arrgh 5lives reporting on domestic violence

[upsydaisysexstylist]

And breathe, headlining today, that the numbers of women prosecuted for domestic violence has more than doubled to 4,000 and they have found this out from a special investigation. Someone wrote a freedom of infomation request and you have tabloided it to make headlines. Sigh when are we going to have a serious debate about it always being unacceptable to bully and abuse others, and why violent crime is on the increase. I also thought it was misleading to use rawish numbers to talk about DV where there is a female perpatrator and then mention almost sotto voice at the end that 93% of prosecutions are against males.

I'd be interested in the sort of DV that men and women are prosceuted for? Do women commit acts of violence on the same level as men eg: bruises vs broken bones? And what are the circumstances of the attacks by women, for eg: a woman attacks in retaliation to sustained verbal abuse vs women who consistantly verbally/ physiclly abuse male partners.

Apologies for the awful grammer and spelling

I read the report on the BBC website about this. It's just awful. Obviously domestic violence in any context is wrong but the report stresses the increase in convictions of women and talks at length about the issues men face and only in the last fucking line does it point out that convictions of men also very nearly doubled to 55,000 - more than 10 times the number of women convicted. Errrr maybe that will be why there are more refuge beds for women then? GRRRRRRRRRRH!

When I had to read through case reports of DV cases at uni, one of the examples of female to male 'violence' was a woman who threw a teddy bear at her boyfriend. It is a disgrace that this is recorded as if it is on par with injuries which require hospitalisation.

In fairness to 5 live the coverage during the day has included repeated stressing of the difference in rates of convictions and that dv is predominately male perpetrators.
The impression I got was of a small but growing phenomena. Not any equivalence in incidence. At least that is how it has been discussed when I was listening.....

But I have been half asleep..

"I'd be interested in the sort of DV that men and women are prosceuted for? Do women commit acts of violence on the same level as men"
That seems rather like DV apologizing (as long as the perpetrator is female of course). I too would like to see what the types of DV are in each case, although I would expect a different outcome than you ie. that only the more serious cases where the perpetrator is female are prosecuted (eg. societies perceptions are such that a woman slapping a male is generally not considered DV but it will always be when the genders are reversed)

"Some of the women they are prosecuting are probably victims.
It's quite common in the US I've heard for the police to arrest the female victim rather than the male perpetrator"
I'm sorry Dittany, but I call bullshit on this statement. For a while the police arrested both parties when they arrived at a DV incident and then let the lawyers/investigation work out who the perpetrator/victim were. In these cases the male and female are both arrested so there is no "rather than" cases you seem to have heard of.
Reguardless, this is no longer the case and you might want to look up the "primary aggressor" laws that most states now employ for DV incidents. These laws are misandrist enough to warm a feminists heart, and also lead to it being virtually impossible for the police to arrest a female perpetrator of DV, never-mind a female victim

lol, a well reasoned/articulate response.

You are perfectly correct, calling bullshit doesn't make me right, it's the presence of the primary aggressor laws I referred you to that makes me right. And while we are on the subject of being right, simply stating that female victims are commonly arrested instead of male perpetrators doesn't make you right (A fact that you are aware of, which is why you didn't post any links to any studies etc. to qualify your point)

"It's a fucking disgrace that the police would ever arrest victims". Of course it is, who said it wasn't? Your mistake is that you confuse the word victim with the word female.

"There's no such thing as misandry" Lol. My God I don't believe I've ever come across someone so indoctrinated in feminist ideology as to make such a moronic statement.

im22, in no way was I DV apologising, I am simply interested in a more thorough breakdown of these incidences, I am genuinly interested to know whether these female attacks are one-offs or consistant abuse and compare it to the same statistics for male attacks.

I am in no doubt that there are women out there who employ verbal and physical abuse to consistantly attack and demean their partners and I do not condone it. I simply felt that knowing circumstances rather than bare facts could shed some light on this growing statistic, don't read your own agenda into my posts please.

"don't read your own agenda into my posts please". My agenda? With all due respect, despite your protestations, I'm not the one looking for a reason to justify/excuse the women we are talking about here.
You say " I am genuinly interested to know whether these female attacks are one-offs or consistant abuse and compare it to the same statistics for male attacks" for what purpose, other than to show that these male victims are less victims than female ones?
If I said that I would like to know how many of the men convicted were done so as a result of an incident where he retaliated after being hit first wouldn't that make me an apologist for those male DV perpetrators?
If I were to ask for the statistics on how many rape victims were wearing mini skirts when they were raped wouldn't that make me an apologist for the male rapists in these cases? When you apply "knowing circumstances rather than bare facts" logic to other areas you can see that it doesn't fly, so please don't try it now just so you can justify the (very small number of) female attackers in these cases

im22 - don't you think there's any value in digging into the statistics? To me, it seems as if there would have to be a categorical difference in the types of violence that women can inflict on men from the types that men inflict on women. Men - in general - are bigger and heavier than women, and therefore more likely to inflict greater injuries. Rape and sexual assault are also more likely to be male on female crimes, but looking at the bald figures we've been presented with don't tell us to what extent sexual assault was a factor in any of the individual cases.

I would anticipate that a more detailed breakdown of the statistics would show that the types of assaults women are committing that get categorised as DV are quite different from the types of assault that men are committing.

Your comparison to rape victims wearing mini skirts is really very tasteless and quite aggressive.

im22 if the statistics I spoke about showed that women inflicted more serious injuries on male partners than the other way around I would accept those, though I seriously doubt that would be the case, since the ratio of figures already tell us that men are the abusers in more cases than women, and while the Victims of Violence thread continues to grow, I personally have not seen a case in the news or newspapers when a woman has killed her male partner and her family.

Why must my enquiry into these statistics be seen as anything more than wanting to know more about the figure we were presented with, which by itself tells us nothing?

I agree with treats, your comparison with rape victims was crass and shows you have no comprehension of anything other than your own point of view. Come back with a reasoned interpretation of your arguements or not at all.

Treats - I do think that there is value in digging into statistics - what I don't believe is that doing so selectively and only where it suits a presupposed opinion is correct. This is why I made the comparison to the rape statistics - not because the crimes are in any way comparable (they are not) - but I was showing that looking for statistics to justify a predetermined opinion is wrong ie. that statistics can be used by a rapist apologist (as in my hypothetical) or a female DV perpetrator apologist (as the poster I was responding to was) and is wrong in both scenarios.

As to your other point, that you "would anticipate that a more detailed breakdown of the statistics would show that the types of assaults women are committing that get categorised as DV are quite different from the types of assault that men are committing" I would completely agree, but I'm assuming that we agree in completely opposite directions.
I would assume that the average violence done by a female who is convicted of DV would be higher than when commited by a male. For example, a male slapping a female would certainly (and correctly) be considered DV but would be a lot less likely to be considered such when the genders are reversed.

im22 - well we all agree then don't we? Because queenofthecapitalwasteland asked about seeing the statistics in greater detail for the same reason that you did. It was your response that assumed she wanted to see them to validate a predetermined opinion - there was nothing in her original post that suggested that.

While we might agree that the greater detail would show categorical differences in the types of violence perpetrated by men and women, you're wrong to make any assumptions about what I would expect to see.

it doesn't surprise to me to see that you assume that men are being treated unfairly when it comes to convicting for DV, and that - by extension - you presume that women are 'getting away' with crimes that men are being convicted for.

I can't engage with that argument. I point you to the appalling shooting in Braintree yesterday (and the evidence of the two years of abuse that led up to it) and the Victims of Violence thread I started some months ago (that queen links to above) and rest my case.

Sigh, what comparison with rape victims? My comparison was between a rape apologist and a DV apologist - and how they can look for statistics to back up their own presupposed opinion. Please don't intentionally misunderstand the point just so you can ignore it just because you don't have an adequate retort to it.

Treats - "Because queenofthecapitalwasteland asked about seeing the statistics in greater detail for the same reason that you did. It was your response that assumed she wanted to see them to validate a predetermined opinion - there was nothing in her original post that suggested that."
I haven't asked to see the statistics. I don't need to see the statistics. I'm perfectly happy to read the figure and assume that 4000 women commited an act of DV and were prosecuted for it, and that 55000 men did the same. I don't need to get the figures broken down because I don't assume that the "women [don't] commit acts of violence on the same level as men". My worldview doesn't mean that I need the 4000 women to be victims, acting in self defense, or only slightly hurting their partners and being malicously proscuted by the patriarchy justice system. In short, I don't need to go looking for a statistic which will allow me to be a DV apologist in the cases where the perpetrator is female

"it doesn't surprise to me to see that you assume that men are being treated unfairly". Really? It surprises me! Especially since I stated above that a man slapping a woman is correctly seen as DV. But obviously you missed that, so i'll quote myself and hope you notice it this time:

" For example, a male slapping a female would certainly (and correctly) be considered DV..."

Where have I in that, or any other post, said that men are being treated unfairly?

of course any violence inflicted in anyone else be it verbal or physical is horrible but this smacks of the usual 'oh my god how violent and laddette like women have become'

in the daily (shite) sorry mail yesterday there was an article about drunken hen nights.. the reporter was 'sad' that these women were going out and getting drunk.. the police officer interviewed said 'the women are drunk but not violent' unlike the men of course!!!!

You accused queen of wanting to see the statistics to validate a predetermined opinion when she said no such thing, and then dragged in an offensive comparison to rape victims which was completely unwarranted.

Now you're quoting posts out of context, ignoring the real thrust of the argument and trying to win the argument by thinking the ladies will be impressed by your misplaced condescension. We've seen it all before.

Go away.