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

I think one way to reduce violence against women is to treat it as a hate crime, just as racist violence is.

As a mixed race woman, I have seen a massive change in behaviour caused by laws against racism:
In the 1960s, at junior school, I used to be surrounded by boys chanting "Wog" and just had to put up with it.

Teachers then did not regard it as any worse than other chants and "white kids get teased too" and "you annoy them" - i.e. minimisation, my fault, TheyAreVictimsToo.

That progress didn't come from making excuses why some white people commit racist acts, or saying BME commit crimes too:
it came from clearly educating white people that racism was unacceptable, allocating resources to conbat racism and giving criminal penalties to those who still committed racist acts.

Yes, the "lots of men aren't violent, so it's not gendered" does seem to overlook two things:

1. across our society, it is hugely gendered

2. there must be a reason for that

Saying that "lots of men abuse other people physically" without continuing to "and that must be caused by something" is bizarrely dismissive of men. Unless a significant minority of men are just born with a tendency to harm and abuse others, there must be something about how our society trains and treats men that encourages this behaviour.

Wanting to admit that it's mostly men in practice, but in theory there's no cause for it, seems to be much more man-hating than the feminists who suggest that "toxic masculinity" or "socialisation" are to blame.

It also suggests that anyone would be quite right in treating any individual man as if he were liable to suddenly go rogue and start harming people, which is precisely what I think people who don't like "generalisations" in this sense are arguing against.

I don't think anyone here is anti-bloke.

I defend on other threads the right of CRB-checked male professionals to work in nurseries and hospital wards, to have careers in caring fields.
Or just for any bloke to walk in the park, or stop a small kid running iinto traffic, without being thought a perv.

And deciding on RP / NRP in custody cases should not be affected by the genders of the parties.

Teachers then did not regard it as any worse than other chants and "white kids get teased too" and "you annoy them" - i.e. minimisation, my fault, TheyAreVictimsToo.

That makes sense (ie., that it's a crap approach).

Wanting to admit that it's mostly men in practice, but in theory there's no cause for it, seems to be much more man-hating than the feminists who suggest that "toxic masculinity" or "socialisation" are to blame.

Agree strongly with this.

Whilst I said that I thought suggesting violence to being somehow caused by 'maleness' was harmful (whether biological or social), I did not claim there is no cause behind violent acts. My point was rather only making the connection between violent acts and maleness / toxic socialisation etc is overly simplistic. I really think more factors need to be considered, such as substance abuse and mental health, in order to tackle violent crime.

As for people 'going rogue' anybody potentially could, man or woman....shouldn't get too complacent.

No, that is naive.

And there is a distinction to be made between maleness and masculinity, I think.

Sadly, domestic violence isn't 'going rogue'. It's too common. A lot of people grow up with it being their 'normal'. You're buying into a myth.

That sort of connection would be overly simplistic, if "toxic socalisation" was a single factor which was easily isolatable and could be analysed on its own. Of course it has interactions with (and indeed I'd suggest it includes) substance abuse issues and mental health questions.

Why are men trained to drink heavily in ways which result in them becoming violent, whereas women's drinking has no such overall social result? Why do men seek mental health help at lower numbers? Why is men's mental angst so often expressed in harm to others, whereas women's is so often expressed inwardly upon their selves and bodies?

Understanding all these questions better might help us to deal with the problem of male violence. But it will also need men who haven't committed violent acts to think about how they've been trained, sociaized, encouraged to process their emotions and regard their bodies. It won't be helped by them saying "Only bad men or unlucky men do that, I haven't been programmed that way"

Naive, how?

What definitions are you applying to maleness and masculinity?

When I used the term 'going rogue' it was in reference to QuiteIrregular's post. It is not uncommon for domestic violence to occur with the onset of a mental illness being a factor, as with people suffering from Post Traumatic Shock, for example, either - so not mythological.

Naive in that I think it misses the wider context of gendered violence.

I would say masculinity is by definition socialised. You are talking about 'maleness' as something that might be socialised or biological, but I don't think that gendered violence is biological at all. It is something that can change.

Post-traumatic shock is connected with gender in some cases - for example, it's more common in ex-military men who've not had proper counselling (toxic masculinity at work), and it can be related to past abuse (toxic masculinity again).

These things tend to relate together, which is why it is helpful to look at the bigger picture of gender.

The myth I am referring to is the myth that people who abuse (or rape) do so because they are somehow aberrations within a culture, monsters or outsiders. That means we don't have to consider how the culture might have shaped them, and we don't have to believe they (or that culture) can change.

I agree society needs to take wider responsibility for crimes re socialisation etc.

However I think this issue is wider than gender.

Regarding biological factors, I believe these can be heavily intertwined with socialisation, as experience shapes brain development and physiology, which in turn affects behaviour, perception and understanding. I view brain physiology as being meta- stable.

So how do you explain away the facts?

How does it help to disguise them?

I don't explain the facts. No one can fully. For each individual case, there will be combination of possible causal factors, which can be studied. Across a large number of cases some commonality may occur but not be present in every case.

No, sorry.

We need a proper, wide analysis. You can't just focus on case by case when you are running a campaign.

Oh well if running a campaign is the most important thing.....

Obviously, given we are discussing how best to run a campaign ...!

But if individuals are treated as such, they are listened to and their individual problems found and effectively solved, there would be no need for the campaign.

That might be true, but do you have the money for it? Does anyone?

And how would you know which individuals to target, given you believe you can't tell which groups will be violent until it is too late?

Better to look at changing the culture of toxic masculinity and campaigning to catch the attention of groups we know are a statistical risk.

FWIW, I also find it worrying that your emphasis is all on 'listening to' individuals - and while I do have sympathy with men who are violent for reasons that have to do with their own experiences of toxic masculinity, I have a damn sight more time for their victims.

Listening is not exclusive to the perpetrators of violence, it should be extended to the victims too - I thought that much was obvious.

No one should be 'targeted' IMO, unless everyone is...

Does anyone have the stats related to this poster? Are you more likely to commit Dv if you have children? Are dads and mums more violent than adults that are childfree?
If this is so maybe contraception would reduce Dv.
I'm a male human and don't mind the poster but I think it is a bit clumsy

I would like action, not advertising campaigns, in actuality. Put the money into action. For people not to have to wait unduly for appointments with Mental Health Services for example.

No, people who are at risk should be targeted.

And no, it wasn't 'obvious' you want to 'extend' listening to victims 'too'.

Campaigns are a form of action.

Male violence and agression seems to stem from a complex mix of nature / nurture / environment and clearly needs more research.
What causes males to be violent in circumstances where females under the same conditions - alcohol, stress about finances, jobs, relationships etc - wouldn't ?

However, don't let waiting for the definitive explanation be a substitute for taking practical steps now that can help.

We have seen how targeted campaigns can help change a range of behaviours, from racism to drink driving to smoking, even when we don't fully understand every parameter and interaction.

Let's do what we can now, let Greenwich and other responsible bodies mount campaigns, targetted at males, who commit the vast majority of the violence.

Parallel to that, we need resources for extensive research and a longterm strategy to massively reduce male violence.

YY, amen to that big.

Well I would like more active action (than advertising) then.

I'd like the moon on a stick.

It's very easy to dismiss campaigns (which, as has been observed, can work very well) and to make vague claims like 'I want more action' or 'I want to listen to all the violent people and help them'.

But how exactly does this fit with your claim you want to help individuals, and not stereotype? All action has to fit parameters, and every funding body will have its cut-off points. Some vaguely-defined 'action' doesn't get around the fact that violence is gendered and it is therefore most efficient to treat it as a gendered problem.