Is male violence against women ever acceptable?

[LoafersOrLouboutins]

I'm not sure how to articulate this and my 'evidence' is purely anecdotal. Just dipping my toes in the feminism board.

I used to be a keen polo player 16 years ago and regularly played with my boyfriend. On the morning of one match we had a fairly serious argument. He seriously injured me (broken nose, fractured cheekbone and two chipped teeth) during the game. I accepted this as polo is a VERY dangerous sport and people seemed to accept it without asking any questions as to why he was SO determined during that particular game. Most people aren't so competitive they would risk this.

With hindsight, I wonder whether violence against women in sport is a way men conduct their violent fantasies?

People would be horrified if I said my boyfriend did this to me during an argument but in the course of sport it was accepted.

This was many years ago and I probably don't make any sense but it has started to play on my mind that he may have used sport as a cover for his desire to hurt me.

I would argue that you are biased too, Zippey.

but Id argue that the writer is biased in the same way that MRA's are biased to push their own agendas

I can't let that horrific insult pass- Karen I-S is a woman who has spent her life working and campaigning for women affected by male violence. She is not remotely like the MRA- who blatantly distort and use false stats to make their point that poor men are the oppressed class.

the article says men are more likely to call the police and support prosecution etc, but this is just her opinion.

It is not her opinion - it is based on research, all her info is based on research such as BCS, home office figures. She does not just make stuff up - unlike the MRM.

I don't want to be gaslighting (yes, I am a new member), and would have to say well done on Karen doing what she's doing. It's also nice of her to put the guy contact line at the bottom of the page. However her use of the statistics can be looked at in another way. Generally she's saying due to it being harder to report/ the stereotype then it means it's not under reported. However it can be looked at in a completely different way - due to the much higher arrest rate it means that it is only reported in the obvious cases when an arrest is more certain.

I would have to say it's likely guys are more violent/ are involved in more extremes like murder due to testosterone etc, but there probably is a lot less reporting of more minor violence. For example in night clubs it is less likely you will see a guy hit a girl. It's a lot more common for a girl to hit a guy in my experience, then if the guy tries to restrain her he gets jumped on by other guys for using violence against a girl. However that is also ignoring guys hitting other guys, which is much more common than girls hitting guys.

But I would have to agree with the points made earlier, even if it is a tiny proportion of violence then it still deserves to be mentioned if you're treating everyone equally.

Domestic violence is not 'equal' - two women per week are killed by it - killed by their partners/ex-partners. Not in a brawl in a pub, not a slap in a nightclub, but by the men they have loved and trusted, men who have fathered their children.

I did say guys are more likely to be more violent/ involved in more extremes like murder. Which is obviously completely unacceptable. It's no excuse, but it's probably linked to testosterone etc.

My main point was addressing the seeming belittling of violence from women against men.

(Just in case my testosterone comment is taken out of context then chemistry affecting the body is something I know too well, being bipolar. It means I tend to do stupid things sometimes, and it is just as much of an issue as a physical illness. However it's not an excuse for me to hurt people or myself/ use it as an excuse if I have done so. It's part of me, just the same as testosterone means guys have to be aware they're more likely to be violent/ more extreme in violence compared to females).

Why not start your own thread on that then?

YonicScrewdriver posted a link to kareningalasmith.com/2013/04/29/this-thing-about-male-victims/, which says that in 2001/02 to 2011/12, 296 men and 1066 women (1362 people) were killed by partners or exes in the UK. However, in terms of "male violence" versus "female violence", it's the sex of the killer, not the victim, that's really interesting. Unfortunately, as the post notes, the sex of the killer is not recorded.

However - you can do some crude what-iffery.

If men and women are equally violent, then it would be reasonable to suppose that the 1362 killers would be 681 males and 681 females. That would mean that at least 385 of the female killers killed female partners, since there are only 296 dead men. Taking the UK population of 16+ females to be 26m, and the proportion of lesbians in that population to be 7% (the most generous estimate I found - from Stonewall), that would mean that around 12 in each million straight women were partner killers, while around 210 in each million lesbians were partner killers.

In other words, to claim that men and women are equally likely to kill their partner is (assuming no gay male partner killers and a generous estimate of the number of lesbians) to claim that a lesbian is 17 (=210/12) times more likely to be a partner killer than a straight women. I don't really think that's plausible, and relaxing either of the assumptions just makes the ratio higher.

You can also work the analysis backwards. Starting from the assumption that lesbians and straight women are equally likely to be partner killers (much more plausible than a 17:1 ratio), and again assuming no gay male partner killers, you find that there were 318 female killers and 1044 male killers. That is, a man is approximately 3.3 times more likely to be a partner killer than a woman. Again, relaxing the assumptions increases the ratio.

One big assumption is that the homicide data is solid. Since that was a question Snow1 raised, I had a quick look at that. Bottom line is that if males and females are equally violent, the conviction rate for female victims of partner killings must be three times the conviction rate for male victims to reduce the 17:1 killer rate for lesbians and straight women to 1:1. I'm not sure that's plausible - the conviction rate for homicide is 65%, according to this article.

As I noted, all this is rather crude. I've ignored population churn and relationship churn (which I think aren't significant issues for this analysis), I've treated bisexuals as homosexuals (which I think actually means my ratios are a little low), and I'm assuming that celibacy rates are independent of sexual orientation (which may or may not be accurate). But I thought it was interesting all the same.

SpeverendRooner

I would agree that males are more likely to be involved in the more serious violent crimes. However I would also be pretty sure they are underreported in the lower level violence. Not necessarily a larger proportion than guys hitting girls, but much larger than reported (in the same way rape is massively unreported).

Sabrinnnnnnnna
Why not start your own thread on that then?

I was following the way the thread was going. However, I agree that it is going somewhat off the original subject.

I have read that:

Men report DV more quickly than women. I believe it takes several episodes of severe violence against her, for a woman to report her partner.

Men are more likely to overestimate how much violence has been used against them, and underestimate how much violence they have used.

Women are more likely to overestimate how much violence they have used and minimise how much violence has been done to them.

I'll try and find the source tomorrow.

Let's look at a few more facts shall we?

95% of prison inmates are male.
Out of the 5% of female inmates 1/3 are in for shoplifting (generally a non violent crime).
So in the ridiculously unlikely event that the remaining 2/3rds are violent then that would be a maximum of about 3.7% of the prison population consists female inmates convicted of violent crimes. In reality it is probably about 1%.

There aren't many violent women about. Women you'd fear. Women you'd flee your home to get away from.

And lol at stifling debate zippey. You don't want to debate. And anyway why the fuck should we 'debate' what is happening to women. Only people from a position of privilege who do not experience this can afford to do that.

Men are more likely to prosecute, less likely to drop charges.

Men are less likely to be arrested in m-f dv than women in f-m dv incidents (1 in 6 compared to 1 in 3).

Yet, still over 93% of dv convictions are against men.

There is also the matter of abused women and being violent out of sheer frustration from the abuse they receive. Or in retaliation against violence perpetrated against them (a significant number of partner murders are committed by abused women).

Ike Turner always maintained that him and Tina Turner had a volatile relationship where she gave as good as she got. Tina's view was slightly different. After all she was the one who ended up with the bruises.

Yes scallops:

The Burning Bed

I can't believe Zazzles thinks it's fine for women to be violent to men. Even though she didn't take the time to state it explicitly.

Thank you for the defense Buffy, in my absence. It is always worthwhile to see the words of those who post regularly here, and whose opinions can be valued and trusted, rather than the blow-ins who seem to be just looking for a fight . As a pacifist, abhor violence against anyone, and as you know twofalls, you know that women's violence against men is the smallest proportion of all violence. As the far, far, far, larger proportion of violence is men against women, I feel it is benefits women and children far more if we fight to reduce that first - it is by far, the much larger problem.

if you're treating everyone equally

You don't get what equally means. The starting point for 'equal' would be if 50% of all violence enacted on adults were men, and 50% of violence enacted on all adults were women. However, the reality is that the violence enacted on adults is mostly women and a much much smaller proportion on men. So as a hypothetical, if you had $100m to spend on violence against adults in the first scenario, it is completely appropriate to spend $50m on men and $50m on women. However this is not the case. Say the absolute level of violence against men was 10%, vs 90% for women - would you then still spend $50m on men and $50m on women? Would that be 'fair' and 'equal' in your eyes? Is this what 'equality' is all about?

You are like a politican on newsnight doing everything you can to dodge the question.

I don't know what to say to this except.... Bahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! That couldn't be further from the truth, and if you had spent any time lurking around FWR, you would know that too. Way, way too funny . Thank you for marking yourself out as a person who's opinion I should dismiss and ignore in the future. Makes my posting so, so, so much easier.

And yes, I believe your response to me is completely disproportionate to the point I was making.

Nope not a all disproportionate. We get some really, really iffy blow-in posters here trying to push their own misogynistic agendas, and it is a very, very, very effective way to sort the wheat from the chaff. If you don't like it, you know what to do - don't post here. Its shame that you seem to have very little understanding of what you were doing. I have seen your personality type in many many circumstances, and it never ends well for your type. Good luck with that.

Sounds to me like a calculated attack under the guise of 'sport'

I have played hockey with men, and whilst the game is more aggressive than it was when I played with women, they never injured me.

It is only acceptable in self defence in the way self defence is legislated for: directly in proportion to the belief you are endangered to escape or prevent grievous bodily harm.

"I would have to say it's likely guys are more violent/ are involved in more extremes like murder due to testosterone etc, but there probably is a lot less reporting of more minor violence. For example in night clubs it is less likely you will see a guy hit a girl. It's a lot more common for a girl to hit a guy in my experience, then if the guy tries to restrain her he gets jumped on by other guys for using violence against a girl."

I haven't seen many women hit men in clubs but have witnesses quite a lot of brawls which have been all male.

That aside, and of course women do hit men from time to time, the thing that strikes me, is what about sexual assault in nightclubs? If we're talking "minor" unreported violence, then sure a man is more likely to be hit, or shoved, by another man or a woman. However women are much much more likely to be groped, have men grab their breasts or arses, stick their hands up their skirts, lick their faces, and all the other random shit that men do to you when you're young and out and about. None of this is reported either and while it's not "violent" in the same sense as a punch in the face or a shove it is certainly an assault and extremley common and unreported. Not to mention the fact that when women react unfavourably things can and do escalate into other undesirable behaviour like following, badgering, shouting, pushing, pulling, shoving, and, yes, hitting.

So I'm not seeing this men are at risk on a night out more than women thing. It looks different but it's all unpleasant and it's all assault. Talking about one and ignoring the other just minimises what women put up with and ignores women's stories and experience.

I think it's because male on male violence is more obvious and escalates more.

For each man who is punched in the face outside the pub at chucking out there may well be a woman who is raped when she gets home with a man she's met / knows / whatever. Same trigger from same environment with booze involved etc the difference is that one is a lot more visible.

Going from experience my DD has when playing tennis with boys it would appear the worst thing that can happen to a male in sport is lose to a female. It appears to be the ultimate male loss of face. The idea of male superiority (with no evidence to back it up) is deeply ingrained.

Apparently there is a universal law that says girls should automatically be worse at everything than boys, and it they plays boys at sport they should lose. Sadly for the boys at DD's tennis club she really is very very good, so they get trounced - now they refuse to play her at all.

It is depressing and we complained and are looking for a new tennis club.

...now they refuse to play her at all.

I have experienced the adult version of this, although what these men did was not very adult at all. In an online game, I called a male bully on his actions. The men responded by upsticks and leaving the group. I mentioned this to my GP, a very intelligent, well read, and well educated (male) person. His response? "In my experience, most men do not mature much over the age of about 11-13 years." Geeze, his comment opened my eyes up enormously...

Just to make it clear, I didn't make all those points you have put in bold zazzles. In fact, it was only the last point I made.

I have apologised for how my post must have come across but you have chosen to ignore that. Buffy actually explained what was behind your agression and I thank her for that.

You have judged me and personally attacked me throughout your posts the lastest one being " I have seen your personality type in many many circumstances, and it never ends well for your type". You have accused me of having a misogynistic agenda, that I have gaslighted you and I am a handmaiden to the patriarchy. None of those things are correct and nothing I have said supports your accusations, but hey it fits your agenda to believe it is the case. And have I personally attacked you, patronised you or insulted you in return? No.

FWIW (probably nothing as you have already made up your mind about me based on very little) I have campaigned for my local refuge and regularly donate goods. I have actively supported Mumsnet's "I believe her"campaign and Frothy's support of Ched Evan's victim getting many Facebook friends invovled in her campaign, I signed and shared the petition against Ched Evans, and Julien Blanc, I have supported a friend as she left an abusive relationship and have taken a previous employer to task over unequal pay for men and women (and won). I challenge misogyny and victim blaming where I see it and teach my daughters about equality. I am sorry if that doesn't make me a good enough feminist for you. I don't spend much time on Mumsnet these days because my job is very busy and rarely take notice of the topic when I do. That of course will change in the future and you will be very pleased to know I will be avoiding this topic as quite frankly I don't need to be judged, insulted and attacked by a stranger on the internet.

I didn't make all those points you have put in bold

Err, I know that. What makes you think that I was addressing those points to you??? Fucking hell, you just keep on proving my point...

And you didn't apologise to me, you apologised to the OP.

It appeared that way as you referred to me in a couple of paragraphs so I was just making it clear to others who may not have read the thread.

And you obviously missed this paragraph:

"Buffy I totally get all those arguments and totally agree with them. I didn't come on here and say "but what about the menz". I asked why a type of violence was actively left out of a list of what was deemed unacceptable. That is all. Having searched through some other threads however I see how some have been derailed in that way. I never post here so didn't realise that would be the effect of my question. For that I apologise.

But hey, don't bother addressing the other points I made.

It appears to me you are apologising to Buffy.

And no I don't address points that I don't think are valid, why should I? Just because you believe I was attacking you, doesn't mean I believe it. Why should I change my position just because of your judgement of me??? For what its worth, I don't value what you think of me all that much. Does that make things clearer?

I was apologising to anyone of the thread I had offended, do you want to deliberately misunderstand my points?

"I don't value what you think of me all that much. Does that make things clearer?"

Well thats something we can both agree on.