When I talk about DV against women to some men.....

[Fireirons]

They immediately turn the conversation around to women being violent towards men. Yep. Women are also violent. I agree.

Yes there is no way violence is acceptable either way

But I cannot even begin to articulate my arguments about how women are often helpless, abused to an extent to being too terrified to leave, have no financial independence, no where to go, threatened, raped etc

I was shaking with anger the other day by a guy who just shouted me down...........that proved my point to a way. He asked for stats and then didn't believe them and tried for 45 minutes to Google stats for male DV.

Are there rescue centres for victims of male domestic violence seeking sanctuary?

I have nc for this.

Yep I have experienced DV.

What a shocking shocking programme.

I think the one thing that did surprise me in it is that she was still going out and didn't lose touch with her friends.I thought a typical pattern was isolation from friends (and family).It shocked me how so many knew but were powerless to influence the situation and the outcome.

I think it highlighted something that people who have never had experience of dv don't seem to realise.They can't understand why she stays,or returns,because they think she has a choice in the matter.

And,sorry,by rights that should be on AF's thread,but it just spewed out on here.Sorry.

ThatBloodyWoman

Yep. I thought the same about how she was still 'allowed' to see her friends on the 'Killed by my Boyfriend' film.

Isolation from friends and family are typical from a few months in. Then the violence kicks in.

On another subject;

I remember talking to an army doctor and he talked about being disgusted about removing a tampon from women who have 'lost' it or 'forgotten' it after a week or so.
He said the smell was disgusting.

I know two women who have gone to a GP to have a 'lost' or 'forgotten 'tampon removed. Both had been raped and the tampon forced up inside her.

I asked him if he had checked for bruising on the thighs, upper arms or wrists? He looked baffled and said no.

I have fiddled around with a tampon string and fished out a tampon in my time but when it is forced up around my cervix I might need a little help and understanding.

I have to say I think very little of men who try to turn the tables around.
I think immediately that they are violent and abusive themselves.

From my own experience, my exH tried to point out that I had been physically aggressive with him. Yes, he had scratch marks around his wrists. Yes, defence scratches from trying to release the grip from his closed fists against the sides of my face. No punches. "Just" a slap.
Yet, he was the only one with visible marks.

On the programme, there is more to abuse than isolation. There are patterns of abuse, but it's not all the same. What they all do is thrive on secrecy and control. It is possible to give the impression to the abused that they actually have a choice, that they are are responsible for what happens. And that is the impression that can pass on to people on the outside. No need to isolate them then.

Secrecy, control and compliance.

The 'code words' for an abuser.

A silent and secret 'understanding' between the victim and the perpetuator.

No one will listen/believe you/I will kill you or my ex's favourite line 'I will slash your face so no one else will ever look at you'.

The women's refuge places when compared to men's can be a tricky one to counter - until you look at the facts, that is.

Women's refuge started as a feminist movement (often by lone individuals) helping battered wives - who despite all ridiculous claims to contrary, are vastly more numerous than battered husbands (although we all admit dv does happen to men).

Women are a) more likely to be carers to children, b) more likely to not have an income due to being carers to children and c) more likely to be victim to domestic violence- and it's usually more serious - leading to serious injury, hospitalisation or even death.

So, yes. There are more refuge places for women and their children.

The only man I talk to about this stuff anymore is my son. My husband friends and relatives who are male are pretty much all on the same page re DV and women etc. so we chat/discuss/lament stuff but I don't explain anything. I do have conversations with my 18 year old (as I have always done) as he is still forming opinions.

I could no longer be bothered explaining feminism to thick men who are dying to feel hard done by - but I applaud those of you who still have it in you to do so.

It can be just as hard with women too. :(

Are there rescue centres for victims of male domestic violence seeking sanctuary?

Men often face different problems eg if suffering financial control often a woman is discouraged from having a job where as a man is more likley to be in work but having to hand over money. This causes a problem when going in to a refuge because it means losing yoru job. The problem is the same but much more common with men.

The agencies dealing with this will say the problems are different and the solutions too can be different.

The bottom line is that violence and abuse in relationships is wrong whether it is male on female, female on male or same sex.

The difference is scale and the difficulty of women leaving.

I have started conversations with the above statement about it being wrong, then moved on to 'can you name any men killed by their partner/ex-partner?', you sometimes get a response along the lines of, "well there was that road rage woman". Then ask them the same about women killed by partners.

Then get them to google the numbers of women killed by partners/ex-partners, there are about 2 a week and they don't hit the headlines because it is so common.

For some reason the numbers coming from google are somehow more acceptable to than from a woman's mouth.

There is obviously an argument about us (women) not being believed, but sometimes the male fragile ego can be left in tact because they 'discover' something they didn't know that they can share with their 'mates'.

There is also a difference in severity of violence and repeat of violence within the relationship when men perpetrate the violence. And of course women are taught to fear men (and the reasons for this can be valid) whereas men (as a class) don't fear women. The power dynamics at play are very different.

All this 'women do it too' or 'women are just as bad as men' perpetuates the imbalance of the power structure as it tries to make a level playing field where there isn't one.

Op

This long running thread may give you some background for discussions.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminist_activism/1065291-Victims-of-Violence

If you only look at the stats for violence which is severe enough to require medical treatment eg cuts, broken bones, internal injuries then it is overwhelmingly women that are injured by their male partners.

The problem with the usually reported overall stats is that they just give numbers, they don't distinguish between someone throwing a teddy at their partner and someone who stabs their partner.

My DH always turns it round to 'Yes, but men suffer too' very quickly. I always challenge it, and he always says that it's important to look at all sides of the subject.

I can't quite articulate why he's at least partly wrong in his approach (and I am a blood articulate person), but he is.

It worries me sometimes

If it's essential to look at all sides of a story, I wonder why the side you wish to discuss requires a subject change when it comes up?

I struggle to articulate this too. Important to see bothsides, yes, but it's funny how it is always the male side that gets so aggressively pushed, and in the face of the evidence.

What really gets me is when women come out with this. same old tired story themselves, oh won't someone think of the menz. I try to talk them round but they get so angry. Well we all do I suppose!

I saw someone, SardineQueen I think it was, do an effective little critique of the figures that say men are more troubled by violence. I can't remember it all and can't find it again (wish MN had a better search facility) but I think it was primarily about the definition of violence and how often it was reported. For instance, at the lowest level, no one bothers to report the daily crappy sexual harassment, the jeering and groping, that women get, because it is just daily crap - normal, and not considered important. But perhaps we should view it as emotional abuse, it certainly has the same effects. And the quantity of casual sexual harassment is horrendous. That would turn the gendered victims stats on their head.

And what Jackie ^^ said.

Can I take this opportunity to thank all people on here who are so much cleverer and better able to think.

...than me.

Male violence against women is so normal and expected that it fails to shock, whereas women attacking men is not so normal and expected, so more newsworthy.

Just to add a personal anecdote: My youngest son has SN and has sometimes hit me without meaning to, simply because of his problems with coordination. The last time he did so was with a wooden toy horse and I ended up with a black eye. So normal is it to assume DV if you see a woman with a black eye, that people immediately assumed that my DH had done it to me. I even had a very kind woman offer to put me up for a few days to help me get away!

My DH always turns it round to 'Yes, but men suffer too' very quickly. I always challenge it, and he always says that it's important to look at all sides of the subject.

Part 1 of a short series of thoughts:

Why should violence against men be another side? If it's all of a piece then he shouldn't bring it up as "yes, but". There is no "but". He might just as well say "Yes, but violence takes place outside the home too", well yes it does; is that any reason why domestic violence mustn't be talked about? You're talking about the violence that does take place within the home, without in any way denying that violence takes place elsewhere. You're talking about violence against women, without in any way denying that violence against men also happens. There are a lot of nasty things that happen to children, and another discussion may be the very time to bring that up, but right now we were discussing adult-on-adult violence. Won't someone consider the pets? Can we talk about dogs now, I mean some people are really cruel to their dogs but then again some dogs bite back... Oh, and some people are having their throats cut in the Middle East so let's not talk about women, or men, or children, being slapped in a flat in London.

In other words it's classic derailment: you can't talk about this issue because we have to talk about all the other ones as well. So the issue you wanted to discuss gets drowned out in the problems of the entire rest of the world. Thus, you see, neatly putting your wee issuette on the "not very important in the scheme of things" pile.

To be fair, he does something like this with all topics - the subject gets moved onto something adjacent way before I'm done with the topic in hand. I always end up having to backtrack to the thing I was actually talking about and he looks honestly surprised and says 'I thought we'd covered that?'. I always end up saying 'No, YOU covered that, I on the other hand am not done' and then continuing to muse. He does gamely try to re-engage when this happens though - he doesn't get angry or pissy or anything, which would imply deeper feelings that the topic's not worth discussing.

Meh. It's what he's like. Bloody frustrating sometimes though.

It's harder to tell with people you don't know, though; I can see how he'd come across as a right apologist sometimes.

All this 'women do it too' or 'women are just as bad as men' perpetuates the imbalance of the power structure as it tries to make a level playing field where there isn't one.

About 40% of DV victims are men. That's a fairly level playing field.

I could no longer be bothered explaining feminism to thick men who are dying to feel hard done by

Those 720,000 men abused in 2013 shouldn't feel hard done by then? Perhaps they should just man up?

I struggle to articulate this too. Important to see bothsides, yes, but it's funny how it is always the male side that gets so aggressively pushed, and in the face of the evidence.

It's just not in the face of the evidence though is it?

Genuinely fascinating (in a horrifying way) statistics here - www.mankind.org.uk/pdfs/25_Key_Facts_Aug_2014_(final).pdf

• please note, Refuge uses the same study for it's figures, but removes any relating to men.

To treat DV as a gendered issue does a clear disservice to the other side - it should be discussed openly and frankly by all, irregardless of any other factors.

DV is not a level playing field. That 40% statistic is deeply misleading.

Im so bored of that crap, crap statistic coming up on every single thread.

What are the people who insist on changing the subject back to male victims of DV actually doing about it though? Do they donate/volunteer/campaign for men's shelters? Do they spread awareness and campaign actively to remove the stigma suffered by victims of female to male violence? Or do they merely feel compelled to mention it whenever someone talks about female victims of DV?
On a personal note: the only time I ever encountered DV in my social circle, it was a woman abusing a man (actual visible physical abuse) and I had absolutely no idea what to do about it, who to turn to, whom to ask for help. So yes, imo there is certainly a need for more public awareness of male victims of domestic abuse - but not as a fucking "women are just as bad" debating point. Because it's precisely this sort of tit-for-tat approach that undermines intergender solidarity precisely in those cases where we need it most.

Part 2 I find harder to express. The implication seems to be that men and women are automatically on opposite sides, so if you want to be balanced you have to look at what women are doing to men as well as what men are doing to women. Seeing all sides would surely mean looking at it from the perpetrator's view as well as the victim's? OK, you wouldn't really want him doing that either... But the point I'm struggling with is, I think, that the way he put it suggests he thinks men who are victims of violence belong on the same side of the conflict as the men who perpetrate it, even though they will usually be different men. Thus women (as a whole) are perceived to be getting their own back on men (as a whole) so it all becomes a non-issue. Again.

This follows on to an even more poorly thought-out Part 3: the implication, probably unintended, that there's some sort of score card that can be evened out and that if enough women knock enough male partners around it can be declared an honourable draw, regardless of the imbalance of numbers and outcomes. It reduces a discussion about a serious issue to a tit-for-tat point-scoring exercise. I think that's the real point though: the "but men too" is supposed to neatly counter your opening shot and thus end the debate.