A bit surprised by this (DV related)

[fuzzpig]

Really not sure if this is the right place so apologies if I am wrong here.

DH and DD clunked heads earlier and DH's nose bled so I looked up broken nose symptoms.

Went to NHS page.

I was quite surprised by what I read under the photo about it being a worrying sign on women and children due to DV. Obviously it is, but surely it's a worrying sign on men too? Or are we just to assume they've been in a fight?

Maybe I'm more sensitive to this as DH was abused (by his mother) and it continued long into his teens until she walked out, so in the last few years it would've been easy to assume his many broken bones were due to teenage fights, and not being beaten up. In his twenties, with zero self esteem (unsurprisingly!) he ended up trapped in an abusive marriage with a violent, manipulative woman.

I have no idea of statistics, and I guess male victims of DV must be in the minority, so maybe I am overreacting - but I would've expected an organisation as huge as the NHS would acknowledge that men can be victims of domestic violence too.

Another NHS page says that "One woman in four (and one man in six) in the UK will be a victim of domestic violence during their lifetime, according to research estimates."

Possibly there's a difference in where female abusers attack? Or that they don't have enough force to break noses? I think the answer is probably as depressingly simple as most people just don't think that men can be DV victims.

One man in six, wow I didn't realise it would be that much. I think there is an awful stigma that must prevent a lot of men seeking help (not that women find it easy obviously). DH has never told anyone but me about what his ex did.

I think they could've just said that a broken nose can be a worrying sign, as it could indicate domestic violence. Rather than specifying women and children.

It does seem odd. Maybe it's because men are just generally more likely to get broken noses than women...like in boxing, or playing football, or just being more likely to be in accidents, so that if you were to query every man's broken nose and suspect domestic violence it would be a bit much. Not sure really.

Is it worth writing an email to them do you think? Not a ranty one as I'm a wimp not usually one to rant, but just pointing it out?

Yes on the whole women can't reach men's noses to break them. So it's not generally a sign of physical abuse in men, whereas it is in women and children. Women who inflict physical violence on men, don't usually do it on the nose. So the nose thing for women and children is useful as a guide for NHS staff, although obviously not all nose injuries in those groups is a sign of DV. A nose injury in a man may be a sign of DV but it is much less likely to be, so it would not be useful guidance to staff to look out for that injury as a possible pointer; it would be a red herring and would stop them looking out for the real pointers, IYSWIM.

Also you need to treat that 1 in 6 figure with caution - it includes a large percentage of cases of women fighting back after years of abuse and because of the PC nonsense of pretending that power differentials don't exist, fighting back gets logged under the same category as chronic ongoing physical abuse. The 1 in 6 figure for men, when applied to more than one incident of DV in the last year, suddenly plummets while the 1 in 4 figure for women stays stable. When you ask all people who experienced DV if they experienced more than 4 attacks, a third of all female victims of DV do while 10% of male victims of DV do.

In other words, the 1 in 6 figure is not directly comparable to the 1 in 4 figure.

Headline figures can be useful, but the numbers behind them can tell a very different story.

That does make more sense thanks.

Women can't reach men's noses to break them

Really? You believe that?

I do martial arts. With men. I am only little and I reach their faces just fine.

That's very useful for you Fundus but most DV is not the result of skilled martial arts. The point is, a broken nose in a man, is not a pointer to DV in the way it is in a woman or a child. Men who present with injuries caused by DV have different injuries and it makes sense for NHS resources to be deployed looking for pointers which are appropriate to each group it treats, because otherwise it would be a waste of money.

I know that whenever I have a gp appointment, it's general practice for my doctor or nurse or midwife to mention dv and ask very seriously whether I have any issues at home. I don't know whether I live in an area where it is quite common or something, as I never had the question asked at my last clinic. My partner doesn't get asked the same which I suppose he should if the statistics are 1 in 6.

Awful figures to read.

My point is that size does not matter.

My uncle was beaten by my aunt and was not taken seriously because my aunt was tiny, despite his regular injuries.

Questions should be asked whenever someone is getting injured regularly, regardless of size or sex.

Yep, the convo Stewie posted above was taken from a convo with my best friend.

Needless to say, it doesn't take unreported figures into consideration, but even with underreporting, on both sides, it still shows a considerable gap.

Blimey.

I can't even begin to follow the math.

Fundus, the 1 in 6 men are not getting injured regularly - the nature and pattern of female on male abuse is different to male on male or male on female (or indeed female on female abuse).

That's why you can't have a one size fits all approach - you have to tailor your practice according to the patterns presenting. Without of course, dismissing events which don't fit a pattern - it's a balancing act.

But I agree with you in principle that people who are getting regularly injured should certainly prompt questions being asked.

Definitely agree with everything you've said there, Fastida.

I saw a similar stat in another thread some months ago - this one which was quoting that men are the victims in 2 out of 5 cases reported.

This was much higher than I'd thought - so I did a bit of digging at the time and this was what I found (on page 2 of the thread, but c&ping here)

"I looked up the factbox on the BBC site as a result of [the OP]. I'd never heard that "two in five of all domestic violence victims are men" before. I thought the proportion was much, much lower than that.

The source of the fact seems to be this organisation - of which I have also never heard before - www.parity-uk.org/index.php . Their stated aim is to fight for equal rights for men and women, although it's fairly clear that they think that it's MEN who are unfairly discriminated against and want to redress the balance.

To that end, they've got a whole piece on domestic violence against men on their site and quote extensively from the British Crime Survey 2005/06. This bit caught my eye:

"In the longer term, since the age of 16, and again excluding stalking, the survey found that 28.1% of women and 17.5% of men reported having suffered non-sexual partner abuse, a proportion of male victims of about 38%. Of these, 19.1% of women and 10.4% of men reported having suffered actual force, a proportion of male victims of about 35%, which was designated ?severe? in the case of 13.7% of women and 8.7% of men, a proportion of male victims of about 39% - the same as in 2004/05."

This is presumably the source of the 'two in five' stat (39% roughly equals two in five)

But I did a bit more digging, and found this interesting Home Office analysis of the BCS, which included a bit more detail on severity and number of incidents of domestic abuse:

"There were an estimated 12.9 million incidents of domestic violence acts (nonsexual threats or force) against women and 2.5 million against men in England and Wales in the year prior to interview."

So if you go on incidents of abuse, men are victims in 16% of cases. Which is a bit more in line with what I had always thought."

It's a bit of a tangent, but it backs up what frothy's saying.