"over 70% of unprovoked street attacks were men being violent to other men."

[golondrina]

I commented on a tweet saying that men too are afraid of walking alone at night because of violence from other men. I said that it may be true that some men fear violent attack from other men, most don't. That men sometimes are afraid walking alone but that women are usually afraid of walking alone at night and that it was an important difference.

He's come back saying "over 70% of unprovoked street attacks were men being violent to other men" I want to reply with something specific, help me?

Whether it's violence towards men or women, the majority of that violence is coming from men.
Yes, we have laws and rules (which are repeatedly and consistently flouted by some) so what is the solution then?
Let's not blame the feminists for at least trying to stop themselves getting murdered...

This is the summary of the Office for National Statistics on Homicide for 2017: "Main points
There were 709 homicides in the year ending March 2017, 141 more (25% increase) than in the previous year, this includes the 96 cases of manslaughter that resulted from events at Hillsborough in 1989; excluding these the number of homicides increased by 8%.

The number of male victims has increased at a faster rate than females in recent years with male victims of homicide increasing by 33% to 433 (excluding Hillsborough victims) from 325 in the year ending March 2015, ending a generally downward trend.

The number of female homicide victims has remained broadly flat over the last five years (fewer than 200).

There were 12 offences of homicide per million population in the year ending March 2017 (10 homicides per million population excluding Hillsborough victims).

Excluding Hillsborough victims, the homicide rate for males (15 per million population) was more than twice that for females (6 per million population).

Women were far more likely to be killed by partners or ex-partners (50% of female victims aged 16 and over compared with 3% of male victims aged 16 and over), whereas men were more likely to be killed by friends or acquaintances (32% of male victims aged 16 and over compared with 10% of female victims aged 16 and over).

The most common method of killing was by knife or other sharp instrument with 215 victims killed in this way, accounting for 30% of homicides." ONS 2017

So yes, he's right that women are not the biggest victim of male violence, but the pattern is far different.

I would point out that men and women fear different things. Men (may) fear violence from other men, while women fear sexual assault (and being blamed for that assault)

I would acknowledge that yes, men are violent and does he have an answer to it because that would benefit everyone.

whereas men were more likely to be killed by friends or acquaintances

Re unprovoked street attacks, I remember hearing years ago that men were more likely to be victims than women, but I think then it was more due to drunken fights after pub/club closing time. Nowadays knife and gang crime has increased and in some areas parents are far more concerned about their sons' safety than their daughters'.

We suck it up, because the world will always have people in it that ignore society and the law - unless some grotesque tyranny was to be imposed that punished the innocent along with the guilty and insisted on surveillance of all at all times.
Well I love a bit of CCTV, me. Question, though: in terms of surveillance, justice after-the-fact and outcomes, perhaps the reliance on the long arm of the law is part of the discrepancy? Women are at greater risk of sexual violence - but not generally in the middle of the high street under a camera. Being raped by your partner in your home is unlikely to be prosecuted, being punched by someone in a bar on CCTV is.
Police are choosing not to investigate more and more crimes, due to both lack of funding and some skewed priorities. Does this impact upon females more harshly? Or have both sexes been thrown under a bus in that respect?

Nowadays knife and gang crime has increased and in some areas parents are far more concerned about their sons' safety than their daughters'.
Yeah and it's not just young men involved in criminal activity. To join some gangs you have to stab someone. Wrong place, wrong time and an innocent young man becomes an initiation rite for someone else. Turf wars over postcodes, the inability to avoid the area or the people because you live there and go to school with them - it leaves a lot of young men very vulnerable.
Do we see that as "violence" or "crime" and when it's against women it becomes "male violence"? I wish trends were discussed properly in public, and I wish we could stop talking about "violence" as if it had a mind of its own. "Stop the violence" is mealy-mouthed nonsense, implying "the violence" is coming along and picking off people like the plague. Also, when death is involved we stick to social norms and get all respectful - personally when I see yet another mother who didn't know or care what her son was up to for days on end, who knew he'd fathered children before leaving school, who knew he had a long arrest record, saying "he was an angel" when he's been stabbed dead in a gang fight I feel someone needs to point out she's talking bullshit to make herself feel better, and that the random bloke at the funeral who was the boy's dad (but who didn't know him) should be even more ashamed.
But then I'm a horrible woman and I shouldn't say these things.. it's not their fault. It's the area, it's the school, it's "the violence", it's an underfunded youth club, it's decades of unemployment, it's postindustrialism, it's never the young man's fault, never his family's fault, it's just something that happens.

Does this impact upon females more harshly? Or have both sexes been thrown under a bus in that respect?

How much effort do the police make prosecuting violence against men outside the public eye?

Physically vulnerable people are under increased threat of violence as the law retreats: cultivating a lack of vulnerability is the only appropriate path (as I was taught in my legally mandated victim-of-crime course).

It is true that women are not the overwhelming victim of male violence.
I understood the stats to be

• men more likely than women to be victim of violence overall
• men more likely to be victim of murder
• women more likely to be victim of murder where perp is her partner?
• men more likely to be victim of violence in public place by stranger
• women more likely to be victim of domestic violence
• women more likely to be victim of sexual assault and rape

Men more likely to be perpetrator in all cases

So the issue is with male violence or masculinity in general. Feminist campaigners are rightly interested in women as victims, and the specific likelihood of being assaulted by partner, or being victim of sexual crime. But it's right also for people to try and shine a light on the fact that men are more likely to be assaulted or murdered, or eg. die in an accident at work. All these thing are talked about by MRAs, anti-feminist ones and the normal ones, and if we try and discount that by just saying women are the victims of male violence, they would be right to be annoyed. My son is much more likely to be hospitalised by a stranger. My daughter is much more likely to be sexually assaulted. Neither is good, and men's bad behaviour is harmful to both.

It would be better if men talked about their experiences as a victim of violence more.

ONS are good place for statistics on this. For example:

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017#which-groups-of-people-are-most-likely-to-be-victims-of-homicide

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences/yearendingmarch2015/chapter1overviewofviolentcrimeandsexualoffences#characteristics-associated-with-being-a-victim

Manderleyagain
Agreed, on all points

Do you think most men get over it more easily? Are they allowed to get over it without being victim blamed?

DH was randomly beaten up some years ago. A group of men (football hooligans if that's relevant) came into a pub he was in and started randomly pushing people about which turned to hitting people. He got bottles smashed over his head.
He was terrified to go out for ages. He's not violent or aggressive at all.
As for victim blaming. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I've definitely heard "well what did he expect going in that pub" (not in DH's case, in others) and "well he must have done something".

how do we enable male victims to name male violence for what it is?

Not sure. I suppose for a non-violent man, violent men are different to them - they are men, but not violent, the violent men are men, but violent. It doesn't make sense to them to say it's "male violence".
(I reason that is a long winded way of saying NAMALT).

With the greatest of respect, I feel that some posters have unwittingly succumbed to the damaging viewpoint that results from toxic masculinity. Of course most of us guys fear violence. We just don't like to admit it for fear of being seen as 'wimps' as society tells us that men should be strong - and it's not just men perpetrating that if you consider how many women like 'rough' tough men like Tom Hardy.

There was an interesting thread about this a while back when I was a lurker, which I think may have been deleted due to becoming a bit of a bunfight. The OP made an interesting point, which I agree with, that people often minimise male violence by saying "oh, but it's other men doing it." It's a bit depressing to see it aired once again on this thread and by more than one poster.

Thugs often pick on weaker targets and it's a bit disingenuous (bordering on victim blaming) to say "what....Fred got beat up? Well, what's Fred doing about it seeing as he's the same sex as his attacker?

Regarding UK stats, the ONS data from March 2017 shows that men are over 3x more likely to be attacked by a stranger, and they also account for a larger proportion of victims of violence with injury. Additionally, 74% of homicide victims were male.

Similar studies have been conducted in Canada which show that men are twice as likely to be the victims of 'aggravated assault, 3.5x more likely to be the victims of 'attempted homicide', and 3.9x more likely to experience 'other assaults.

That's a fair point, but no one is blaming all men either.

YogiBearVII what happens to those figures when you include sexual crimes? Are they already included or shown separately?

Are they already included or shown separately?

I think they should be separated though?
But both reported when this kind of discussion is happening.

Agreed.

I think sex crimes were segregated in the ONS stats. It mentions that there were 138,045 sex crimes within the 12 month period and 1,291,405 violent crime offences.

Either way, the issue is male violence. Transwomen are male. Some have been proven to be violent and threaten violence against women.

So keep them out of our spaces.

I would support a 3rd space for non masculine presenting males who don't feel safe in all male environments but they are not, and do not belong with, women.

Either way, the issue ismaleviolence. Transwomen aremale. Some have been proven to be violent and threaten violence against women.

So keep them out of our spaces.

I would support a 3rd space for non masculine presentingmaleswho don't feel safe in allmaleenvironments but they are not, and do not belong with, women.

Not really what we were discussing...

people often minimise male violence by saying "oh, but it's other men doing it." It's a bit depressing to see it aired once again on this thread and by more than one poster.

You may call it minimalising if you wish. I call it women saying, 'Men, we can't fix this for you. You are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence and it's you - decent, non violent men - who need to own it and sort it out.'

There are some men who seem willing but it's a depressingly low number.

Is there any sorting out to be done? We can't kill all snakes. Some are poisonous, some are not. If we were able/willing to destroy them all there would be environmental repercussions.
We obviously can't ban men, on the basis that some of them, even if it was half of them, are violent.
We can avoid them, like snakes, have phobias about them, like snakes, and still be sensitive to their needs and their right to exist. Some snakes are kept as pets, even dangerous ones are kept. In some cases the snakes' natural environment is under threat. So they are driven to areas where they interact more with humans (obviously more abroad than here!)
I don't dislike men, being able to opt out of relationships with them makes me much more likely so see them in a sympathetic light (the facilitated men thread, I read all 40 pages, a real eye opener!) So I'm not really calling them snakes.
My point is perhaps we just need to know and name and talk about the fact they exist and as a class are dangerous. We can't make snakes into kittens, but we can warn people to watch out for them.

Not really what we were discussing...

Sorry, you're right. I was a bit distracted and not paying attention

I call it women saying, 'Men, we can't fix this for you. You are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence and it's you - decent, non violent men - who need to own it and sort it out.'

I see things differently.

Aside from the fact that there are already loads of women in law enforcement, the court system, charities, etc, who are helping tackle violence, there's also the odd fact that your argument seems only ever to be applied against men.

Nobody argues that only the Muslim community should try and prevent radicalisation/terror attacks. Likewise, nobody says that black on black homicide (biggest cause of death of young black Americans) is something solely to be tackled by the black community. There are loads of examples of things which are arguably the responsibility of the society which they affect.

Do you take responsibility for tackling the racist attitudes of certain political groups run by your fellow white folk? It's you (decent, non-racist Caucasians) who need to own it and sort it out.

Not read the whole thread, but there are some very smart responses.

But the original point does show up how statistics are poorly understood. I recall, many years ago, a philosophy lecturer pointing out that he didn't understand why so many old people were afraid of going out at night, given that very few old people were attacked at night.

I did point out the flaw in his argument, but he really couldn't get it.