I am shocked by so many tales of nasty, controlling, bullying men on here...

[snowleopard]

I know it is very common. I know domestic abuse goes on in many poeple's lives and people often don't realise. But what makes men like this? We hear a lot about how women can grow up with low self-esteem and ending up in abusive relationships... but that couldn't happen if there weren't so many men out there who are prepared to hit, belittle, control and abuse.

I would really like to know what makes men like this in the first place. It's a great truism that domestic abusers can come from any background, social group and walk of life - so what do they have in common? Is there a feature of their upbringing that made them this way - or is it something we can atrribute more to society in general?

Is anyone studying this or does anyone know anything about it or have any ideas? I'm interested in discussing it, but also I have a son - how can we make sure we aren't raising these abusers?

When I said that the basic reasons for male violence against women were high levels of sexism and entitlement which is borne out by all the people who have direct experience in this area you tried to obscure that by bringing in the infinitesimal (compared to male abusers) number of female abusers. You've kept trying to bring them in all the way through this conversation.

As far as I can see all you've been trying to do is divert attention from male abusers by bringing female abusers into a discussion that isn't about them.

These are American figures and I'm astounded by that number actually. I have a feeling that either they're undercounting women, or that access to guns means women have more opportunity to kill men there. Certainly here, the figure quoted is always 1 in 10 for men and 9 in 10 for women - but I don't know if that's deaths, I think it's just all incidences of DV.

Thanks for the link.

BTW, I have never asserted that the argument boils down to ?men are sexist? but the culture the perpetrators also grow up in/are in as adults, and the pervasive attitudes to women in that culture are part of the picture; as endemic domestic violence in cultures where women are not afforded equal status in law shows. We are having another discussion of this with regards to the work of Hirsi Ali in the In The News section.

People do get jumpy when a relativist agenda is forwarded for cases of female to male violence; it is a nefarious strategy of many in the men?s movement who seek to bring female perpetrated violence up to the status of male violence, which stats just don?t support. It is an issue, but it needs to be seen in context and maybe deserves a thread of it?s own so as to avoid misunderstandings of the sort that have just occurred.

Just to add, that definition of "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting" as minor has all the hall marks of an androcentric view which is a problem within our justice systems.

It is well established that females fear physical injury more than males, for very good reasons, and hence suffer greater psychological distress when assaulted in this way.

Women are often bullied and terrorised by such acts - the fear of greater punishment, greater levels of violence always present. This cannot be discounted as "minor".

I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea that woman on man abuse has no place in a discussion about domestic violence.

I think it risks giving the impression that it is not worthy of being taken as seriously. Thereby leading to possible undereporting.

I don't see any of those things as being minor.

I suppose it depends on what degree of force is used, but any of those things could lead to serious injury if the disproportionate weight and strength of the parties involved is significant. (Which of course, in many cases, it is.)

I think you're right Cassandra, the description of these as minor may well be minor if exerted on a person of 16 stone by one of 8 stone. The other way around, they'd be pretty damn major.

I don't think female on male dv is completely inappropriate Terror, but I do think it should not be seen as having the same causes and effects. In a sense, it is a different subject because it must have very different reasons. I don't think that implies it's trivial, it's obviously an extremely serious subject, but it's worthy of discussion in its own right as it were, because it is different. I think one of the problems male victims of DV have, is that the police are still at the stage they were with women 30 years ago, in that they don't take it seriously.

(I'm not implying that the police always take women victims of DV seriously btw. There are still far too many incidences of them not doing so.)

Must it always have different reasons? I'm not being arsey. But I wonder if it is true to say that all domestic male on female violence has one casue and all female on male another, and never the twain shall meet.

And TBH I do see almost a dismissal of it on this thread. I can see how it might be enormously psychologically distressing for a man to be abused by a woman, but it has been stated categorically on here that it is always more distressing for a woman.

That does sound a bit arsey.
Sorry.
I know it is an immensely sensitive subject.

Yes, it is different, becasue the way men and women psychologically (and physiologically) respond to violence is different.

It is not a dismissal, just an acceptance that these belong in discrete catagories, i.e. seperate - not lesser. The distinction empowers both debates - trying to collapse the two only muddy's the water.

I'm now 66 I gave up my "posh" house my lush (sorry) Welsh life but do you know I come into my lovely peaceful home, and sit down on my settee and breathe again never be afraid of the future peace is everything xx