Misleading campaign trying to con the UK about the horrific level of domestic violence committed by men against women

[BigChocFrenzy]

A dadsnet thread came up last night on active, asking us to sign a petition to the Royal Borough of Greenwich that they change their poster against domestic violence "Dad's have to change."

The thread claims FALSELY that "women perpetrate physical and emotional abuse at comparable rates to men"

This campaign is pushed by the usual suspects of F4J and Torygraph, part of a broader aim to downplay male violence against women. It is conning an increasing number of people, especially those inclined anyway to make excuses for men.

Karen Smith has an excellent blog analysing statistics to show domestic violence is overwhelmingly MALE:
(CPS stats over 5 years) 93.4% of those convicted were MALE.

Female victims are far more likely to suffer violence, to suffer more repeated incidents, to suffer worse injury.
Contrary to popular myth, men are MORE likely to report an incident and to continue with prosecution.

Home Office statistics for England & Wales show on average per year:
. 100 women killed by past or present male partners
. 10 men also killed by MALE partners
. 20 men killed by female partners

So, 20 female killers for every 110 male killers.

See also the very sad Counting Dead Women

Regardless of statistics, I like to view people as individuals. Just because more men statistically have committed violent acts, according to the data referred, to does not mean the innocent ones are not innocent. I would like each crime to be investigated with no preconceptions. I have male relatives and friends, I don't want them to be regarded with more suspicion just because they are male.

However, saying this, I do feel victims of violence should be supported, male or female. I also feel we should do all we can to discourage violence.

I don't know how I feel about this if I'm completely honest. Whilst I think it's very important that we all recognise that domestic violence is very much a gender issue for the most part, it's certainly unhelpful when anyone talks about violence toward women for people to respond with "what about the mens", most victims are women and most perpetrators are men. That's not to deny that there are male victims and female abusers, but let's start being honest about the numbers.

However, that poster is deliberately inflammatory and doesn't draw a distinction between male abusers and male non-abusers. Just as I don't want to see anything that generalises women, I don't want to see anything that generalises men either. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that anyone who denies that domestic violence is a gender issue is deluding themselves.

capsium the problem with viewing everyone as individuals is that you can't base policy on individuals. If domestic violence is to be tackled successfully, someone needs to look at the numbers and take notice of the gender difference. On a personal level of course we all judge people as individuals, I'm no man hater, I don't eye all men with suspicion, but the authorities don't have that luxury.

Worzel I understand if you are talking about channelling the appropriate amount of funding into supporting victims. However regarding the investigating crimes, this really does need to be done with no preconceived ideas or prejudices IMHO.

I agree with that, capsium, but unfortunately, I think the 'violence is gendered' message is aimed at combatting the current prejudice, that violence is 'six of one and half a dozen of the other'. So I think it needs to keep being put out there.

Any 'campaign' needs to be measured and accurate though. Prejudice does not really help, whichever kind it is. You cannot fight one prejudice by replacing it with another.

No one is suggesting you should.

But an emphasis on highlighting a particular group of people, in terms of being the perpetrators of violence, can come dangerously close, in that it can encourage prejudice.

No, it can't - not unless you mean, it confirms to bigots that they're bigots.

This campaign targets perpetrators of violence.

Why do you feel that those people shouldn't be labelled as such?

Because I do not like generalisations. Many different people can be violent for many different reasons, not all of which are easily controllable.

My issue with the campaign is them claiming basically that women are as violent as men, which is a lie.
Part of a deliberate campaign by aggressive "male rights" organisations to distract attention from the dreadful problem of male violence and how it blights womens' lives.

A problem needs to be stated honestly before it can be tackled and resources directed appropriately.

Of course once there is a victim, or a perpetrator, each must be treated equally, regardless of gender.
But we must acknowledge that most of the victims are female and by far most of the violent criminals are male.

It's generalising to claim that people's reasons for violence are not 'easily controllable', isn't it? And irrelevant, too.

This ad doesn't generalise. It targets perpetrators of violence.

It is only if you read it and leap from the message to your own internalised prejudice, that it is a problem, I think. If you already believe violence is 50/50, of course you will leap up and down crying foul. But that was the idea. If you want to believe you can't help hitting your kids, you will not like the idea you might be able to change - but, again, that's the point: it might shock you into change.

Jeanne I said 'not all of which are easily controllable.', indicating that some might be.

The reason I think drawing only one common similarity between perpetrators, namely their maleness, can be harmful is that it suggests the violence is somehow caused by being male. However other factors could be implicit - drug and alcohol abuse could be just one example.

I read what you said. It's a generalisation you're making, and it's irrelevant.

It is extremely helpful to point to the gendered nature of violence, because it is a huge factor. And it is caused, not by 'being male', but by cultures of toxic masculinity. Men are socialised - and, in some cases, abused by their parents - and made to believe that violence is a masculine way to behave. This ad is targeting exactly that idea, by appealing to men's perceptions of themselves as 'strong' enough to change.

I'd prefer a wider campaign that deals with other factors concerning violence too, for balance.

Well, I'm sure when you've specialised in this area and work in it, you'll be able to push for whatever you find is most useful.

Why do you assume I'm not doing my bit already?

I never suggested you weren't.

But, clearly, this is not the campaign you would have chosen to run. You said as much yourself. Me, I have problems with it too - but I like it a bit more than you do. So, we are in the same boat, discussing what we'd do differently.

Looking outside the specialised area of domestic violence, to convictions for all crimes:

Males were convicted of 85% of violent crimes and 98% of sexual offences.

Would you insist that a poster campaign against rape and sexual assault be directed equally at women, i.e. targetting 98% and 2% equally ?

I would particularly angry if a campaign for that claimed women and men committed sexual offences at a roughly equal rate.

I think it's problematic to talk about the numbers of people who are killed every year, because it could be that women are more likely to beat and less likely to kill (I don't necessarily believe that myself).

I do think the post about individuals right at the top of this thread is useful though and that it's not wrong to use a member of the opposite gender who can make a point to all people. Eg a woman abuser can also get the point across to a male abuser, can't they?

Yeah, but people do look at stats for violence other than killing, carrie.

This campaign isn't about killing.

I think it's fine for a poster to be based around the facts of crime rates. In fact, I think it's a necessity.

Otherwise, you leave space for the arguments in the comments sections that say: women and men have comparable rates of violence (no they don't); women lie about being attacked; women provoke men into attacking them and then the man is charged; men are too scared and scarred by stereotyping to report violence against them.

Now I can see that the latter point could be true but it's a massive leap from that fact to say domestic violence isn't gendered. And it's a giant backwards step to say we can't name the truth.

Wouldn't it be impressive if F4J and the other leaders of this campaign were focused on working with WA to challenge the silence around domestic abuse, and to proudly stand against the men who put both their wives and children in danger . . . but, no, they'd rather put their energies into trying to fudge the statistics than actually changing the statistics.

Wouldn't it be impressive if F4J and the other leaders of this campaign were focused on working with WA to challenge the silence around domestic abuse, and to proudly stand against the men who put both their wives and children in danger

Yes - this.

Especially because I firmly believe this would change those stats. Not all men who are violent, were brought up by violent parents or exposed to horrible, violent ideas of what it means to be 'masculine' - but I think a lot were.

Thanks for alerting us to this, BigChoc. It never stops, does it? Straight from the Ally Fogg School Of NotAllMen And WomenDoItToo.