Using statistics to further your own agenda?

[FlamingoBingo]

My friend has just left, having explained how she doesn't feel comfortable with the MWR statistics, suggesting that it's using sensationalised statistics to get people involved. Also that what she objects to is violence against anyone and doesn't see why it has to be about women only.

We had a lovely, open discussion about it, but, in an effort to further my understanding and deepen my knowledge, what would your answers be to something like that?

What does she mean "sensationalised statistics"?

Statistics are statistics. You can report them sensationally, but the statistics themselves don't change.

It's hard to know how to respond to that without more detail

Um...don't know, really! That they've picked the ones that look the most shocking deliberately?

What about the disagreeing to object to violence against women as a group, as well, though?

Not much more detail to give, really - I'm no good at this. I say things confidently, and then someone disagrees with me, and I don't know enough to say 'actually.....'.

There are things I feel strongly about that I am extremely well versed in that I can argue about confidently and articulately until the cows come home. Feminism ain't one of them ...yet!

What is MWR?

Other posters more eloquent than me can explain why it is important to focus specifically on violence against women. I think it is possible to stand against all oppression and still focus attention on one form of oppression first and foremost.

I don't see how anyone can claim that there isn't a problem when it comes to violence against women.

Extremely low levels of rape reporting, high rates of attrition, low conviction rates (in England and Wales alone, let alone the problem elsewhere - DRC anyone?)

Women aren't getting access to justice. It's a nightmare.

With regards to violence against women, I would point out that unlike violence against men, it is sanctioned and promoted by our society. Most people don't say that men are responsible for the violence which other men (mainly) inflict on them, but they do say that women are. The attitudes are very different and that's worth spotlighting. I'd also say that in the case of women, much of the violence is of a sexual nature and that women live with the constant threat of it in a way that men don't - we are more likely to alter our habits by taking taxis etc., than men are, because we don't feel safe on the streets. Now many men also don't feel completely safe, but they do feel safer and they don't automatically feel the need to shell out loads of dosh for a taxi every time they go out, because otherwise they might be a) beaten up and/ or raped and b) blamed for being so becaus they should have got a taxi/ shouldn't have gone out.

MWR is Million Women Rise - flyer here with statistics

She said that there are men that experience violence from women and men as well, and women who are violent towards women. What about them?

Flamingo - just wait. I got into a debate (much against my will, it was a party fgs) with a friend about the subject of a recent feminist campaign. In the end I just told him "you will NOT be better informed than me on this, and I will out-argue you so you might as well give up now!" :o Not my usual style at all but the good thing about being a feminist in a misognist society is you get plenty of chance to practise your arguments.

Have this conversation in a year's time and you'll be stifling the yawns :)

Statistics are easily tripped out to make a point that is not neccessarily the case.

They should always be scrutinised.

For the last 250 years the number of blacksmith's forges in the world has dropped off dramatically and over the same period of time the average temperature of the earth has risen. More blacksmith forges = reduction in global warming.

Its easy to cherry pick and mis-represent statistics.

Well done you! But my friend (and I) both want to be better informed about this. I kind of 'know' that it's important to focus on violence against women, but I don't know enough about why to be able to argue it...I understand it when it's explained, but it's not yet innate enough for me to be able to explain it to someone else. She (I think, and I hope I'm not being patronising or presumptious) is not anti-feminist, but is possibly one step behind where I am on my feminism journey IYSWIM.

I know, JBellingham - so do you think the MWR statistics are 'tripped out to make a point?'

If so, why? If not, then how do you know?

I have no opinion on the MWR statistics, I know nothing about them. I was making the point that the original poster's friend should check the numbers out themselves if they are uncomfortable with them.

Ok, but if you were in this conversation yourself, would you say 'check them out for yourself'?

Shoudl the statistics be compared to similar statistics about violence against men so that you can see quite how important it is to take action?

Can you post a link so I can look at them? I have no idea where to find them. Thanks.

If someone was doubting a statistic as the OP says, I would check them myself and give them my opinion.

Agree that it's good to have a healthily sceptical attitude towards stats in general and to follow them up (the MWR flyer gives at least one source).

As to the "but what about male-male/female-male/female-female violence?" thing, I am a bit nonplussed by that really. I mean, there is a clear problem with a lack of access to justice for women victims of male violence. To feel angry about that and want to do something about it doesn't imply that there are no other injustices in the world, or that you don't care about those too. Lots of people support campaigns on more than one issue

I'm an academic and so dealing with reported stats is part of my daily business (and sometimes generating my own!)
I would say that the throwing around of individual findings to 'prove' a point (although we all do it sometimes!) does not really make a case a strong one. You have to assess the balance of interpretations in credible sources, know where the stats came from, how they were generated and how robust they are.

So something published by a govt body (eg the Home Office) will be flawed (ie will be representing their political masters' view) but pretty robust. I would give more credence (well I would!) to academic sources, since these are independent and reviewed. Data published in academic journals is always going to be more independent than any thinktank, charity, campaign organisation, govt agency...

And I can tell you, fairly unequivocally, that the academic literature on violence against women suggests that the problem is underreported, enormous and the counter-case (that women are violent against men) has very little weight. When you drill down into the figures - as many have - what you find is that men - of course - report that women are violent towards them. And no doubt they are. So what you have to look at is how the questions are asked. At which point you find that - eg in the British Crime Survey - the question goes something like 'Have you ever been hit or threatened with violence by a partner?' to which large numbers of men answer yes, not surprisingly. And then there's another question which asks something like 'How many times have you suffered severe physical attack from a partner?'. The answer to '2 or more' is overwhelmingly from women, as - sadly but predictably - is that for 10 or more times...

So it's also about the interpretation of statistics that matters. And your friend's interpretation is just, er, wrong!

Just saw the link FlamingoBingo posted so will have a shufty.

I have a maths background and been involved in a lot of advocacy groups in the US (mainly anti-poverty, not feminist) and it's made me quite cynical. I give little credence to the actual stats that groups tend to use in their campaigns.

In fairness I haven't looked at the MWR stats and there are good reasons why advocacy groups use the stats they do.

We live in a society that is very bad at receiving nuanced messages and most stats give a somewhat complex picture. At the same time we have been conditioned to think that only statistics can give us the "truth". So groups advocating for change need to provide stats. It's almost impossible to run a major campaign that doesn't use overly simplified stats, if only because you can bet "the other side" will use them of you don't.

I tend to point to the number of women murdered by people they know as a reason for treating violence against women as a reasonable focus for advocacy. Though I personally am more incensed by the way society tries to make women responsible for men's actions.

Yes I think the issue with male violence against women, is that women are blamed for that violence.

Whereas when men are the victims of violence, quite rightly, the blame falls where it ought - on the perpetrator.

Also when talking about violence it's easy to make yourself look bad by claiming that one group suffer more violence, thereby (to some) implying that violence against the other group doesn't matter.

For instance, if we are talking about partner/spouse killing. I can't remember the exact stats but a recent discussion on here was talking about the number of women killed by their current or former partner. It's about 2 a week, so roughly 8/9 a month. Someone produced a stat that claimed that men were killed by their partners at a rate of (let's say) 4 a month. Now it's easy to get drawn off track here because 4 a month is a hell of a lot of men being killed. And some might think that few or no men are killed, so 4 a month is a lot higher than might be assumed. BUT the key fact here is that women are being killed by their partners roughly twice as often as men are.

If you then go on to discuss the problem of women killed by violent partners, it's easy for somebody to accuse you of being callous/sexist by ignoring those 4 men a month. The bigger issue - that this is a gendered crime in that if you are a woman you are twice as likely to die at your partner's hands - is lost.

And of course stats give no room for explanations or background. If I hear on the news that a man has killed his female partner, I would bet thousands on there being a history of him being violent towards her, if you read the small print in the papers it usually gets a mention. Whereas if a woman kills her male partner, there is often a history of violence - again him against her. A good example of this is Emma Humphries who finally killed her partner after years of violent abuse from him. The law is only just starting to recognise that previous violent episodes from a person can mean that a killing is a form of self-defence.

And also, the difference is the reason for the murders as well.

In almost all cases, the murdered woman has been subjected to years of violent abuse. In most cases of the murder of men, that is not the case. In a significant number of cases, it's women fighting back.

And another thing - a man who murders his partner will on average get a lighter sentence than a woman who murders hers. Because women's lives are less valuable than those of men.

Sorry cross posted with Elephants