2 woman a week murdered by their spouse; women are more likely to be raped by someone they know so WHY

[sakura]

is the media feigning surprise that the man who shot three women in a hairdressers was one of the womens' exes?

Feminists worked very hard during the seventies to raise public consciousness about rape. Malestream media went all out in its propaganda to convince women that the streets were a danger so they should stay inside like good little girls, when IN FACT they were far more likely to be raped, beaten or murdered in their own homes. It took a lot of campaigning to get this message, out there, and showing people the hard evidence and the stats helped.

I think we're going to have to do the same with femicide. Because men almost always murder and beat women they're currently in, or used to be in, a relationship with.
yet to hear the media tell it men attack women randomly

Don't know what to say really.

Turns out she was his "estranged wife". What's the betting that one of the reasons for their estrangement was because she'd had enough of being abused beforehand (since most intimate partner murders are the result of an escalation of violence and don't tend to occur out of the blue).

I'm with you on this sakura. I'd like to see much more awareness about the fact that leaving an abuser is possibly the most dangerous time in a woman's life. I get very cross with the "well why doesn't she just leave him" brigade - er maybe it's because if she leaves she's going to be more physical danger than at any time in their relationship to date - a fact that 2 women killed per week more than substantiates. Not to mention the fact that if she's got DC with him she'll have no chance of completely cutting him out of her life because the courts and society will insist on her letting him see the children.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Because patriarchy would collapse if women protected themselves from these attacks ie by not entering into relationships with men.

Well, I agree with you; women are always going to be more likely to be killed by people they know- in the killers' twisted minds, they are going to be the target because they feel seriously dissed by the woman in some way.

The whole idea of stranger danger is in itself dangerous. The abuser is usually in the home, not the street.

They can't say this, though, as it is far more acceptable to blame a faceless bogieman then the family set-up itself.
The faceless bogeyman -being faceless- can't fight back, the abuser in the home might and they don't want to pee him off.

Colleague of mine sat in on some focus groups for survivors of 'domestic violence' (don't like that phrase, think it underplays it) recently. It was harrowing. Some of the things these women had endured were unspeakable. And then the really horrifying part was the way they had been treated by the legal system. Forced into mediation, even though it's completely wrong for domestic violence. And when women forced into mediation freeze - which is an entirely rational and natural reaction - they are seen as not co-operating, or not believed. Abused by the courts, including being cross questioned by the perpetrators. One woman, who had survived many beatings and rapes, was cross-questioned by the perpetrator. The judge then congratulated him for conducting himself so well!

They don't say it cos it has to all appear random and individual rather than systematic and structural. Propped up by the whole 'individual choice' crap.

Well, this is nothing new. I've always found it fascinating just how "coy" the media is when reporting cases of women killed by current or ex partners. The details are spartan - usually just the location, the gender and age of the victim(s), possibly the method used for killing them and the gender and age of the suspect. If the guy killed himself, the story comes across as even more of a puzzle - e.g. "A 32 year old woman and a 34 year old man were found dead yesterday in a Glasgow flat in suspicious circumstances. No one is being sought in connection with the deaths."

In other cases where someone is killed (deliberately or by accident), there tend to be alot more details even in initial reports. Where the perpetrator is a partner, it's almost as if the media is afraid to "frighten the horses" by saying how the perpetrator and victim were related, even when that information is confirmed. It doesn't take much to read between the lines even in these very brief reports, but the media do seem to go out of their way to keep details meagre, almost like they are whispering the story.

Now, in most cases where people are intentionally killed, particularly children, the tabloid press at least are usually very quick to make derogatory pronouncements about the main suspect. Words like mad, deranged, monster and evil are often used. At the very least, there are suggestions about their character that point readers towards their probable guilt (even where they are completely wrong, as in the case of the landlord of Joanna Yeates in Bristol last winter.

But, when it emerges that the prime suspect is the husband, partner or ex-partner, coverage tends to take a very, very different tone. There are statements from friends, colleagues and neighbours of the accused man saying what a nice guy he was, what a good father he was, how he loved his family, etc. There are suggestions as to why he might have done it (e.g. depressed, lost job, worried about money, etc.) So, so often, it is strongly suggested that somehow the dead woman is responsible. She filed for divorce, was about to leave him, had an affair, was talking to men on the internet, wouldn't let him see his children when he wanted, spent too much money, etc.. Or, at least it is suggested she was partly to blame (e.g. he thought she was going to leave him, thought she was having an affair, was afraid he'd not get to see his kids, thought she was spending too much money, etc.)

Dead women tell no tales and can't defend their reputations in the press.

It's as if as a society, we invest SO much in the ideal of the nuclear family, husband, wife and children, that when something happens that shows how it can be a harbour for abuse and oppression, everyone has to scramble to cover that up. Cold blooded killers are re-packaged as devoted husbands and fathers who just reached the end of their tether and snapped, to the disbelief of all around them. Their victims (wives and girlfriends) are painted as selfish, cold, cruel, harlots who maybe, just maybe got their just deserts.

Keep calm and carry on. Nothing to see here folks.

Um, desserts, not deserts!

On a related note, has anyone seen this pile of horse dung, "Ten Tips Every Woman Must Know To Protect Herself From Rape?"

The treatment of women who have suffered domestic violence by the courts is appalling.

I've said it before on here.

Firstly obstacle is getting out, second is proving it in court, the most galling thing I have ever done is stand up and repeatedly deny that I was a liar in the witness stand in court, ex had several police cautions at that point and I was still treated like a liar, I was told I was lying becasue apparently if I had been telling the truth I would have left him or screamed from the rooftops about the abuse, not endured it for so long.

Thirdly, nearly every woman I know who has escaped a violent partner has been landed with the entire reponsibility of repaying debts the abusive ex racked up under joint names. I'm currently undergoing legal proceedings against Barclays as they've decided to pursue me alone for ex's debt, despite having his signature on the withdrawals, and knowing his new address, and have a copy of the divorce courts judgment that ex should repay his own debt (the only thing I asked for in court).
I've a friend who isn't so lucky who had to declare herself bankrupt, I know of another woman who had to repay several debts her abuser left behind under joint names, in the end we as a community raised money to repay the debts for her, she has four very young children to bring up and was going to stack shelves to repay the debt mountain...

In short, women dont leave because women who are leaving abusive ex's literally leave with nothing but the clothes on their backs and they may at some point find the bailiffs beating down their doors for debts they didnt even know existed, then on top of that the courts treat them with great condecension and treat us like cirminals. I find it rather bitterly amusing when women tell me snidely that middle eastern countries don't give women any rights and them mozlems opress women, just try going thro the courts as woman and see how well you're treated. I got a faster divorce islamically and a ruling for the finances with no fees to pay, the english system has taken me four years (and counting) and I'm not going to tell you how much I've paid out in legal fees in the meantime.

Sometimes looking at the obstacles one wonders that any women manage to escape at all.

Absolutely spot on crikri

Thank you for all your replies.
You know, the sad thing is I was really worried about clicking back on this thread I began, thinking it was highly likely it would be chock-full of abusive messages about paranoia.
This is how bad the Backlash against women is right now: that if a woman joins the dots and sees that malestream media is purposely pretending that violence, by men, against women, is NOT systematic, and I daresay encouraged then she is called all kinds of names.

SO, Alice yes they want to make violence appear random, so then they're basically implying there is nothing, literally nothing women can to do avoide it. But anyone who looks closely enough knows better. Actually, you dramatically decrease your chance of being raped or murdered by not getting into a relationship with a man

And yes, StayFrosty the "magical thinking" is endemic, see a lot of that on MN. The root of it is society's obsession with woman-blame

foreverwino there is some truth in what you say, but I think the main reason the media does this is to create a smoke-screen in order to make it difficult for women to catch on that they are members of the raped, exploited, battered, murdered, objectified, pornified caste . And that men, emphatically aren't a member of that caste, at all. And furthermore, that men are the perpetrator caste