Is there a thread about May scraping the law to help abused women throw out their abusive husbands?

[MmeLindt]

I am insenced to read that a scheme to protect women from abusive partners is to be scrapped.

"Go orders" planned for England and wales would give senior police officers to remove an abusive partner from the family home for two weeks and ban him from being within a certain distance to the house.

This would give the woman time to regroup, and seek help.

But BP, it doesn't affect men and women equally. There are not 2 men a week being killed by thir female partners or exes. 1 in 4 men do not experience DV at the hands of their female partners.

I agree with you, of course there should be awareness that it's not just women who are affected by DV. But let's not pretend that men are equally affected. They're not and focusing on female on male violence disproportionately to the problem, could well result in resources being taken away from the wider, more common problem and re-directing them to the less common problem.

I'm not saying there should be no resources directed into the female on male violence issue - but women need to be really careful to make sure that as soon as a problem for men becomes identified, suddenly all the focus and all the money goes to men and away from women. Because in the real world, that's what happens.

No 1 in 4 men do not experience DV, but 1 in 6 do (British Crime Survery), which isn't that far removed.

So for every three victims of DV one will be male.

There are about 80 spaces in the UK for men in refuges, there are 7,500 spaces for women.

If those spaces for women are adequate, which they're not, the stats say that there should be over 2,200 spaces for men. That's an enormous gap in funding and support.

So which focus is really applied "disproportionately to the problem"?

Now add into consideration that men are more unlikely to tell people that they are victims of DV than women (59% vs. 81%) and there are a lot more men out there that suffer in silence because we have this continuing image that DV is something that only really affects women and that giving any support to men detracts from that.

We need to stop the gender, and sexual orientation, lines in DV and make clear that it affects everyone and that everyone needs support.

And then we need to stop giving out pathetic sentences to those found guilty of it as all those silent victims see such light handed treatment by the courts and that deters them from ending their suffering.

The Government is right to scrap this scheme if the abusive partner whether male or female either own or jointly own the property then they should not forced to leave a property that they either own individually or jointly.

BadgersPaw, are 2 men a week being murdered by their female partners or ex partners?

A third of men sounds incredibly high to me. Is that really the figure? Is this just for female partner violence or does it include male partner and/ or father/ stepfather violence? (A lot of young men are subjected to incidents of violence by their fathers or more commonly, their stepfathers, and I'm wondering if those figures are included in the third?) I would also question if men really are less likely to report - if you take into consideration that the average woman will be the victim of an attack more than 30 times before she report it, hwo many attacks will men suffer before they report it? Do you know any figures on that?

Are all those figures from the same source (British Crime Survey)?

And what do you think should be done instead, huddspur?

How many men are killed each week by females known to them?

How many children are killed each week by their mothers?

How many families have a father as the main childcare person, and without any income? How many men are in that uniquely vulnerable position?

I have to agree with swallowedafly's posts, I found the comments under the article very disturbing.

We keep getting to this "what about the men" stuff, time and time again. How many men are killed every week by female partners/ex partners? Anyone know?

"are 2 men a week being murdered by their female partners or ex partners?"

No, in the 2008/2009 figures 31 men were killed by an partner or ex partner compared to 101 women.

So for every four victims killed by DV one will be a man.

"Is this just for female partner violence or does it include male partner and/ or father/ stepfather violence"

This is all by the BCS definition of "Domestic Violence" which is "Any incident or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or are family members, regardless of gender or sexual orientation."

And the BCS shows that women are also slightly more likely to be the victims of "family abuse" rather than "partner abuse".

So if you want to discount that sort of violence and leave it just as "partners" then the proportion of men to women victims of DV will actually increase rather than decrease as you seem to suggest.

"I would also question if men really are less likely to report - if you take into consideration that the average woman will be the victim of an attack more than 30 times before she report it, hwo many attacks will men suffer before they report it?"

Well again this is from the BCS women are more likely to tell someone (89% vs 59%) and in particular more likely to tell friends (66% vs. 44%) or the police (20% vs 10%) than men are.

So according to the figures men are twice as likely as women (41% vs. 19%) to tell no one about DV before they end up in the BCS.

The the figures should tell you that the numbers of male victims of DV that we hear about are the tip of the ice berg.

I can also back that up personally, that male friend that I knew bluntly said that they didn't tell anyone for years because they felt that it wouldn't be taken seriously.

DV is never going to be comprehensively tackled until we stop and take into view the whole picture of what's going on and stop clinging to stereotypes of what DV is, who suffers and who perpetrates it.

The situation with male victims of DV is where we were decades ago with female victims, it's just not taken seriously and dismissed as irrelevant or even "funny".

For all cases where there IS proof there should be much stronger punishments to be a deterrent.

This is only for situations where there is no proof that anything at all occurred.

It therefore should be about providing immediate refuge for the alleged victim and thorough investigation. Not punishment without proof for the alleged criminal.

What would the police do if both husband and wife claimed to be abused by the other on the same night? throw them both out?

"We keep getting to this "what about the men" stuff, time and time again. How many men are killed every week by female partners/ex partners? Anyone know?"

To summarise...

One in four deaths at the hands of parters/ex partners is a man.

One in three victims known victims of DV is a man (and men are also known to be far less likely to report it).

Only 1:100 beds in DV refuge centres are for men.

DV isn't just a feminist or women's issue. It's a people issue and everyone should be aware of it and playing a part to stop it.

Perhaps we "keep getting" the male side of the horrendous list of victims mentioned because all to often it seems that 1:3 victims is just being ignored.

I don;t understand this idea that women either have to be strong and feisty and sort out their own problems, or be victims to be protected.

There seems to be a very strong " ha ha gotcha you stupid bunch of cows" side to this argument. Like "well you've said you should work and get paid and have some freedom and all of that so in return you have to accept that you are no longer eligible for any help with anything HA".

But women aren't a homogenous group, we don't all behave in exactly the same way. And on average, we are more likely to the the victims of this type of violence.

That is the strong flavour of the comments on the article linked.

The figures linked to show what a terrible time men are having always seem to omit the fact that most violence comitted against men is also by men.

"No, in the 2008/2009 figures 31 men were killed by an partner or ex partner compared to 101 women.

So for every four victims killed by DV one will be a man." Yes but how many were killed by men and how many by women?

While I would agree that a lot of people have trouble processing female on male violence, which should be addressed, not many people have a problem processing male on male violence, which I am sure is a big component of the figures quoted.

"How many children are killed each week by their mothers?"

Not sure about the UK but figures in the US for children under 5 that were murdered show that 30% were murdered by their mother and 31% by their mother.

The NSPCC say that "Killings of children by a natural parent are committed in roughly equal proportions by mothers (47%) and fathers (53%)"

So again the common stereotype that men are far more violent than women just isn't born out by the figures.

"Not sure about the UK but figures in the US for children under 5 that were murdered show that 30% were murdered by their mother and 31% by their mother."

Can you clarify that?

I wonder why it is hardly ever reported when mothers and males in the household kill their children, compared to when men in the family kill the children? It would be interesting to understand that.

Or is it that men are more likely to kill children which are not theirs, which is why the "Killings of children by a natural parent" stats don't tie in with what is reported in the papers?

To clarify:

"I wonder why it is hardly ever reported when mothers and women in the household kill their children, compared to when men in the family kill the children?"

That should make more sense.

What are the percentages on people who kill children who are known to them, by sex, irrespective of whether they are a natural parent or not?

I am not sure that the "natural parents" stat gives a full picture.

So the argument is that women are just as violent as men, in the home, outside the home, and when murdering children and ex partners and so on.

Really?

"The figures linked to show what a terrible time men are having always seem to omit the fact that most violence comitted against men is also by men."

"Yes but how many were killed by men and how many by women?"

So it's men killing men and therefore the fault of violent men?

No.

Another incorrect stereotype.

Using the BCS figures once again homosexual men are twice as likely as heterosexual men to be victims of DV.

However homosexual women are three times more likely to be victims of DV than heterosexual women.

So if you want to remove homosexual DV victims from the figures then more women will be removed than men (assuming that the ratio of homosexuality is roughly the same for men as for women). The ratio of heterosexual males to female victims of DV will therefore be closer than the 1:4 that the BCS reports.

How many more stereotypes are going to be wheeled out?

And don't you see how similar all of this is to the views of women victims of DV a generation or two ago?

"What are the percentages on people who kill children who are known to them, by sex, irrespective of whether they are a natural parent or not?"

From the NSPCC:

"In 2005/2006 in England and Wales parents were the principal suspect in 24 child homicide cases (44% of all cases).

A further 13 children (24% of all cases) were the victim of suspects known to them (i.e. other family member, friend or acquaintance)."

So children are mostly likely to be killed by their parents and those parents are split pretty closely by gender.

"So the argument is that women are just as violent as men, in the home, outside the home, and when murdering children and ex partners and so on."

The figures show that women while not as violent as men are far more violent, both in terms of DV and child murder, than people seem to believe.

And the argument is that DV isn't something that only affects women, it affects all people of all genders and is committed by all people of all genders.

Everyone should be involved and concerned. To focus only on women ignores a massive part of the problem and pretending that it's men doing all of this lets a big part of the cause go unaddressed.

This isn't about demeaning DV and anyone that says "well we all suffer from it so let's stop worrying about it" deserves to be taken outside and beaten.

This is all about dragging DV out into the daylight so that we can all see what it is and stop hiding behind incorrect visions of who's suffering and who's causing the pain.

But NSPCC figures aren't compatible with BCS ones and are a little confusing as it says that parents were suspects, it didn't actually say they were definitely the perpetrators.

How come Women's Aid don't quote these figures?

""In 2005/2006 in England and Wales parents were the principal suspect in 24 child homicide cases (44% of all cases).

A further 13 children (24% of all cases) were the victim of suspects known to them (i.e. other family member, friend or acquaintance)."

So children are mostly likely to be killed by their parents and those parents are split pretty closely by gender."

But what of the other 24%?

If women are as violent as men, why is there this huge discrepancy in the numbers of men and women in prison for violent crime?

I mean, the comments at the end of the article are saying in large part that men are just as at risk from women, as women are from men, and so women should shut up about it, and the provision of women's refuges is a big feminist con. Is the gist.

These people do not seem to be advocating better universal services. They are advocating uppity women shutting up and stop being mean about the poor men.

hats off to badger paws stats.
Eye-opening.

"If women are as violent as men, why is there this huge discrepancy in the numbers of men and women in prison for violent crime?"

Well we're only talking about DV here, children became included presumably because of the concern for them in homes where DV is prevalent.

The convictions for DV are almost overwhelmingly against men.

Remember though that the BCS is taken as a better indication of the level of crime than either police or court figures. This is because it counts victims of crime rather than just those who felt able to take it to the police.

And I would like to point out that the worst instance of DV that I personally know of was a man against a woman and I'm still sickened that he didn't end up in prison.

However that doesn't mean that I can ignore 1:3 victims. We've spent years getting female victims of DV a small portion of the respect they deserve and it's just that men have been left behind and hidden away behind a swathe of stereotypes, assumptions and prejudice.

"I mean, the comments at the end of the article are saying in large part that men are just as at risk from women, as women are from men, and so women should shut up about it, and the provision of women's refuges is a big feminist con. Is the gist."

That's the danger of society beginning to realise that men make up 1:3 victims of DV.

That men make up 1:3 of the victims yet have access to only 1:100 of the refuge spaces doesn't indicate a "feminist con" and mean that those refuges should be shut. Instead it flags up how far apart the reality and the perception of the crime are.

The problem isn't a "feminist con" and the solution to shut refuges.

The problem is ignorance and the solution is more refuges for all.

So is it the case that women are as violent as men?

That is not what I have observed in my life or what I see when I open the papers, I see overwhelming violence against women by men.

Why aren't all of these women in prison? Is the argument that it's so taboo that women commit violence that thousands of women are literally getting away with murder?

"I mean, the comments at the end of the article are saying in large part that men are just as at risk from women, as women are from men, and so women should shut up about it, and the provision of women's refuges is a big feminist con. Is the gist."

I should have added that the abuse of the truth, that at least 1 in 3 victims of DV are men, by ignorant or nasty misogynists is no justification for that truth to be ignored.

I was going to ask the question, when people deliberately misuse statistics in order to flag up how "feminists have got it all wrong and are doing down decent men" type stuff (in this case the idea being promoted that men are as likely to be victims of women as women are of men, and that womens refuges are therefore a feminist conspiracy etc) what on earth do you say to them? I never know how to react to the type of comments that have appeared on that article.