to rather intensely dislike Harriet Harman?

[grovel]

Naggy and bossy at the same time. And so tribal.

And I know a lot more women that have had affairs than men. In fact I don't know any men that have left their wives for another woman

hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

i like this!!! very much!!!

i really hope this is because you know many lesbian couples but fear it is not the case

who were these women having affairs with? fricking ghosts?

and i think you'll find in many cases, if a bloke has an affair, he's much more likely to be still with his original partner at the end of it (i have no evidence for this, just from personal experience btw)

And, who the fuck were women supposed to remarry post WWI/WWII?
There were plenty of immigrants after WW2. Many men came over on their own and married English women.

Chibi - the death of a parent doesn't have the same effect on a child as desertion - ( there have been studies ) - a father can't help dying fighting for his county - but he doesn't have to leave his children for another woman -

Appalling typing - sorry

oh ok, i was just taking people at their word when they said that not having a father doomed a child to x, y, z

whoops

besides all their mothers married immigrants, apparently

fwiw i had some family come here as displaced people post WWII to work in the mills, really just a hair away from being refugees

i can't imagine any single mother looking at any of them and thinking hmm, non-english speaking, desperately poor and with little prospect of moving on? niiiiiice

(not that it mattered, they were already married)

So, what is this majical "major and unforseen" situation which makes it acceptable for women to leave their DP's after children are involved? (Or men, in some cases...)

That Lundy Bancroft claim sounds like total bollocks. I'm sorry but it does.

Ahh, Tardy made it sound like people were granted divorces for trivial things. Y'know. "He had the last drop of milk at breakfast" "She didn't change the loo roll"...

Indeed SGM. And when you factor in that 25% of women will experience DV in their lifetimes and that 2 women are killed every week by their partners/former partners, it doesn't sound that far fetched at all.

Dont put words in my mouth SGM- I said the stat sounds odd. I didnt make any misogynistic assumptions for divorce.
BTW - having a quick browse of the internet, most surveys seem to say infidelity is most common reason cited for divorce. Sex also high on the list.

eh?

Infidelity doesn't preclude abuse Maurice.

Do you not know what preclude means?

Actually the Lundy Bancroft stat sounds perfectly plausible and about right. When you consider that 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence, it makes complete sense that those are the women who eventually are going to be more likely to get divorces than women who are not experiencing DV; of course they are going to be over-represented in divorce statistics, why wouldn't they be?

I think the Bancroft research suggested that men who commit abuse are something like 3x more likely to commit infidelity than non abusers.

Also, when it comes to divorce adultery has historically been seen as a far more valid reason than violence. It would be a natural hangover for adultery rather than violence to be cited as the reason in divorces where both are a factor.

I think that alone sums up just how much women have been traditionally viewed as property in this country. And despite the massive change in attitude and equality legislation, it still persists in many areas. That's why we need more politicians like HH, who championing the status of women.

Why are people so arsey on MN? I didnt know what SGM meant. Perhaps I'm not as clever as her. No need to be so bloody silly about it HerBex.
My question about the violence thing was because it seems odd - 50 pc of marriages ending because of serious domestic violence. If this Bancroft bloke is right, surely his research findings would have made headline news. Because that, to me, is very suprising.

Perhaps I'm not as clever as her

Yeah, I guess it could be that.....

It's not that people are arsey on MN. It's just that the replies you read are the replies on threads that YOU are on.

I often wonder the same thing maurice. Bancroft isn't the only researcher to come up with such horrifying statistics either.

I suspect the truth is that it is unpalatable and not particuarly newsworthy. DV has always been accepted in our society, and was practically considered a man's right in the not so distant past. It's so well-entrenched in our society that people tend to fail to get angry about it now apart from extreme cases.

The police are rightly concerned about it. It takes up a staggering amount of their time. So much so that the police are responsible for pushing for the abusers register that' recently been in the news (even though the crime statistics this campaign was based on have been around for a long time without news commentary.

Likewise the statistics of 25% female victims of DV and 2 women killed a week have been around a long time with little fuss made in the media.

Women's DV charities and social services are all aware of the research showing abusive men to be a statistically far higher risk to their children than other fathers, and yet despite this courts routinely award unsupervised access to fathers who have committed abuse.

Why do you think these things don't grab headlines?

It's nothing to do with 'cleverness' and everything to do with posters like yourself who spout utter bollocks, the truth of which could be located via a ten-second google search. The internet is the single greatest thing to happen to information sharing since the printing press. You're obviously on the internet or you wouldn't be on MN. Therefore....

I just think you're probably being disingenuous Maurice.

Which stats do you doubt?

Lundy Bancroft, the foremost expert in the world regarding domestic violence?

Women's Aid, the foremost expert organisation in Britain, regarding DV?

The police, the organisation which gets called to the scene of the crime?

The British Crime Survey, a source the police acknowledge as more reported than reported crime?

And do you have better sources, if you doubt these ones?

Sorry that should of course read more reliable than reported crime