To think that women are often not abusive unless she's being abused?

[Bigbrookie]

I was in a domestic abuse training session this week and the person leading the training said that she has never seen, in 20 years of doing her role as a support worker for domestic abuse, a situation where the man isn't actually abusing the woman where a woman is accused of abusing a man. She said this is particularly the case where young dependents are involved because the woman usually is less powerful than the man in the first place and the man is often using his power to take advantage over the woman.

She said that in all the cases she has seen where a woman has reacted physically towards a man, there has been manipulative and controlling behaviour towards the woman first and the have reacted with overwhelm. I thought this was interesting.

What is other people's take on this?

This exactly. Of course there will be some abusive women- even if only emotionally, or verbally.

But when it comes to physical abuse, it is very rare and I think that trainer’s experience reflects how unusual it is.

I am curious, are we aware of scenarios where abused men might retaliate / snap in the same way?

I think the sentencing guidelines have changed now to recognise coercive control as domestic violence so it’s recognised women who haven’t been physically abused may still snap and harm their partner. Do we think this ever happens the other way round? And would courts accept this as a defence from a man - to say i killed my partner after years of emotional abuse?

It’s something I haven’t thought about before and just wrapping my head round it

The trainer is talking out of her ase. Women can be just as abusive without having been the victim of abuse.

These are odd questions. In law, you can run any defence.

The intent is what matters. Picking up a weapon indicates factually an intent to kill. That does not mean there is not a difference in terms of why a woman might pick up a weapon versus a man. When men kill their partners, they typically use their bare strength.

So crime and it's sentencing is factual. There is not a blanket criteria that applies. If there is evidence of domestic abuse, then that may go to sentencing in terms of culpability. That is about all you can say. A judge decides.

Bullshit. I've seen two women in my life physically beat up their partners on a regular basis knowing they wouldn't retaliate as they wouldn't hit a women. I've worked with women who would often verbally abuse men and rely on the fact that "men can't hit women".

sorry the method of killing wasn’t what was peaking my curiosity. That all makes perfect sense that women would be more likely to use weapons (or historically, poison).

I was wondering out loud whether a defence of coercive control has ever been attempted for a man killing his female partner, where i know of a number of cases and appeals in flight at present where women have killed their partners and are using coercive control as a defence.

And whether if such a defence was attempted for a man if any jury would believe it. AND now I’m wondering of all the blokes who’ve killed their partners ever, whether all of them were the man being an abusive t*sser which is what I would assume, whether any of them were in fact themselves DV victims who snapped / retaliated in the way you discussed women doing in your prior post.

I can imagine this is true in reported cases. But, thanks to too much wine on a hen do, I know that a few women in my social circle have hit their male partners during arguments ('normal' respectable women, not people with particularly chaotic lives as far as I know).

A few admitted that they'd done so once and felt very guilty about it, a couple argued that it's fair and understandable that they lash out physically when they're 'pushed to their limits'. It's easier to brush off when the physical damage is minimal (not that it makes it right).

I think cohesive behaviour in women is just as prolific as in men. They key difference is that women are far less likely to kill or put their partners in hospital.

She's describing her personal experience. She didn't say 100% of all cases, she said
100% of the cases she has experienced. Are you suggesting she has lied about that simply to besmirch men?

Just because she hasnt seen it doesnt mean it hasnt happened.

I've seen women cut their partner off from family and friends - controlling behaviour. The difference is that a man has more options for dealing with this type of behaviour and can leave more readily when they get fed up of it. I havent seen a woman being physically abusive to a man who isnt abusive to her but I can still accept it may happen.

@MyLemonBee - well. I no longer work in criminal justice. The coercive control defence is available to anyone in theory.

But there is another way of answering your question. Historically there was a commonly accepted defence used by men who murdered their wives and that was called the defence of provocation. This was in effect , I snapped, she drove me to it m'lud by her nagging. I'm not joking on that one. It was sometimes enough for a lesser charge to manslaughter and you could plead it as it was a statutory defence. It was so subjective that there was no clear basis to use it. A man could claim he snapped when a woman bagged him and it would apply, but a woman abused for years could not use it because she had effectively tolerated her abuse and stayed (though the reality was she was probably too scared to leave).

Provocation is now abolished. But this was very recent, in 2010.

Criminal law has a lot of reactive sexism in it. Very recently there have been small changes like coercive control which recognise how you get to a violent domestic murder. It's not perfect but it will probably have saved a few lives already.

I do not think you understand an important part of the law that applies.

Hitting people is wrong. It should not happen. But when it happens, the law looks at the harm inflicted, actual or intended. This is an important difference because the chances are by dint of physical strength a man can inflict harm in a way that a woman is less capable of. In other words, the action may be wrong. But the quality of what happens matters. What harm was intended or resulted.

@bombastix thanks for responding. Very interesting and a lot of food for thought

@Couldntgiveafunk that programme was my first thought too, was awful wasn't it? The woman was so bloody sneery at the end when he died before he could give evidence to the police.
It was a 24hours in police custody episode.

I think it’s frightening that a domestic abuse trainer can hold that view and also that so many on here agree with it

yes there are more male abusers than women. Vastly more. Yes some (many) claim to be the victim

but to hold the belief that men can never be the victims of abuse is wrong. Scarily so.

She said that she had never seen it. I agree with her. I didn't either.

That is not to say it never happens. But a person is talking about their professional experience.

This narrative really pisses me off. So what happens if a woman is having a pop at her male partner as she regularly does and he becomes overwhelmed and hits her? That's reactive advise too then?
No, that would go down with Police, SS etc as a domestic against the woman.

I see women talking to their men like shit on the bottom of their shoe on a daily basis, but of course they can only ever be the victim.

@MyLemonBee
Don't forget that for years, men were getting away with murdering their partners by saying what a terrible nag she was and how he just snapped.
There was no need to demonstrate any actual controlling behaviour etc.

'Getting away with' here = manslaughter and much lighter sentence.

abuse*

I think it’s disingenuous to claim someone in that position (a trainer delivering training) saying “I’ve never seen it happen” wasn’t strongly inferring that they believed it never happened

Precision matters in crime. @Britpop123.

I put it to you that you deliberately conflated these two things, because you do not like what this woman said. But you decided on her beliefs with no evidence, just your own views.

Why are you cross examining me?

Im a woman. The worst bullying I've experienced has come from other women sadly.

Because you claimed this woman was disengenuous. You called her a liar. It's her view

Btw there are certainly sorts of gendered crime that women commit with greater frequency than men. You can see it statistically. But abusing men without some other element if abuse in the background is rare. I'd say it was fair comment. It doesn't make her disengenuous to say so

No I claimed you were in trying to make out that someone in that position didn’t imply it never happens, but whatever. This isn’t a courtroom, I’m sure you can trio me up if you try hard enough and “win” this argument