About international men’s day blog

[Pumpkinspicewhatever]

I work for a big bank. We have an active company intranet and various blogs go up at different points in the calendar from the great and the good of the company. Most recently for international men’s day.
This blogs opening gambit was “did you know 1 in 3 men have experienced domestic violence?” (And no source to back this up) followed by a fact about how suicide rates are 3x higher for men than women.
Now I have no problem in theory with international men’s day and the associated celebrating good male role models etc, which is the main thrust of what my company seems to be doing. But to lead with a fact about men being common victims of DV (I can’t find the 1 in 3 statistic from a quickish google) feels really blind and inappropriate. DV across the world is more a problem for women than men. Surely this is universally accepted? Can’t they lead with anything more positive for IMD than misrepresenting what is a devastating social problem (more so for women?)
Not sure, but this didn’t sit well with me. I wish they had led with something else. I’ve asked the writer to clarify their source as well.

Pumperthepumper

I did read it thanks and I'm responding to other posts on the thread it only the op, just as many other posters are.

Maybe get off your own high horse and stop trying to be the thread police?

No you’re not, you’re only bleating on about how unfair everyone is being about men. Read the OP - how do you feel about the blog fudging the stats and the comparison to women? Furious, I expect, as you should be.

@wombat1a - statistics to back up your claim please?

Pumperthepumper

My reaction would depend very much on whether the error in the stats was accidental or deliberate. So did someone misunderstand the 1 in 3 or did they try to be misleading.

Who wrote it? Someone who should have understood statistics or some volunteer roped in to write a post who has just stuck in some facts following a quick Google search that they've not really understood?

@Charley50 county lines drug dealing is not simply male on male crime. There are vulnerable children involved, groomed and hurt.
It's a massive problem causing real heartbreak for communities and families. Not that DV doesn't! Certainly does. I just wanted to point out that county line and gang issues are very much children issues now.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras it may have been an error but I drew their attention to it over 24 hours ago and they have not addressed it. Are there no striking enough headlines or stats about men they can use that they’ve used a completely wrong one? And inherent in the fact is a gender comparison I feel because DV is historically seen as more of an issue for women. So straight out they’re trying to set a “men have it just as bad” agenda. I wish they could’ve just led with some interesting TRUE facts about eg male mental health of which there are so many. Or just used the “1 in 9 men in the U.K. will experience DV” fact which seems to be the actual figure. But I suspect that wouldn’t be seen as attention grabbing enough...

Hearhooves why does that matter? They deliberately compared it to women’s stats, they compared them to try to show men have it worse. Why do that? You must be so angry about that.

Can you stop telling me what I must be so angry about?

How do.i know why a blog in a random company somewhere said anything? We've not seen the post to see what exactly was said it in what context.

It's not difficult to see how someone has looked up statistics and seen 1 in 3 victims are men and got that confused somehow with 1 in 3 men because they've not understood it properly. Who actually wrote it, as in, is it their job to understand these things and to present statistics in this way?

I dont know why they've compared it with women - to give background and context I should imagine, in the same way other campaigns work.

I'm not really understanding what your objections are. Men suffer DV, I think we can all agree on that so is it not good that awareness about this is being raised? Why would you object to it?

@SafetyAdvice0FeedWhenAgitated - absolutely. And county lines is organised crime so not directly comparable with domestic abuse, although of course children are harmed by domestic abuse too.

I'm not really understanding what your objections are. Men suffer DV, I think we can all agree on that so is it not good that awareness about this is being raised? Why would you object to it?

Oh come on! What a reach! I’m not objecting to it, I’m objecting to it being compared to women’s DV stats to make it seem like it’s more of a problem for men. The MRAs who wrote that blog were just so desperate to minimise DV for women, they didn’t even care if the stats were correct. I really don’t think that’s so hard to understand - I can’t see any reason that any decent person wouldn’t be angry about it.

But not you. You’re too concerned that men might be wrong, and we can’t have that, can we?

I thought that statistic related to males rather than men (subtle difference) so if my male partner assaults me in front of my son (or also assaults him when he tries to help ) we are both victims. In that tiny sample 50% of the victims of domestic violence are female and 50% male. But using the statistic by itself risks covering up the dynamics of what is actually happening (the perpetrator of dv being an adult male which is the case in most though not all cases of dv). That doesn’t mean that the male victims of do shouldn’t receive help and sympathy however- whether it happened as a child or adult and whether the perpetrator was male or female. So I feel uncomfortable jumping on initiatives to raise awareness that men are also victims of DV. But more awareness of the complexities of the issues would help everyone.

It also doesn’t help to frame it as a zero sum game or women versus men. Men (and boys) can also suffer hugely from the impacts of male violence in women and vice-versa.

Also Hear most of your posts are some variation of ‘I don’t understand’ - again, spend one extra second reading the posts instead of pushing your own agenda and everything will magically become more understandable to you, I promise.

The MRAs who wrote that blog were just so desperate to minimise DV for women

How do you know who wrote the blog and have you actually read it, only if not how do you know they were minimising DV for women?

Saying that DV affects males as well as females isn't minimising anything.

Also Hear most of your posts are some variation of ‘I don’t understand’ - again, spend one extra second reading the posts instead of pushing your own agenda and everything will magically become more understandable to you, I promise

I've read them multiple times - I still do not understand your objections and the only thing becoming clear is that some people have had an empathy bypass.

I still do not understand your objections and the only thing becoming clear is that some people have had an empathy bypass.

Do you generally struggle with reading comprehension?

Boosting the DV rates for men while comparing them to women absolutely is minimising. Not that you’ll understand that, I’m sure.

if they deliberately boosted the figures then yes I agree. On the other hand, if it was a misunderstanding of the figures and they thought they were posting genuine statistics then no I don't think it's minimising.

1 in 3 victims of da being male is enough on its own, I don't see a reason to have to inflate it.

Awareness of Domestic abuse and violence, no matter who is the victim, needs to be raised amongst the public. People also needs to know what constitutes abuse and where to go for help.

There are very specific issues around da as relates to men - that victims will not be believed, will be laughed at, that there's no help available - and that does need addressing. Doing so isn't minimising female victims of abuse its recognising that all victims of abuse deserve help.

I'm sorry if you can't understand that.

I do think it is instructive that the only thread on here about IMD is a six-page one enthusiastically pulling one single (probably innocently) misused stat to pieces.

Just from a point of pure self-interest, if we go out of our way to minimise and belittle issues that genuinely affect men, it makes it harder to complain when the converse happens (as I agree it does, all the time). What's good for the goose etc.

FWIW - and I may be giving someone more credit than they deserve - I suspect the stat is not deliberately distorted. I have enough contact with stats through work to know that many people's understanding of them is sub-GCSE level.

There are very specific issues around da as relates to men - that victims will not be believed, will be laughed at, that there's no help available - and that does need addressing. Doing so isn't minimising female victims of abuse its recognising that all victims of abuse deserve help.

What does that have to do with women? Why do the stats for female suicide change that?

I think this was a weird subject to blog about for IMD. The point of the day (I thought) is to celebrate the achievements of men and boys. I work for the NHS. The blogs on our intranet and website were written by male nurses, talking about their experiences of working in a traditionally female dominated role.

Here thedancingbear. The woman-blaming for mens suicide begins several pages in.

What does that have to do with women? Why do the stats for female suicide change that?

My post was about about domestic abuse. Why suddenly ask about suicide?

The blog post referenced suicide - it explained, did it not, that more men die by suicide than women? That is true, or arguing against that statistic too? I understand that it might be that more women than men attempt suicide but if they survive then there is at least an opportunity to help them.

Replace suicide with domestic abuse. Why are the stats for women important in relation to IMD?

Because it was explaining the context? I don't know without reading the blog post. I didn't write it so why are you demanding that I explain it?