Domestic Violence - Far from gender neutral

[scallopsrgreat]

Domestic abuse could not be further from gender neutral. Wake up Britain

Yep so those MRAs are gaslighting us. Just in case you had any doubt.

I've just skim read it and it doesn't seem to link to the research which I'd be interested to read.

"This is due to a 'cap' on the number of crimes recorded, which stops counting after five repeat incidents against one victim. When this cap is removed, she said, violence against women by intimate partners rises by 70 per cent and violence against women by acquaintances by 100 per cent. It particularly affects those women who know, or even live with, the perpetrator. " Pretty shocking.

"...the Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW) doesn't account for a significant proportion of attacks on women (and that nearly half of all violent crime is committed against women)."

It also links to another article about the same thing: Million violent crimes a year 'cut out' of official figures

I suspect it does happen to more marginalised groups e.g. women of colour, disabled, older women etc hence why it isn't reported as much. I also wondered whether it happened to girls more i.e. with school acquaintances?

That was what I was thinking Scallops. DD was sexually harassed multiple times in year seven by the same acquaintance, as were her friends. I am resigned to sexual harassment not being dealt with swiftly, but I assume violent crime is beyond harassment.

I'm not being very clear here, but I'm just trying to work out what pattern of victimisation and lack of response it falls into.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that men's situation has been minimised and definitely no one was suggesting people were trying to ha men.
All I was saying was it is a issue for men as well and regardless of the percentage that suffer, any percentage is too much. Same as for women.
I shouldn't put words dancing bears mouth but I think he was just suggesting that funding overall for DV should be increased and the increase should go to women.

DancingBear suggested the situation for men was being minimised on the second post on this thread.

It isn't. It has been hugely over exaggerated when compared to the situation for women.

I've just re-read, apologies.

I think you could cut the UK '40% of domestic violence victims are male' to 20%, but that's as low as it could go.

So you agree that DV is a gendered crime then DWH. Good.

Is there a "feminist" position on DV? Surely there are just "facts" - 2 women a week killed in the UK by current or ex partners.

Someone remind me how many men are murdered each week by their partners.......

Firstly, I think it's shocking that the ONS have the opinion that violent crime shouldn't be counted if it's the sixth or subsequent incident in a series of incidents. It's just as bad the sixth time as it is the first time. What were they thinking?

Secondly, as someone who has experienced violence directed towards me from my then intimate partner, I do think that there is in general a qualitative difference between domestic violence inflicted on a woman by a man, compared to the reverse, in addition to the quantitative difference.

Even after having a pint glass thrown at me, or being knocked around the head with a metal pole, I never felt scared that my life was in danger, and I always felt as though I could defend myself if I needed to, because as a man I was nearly a foot taller and physically stronger. That seems like a pretty important difference to me.

I feel like I'm missing something here. Are we now judging how bad things are by how many people get killed? Seems a strange way of looking at things to me.

Are the women who get abused but not murdered by their partners less in need of help?

I think it's reasonable to say that we are all in agreement.

i) Both women and men are affected but women are affected to a much greater extent

ii)If men are affected they are in a better position for defence/attack as they are on average physically larger and stronger

iii)A greater proportion of the budget should be directed toward reducing violence towards women (whether directly or indirectly through tackling pervasive sexism in society)

What the budget should be and where is should come from is less straightforward.

Mide, the people killed by their partners will very frequently have suffered previous DV from them. So yes, the frequency of death is a proxy for the frequency of serious abuse.

knittingdad: You were wrong, if someone is throwing glass at you, your life/safety is in danger. It's a trope of masculinity that men believe they are invulnerable, especially when the person attacking them is only a woman. But the inequality between men and women in terms of how they fear violence mustn't be confused with the inequality in their actual experience of violence. Both are important; both are depressing; both are gendered; but they're different and have to be tackled separately.

almondcakes: Repeat Violence by Acquaintances is distinct from DV, even when it happens in the home – for instance, violence committed by flatsharers. I agree, it would be nice to see the details – I wonder how much of this takes place in institutions (workplaces, care facilities, etc).

If this was a thread about men's issues - testicular cancer, for example, how long do you think it would take for a woman to try to change the course of the discussion to ovarian cancer? It's anecdotal, but I have never seen this happen. I have also never seen a conversation about women's experience not be interrupted in this way.

"Movember should be about raising money for breast cancer" said no woman, ever.

If men are affected they are in a better position for defence/attack as they are on average physically larger and stronger

You see, that reads to me very much like victim blaming. There are all kinds of reasons why men might not physically defend themselves or retaliate, even when they are taller or stronger. Being the victim of DV is never a good position for anyone.

The one instance where men's physical strength might have an influence is precisely what Sylvia Walby's figures imply – in order for abuse to be sustained or repeated multiple times, it is likely to require physical violence, or at least the effective threat of physical violence. And the main discourse of physical violence in our culture is men's violence against women, with all its symbolic offshoots (how women deserve it, how without a man they are worthless, etc).

If this was a thread about men's issues - testicular cancer, for example, how long do you think it would take for a woman to try to change the course of the discussion to ovarian cancer? It's anecdotal, but I have never seen this happen. I have also never seen a conversation about women's experience not be interrupted in this way.

But the initial article (or at least the strapline), and the OP, isn't solely about male-on-female violence. It's about the proportion of male-on-female violence to female-on-male violence. So it's an article and an original post about men's and women's issues. The initial article, and some posters on this thread, suggest that funding should be diverted specifically away from male victims to compensate, despite these being no fewer in absolute terms.

If the original article and OP said nothing beyond 'DV against violence is shockingly under-reported. We need to invest more' then I would be in 100% agreement. However that's not what it says.

I understand and agree with the whole patriarchy thing. But that is scant consolation when (as happened to my brother) your female partner has chucked an iron at you. He wasn't benefiting much from his male privilege (which I accept is a thing that exists) at that point. As I've said upthread, a victim is a victim. They need their interests defended too.

If the money to improve women's DV services needs to come from somewhere, I'm happy for that to be a funding stream that currently benefits men disproportionately (support for certain apprenticeships? there must be loads). But it seems obtuse to me (and suggests a lack of empathy) for that to come from the equivalent service for men.

If men are affected they are in a better position for defence/attack as they are on average physically larger and stronger.

With respect, this is minimisation and victim blaming. In any event, it will rarely be accepted that a man has hit back in self-defence.

"But it seems obtuse to me (and suggests a lack of empathy) for that to come from the equivalent service for men."

Again, I really don't think Polly Neate is suggesting this. Leaving aside the strapline, which was written by a telegraph editor not her, where does she say funding for men's shelters should be cut?

I agree the comment from knitting dad was minimising.

Leaving aside the strapline, which was written by a telegraph editor not her, where does she say funding for men's shelters should be cut?

Yep, fair point, nowhere really, and I've sort of acknowledged that. I could argue that it's implicit but I'm not sure that would be fair. I do wonder if the sub at the Telegraph was partly on a wind up. However there are plenty of posters on this thread who seem to be going with the strapline and are content for men's services to be cut. I'm not sure whether that's a failure of logic on their part but I think it's something that should be challenged.

And I'm not going to do it, because it would be a dickish thing to do in context, but as this thread has grown there are a quite a few comments that could be classified as 'minimising'. Blatantly, you don't buy into this attitude, Yonic, but it is prevalent, and among those who should know better too.

"Yep, fair point, nowhere really, and I've sort of acknowledged that."

Well, sort of - but then in your most recent post you say that the article suggested that. I definitely think it would be unfair to argue that it is implicit!

" However there are plenty of posters on this thread who seem to be going with the strapline and are content for men's services to be cut. "

Again, I think every poster on this thread would rather there was more funding for DV shelters than any kind of funding cut happened.

bear, I understand your personal interest, but I am outraged that funding which should have been allocated to women has been incorrectly allocated elsewhere. Ideally, all funding would be increased. But if that doesn't happen, the allocation of the current funding needs to be re-assessed.

I'm not saying that men don't need support in escaping domestic violence - of course they do, but I'm not sure why they should be receiving higher funding per person/incident.

I certainly don't fall in to the 'blaming' idea of physical strength either. If it were as simple as that they every woman would walk away from DV the very first time they were alone without their partner.