Spot on. Prehistoric judicial attitudes receive occasional publicity, but the attitudes among juries is probably an even bigger problem. (I say ‘probably’ because it’s against the law here to conduct research on jurors, but we can extrapolate from attitudes among the public at large).

(True enough, I’d be surprised if similar prejudices don’t exist about other forms of violence. Young guy from poor estate stabbed at the weekend? Probably gang related, or involved in drugs, or such like. Or as Jugglepunk said earlier, drunk and had it coming.)

There’s also troubling evidence that a worrying %age of young boys regard hitting their girlfriends as acceptable – though they probably regard violence against other boys as reasonable means of conflict resolution too. If Xeno’s suggestion re anger management/emotional education helps address some of these attitudes, then great, go for it.

What also troubles me, though, is the number of young girls – usually, but not always, from poor backgrounds – who seem to think it’s their lot in life to put up with violent, abusive partners, and it strikes me as at least as important to instil a bit of self-esteem and confidence in them. I’m not talking about brutalised women trapped in that situation, but young kids still living with their parents, who put up with abusive boyfriends. (Is that Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer not out in paperback yet?)

#47 posted by Antinous: re: dickwaving.
Bravo, antinous, what a way to discredit anyone who is not 100% in accord with your position. Sexist comments like that demean the position you are attempting to defend.

13Strong‘s point, though, seems like a valid one; these will often be attacks by strangers in the street, rather than sustained patterns of abuse. As such, it may well be worthwhile targeting this particular issue – not at the expense of targeting violence against men, and not because it’s worse, but because it is relevantly different, and maybe amendable to different solutions.

Jugglepunk, though: dear me, do I need to say it? Being drunk does not mean that one deserves, or is responsible for, a violent attack, and in the context of a discussion about rape, I really don’t think you want to go down that road.

When I see a thread infested with men so self-involved that they can’t recognize the terrifying reality that women around the world face every day, I don’t have the slightest qualm about pointing out what body part they’re attempting to think with.

It is easy to misinterpret from text what is said because you cannot hear the anger that everyone on that street heard. You cannot heard the volume at which they were yelling. You cannot see the way he grabbed her occassionally nor his body language which as a male, told me he was one step away from striking.

We violent apes can recognize the behaviour before the strike. The stance, the threatening gestures. These are all things that I do not have time to go into detail about in a post unless i were to write a novel. And I’m no Cory Doctorow.

* domestic violence
* rape and sexual violence
* forced marriage and ‘honour’-based violence
* trafficking and sexual exploitation
* stalking
* sexual harassment
* sexual abuse of girls
* female genital mutilation

And the leaflet at http://www.mapofgaps.org/docs/map_of_gaps_summary.pdf actually provides a lot of answers RE why specialist services are necessary etc.

I would also add I don’t think that this discussion has been ‘divisive’ in a negative way- rather a demonstrative one, it appears (I could be wrong) to have split down quite even gender lines, ie the only voices criticising have been those defending male privalage – deflecting by mentioning violence against men etc. (though men have defended also)

As 13strong and others have pointed out better than I shall, different and malign forces deeper in society cause gendered violence. And besides, there are plenty of campaigns against football violence, racism and violence, homophobic violence, and young kids knifing themselves, these things cannot all be solved by the same methods, but no one ever calls them on their ‘divisive’ attitude by criticising their lack of focus on other forms of violence do they?

Oh and the guy using evolution to justify male violence, you helped me fill in another bingo square
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d98/sabotabby/evopsychbingo.jpg

Statistics are an important way of communicating information, and unfortunately (I feel) have an unjust reputation for fakery. Check the source, if it’s a large body, their methods are sound, and they are honest about their facts, trust them to a sensible degree I say.

So here’s some statistic I just researched, and their sources: say you have a class of 30 girls. In their lives 10 will be subject to gendered violence.

sure by using the ‘young girls’ image I am inviting ideas of innocence, vulnerability etc. But that’s just good campaign tactics. How else are you to get people to listen? Let’s try it differently then.

1 in 3 females in the UK will be subject to gendered violence in their life.

The 1 in 3 figure I used was a 2% rounding up of the addition of the 23% of women who experience (and report) sexual assault as an adult and the 5% of women who experience (and report) rape. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/Sexual-violence-action-plan The rounding up was just to get a easily divisible figure, and should be very easily exceeded by the puported amount of un-reported assult/harrassment (40% of adults who are raped tell no one about it – http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/myths.html).

The 1 in 10 is a current figure being run for international women’s day by Amnesty International from a campaign by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the End Violence Against Women coalition http://www.mapofgaps.org/ and http://www.oneten.org.uk

I think it’s drawn from the 6-10% women per YEAR who are subject to violence(as of 2002)statistic found in the supporting evidence here: http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200410001&itemid=1280&itemTitle=Statistics%3A+how+common+is+domestic+violence

The lifetime statistic is 1 in 4.

Oh and the male figures are provided there too:

“45% women and 26% men had experienced at least one incident of inter-personal violence in their lifetimes. (Walby and Allen, 2004) ”

I’m hoping that all of those links etc. make my point transparent – there is real evidence that this is a problem. Yes other problems exist. But this is one too. give it your support.

One, in discussion about the appalling state of gender equality in this country (as the UN criticised last year) someone used the argument ‘well yes, if you’re going to use *facts*, *facts* can prove anything’ against me. If your criticism denies substantiated statistics there’s no debating with you. You’re never going to know all of the method of the information gathering. How else do you suggest we prove something needs tackling?

That’s going to be all I say on this matter, sorry if it’s seemed meandering. These kind of things normally get me unduly stressed and upset because there seems to be such a ridiculous and unfounded resistance to anything that talks about gender-based injustices. Yes that gives you little way to enter into dialogue/redress. I’m sorry. I just think that perhaps agreeing that violence against anyone is A Bad Thing. And supporting a campaign aiming to help a group of victims is not.

Over and out.

They often use neon pink on black. I suspect the use of pink is just a coincidence, though I might be wrong.

it is not gender based violence. Men can be the victims of domestic violence as well. It’s just not as reported due to the men feeling embarassed to have to report it. It is usually only reported and recorded when a cop is called by neighbors to the scene (something else I learned from my stepdad who was a cop).

Domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse to happen to both genders. They just happen to happen to women more often.

The male species is actually a unnaturally dangerous cocktail for this kind of behaviour. You create a gender with natural aggressive tendencies, greater upper body strength and a continuous sex drive and you are asking for trouble.

This is why I am a strong advocate of teaching emotional awareness amongst males at a young age. Being aware of your emotions, emotional state and having control over your emotions (not suppressing them) is more important for us as a result of our dangerous chemistry.

I don’t say this to be mean, I just am sensitized to it having seen it enough and know as a male, we have were genetically engineered by nature to be protectors but at the same time when society isn’t watching, can also be dangerous predators.

It’s worth pointing out that Amnesty’s Stop Violence Against Women campaign considers verbal abuse a form of violence (as do most women’s rights groups and women’s support services). Verbal and psychological abuse plays a key part in most domestic abuse cases, often as a “groundwork” leading up to acts of physical violence. It goes without saying that the worst wounds caused by gender-based violence are often psychological.

“Happen to”? And why do you think that is? Doesn’t the fact that women experience such violence more frequently, repeatedly and differently sugges that it such violence IS gender-based?

“It’s just not as reported due to the men feeling embarassed to have to report it.”

I agree, but similarly, it’s undoubtedly the case that many women don’t report cases of gender-based violence either (for different reasons, generally).

“You create a gender with natural aggressive tendencies, greater upper body strength and a continuous sex drive and you are asking for trouble.”

I slightly resent this approach to understanding the issue, for two reasons. One, it’s prescriptive, and it’s important to point out, for many reasons, that MOST men don’t commit such acts of violence against women. If violence against women is ever to be addressed, men have to be involved in combatting it, and for that to happen it’s important not to tar all men with the same brush. Many of the male activists I’ve met do work with men of all ages emphasising the idea that a REAL man DOESN’T commit acts of violence against women; that to do so is cowardly, weak and condemnable.

Second, when you start blaming male violence against women on genetics, you are alleviating some of the blame placed on men commit violence against women; it’s like saying “It’s not all your fault – you’re programmed to behave this way”. Men who commit acts of violence against women have all kinds of complex motivations for doing so, beyond any murky genetic programming.

So maybe we’d be better off with an International Day Against Domestic Violence, which would include everything from wife (or husband, or child)-beating to marital rape to ‘honour’ killings. Or maybe an International Day Against Sexual Violence, whether its victims be women in war zones, men in prison, or children in abusive homes. Sex can be wonderful, intimate, fun. Turning ot into a weapon of domination is hideous.

Maybe these initiatives would have more coherence, and be less divisive, than this?

What is ‘other violence’? It could include almost anything, including yelling aggressively. Because of this, I think the whole story is a pile of untrustable pants.

What? What kind of specialized support are they talking about? Since when are local authorities there to hold peoples’ hands after they get beat up?

I don’t see this campaign as divisive. It maybe needs to more clearly elaborate the reasons for its “women-focused” approach, but it separates male against female violence from other forms of violence for a reason (see above).

ANDREW DENNY:
“What is ‘other violence’?”

I outlined a description, by Amnesty and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, of “other violence” above.

CELEB8:
“What kind of specialized support are they talking about?”

When they talk about local authorities in the UK, they’re talking about local councils, who are responsible for services such as police, ambulance, hospitals, mental health services, and so on. All of these are vital to dealing with gender-violence cases properly, and many female survivors of gender-violence do not receive the proper legal, practical and psychological support they need.

For example, here’s a paper from the UK: “Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review.” (Archer, John. Psychological Bulletin. Vol 126(5), Sep 2000, 651-680.) From the abstract: “Women were slightly more likely (d = -.05) than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently. Men were more likely (d = .15) to [physically] inflict an injury, and overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women.” Other studies have noted that women are more likely to use weapons and to inflict severe injuries on their partners than men, and likelihood of punishment for women murdering their partners is substantially lower.

Emotional abuse, particularly severe emotional abuse, is far more commonly committed by women against men than the reverse, women physically and emotionally abuse children far more often than men, yet somehow it is women’s purported powerlessness and victimhood which must never be denied, women’s motives and methods which must never be questioned. The term “rape” is too often a political club wielded by female chauvinists, as they define it in a way that only applies to men, and they define it in a way that it can mean not only rape but all sorts of other things such as “I felt pressured” or “I later regretted it”, or “she says she’s a victim, no need to look at facts, let alone his side of the story”. And by social agreement, none of the awful things a woman can do to a man are judged as being as bad, no matter what the cost to the man, no matter what his feelings.

Now this chauvinist group fudges the concept still further by saying “rape or other violence” without comparing it to the greater rate of violence against men committed by both sexes, nor asking what portion of the alleged victims of violence initiated the violence themselves. Nobody should get to start a fight, claim to be a victim by virtue of the privileges of their sex, then parlay that into government funding to be made available only to their sex.

Saying those types of crime are gender based is like saying racism is African american based. Just because it may happen to one group of people more often than not does not mean it should automatically be associated with them.

You seem to be taking a automatic defensive stance so before you come back with a kneejerk response based upon emotion, just ponder it logically.

Domestic violence can happen to any gender. Rape can happen to any gender (a man can rape a man, a man can rape a woman, a woman can rape a boy, etc), and sexual abuse can happen to any gender.

By your offense of me saying that it applys to all genders, you are not taking into concern those other victims. True this report is only concerns with female victims but my response was to someone elses response that these crimes are gender based… they are not.

So before you get worked up, just ponder those crimes and how they affect people of both genders and realize what I am saying… that to say that those crimes only affect one gender dimeans the victims who may not be of that gender but are also victims of those crimes.

It depends on your stance on this, and I’m afraid I’m not an expert. I imagine that some would see a shouting match and sustained, repeated verbal abuse as two points on a sliding scale. Others would see the two behaviours divided by a very clear choice between not abusing and abusing.

The One in Ten campaign is not referring to shouting matches or arguments or even the odd bit of abuse between couples. It is referring to sustained, repeated abuse by a male against a female. As I said, intentionally or not such sustained verbal abuse has all kinds of effects on the person on the receiving end. It can be intimidating or threatening; it can destroy confidence and self-worth, making it more difficult to “fight” back or escape an abuser; it can be a precursor to violence, or ensure that when violence does occur, the victim is too mentally belittled to report or escape it. In the worst cases, it convinces the abused that they deserve such treatment.

I agree, it CAN be hard to distinguish between the two, especially as a lot of gender-violence happens behind closed doors. Muffled arguments through neighbours walls aren’t a good way to interpret abuse or violence. And it doesn’t leave bruises, cuts or burns the way that physical violence does.

But none of that means it shouldn’t be campaigned against, or that people shouldn’t be educated about the detrimental effects of such verbal abuse. Rape is often hard to convict – that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

Likewise, the plight of a women at the hands of repressive misogynist societies may be quite similar to the plight of homosexual men in the same places; barely tolerated, as long as their sexuality is kept strictly under wraps.

The more I think about it, the less I’m convinced that the gender distinction really makes a lot of sense, unless it’s purely strategic.

I’ll respond shortly, but can we avoid patronising each other, please?

Your comment seems to have been the victim of a system glitch. I’ve freed it up with sincerest apologies.

Maybe that’s what you wish I and Amnesty and other women’s rights organisations were claiming, but it’s simply not the case. These campaigns simply recognise that women often experience violence differently than men. This is supported by numerous studies.

Nobody is claiming that men are evil. Nobody is claiming that men don’t experience violence from strangers, partners, loved ones, etc. There are organisations out there that campaign on these issues, and there are also organisations out there that work with men to encourage them to be more comfortable reporting such violence (I’ve worked with such organisations).

It would be nice and easy if this was simply a load of hysteria from the bad old money-motivated man-haters, but it isn’t. Not only is that an extremely simplistic view of these campaigns and their understanding of these issues, but it also fails to recognise that these campaigns are not run by a bunch of money-grubbing amateurs. They’re run by dedicated women (and sometimes men) who have spent years studying the issues. They’ve spent years working with victims of gender-based violence, and they work closely with police, mental health support services, prison services, schools, government, communities and others living closely with such violence.

I’m not saying all of these groups are perfect, or that none of them employ campaign tactics that some people might find manipulative (welcome to issue campaigning), but as a movement they know the issues, they know the statistics, and they largely have a nuanced, realistic understanding of the problem.