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.

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

When it comes to DV men seem to be more violent but 1:3 victims cannot be ignored.

"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?"

Thankfully most DV doesn't result in death.

As to the other cases well the BCS figures speak for themselves, women are twice as likely as men to report it.

Once it then gets to the police to get a conviction involves going through layers of police, court and juries all of whom will be working under the same impressions as people on here are.

DV against women used to go unreported and largely ignored by society. It took years of effort to battle that and get it recognised and dealt with. Even now I don't believe the courts take it seriously enough.

Men are almost at square one of that long struggle.

I'm sure a Victorian gentlemen would in all honesty have told you that there were no prosecutions for DV against wives and that therefore it wasn't something to worry about.

Would you believe him?

Speaking personally it took years for the man I knew to admit to very severe DV to a handful of his family and close friends and that was long after the relationship had broken up. Most people still don't know and it certainly never got anywhere near the police.

I can imagine many other men, the 90% that admit it to the BCS but don't take it to the police, feeling exactly the same way.

Is this the case cross-culturally as well?

I read about "honour crimes" and these usually seem to be against females, is that incorrect? I know that young men are pushed into forced marriages, are they also at risk from the same levels of violence if they don't toe the line?

"We've spent years getting female victims of DV a small portion of the respect they deserve"

I'd argue that they don't have any respect. A lot of people simply take the view that they must have done something to upset their attacker or provoke the attack and continually ask why they stay, while failing to ask why their partners attack them. Whereas with men, it's generally accepted that if a woman attacks him, she's a mad bitch.

If this is a big problem then why aren't men doing something about it? They are the ones who hold the purse strings and the power. If violence against men is a big problem then why is no action being taken?

Um, Women's Aid's take on this 1 in 6 figure

here

Why is sexual abuse excluded? This is the worst type of abuse to my mind.

Looks like people like Kiranjit Ahluwalia and other women who eventually crack and fight back when they are abused, are included in that 1 in 6 figure.

Because it makes a better story, ISNT.

Looks like those figures are based on the 2004 British Crime Survey.

I wonder if anything has significantly shifted in 5 years?

"I'd argue that they don't have any respect."

Well they get more respect than they used to, it is now treated as a crime.

"If this is a big problem then why aren't men doing something about it?"

That's the question, we need to educate society as a whole about DV and make clear to young people that men can be victims too. Then maybe we might see things begin to change.

"Um, Women's Aid's take on this 1 in 6 figure"

In the end the BCS is probably the best thing we have to go on.

It does cap the number of crimes that one person can be a victim of within a year, which is a problem for DV which is something that does repeat.

However you'd expect there to be similar patterns of DV for both men and women so if there is under reporting it should apply to both sexes.

From Women's Aid: "Finally, emotional abuse - which is often not regarded as a crime, but which survivors often find even more destructive - is excluded from these statistics."

For the record the BCS does count emotional problems, attempted suicide and damage to future relationships and to claim otherwise isn't just a misunderstanding but a flat out mistake.

The BCS bluntly states that DV 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."

"Looks like people like Kiranjit Ahluwalia and other women who eventually crack and fight back when they are abused, are included in that 1 in 6 figure."

So female perpetrators of DV are all defending themselves where as male perpetrators are all evil?

Don't the figures above that show that women are almost equally capable of killing their child as a man is indicate that when it comes to violence sexual equality is years ahead of equal pay?

Accepting that 1:3 of the victims of DV are men doesn't somehow make DV OK or the fight against it some feminist conspiracy.

Rather it's the final stage of dragging the filthy dirty shame of Domestic Violence out into the light where it can be dealt with.

And the longer society continues to hide from or downplay the awful truth that men are victims a lot of the time too gives power to those that claim that those statistics mean that we can stop worrying about the whole thing.

But as I understand it, WA are using the BCS as a base. Along with the analysis of it they quoted. this one

Badgerspaw that is natural parents though.

The figures for men and women killing children known to them have not been stated.

There is a difference between saying that all people are at risk of DV, and that women are pretty much as violent as men. The first I get, then second I don't. The second is being used as an excuse by those like the respondents to that article to try to remove womens rights - they are applauding this move on teh part of the govt because they see it as one in the eye for uppity women.

How can better support etc for all victims of abuse, avoid playing into this "trap"?

"Badgerspaw that is natural parents though.

The figures for men and women killing children known to them have not been stated."

But it has been stated that the biggest group of those responsible was natural parents (44% of deaths) and that out of those the split between men and women is roughly equal.

And from that I'm trying to say that when it comes to killing children, for which self-defence cannot be an argument, men and women are both equally capable.

So therefore why should women be incapable of DV?

"There is a difference between saying that all people are at risk of DV, and that women are pretty much as violent as men."

True, but when it comes to DV it seems that women are certainly nearly as violent as men. I'm not sure about other forms of violence and I'm making no claims about that.

"The second is being used as an excuse by those like the respondents to that article to try to remove womens rights - they are applauding this move on teh part of the govt because they see it as one in the eye for uppity women."

And I admit that is a problem.

However I also believe that hiding from the truth and letting the misogynists alone have it isn't helping either.

Why should admitting that 1:3 victims of DV is male mean that even one single women's refuge should close? Surely we need more refuges for men!

Why does it mean that the courts should be even more lenient than they already are with the perpetrators? Surely we need to be tougher and less tolerant of the people that do this!

We don't look at any other crime and say "oh look, about the same number of men and women are assaulted, so that's all ok then."

At the moment we're pretty much ignoring 1:3 of the problem and 1:3 of the victims. We need to include them and say to everyone "look, this is how big a problem domestic violence really is".

In my eyes the more victims, both direct and indirect, of DV that we can point to the more seriously it's got to be taken and the more pressure there's got to be to stop it.

And by making clear that this is something that affects everyone in society we just might get everyone in society involved in stopping all forms of violence in the home.

"when it comes to DV it seems that women are certainly nearly as violent as men"

But isn't WA saying that according to that analysis, they're not? that the 1 in 6 figures ignore :

?severity of violence
?whether or not it was repeated - and if so, how often
?the complex pattern of overlapping abuse of various kinds
?the context in which it took place.

I certainly wouldn't argue that more men's refuges are needed; but I rather think you're being very optimistic about the result of greater knowledge of male victims being a generalised attack on DV; depressingly, I think it will just shift focus and resources from women to men. I don't begrudge men resources; but I don't want them to have them at the expense of women, I want them to have them as well as women. But that's not going to happen, DV is such a low priority politically. Even where children are concerned, everyone pays lip service to the idea that children shouldn't be abused and goes mental about cases like BabyP; but no-one is prepared to put resources into anything that might deal with the problem.

Are the circumstances of the abuse the same though - are the solutions the same?

A big problem for many women is that they have children that they do not want to leave behind, and they are not financially independent. I would imagine that the dynamic for male victims is probably different - homosexual couples are less likely to have children, there is less likely to be financial dependency. I also understand that a "trigger point" for male on female DV is pregnancy and birth. Surely the circs are different in that simply saying "build refuges for men as well" may not be the right answer as they may not be what men need IYSWIM. Has anyone asked male DV victims what they need?

I just struggle with the idea that women perpetrate as much violence as men, as all of the assaults I have been subject to in my life have been perpetrated by men, and I look around and what I see is male on male violence and male on female violence. The idea that female on male violence is common is not something I can see reflected in my life or in the newspapers, what is happening around the world and so on.

No I think the circs must be v. different. The economic dependency for a start. Plus lots of it will be women fighting back. Not all of it of course, but I do remember some woman on here saying tht after years of being abused, she hit back and he called the police. She was logged as a domestic abuser, he wasn't.

The BCS figures do count the severity of violence (e.g. mental, emotional, bruises, scratches, attempted suicide etc.)

However yes there is a problem with repetition, but in that case either a victim is a victim or they're not so they'll still appear in the statistics. And as I've said you'd also expect similar patterns in both male and female targeted domestic violence.

"I think it will just shift focus and resources from women to men. I don't begrudge men resources; but I don't want them to have them at the expense of women"

But how can it be fair to deny resources to 1:3 victims just because they happen to be men?

Imagine a man saying "I don't begrudge women jobs; but I don't want them to have them at the expense of men"

And a lot could be done without spending extra money at all. Even such simple things as just targeting campaigns at both men and women is a start. Just to make men aware that they're not alone and that they can go for help.

So much of the "problem" seems to me to just be awareness and understanding. The views and misunderstandings we've gone through since I brought this up are typical and not at all malicious. The biggest change to DV against women wasn't when the Government started to splash cash on it but when people just began to accept that it happened and it was wrong.

The depressing worry that I have is that the "it's a problem for all of us so let's stop doing anything about it" camp will win out. But as said denying the truth is only going to help them to roll the clock back a generation or three.

"you'd also expect similar patterns in both male and female targeted domestic violence"

But would you? I'm not sure that's true. I'd expect different patterns tbh.

The average income, lifestyle, property rights etc. of men and women are different and the fact that we have systematic sexism in our society, means their psychology is quite often different. So I would expect a pattern of DV to be different on average as well.

I don't think it's fair to deny resources to a third of victims; but it cannot be at the expense of the other two thirds, because resources are already so paltry. It needs extra spending across the board, but who is going to make it a political priority?

"Plus lots of it will be women fighting back. Not all of it of course, but I do remember some woman on here saying tht after years of being abused, she hit back and he called the police. She was logged as a domestic abuser, he wasn't."

that's just your theory though. It could be equally true for men.I can just as easily say it will be many men who won't report for fear of being laughed at/not taken seriously then they snap and hit back once and then they are viewed as a DV abuser while the woman is not and are seen as the victim.
You remember one woman and have extrapolated that based on your own feelings

No, I haven't extrapolated it based on my own feelings MQ, it's a well-known phenomenon. That woman on here was just an illustration who sprung to mind.

The figures are v. confusing though.

I've had a look at that Ward report and it really doesn't bear any relation to the figures being discussed here. And they are using the BCS.

They're saying 1 in 5 women and 1 in 10 men over a lifetime. I presume the 1 in 6 figure is for that one year?

Then they're saying 45% of women and 25% of men.

It's really confusing. Would have to print it off and read it properly to try and make head or tail of it, but not sure if I've got the energy (and definitely haven't got the ink).

"No, I haven't extrapolated it based on my own feelings MQ, it's a well-known phenomenon."

It doesn't seem especially well-known, it seems like an often repeated "fact" which nobody knows the basis of and could well be false,because I'd imagine depending on who is using the fact they'll switch the gender to suit their argument. For example I've never heard of it but I've heard people tell the tale in the reverse about a friend of a friend etc. who's wife was slapping/hitting them etc and the one time the guy hit back she called the police and he was hauled off.
I treated it as the anectotle evidence that it was and how it was as likely to be true as it was to be false as it was a story being used to defend someone who had been arrested for DV.

MQ there is research about this. WA quotes a Scottish study which found that a majority of male victims were found to also be perpetrators of DV and on further investigation half admitted they weren't actually victims at all. It's in the PDF called statistics under resources:

here

Granted they're only quoting one study and one wonders if there are others. I suppose it does highlight that it is easy ot make an accusation of DV and of coures women are going to be assumed to be more likely to lie about it than men because they are always assumed to be liars when it comes to male violence against them, whether that be rape or DV.

What's also interesting there is that women are more likely tob e victims of repeat violence than men are - I'm guessing that's because men recognise DV when it hits them, while women don't at first. Going back to the point about whether we should expect differences in the patterns of DV between men and women victims and perpetrators.