

Men arent whining about DV. But they have a right to be defended when the mainly feminist interest groups want to paint it as something that only happens to women.

Average of 2 women a week is right obviously not right.

mayorquimby - one major thing is getting kids out of homes where there is DV (by supporting the victim). That way they don't learn that it is 'normal' and go on to become abusers.

Another is changing social attitudes. 30 years my gran told my abused mother that she made her bed etc. That isn't a social norm now. Much more work to do now, including focusing advertising campaigns etc. on the abusers instead of the victims.

Another is working towards financial equality for women.

Ccpccp -- 'we now know DV is not something that only happens to women.'

We also know that it happens disproportionately to women and that it is done to them by men.

We also acknowledge violence and abuse of children yet no feminist bashers seem to be getting their knickers in a twist about that matter distracting from the situation of male victims of DV -- or are you now going to claim that this is overblown too and an expression of man-hating just as you seem to think Women's Aid is a mouthpiece for feminism.

Do you think feminists are making up crimes against women? Do you think WA is some sort of feminist propaganda?

Your assumption that feminism = bad shines through. What are you afraid of in feminism, pussy-whipping?

A thread about domestic violence is not of necessity a man-bashing thread, and sorry you seem to feel that any acknowledgement that domestic violence against women involves some sort of blanket anti-men sentiments. Men are responsible for the majority of domestic violence. To say this is to acknowledge a cold and very clear fact.

When the issue of male victims of DV crops up in the whiny way it seems to on a thread like this, it is usually done in a way that seeks to devalue the seriousness of the epidemic of violence that threatens women in their own homes and at the hands of their partners every year.

Take a look at this drivel and see if you think this loon has a point

An overview of the worldwide epidemic that women (and children) face. Or can we mention children here without upsetting male sensitivities?

it happens to children too as 'smacking' is still legal!

Thanks for stating the obvious mathanxiety - that most DV is male on female.

Not sure what all the other blithering misdirection is about though.

One thing is clear - you are still struggling with a certain concept. 'female on male DV is real'. Go on - say it. You'll feel better.

I was a victim of severe dv which worsened when i left.I do not want to give details but the things which were done to me could not be done to a man by a woman and generally men are stronger,thats why there are male female catogories in sport.I am a mum of 3 sons and would never play down violence aginst men by their partners but i do think it is more severe from a man to a woman.

ccpccp- no-one has denied that 'female on male DV is real.' No-one. In fact they have agreed, yes men can be victims too.
All anyone has said is that on a thread about violence against women, why should all attention be focussed on the minority of male victims? You clearly feel that a small amount of men are more important than a very large of women. You are sexist and clearly hate any kind of focus on women that might make their lives better.
Don't be surprised if you are dismissed as a "what about the menz" whiner

I meant - large majority of women.
I'm sure you knew that.

Of course it's real, ccpccp, but in comparison to the epidemic scale of the violence that women experience from men, it's small potatoes indeed. Sorry if your ego can't accept that there are horrible men out there, and sorry if you can't bear to see the majority of victims of DV getting the attention they deserve.

What I'd like to know is why the clamour for attention to male victims on a thread about the rate at which women are murdered by their male partners. It is whiny and a deliberate derailing attempt.

Next up -- the poor victims of misandry will try jostling for attention with children who are victims of abuse?

'The obvious' here clearly needs to be stated and restated until people who resent hearing it get over themselves.

Anyone else got an answer to mayorquimby or are you all going to continue concentrating on the irrelevant comments?

There are adverts/campaigns that are directed at the victim and some directed at the perpertrator, but maybe we need an ad for those that witness or suspect DV. There's a thread at the moment about a woman who stepped in when she witnessed DV in a car park. Some commented on how they wouldn't step in due to various reasons. Maybe a campaign advising the best way to help if you witness or suspect DV would be helpful, telling people that it's ok to get involved, and you're not a nosy busybody for stepping in or reporting.

Why on earth is female to male violence brought up on every DV thread? And like I said before, many studies on female to male violence include instances where women have fought back. Is fighting back domestic violence now?

"many studies on female to male violence include instances where women have fought back. Is fighting back domestic violence now?"

Do male on female statistics include men who have hit back?
Just from the statistics linked above from womens aid they seemed equally happy to apply their own criteria to what should count.

"There's a thread at the moment about a woman who stepped in when she witnessed DV in a car park. Some commented on how they wouldn't step in due to various reasons."

I'd like to think I'd step in (fairly certain I would but have never been in the situation) but you do seem to hear a lot of anecdotle evidence of blokes stepping in and both turning on him. As I say it's anecdotle and it's almost always set in a situation of late at night with the couple both drunk rather than stepping in where you are clearly aware that say a neighbour or relative are suffering attacks.
So due to the nature of these stories it's hard to know if they're simply apocraphal (sp) tales or if they're grounded in any truth, but I think that's where the hesitance of some will come from.

Maybe that's where an ad campaign can help, advising bystanders what the best course of action is. The ads at the moment are either directed at the victim, who may not be in a position to stop it, or the atacker, who is unlikely to stop just because of an ad.

AIBU to wonder if

a. Some people just trawl Mumsnet for threads like this so that they can leap in shouting 'Won't someone think of the poor men?!' and therefore to wonder what on earth their motivation for that might be?

OR

b. Some people have a special nickname they keep so that they can quickly namechange into BigMisogynistArsehole whenever they see a thread like this? And then to wonder, again, why the fuck anyone would bother?

Someone close to me was set alight by her partner last year - lighter fluid and a match. He got a suspended sentence, she's still with him. So I really really hate your attitude in hijacking every thread about DV to skew the facts and twist the truth. You're sad little men, sad little trolls or bitter fucked up women and I hope that what happens to my friend never happens to your daughters to show you how unbelievably wrong you are.

It is really the basic figure which startled me.....102 women killed by partners
or ex partners in one year

I take an interest in criminology and would have guessed 30....not 102.

Of course one is too many; but we do live in a violent world.

Relationships are difficult; but when the
thumping starts it is time to think about
breaking up...which is not always easy with children involved.

According to The House of Commons Library Domestic violence statistics Standard Note: SN/SG/950 Last updated: 10th March 2010,

Between 1995 and 2009, 3,249 women in the UK were victims of homicide (murder and manslaughter). 47 per cent of those women were murdered by a partner or ex-partner.

47 per cent of 3249 homicides equals 1530 (approximately)

1530 homicides in 15 years equals an average of 102 per year (approximately), which equals an average of 2 per week (approximately).

According to the same report:

Snapshot of 3,100 domestic violence cases recorded by the CPS in December 2006

Victim characteristics
Female 89%
Spouse/former spouse of defendant 19%
Partner/former partner of defendant 61%

Defendant characteristics
Male 94%

Nature of abuse
Common assault 50%
Criminal damage 15%
Actual Bodily Harm 9%

Outcome
Conviction 66%
Dropped by CPS 30%
Not guilty after trial 4%

Sorry I'm not great with reading statistics or bullet-points so could someone just clarify for me.
Does this mean that of the 3,100 cases of DV in 2006 it was a female victim 89% of the time.
And is the defendant then male 94% of the time for the original 3,100 or is it for the new figure of 89% of the 3,100 ( i.e. are men 94% of the total defendants or just 94% of the cases when a female was the victim.)

Also does anyone know how 66% stands up against other conviction rates?

Vesuvia has done a good job on the official figures

But I too soon get lost on complex stats

mayorquimby wrote - "Does this mean that of the 3,100 cases of DV in 2006 it was a female victim 89% of the time. And is the defendant then male 94% of the time for the original 3,100 or is it for the new figure of 89% of the 3,100 ( i.e. are men 94% of the total defendants or just 94% of the cases when a female was the victim.)"

The figures are for a single month, not the whole of 2006.

My understanding of the figures is that during that month, it was a female victim 89% of the time. The male was the defendant in 94% of those 3,100 cases, that is, 94 % of the total.

sorry, just read 2006 instead of dec 2006.
cheers for clearing that up regards the % also