Post War Violence Towards Women

[SomethingSuper]

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but I need to type it out and wondered if anyone else has heard of this:

I was talking to my Dad earlier about him growing up in post war North West. We were talking about how times have changed, what's acceptable now that wasnt then, blah blah blah. Then he said something that stunned me. He said that his Mum had told him that a lot of women should be ashamed of the way they'd behaved during the war when their husbands were away, that many women had had affairs. He said that after the war there was an increase in women being murdered by their husbands due to things like affairs and that the police turned a blind eye to this.

I have never heard this before, has anybody else? If it's true, I am quite disturbed. Even more so at the casual way it was mentioned by my father.

It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Funny how you dad thinks women ought to be ashamed of themselves for fucking, but men don't need to be ashamed of themselves for murdering.

Jesus we've got a long road to travel haven't we.

Honestly, I was completely stunned. He isnt the most feminist and forward thinking older man, but fucking hell! I couldnt believe the way he said it and then how he looked at me like I was stupid when I said it was disgusting.

I was going to bring it up again and try and put it in a nutshell like you have HerBEggs (but minus the word 'fucking' or we'd never get off the subject of me swearing). But I don't know if I could adequately express how disgraceful that is without blowing up about why I have to explain it at all.

This is the thing that I really struggle with about how I feel about patriachy, entitlement and womens issues; how to explain something so fundamentally obvious and simple to someone without wanting to scream with frustration.

You can't explain something so obvious and simple because it's not obvious and simple to him.

Basically he has been brought up to believe that men's lives and feelings are more important than women's lives and feelings.

The fact that men are hurt, angry, betrayed and upset, is MORE IMPORTANT than that women have a right to life in his eyes.

The reason being, that women are simply not as human as men in his eyes. So it is perfectly proportionate that a woman who has upset and hurt a man, should pay for it with her life.

It really isn't that far removed from honour killings. In fact, it's not removed at all, is it?

I don't think it's ever been demonstrated that there was an increase in the murder rate post-war (the war years, for obvious reasons, had a very low rate): I'll see if I can find the proper stats.

What is interesting here is that, absent evidence of any increase in murder, this belief has come about. It's like an urban myth - tapping in to fear or loathing. It is undoubtedly true that there were huge difficulties, individually and for society, in starting anew after the dislocation, separations and privations of war.

It's also interesting that he sources this to his Mum - do you know anything about what her War was like?

It's difficult to talk to him about his Mum as he still gets upset thinking about her and the hard life she had, he loved her so much. I know that she worked 3 jobs, brought up her younger siblings and was essentially a single parent as his dad was a merchant seaman and so was away for the war. I know that they lived in extreme poverty (neighborhood children going to school in winter with no shoes for example, in the 1950s ) and that she worked extremely hard to keep them fed and warm. I might ask him about Nanie's life during the war though, but not connect it to the earlier conversation.

The thing I find so completely bizarre is that he idolises his Mum (who died quite a while ago) for being strong, intelligent, caring, hard working. He loves my Mum, who is amazing, has a great career, is funny, intelligent, etc. He taught me and my sister to take no shit off anyone. And yet, he said it all so casually, as if it never occured to him that I would be appalled or that it was a completely disguting thing to have had happened (if it did).

Mind you, I have to say based on some of the things I have read and heard, it probably did happen.

Christ, sorry for long waffling post

Is it possible that the lack of stats for this could be down to the police turning that blind eye? For example a fall or a push down the stairs could be an accident, as could drownings in bath, kitchen accidents etc.

No forensics in those days I guess.

What counted as murder changed in the 1960s when the death penalty was abolished. A lot of what we would call manslaughter now was classed as murder post war. The pre-War murder rates were about 300 pa, during the war fell to about 120 pa. There was no postWar blip, and it took until the mid-50s for the rates to return to their preWar level.

The Coroner system remained functional, and all accidental deaths would have been investigated much as today. There would be simply too many people to suborn to cover up murder, and e relatives of the deceased would have no reason to be complicit, and every reason to expose. So I don't think murder can be part of the picture (for Britain after that particular War).

But none of that would apply to violence falling short of killing. SGM: I'd be very interested in DV stats for returnees - do you have any good links?