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

But the ones who truly behave like 'monsters' probably won't be upset. How could they be, if they perpetrate similar scenes everyday and continue to do so?

Because that is how abuse works, capsium.

No one wants to believe they are an abuser. People who hit their partners and children say thinks like 'well, I was angry and I snapped just once' or 'you have to discipline them' or 'she made me do it'.

I've been hit (though perhaps you think that doesn't count because it wasn't 'everyday'?). It wasn't 'behaving like a monster', though, it was because I made them angry. Maybe a little bit too angry, but really, everyone gets angry, don't they? No one judges you for getting angry and hitting out, so clearly it is socially sanctioned.

That's the reasoning people go through. I've heard it.

That's what needs challenging, that idea that you can be a normal, decent person who also happens to hit out.

Developmental differences have been observed between boys and girls, I would hate the 'blame game' to start being focussed upon younger and younger children.

Developmental differences such as what? And how have they been 'observed'? I'd be very wary here.

Boys are no more innately violent than girls. They are socialised to be violent. We need to step in to stop that.

Younger and younger children aren't dads, generally - they're not being 'blamed' for anything their fathers do, and in fact, they're seeing the message that if their dads are violent, that's not a strong, manly thing at all.

What triggers violent outbursts?

Choice. Choosing to be violent. That's what causes them, in 100% of cases.

And of course violence against men is unacceptable too, maybe you could work on getting men to stop being violent towards men then, yes?

The type of man who is offended by this is the type of man who probably needs to be having a long hard think about his reactions to pressured situations. No one who isn't a violent person should think that violence is acceptable, and men need to acknowledge that the vast majority of perpetrators of violence are men, and work to stop that. If I belonged to a group where there was a significant number of us who were using violence as a means to control others, I'd be doing something about it, not whining that some posters were mean about people like me.

You know - and I'm going out so want to get this out of my system - this does irritate me, 'I would hate the 'blame game' to start being focussed upon younger and younger children.'

Like, the rest of us just adore lining up our primary-aged male relatives, poking them with sticks and yelling at them for All the Violence In the World, don't we? And this is really all about 'blame' and not at all about prevention, isn't it?

Not from me Jeanne, or anyone actually involved in the field. It's all about education, prevention and improved channels of reporting.

I think it's probably true that men who are already violent won't be swayed by a campaign. But the men around them who aren't violent are likely to start seeing DV as not just unacceptable, but as something they should openly condemn.

The analogy with anti-racism campaigns is very apt. They did lead to people not just disagreeing privately, but speaking out against it when they encountered it in day to day life. And at the time, some people did do the whole 'but black people do it too', and/or claim to be offended that anyone would suggest they were racist.

I was hit as a child. Everyone I know was. The perpetrators were men and women. There was corporal punishment in schools. Those considered normal and decent carried this out. I also got into physical fights, as a child, occasionally.

We all have the potential be violent. There are wars happening as we speak. In that sense violence is not unusual - so in this way could be considered 'normal'. This is the reality.

Violence is certainly not considered desirable or widely accepted, though, IME or maybe I live in a bubble? I don't condone violence but because it exists within the whole of society I think we need to tackle it within the whole of society not just within a proportion of it.

There is a spectrum between monsters and saints.
People are not fixed and can be educated by campaigns. Changing social attitudes among men and making violent behaviour unacceptable in their peer groups is the way to go.

We need to educate children at school as to what is acceptable behaviour: some boys have the wrong role models at home, or have no role models and just choose violent action heroes or rapist footballers. Some girls think it is normal for women to be hit

Some men who commit violent acts just do so because they can, like any other criminals. Some have MH or substance issues, hence the help numbers on the posters.

Campaigns have reduced racism, by making it socially unacceptable. but it did mean hurt feelings in the privileged group.
We didn't think "poor little racist snowflakes, mustn't hurt their feelings"
We just got on with it.

But of course anyone who sympathises with f4j and their ilk may be seriously offended.

You keep overlooking the fact that men are committing 85% of the violent crime, 98% of the sexual assaults. Small children may scrap together, but adult violence is overwhelmingly male.

Isn't there something to be said for male peers normalising non-abusive behaviour here? In the same way rapists rape because they think that's what all men do IYSWIM. As QI says, if there's this vast mass of such pure and untainted men, then they can (and should) make a significant contribution to preventing this kind of behaviour being seen as normal. Unless, of course, they don't want to

If I saw a poster saying something like 'Mums - stop hitting your children', I wouldn't be offended. I don't hit mine, it doesn't apply to me. If any man is alienated or feels a twinge of guilt at seeing that poster, that person probably has a reason - they know their behaviour is not normal. The truth hurts. But if you can't name the problem, you can't solve it. Some mens' feelings of guilt do not trump the rights of partners, wives and children not to be abused.

From my own experience, abusive men will blame anyone but themselves, especially their victim(s). As a society, we need to put the blame squarely on the perpetrators and de-normalise DV. You can't NAMALT your way out of that.

Ha, x-post with BigChoc there

I can sympathise, even with groups, whose views, I do not entirely agree, without being offended by other groups of people, with conflicting views, I do not entirely agree with.

But all this disregard for men's 'feelings' just seems ill advised to me. Because it is feelings and emotions affecting behaviour which often causes violent outbursts. People need to have coping strategies in order to prevent their emotion and feelings detrimentally affecting their behaviour otherwise disregarding feelings and emotions will only escalate conflict.

I can't think of any other group of people who are protected from having their feelings hurt in that way. And as stated upthread - it's not about all men, it's about men who hurt women and children. If their feelings are hurt, then meh. Maybe they should be. Their hurt feelings don't matter to me as much the damage they do to others.

I see campaigns against animal cruelty, drink driving, racism, homophobia, anti-drug campaigns aimed at teenagers, and various other issues. No one criticises those campaigns for hurting the feelings of the people they are targeted at.

The 'Just Say No' campaign in the '80s was aimed at my generation. I don't remember loads of teenagers going around whining that they were hurt because someone warned them about the dangers of heroin.

Saskia can you not see being sensitive to other people's feelings and emotions in terms of damage limitation? Until the underlying problems are tackled. De-escalation / conflict management is widely used across professions.

Unfortunately the trouble with 'shocking campaigns is that it can further desensitise people.

In this instance, no. The campaign isn't aimed at men per se, it's aimed at men who behave in a particular way. If those men have a problem with that they should look at why. I refuse to pander to the ego of someone who inflicts violence on women and children. As far as I am concerned that has been happening for far too long. It's time we named the problem (toxic masculinity) and dealt with it.

The alternative is actually really insulting to men. It suggests that somehow they are programmed to behave like this, when clearly they aren't because most don't.

All these precious snowflake abusers who are so delicate and out of control they cannot possibly control their own emotions,

They don't tend to go round beating the crap out of their bosses or co workers do they?

I personally don't give a shiny shit whether campaigns aimed at making DV less socially acceptable hurt abusers feelings. I can't imagine why anyone else would, unless they have a vested interest.

There is a school of thought amongst psychiatrists that free will does not exists. They have observed such a strong link between brain physiology and resulting perceptions and behaviour.

I don't actually believe this but I do believe, for some people, controlling certain behaviours may be more difficult, due to their individual brain physiology. However I believe this physiology is metastable, constantly developing according to how we process our experiences. So people can reform.

Individual differences in behaviour are the result of individual differences in physiology which develop differently according to our individual life experiences and processing of them.

So not all men are anything, which was one of the points I was making earlier.

Society should have a 'vested interest' in what causes people to abuse. Otherwise their behaviour cannot be tackled effectively. Merely shocking people or telling people off does not work.

Yes people do seem to hurt those closest to them, or those who won't hurt back. This is not unusual. Who would act the same with their boss as they would with their husband? I've sworn at my husband, on several occasions, and shouted till I'm hoarse but not at work. I'm not proud of the fact and I do so less now I'm older (and hopefully wiser). Thing is people relax and let their guard down at home.

Why make men a specially protected group of snowflakes ?

Campaigns against racism, homophobia, drink-driving have all targetted a mass audience and achieved their objective:
They changed attitudes as to what is socially acceptable.

So campaigns do work.
When an academic theory doesn't fit the facts, throw out the theory, not the facts

In schools, we teach kids that racism and homophobia are not acceptable, to help socialise them into a civilised society.
Do you think it wrong to also teach them that violence against women and rape is unacceptable ?

I see on threads like this and about rapist footballers that some women seem to prioritise the feelings of the male population.

If pandering to mens' feelings worked, we wouldn't have this level of male violence against women

If social ostracism and punishment worked we could have solved all the ills of society centuries ago.

Yes people do seem to hurt those closest to them, or those who won't hurt back. This is not unusual. Who would act the same with their boss as they would with their husband? I've sworn at my husband, on several occasions, and shouted till I'm hoarse but not at work. I'm not proud of the fact and I do so less now I'm older (and hopefully wiser). Thing is people relax and let their guard down at home

Either they can control it and choose who to assult or they don't. Can't have both

And of course we should teach that violence and rape is wrong. I say wrong not unacceptable because accepting it happens is necessary in order to stop it.