to not understand the " would you have reacted the same if it had been a women" comments?

[Toizzy]

I've seen it quite a few times here and have seen it again tonight.I just don't understand it, although I realise what message it sends I would think it's quite normal if the answer is no .
Am I wrong to see it like that?

No - women typically suffer 37 assaults before reporting, whereas men, on average, suffer two. And often those incidents are when both parties are assaulting each other. (Sorry - I don't have the source to hand, new device with none of my old history).

But even if the DV figures are skewed to begin with, you can't skew murder stats. And those murders generally don't come out of a clear blue sky, it's an incremental thing, many acts of violence culminating in the worst one of all. There isn't really an equivalence, though that's not at all to say that female on male dv doesn't happen, or that it is not serious.

Logically, women and men should be given the same consideration when doing an action.

In practice, it's naive stupidity.

Men are statistically more likely to: kidnap, rape, murder, sexually abuse a child, and be violent. So yes, I will have a different reaction to a strange man talking to my child than a strange woman. I will be more guarded with a man working with kids than a woman. I will be more suspicious of a drunk man trying to lure away a woman, than the other way around. That's not sexist, it's being realistic.

When you show me the statistics that show that perpetrators and victims are 50/50, I will agree they should be reacted to the same. But while those numbers are heavily skewed towards men being the perpetrator and women being the victims, on top of a society that systematically thinks less of women than men, we should be more cautious of men than women.

I'm genuinely curious here, why the vitriol against men!

I.was.violated as a child, I've been raped as a teen/ young adult, ive suffered domestic violence, but I still hold the 50/50 view... am I odd?

genuine question btw, I'm not trying to be antagonistic

I have nothing against men, I love men and have many lovely men in my life.

But the fact of the matter is, a man hanging around a playground alone is more suspicious than a woman doing the same. It just is, if for no other reason than women kidnappers are almost unheard of. Women barely make up 10% of the prison population, and it's not because they're being let off easy.

You can't look at what men and women do with 50/50 lenses in all situations because crimes aren't equal 50/50 between the sexes. Knowing individual men that are assholes or angels doesn't change that.

I'm not sure I can agree with you bulbasaur ( awesome nn btw I used to love pokemon)
there's as many bad women as men out there imo

YABU.

It is a question and a valid one.

"you can't ne snippy about someone paraphrasing when you've just typecast an entire half of the human race."

No, sunshine. Just the violent ones. hth.

"I'm genuinely curious here, why the vitriol against men!"

Oh, please. Where?

"tbf though, statistically more women are.likely to.report violence from men than men are likely to report violence.from women, so aren't the figures skewed to begin with?"

I don't know. Are they? I could counter that with the assumption (and it is an assumption, I'll admit) that the injuries suffered from violence by men against women are more severe. And do I need to talk again about the amount of women every year who are no longer alive because they were killed by their male partners or ex partners?

^ And just to be clear, people should not paraphrase the above in any way to mean "all men are evil bastards, all men are violent, all women are precious petals who never lay a finger on anyone. mkay?

women kidnappers are almost unheard of

Not here in Mexico

Kidnapping is organised crime, yeah Mexican? Are women the primary drivers here? Do you often find a women at the top calling the shots? Organising the kidnapping and the murder of drug enforcement and law enforcement personnel?

I’m just tired of the “yeah but…” comments that invariably follow comments on violence against women. 2 women a week. Our mothers, daughters, sisters. Our loved ones. People dear to us. 2 of them a week give or take, dead. The follow up to that should be fucking outrage. Not “yeah, but…”. It’s an epidemic. If two a week die, that must mean many more are seriously injured. It’s the tip of the fucking iceberg. Don’t get me started on emotional and financial abuse. When women have an equal footing on the societal totem pole, and also financially, then come and talk to me about abuse against men.

I’m tired of the “yeah, but…” It’s irrelevant. It’s a different issue.

Violence by men against women is different, it is different because it is in many ways condoned, and tacitly supported. It is different because it kills and injures vastly more women. 2 a week. I will not tire of saying it. 2 Women a week. And I haven't counted the number of children killed by loving fathers. Another three this week in Australia. Shot to death along with their mother.

Violence by women against men should not be used as a counterweight to violence against women (and children) by men.

And if anyone thinks that ^^ translates to “ all men are bastards” and violence against men is OK” then I really don't know how much clearer I can be.

I'm risking a flaming with this....... I've seen quite a few times posters on here giving a list of "red flags " that women should take note of when going out with or contemplating going out with a man. If a man was to compile a similar list regarding women, how do you think it would be received?

I don't know Neil. I do think women are often rightly warned that controlling men often become physical. Men, not so much.

I suspect the 'controlling' red flags would be similar. Tightness with money, wanting to know their whereabouts at all times, irrational jealousy, etc. Though I don't know if I've ever heard of a women insisting that her male partner quit his job so that he can focus more on his relationship. Controlling and violent men often do this as a way of isolating their partner.

I'll be honest and say that generally people would see those controlling traits in a woman and think "ball and chain", whereas in a man they'd be more like "proceed with the utmost caution." Rightly so, imo.

Women often come on the relationships board talking about their male partners, who’ve just hit them. Slapped, punched, kicked, whatever. They are flooded with replies – “get out!” “are you safe?” “are the children safe?” “you should leave, immediately, he might escalate.” “you’re in danger.” “call the police immediately.”

If a man comes in, with the same complaint, the responses are “call the police, violence is unacceptable. You have been assaulted.”

In my opinion, the responses in both scenarios are appropriate. Because we don't have an epidemic of women aren’t killing their partners at a rate of 2 a week, or vengefully killing their children.

Equality is important, and men and women should be held to the same standards however it's naive to ignore that we currently live in an unequal society. Acknowledging that men commit more violent crime (they do) and being interested in the reasons why this may be, is not the same as condemning all men. I love DF, DH, DS - but I'm also aware we live in a patriarchal society. Both ideas can exist at once.

didn't realise this was specifically about domestic violence.

The OP said she was thinking specifically of abuse, but said so in the 4th or 5th post, so not immediately obvious, Frog.

"When 2 men a week are killed by their female ex partners I'll start being less prejudiced."

I wish those that use this would use the correct quote or even the correct figures.

What quote?

I've read one point something, I've read two.

I'll wager in some countries it's loads more than that.

But go on, lets quibble over that.

"On average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner."

From women's aid.

"I've read one point something, I've read two."

that is why its an average.

(FYI, I think that one person killed by their current or former partner is to many).

however

just the violent ones?

yet you're only going on about men?

I don't know what your point is, Boney apart from arguing something that isn't the main point of this discussion.

If you want a nice round number, I could just include the entire body count, including children?

Sometimes they're shot

Sometimes they're beaten to death with a blunt instrument

Or drowned

Or even chucked off bridges like this little girl

or or this baby

Unfortunately that might take the number to over two, and we'd have that dammed rounding problem again.

Heartshaped, what's your point? Yes, I'm talking about men. You seem to want to put violent men and women into the same category. I've stated many reasons why I don't. If you missed them, re read the thread.

I found the above links because I know the stories because they are familiar to me. I barely had to think to remember them. Give me 10 minutes to actually think of more, and I could get you another dozen, I recon.

If you ask me to find even one about a woman who murdered her husband, or ex husband or children out of vengeance to her ex, well, it could be a while. I'm not saying one doesn't exist. But for every one you show me, I'll show you 10 from my pov without even trying.

And that's just the ones who've been caught. Not the ones who've gotten away with it. Or the women who've survived and who didn't even make the news.

I would agree with the previous posters who've pointed out that we live in an unequal society.

It's not right or fair but it is true and so should affect the answers people get.

Women are much more likely to take time off work to have children, to go part time or become sahp to look after them. Housework is still thought of as women's work and men are still expected to be the bread winners. It is changing and improving but that undertone remains.

Men remain on a general basis physically stronger than women and are less likely to be seriously injured or killed by a partner.

Men are also still taught a sense of entitlement to certain things - sometimes including the use of women's bodies.

Women are subjected to prejudice in lots of areas still. Even pay at work remains unequal. Women are also subject to sexism on an almost daily basis.

All of this is generalisation of course and no reflection on individual people but if you have limited information about a situation it makes sense to question the most likely issues first and those generalisation inform what we consider most likely.

My DH is a sahd mostly (bit of part time work) and does most of the housework and people are still often a bit suprised about that. So I wouldn't question someone asking me about housework sharing if I had posted a relationship issue.

Asking 'would you say that if the genders were reversed? ' doesn't seem like a bad thing because it makes people consider if they're working from the information they have or using those generalisations but it doesn't invalidate the question if the answer is 'no I wouldn't.'

however

If you are happy to be prejudiced against half the population of the world based on an incorrect number then that is your right.
but you are incorrect to use a uk number for the rest of the world.

Do I disagree that the majority of violence around the world is by men? no I don't.

But neither will I turn my back on a vulnerable person because they are male.

I think the reality is that, no matter how much we pretend otherwise, this is predominantly a women's website and, as such, will always comprise a skewed perspective. Plenty of female posters here have no children, and that's accepted, but a male poster without children would be treated with immediate suspicion and distrust.

WRT how men are 'badder' than women, this is true, statistically. However, they're also statistically more talented. This isn't necessarily because of structural societal issues, but genetics. On the bell-curve of ability and behaviours, men are FAR more likely to occupy both extreme ends, and women the middle. Hence the numbers of male criminals and alcohol/drug abusers, but also the numbers of male virtuosos and Nobel prize winners.

I often hear that if women ruled the world, there would be no war. This may be true, but it would also be the case that we'd be less scientifically Evan ed, and woot many of our greatest works of art. A difficult concept for many of us to accept, but empirically likely.

"If you are happy to be prejudiced against half the population of the world based on an incorrect number then that is your right. "

Ahhh, here we go, the "you just hate all men" argument designed to cut off the conversation.

"but you are incorrect to use a uk number for the rest of the world. "

Uh huh. It could be a lot more. I'm pretty sure the likes of India and Pakistan drag up the average.

"But neither will I turn my back on a vulnerable person because they are male"

Who's asking you to??