“Here, advertising and awareness campaigns should play an important role, but recent research has found them not to be having much of an effect. We need to figure out of a way of encouraging greater numbers of victims to come forward.”

Could this be partly because existing advertising campaigns are staggeringly accusatory? I know I’m not an enormous fan of going to the loo in a pub and being confronted by posters accusing me of being a wife-beater and saying that the police will come and get me.

“as the Tories propose, an increase in the number of rape crisis centres”

It’s a shame they’re obviously lying.

One suggestion to reduce domestic violence is ensuring that Sharia law does not get recognised in this country. Recently, an 8 year old girl was refused a divorce until she reaches puberty. The logic being that she won’t know her own mind until then. This being the case, it should not have been permitted for the father to sell her off to a husband who she has not met and is not aware she is married to.

I’ve never really understood what’s so difficult about this, or why the left (in particular) wraps itself up in knots about it. DV perps are performing a really scummy act, and they come in all shapes, sizes, classes etc. They should face the full force of the law, with no prevarication, just as muggers, murderers and football thugs do. DV laws should apply regardless of gender, so as to cover both the majority male-on female abuses, as well as the minority of other kinds.

Provision for victims of abuse, and of rehab for ex-perps, should be state of the art and should have money poured into it.

And yes, those poster campaigns were staggeringly counter-productive. Boiling it down to brass tacks you’re either inclined to be a wife beater, in which case you’ll ignore the posters, or you’re not, in which case the posters may well offend you. Either way they’re a waste of money.

Given that the main offenders are men ( the root of all evil of course) perhaps you are asking the wrong question . Perhaps you should be wondering what it is that , at its extreme edge is turning men to violence and across the board , is producing a brutal misogynist culture in which abortion has become a form of birth control and boys are entering into a stage of having responsibilities without having become men . I wonder how many of these offenders have no proper male role model in their lives . At the same time young women are overly sexualised and say what you like , sometimes invite trouble. I have known several young women who seem to court violent and clearly dangerous men. Quite why is something of a mystery but I see it nonetheless

We are also living in a country where 200,000 couple are pretending to have nothing to do with each other so as to collect the full whack of monopoly money . So now men have no special role in the workplace , no rights in divorce whatsoever . Also no value is ascribed to males qualities. It is commonly said that our current feminised anti males society cannot be to blame because women were always beaten up by their husbands . Personally I doubt it but even if it is true against background of far harsher lives , I think we are seeing a quite different phenomena now and the root cause os the failure to find a role for men except ,as the Liberals would like , to be sort of auxiliary woman.

Thus far their vision of a bearded crèche botherer is lagging behind the ‘gangster’ as an inspiration for boys .So its not just a matter of what the state should do or not do but a matter of how much harm the meddling of the state and its cultural manipulators have already done . Plenty I `d say

@ JHL – sharia civil courts != the imposition of Saudi law, any more than the Beth Din follows Leviticus or the CoE follows the Spanish Inquisition. To say otherwise is bigoted racist nonsense (and that case was grossly misreported anyway: the girl lives with her mother and doesn’t see her husband until she reaches puberty, at which point she can divorce him without ever having to see, or do anything else with, him. Obviously, that’s still a weird and not terribly enlightenment way to work things, but not to the extent that’s being pretended).

@ Newmania – believe it or not, but the consensus among people who’ve actually studied the issue is that DV is no higher, and quite possibly lower, than it has been historically. This is a good historical primer.

One thing that may help would be greater clarity and a DE-politicisation of DV: that may mean a certain distancing from some ultra-feminist agendas, and some greater recognition of female on male DV (I know some right-wingers bang on about this, but I’d hope for complete DE-politicisation…), and the great ‘unspoken’ area of female on female DV.
There may also be an initial need to make clear that just having domestic arguments/rows, while disagreeable isn’t the area of DV, but that wholesale psychological abuse is. In the public mind the Rubicon for DV appears to be wholesale physical abuse, but a campaign ought to shift that to more readily impress the damage done by, and wrongness of, psychological abuse, while at the same time being very careful not to criminalise/pathologise mere argumentsin the public mind as when folk do that it undermines all anti- DV work, by robbing it of its credibility.

Alan, I’d agree with your comment to an extent, but I think it only gets you so far. For example, whilst we want to see domestic violence being more widely-reported to the police than it is now, that aim doesn’t necessarily fit with taking a harder line on punishing abusers.

One of the provisions in the Domestic Violence Act meant that anyone found to have breached a non-molestation order would have committed a criminal offence. One of the consequences of that was victims of abuse have been more reluctant to lodge complaints because they feared their abuser might get a criminal record.

The fact that the government’s efforts towards tougher punishment have led to less reporting of violence should show that, just on a policy level, the remedies aren’t necessarily simple.

Yes I have already nodded at that inevitable and irrelevant remark which is subject to almost infinite unknowables and variables even if there was some way to measure the phenomenon ( I am in any case making a different point ).. What interests me is that countering the suggestion that the attack on men is responsible for domestic breakdown and violence is at such an advanced stage . Showing that domestic violence is ‘not a problem we need worry about especially’ is not the position you would (in one sense ) expect the women’s movement to take .
I understand entirely why they do and as I assume those who study it have a political consensus along the liones of those studying “Women`s Studies” that well respected crap factory

Alan Thomas,

It is not difficult to understand why Leftists, (who usually blame the victim and sympathise with the attacker in the case of most crimes) reserve such punitive views towards DV or rape. It is because DV and rape are crimes against ultra-feminism, and therefore political offences against the New order they want to bring about.

On the other hand, social conservatives such as myself are consistently anti-crime. I believe criminals are wholly responsible for their actions and should be punished for them. That naturally includes rapists and woman-beaters.

I like John B’ comment:

“the consensus among people who’ve actually studied the issue is that DV is no higher, and quite possibly lower, than it has been historically”

‘Historically’ – well thats deliberately vague.

The truth is, there has been a massive rise in violence between the sexes over the last 30 years. If you want to understand why this has taken place I would strongly suggest you read this article by Theodore Dalrymple, a recently retired Doctor in an inner-city hospital:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_1_oh_to_be.html

It is because DV and rape are crimes against ultra-feminism

No, they’re crimes against people.

Not much to disagree with here, although, the author does not suggest any “better” policies.

I suppose Boris reduced his promised funding level because he believes Labour’s crime figures.

“To say otherwise is bigoted racist nonsense (and that case was grossly misreported anyway: the girl lives with her mother and doesn’t see her husband until she reaches puberty, at which point she can divorce him without ever having to see, or do anything else with, him. Obviously, that’s still a weird and not terribly enlightenment way to work things, but not to the extent that’s being pretended).”

Considering your regular abusive and vitriolic comments on here, I’m surprised that you choose to describe the forced marriage of an 8yr girl old as “weird” and “not terribly enlightening”. An indication of your values?

I suspect there has been a increase in reported domestic violence. As society has developed, more women are likely to report violence than before.

So Newmania has no problem with domestic violence, why am I not surprised by that?

As usual with Inadequate Conservative men it is always the womans fault.

Stopping domestic violence is not rocket science – at least in principle.

All parents have to do is follow a few rules and at least 98% of DV would be eradicated fairly quickly.

So what are these mysterious injunctions ?

*don’t beat children (including those who hide behind the cultural norm argument).
*don’t humiliate or bully them either.
*set firm boundaries, especially if your child starts intimidating other children.
*if parents insist on having a ding-dong avoid doing so in front of an audience of nippers.

Yet sadly we need an ever growing army of social workers, child psychologists or other professionals because MILLIONS of parents find it quite impossible to put their children’s needs ahead of their own – so, yes, admittedly there is a bit of a flaw in the theory.

A friend (high up in social work) was ranting the other day………………again.
The case involved a junior colleague who had accepted complaints from parents (of a child potentially at risk) that a morning meeting was not convenient.
Not convenient, FFS !!!!

What could be MORE IMPORTANT than attending a meeting concerning the welfare of your child ?

His theory is that mornings are not best for some parents because the effects of the alcohol and cannabis have not really worn off – so if a morning meeting is “inconvenient” for some parents how willing are they to meet the many other challenges of parenthood ?

‘No, they’re crimes against people’

Well done. Another 5 years and you’ll have recognized that there is actually a great deal of crime in this country, that people are very afraid of it and that these fears are not irrational.

After maybe another 5 years and you’ll have realized why people commit crimes against other people: ie, because they think they can get away with it, and because they’re not afraid of what might happen even if they’re caught.

I’m willing to bet that after 20 years of accumulated wisdom you’ll have come to the amazing conclusion which I am at now: that what really needs to be done to reduce DV, rape, robbery, murder etc is to frighten criminals into staying within the law. The hundreds of thousands who commit criminal acts do so mainly because they have never been afraid, as they once would have been. And that is why good people have to be afraid instead.

“The hundreds of thousands who commit criminal acts do so mainly because they have never been afraid, as they once would have been. And that is why good people have to be afraid instead.”

So, what are you actually proposing?

One idea is to start sending people to prison and keeping them there . Overall you are still less likely to be tried convicted and imprisoned in this country having committed an offence than anywhere else in Europe . We do of course have a proportionately large prison population nonetheless. Perhaps with a general respect t for the law all crime would reduce including domestic assault .

No Sally I am not alright with domestic violence , you have missed the point , what John B was showing was that the woman’s movement as expressed in academia is keen to show DV has not increased in case it is blamed on family breakdown.
In fact it has but its hard to prove one way or the other . I trust my own eyes and i blame family breakdown and the cultural assault on men .(I wish you were not so against men by the way ,I `m sure if you scrubbed up a bit you would make a lovely little wife for someone … )

The problem with reducing domestic violence is that some victims are difficult to help. If a person chooses to continue living with a violent partner, they are going to continue to get hit.

Sadly, some people are so stupid you can’t even beat sense into them.

‘No, they’re crimes against people’

Well done. Another 5 years and you’ll have recognized that there is actually a great deal of crime in this country, that people are very afraid of it and that these fears are not irrational.

And tell me Craig, are the hackneyed, flailing, attacks on the left, the misrepresentations, generalisations and bouts of sneering condescension also attributable to your ‘accumulated wisdom’, or does all that come naturally? I just want to know what middle age has in store for me, that’s all.

Whilst people of different political persuasions can argue in good faith about the correct way of reducing and prosecuting crime, you generally have to (a) refrain from the partisan chest-thumping and (b) recognise that serious problems are not substantively addressed in just 150 words. Maybe in another 5 years you’ll realise that.

Neil – have you read Inspector Gadget’s stuff ?
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/
Perhaps Gadget has a predilection for self-dramatisation, although I doubt it somehow

Ultimately if we must rely on ‘the state’ to sort out commonplace dysfunctional violence then we will never really win.
It will be like the (never ending) ‘war on drugs’, or more recently ‘the war on terrorism’.
Deck chairs will be shuffled, while heads continue to be stoved in.

Treat children decently and anti-social behaviour will be reduced almost overnight.
Of course supporting children might mean easing up on the booze, or blow………..difficult.

Craig “After maybe another 5 years and you’ll have realized why people commit crimes against other people: ie, because they think they can get away with it, and because they’re not afraid of what might happen even if they’re caught. ”

Which sums up domestic violence to a tee. They think they can get away with it, and are not afraid of what happens when they get caught.

‘One idea is to start sending people to prison and keeping them there’

That’s one idea. Though as you say, since it is so difficult to to get into prison these days, those who do arrive there are already experienced, habitual criminals. It is stupid to think they will be ‘rehabilitated’ by their time in these stupid warehouses, run by the convicts and awash with drugs. They eventually give up crime but only because they get too old for it, not because their characters have been reformed by social workers

Why doesn’t Prison “work” – because it doesn’t punish, so doesn’t deter re-offending. All it does is to keep a small proportion of criminals off the streets at any one time, and hopes to fool the Sun-reading public into imagining that the answer is simply to build more prisons.This allows weak politicians to look ‘tough’ when in fact the same old liberal measures carry on behind the scenes.

Why are prisons so useless? Because our ruling class winces at the idea that prisons should be seriously unpleasant and austere places run by the authorities. They moan that ‘deprivation of liberty is punishment enough’.

They are not able to grasp that prison’s main purpose is to frighten potential criminals from committing crimes. Some people are still afraid enough of prison to steer clear of crime. Though that number drops all the time, which is why the prisons are bursting.

But it is not the prisons which are the problem. The reason there are so much crime around today is because since childhood criminals have come to learn that authority is generally absent and that even when it is present, it is afraid of them instead of the other way round. They are rarely confronted with the authority of fathers since increasingly they have no fathers to speak of, neither that of the police since they have largely withdrawn from the streets, they know that the authority of their teachers can only be a bluff; nothing stands behind it, they will almost never be backed up by superiors.

As Lenin, advised his apostles: ‘Probe with the bayonet: if you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push.’ The problem today is that young criminals can only expect to be confronted with more and more mush.

New troll “One idea is to start sending people to prison and keeping them there”

But… but…. but, only a minute ago you were complaining about the centralised state and all the people who work for the state, and all the taxes that are spent on the state.

Seems Tories love spending state money more than they admit.

It is not difficult to understand why Leftists, (who usually blame the victim and sympathise with the attacker in the case of most crimes) reserve such punitive views towards DV or rape. It is because DV and rape are crimes against ultra-feminism, and therefore political offences against the New order they want to bring about.

Do you usually take drugs and post comments on blogs?

a&e charge nurse,

I’ve read the Police Inspector’s Blog only intermittently in the past, but should probably get around to subcribing to the RSS feed as it does make enlightening reading.

I’m certainly sympathetic to your argument; when I asked at the top of the piece whether we’re doing the most we can do, there’s an implicit acknowledgement that there are still limits to what we can do. We can’t prevent every instance of domestic violence, just like we can’t prevent alcoholism or drug addiction or mental illness. But as each of these are both a drain on the economy and damaging to society, there are some things we can do to alleviate the problem. In the context of this piece, that means trying to encourage more reporting of domestic violence, seeing whether rehabilitation programmes might work and investing in rape crisis centres. But these, of course, only deal with the effects. Dealing with the cause itself is far, far trickier, and we should be realistic enough to admit that.

Interesting how newmania is so keen to show it isn’t the criminal’s fault in cases of domestic violence – it’s the lack of a male role model due to family breakdown (forgetting about the fact that many perpetrators of domestic violence have learnt it from the male role models in their lives). But in other cases where lefties look for cause and effect, we’re siding with the criminal and have no empathy for the victim, or we’re forgetting about the human rights of the law-abiding citizen, or something.

“But… but…. but, only a minute ago you were complaining about the centralised state and all the people who work for the state, and all the taxes that are spent on the state. Seems Tories love spending state money more than they admit.”

Actually Sally, if there’s any justification for the state’s existence it is to preserve the peace and to ensure that its citizens can go about their lawful business in safety. Our state is currently failing in its most basic duty to its citizens because it is unable or unwilling to deter, prevent, or punish criminal actions. There’s nothing about Newmania’s position which is incompatible with the belief in limited government. On the contrary, a liberal state will tend to spend more money trying to curb crime in order to make up for its feebleness; Currently we have thousands of people in well-paid jobs providing ‘help’ to criminals who really require punishment. Similarly a liberal state is much more likely to confiscate people’s liberties since it is easier on its conscience to sacrifice the freedoms of all, than unashamedly punishment wickedness to the full. This is exactly what has happened under the Major, Blair and Brown government and this will continue under a liberal Cameron administration.

Sunny I don’t take drugs. I’m sure you have though. An extreme socially liberal world-view is a stage at which the adolescent mind normally passes. Clearly it is a stage at which your mind has become arrested. I suspect pot could have something to do with it. Maybe you’re just really dopey naturally.

“Our state is currently failing in its most basic duty to its citizens because it is unable or unwilling to deter, prevent, or punish criminal actions.”

(setting – ministry of Justice)

Civil Servant: ‘…and we’ve completed our latest study on how to reduce crime, minister. Our findings suggest we can deter, prevent, or punish criminal actions by pursuing policies X, Y and Z.’

Minister: ‘Frankly I’d rather keep crime high. I’m not willing to deter, prevent or punish criminal actions.’

“There’s nothing about Newmania’s position which is incompatible with the belief in limited government”

Well in your wierd mind maybe.

But to me it looks like more Tory hypocrisy.

“Similarly a liberal state is much more likely to confiscate people’s liberties since it is easier on its conscience to sacrifice the freedoms of all, than unashamedly punishment wickedness to the full.

You really are barking mad..

Sally, I think the last para you quoted is a “but what about the human rights of the victims” point.

“This is exactly what has happened under the Major, Blair and Brown government and this will continue under a liberal Cameron administration.”

You just could not bring youself to include Thatcher on that list could you? But crime was rising under her as well. No difference between Thatcher and Major on crime policy.

Craig: Sunny I don’t take drugs. I’m sure you have though. An extreme socially liberal world-view is a stage at which the adolescent mind normally passes.

Except I don’t take drugs and then pass comment on left-wing websites with the sole purpose of making myself look like a twat.

“You just could not bring youself to include Thatcher on that list could you? But crime was rising under her as well. No difference between Thatcher and Major on crime policy.”

Of course I include Thatcher on that list. She was a terrible prime minister and particularly useless on crime. I cannot be guilty of Tory hypocrisy because I am not a Tory. All the parties are clueless on crime.

“Similarly a liberal state is much more likely to confiscate people’s liberties since it is easier on its conscience to sacrifice the freedoms of all, than to unashamedly punish wickedness to the full.”

Sorry, typing error there. Now it makes sense. It is because our criminal justice system is so weak and unconvincing that authoritarian schemes like ID cards, 42 days are popular with the red-top newspaper reading public. These schemes will soon make us an un-free society whilst doing nothing to reduce crime. We as a society have a short time in which to make a choice – between observing the alleged ‘human rights’ of convicted criminals or preserving the liberty of everyone else.

Order
I am not a Libertarian , its just that the left have become such a fidgety know all collection of Nurse Ratcheds that I look like a wild eyed anarchist merely by being a normal Conservative .
I fervently believe in an orderly society its just that such order should not be imposed by the state whenever possible . That doesn’t apply to criminals who should be locked up more often and for longer. Rehabilitation should be separated from the justice system which should concern itself with just that . Justice.

Fault
It is always the criminals fault ,there is always a choice . Sending them to prison and not letting them out will , of course , save money as less will commit crime and those who might will; not have the opportunity .I would not concern myself with the inner soul and the possibility of redemption , just the act. This traditional theological distinction is opaque to the left which makes it very clumsy at dealing with moral issues . A Liberal scarcely admits there is such a thing as a moral question , only one of convenience in a scheme of utilitarianism. This is why they cannot stomach punishment

Conclusion
Creating conditions to encourage better behaviour is a separate subject just as rehabilitation should be separated from justice . I believe that not only domestic violence but a spectrum of degraded attitudes to women result partly from air brushing men and what a man should be from schools and public life.
All Liberals have to offer is a sort of hairy woman and that will not suffice .

Actually youre the ‘twat’ because you’ve had nothing useful to say in this thread and have not addressed mine or Newmania’s arguments.

Introduce mandatory martial arts training for all girls from the first year of secondary school. Once a week teach them how to defend themselves, assertiveness, teach them how understand themselves through meditation, give them the ability to kill.

You introduce it in school and it gets all the girls, none are left out, all are empowered.

I’m not joking, if I’m lucky to have kids the girls are going to learn from day one to take no shit of any man.

Leon,

That is an excellent suggestion.

Which political party will pick up on it?

Doesn’t seem to me to be a mainstream view of any political party. Correct me if I am wrong.

For one traditional conservative position on crime, I can recommend Charles Murray’s description Simple Justice, now freely available: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs44.pdf

It essentially hinges on making a strict distinction between the law-abiding citizen and the outlaw. I am partial to this distinction as it seems our current political establishment blurs the two rather too readily. Because we refuse to lock up enough criminals to prevent widespread re-offending, we are slowly turning the country itself into an open prison where authorities can arbitrarily demand things of people, seize property, require identity and prove their innoncence. Citizens increasingly can only hope to be left alone rather than demand it as a right.

The book also includes J.C. Lester’s more consistently libertarian position as a response. You will see it is very distinct from Murray’s. Ideally, I think most criminal acts should be treated as crimes against individuals rather than the state and that the default penality should be compensation or restitution. So long as the penalty is harsh enough in some respect, I don’t see the point in locking people up, nor do I see how prisons as they are currently understood could emerge in the absence of state coercion.

“Because we refuse to lock up enough criminals to prevent widespread re-offending”

How can you describe us, as a country that is locking up more people than ever, for lesser offences than before, as a country that is refusing to lock up enough criminals? If anything we’re locking up too many.

“I’m not joking, if I’m lucky to have kids the girls are going to learn from day one to take no shit of any man.”

I really don’t mean to be offensive here but what’s to say that they are going to know they should be using that skill? The worst situation, the one we really need to solve, is of domestic abuse between two people where the victim loves the other unconditionally. Where they accept the abuse for too long (and obviously any abuse happening is too long) because emotionally they have conflicting feelings about their abuser and what exactly is going on?

We can teach people self defense all they like, but all it takes is a woman’s boyfriend or husband to lash out at them and there is nothing about self defense involved in what that person is feeling and thinking from there on out if they are emotionally tied.

More important than self defense lessons would be lessons about boundaries and respect in relationships, and about power balance in relationships in general…teaching people from an early age the signs of someone that doesn’t respect or love them (including domestic abuse)…but even then, how are we ever to know that such a thing will stop someone from becoming a vctim because they believe their partner is just misguided/angry and didn’t mean it?

There is such a different emotional and psychological angle to this that it is pretty ignorant to claim there is a singular class that will stop it from happening ever again.

It always seems to be inconvenient in these hysterical threads to point out that punishments for serious crimes have risen under Labours watch. The kinds of tarrifs being handed out for murderers are longer than before, inderterminate sentences for public protection are now available and used for other offenders deemed dangerous, and at the lower end of the scale you have asbos used with the threat of prison and offenders doing community service now have to wear uniforms.

You can, of course, argue that these haven’t gone far enough, and we are still too lenient on criminals. But the general direction of crime policy has been the gradual toughening of punishments since Michael Howard was home secretary. By all means if you think we should be tougher (and for repeat petty criminals I’d agree) say so, but at least recognise the general trend.

Community service people already had to wear uniforms, they just never had to have the words specifically addressed on them.

“There is such a different emotional and psychological angle to this that it is pretty ignorant to claim there is a singular class that will stop it from happening ever again.”

Lee – I think martial arts classes, when they are taught well actually include those psychological and emotional benefits, and certainly much more successfully than those citizenship or personal health classes that are currently touted by the government. They often include meditation in their exercise routine, and the structured, disciplined but still friendly environment can be very useful for developing self-confidence in young people. I would highly recommend them to children and adults alike, but I am sure in the hands of a government department they would become just another gimmick. Better to ensure martial arts clubs are easily accomodated by institutions like schools and local council sports clubs and that their development isn’t inhibited by state regulation (an increasing problem in some areas).

“I think martial arts classes, when they are taught well actually include those psychological and emotional benefits, and certainly much more successfully than those citizenship or personal health classes that are currently touted by the government.”

I really don’t mean to presume, and I’d like to see some figures, but I really don’t think anyone can teach you how to react to someone you think you love hitting you.

‘It essentially hinges on making a strict distinction between the law-abiding citizen and the outlaw.’

Well precisely. Every citizen has a simple choice to obey the law of the land or to break it. If he obeys it, the state must leave him alone completely. If he breaks it, then it must impose severe penalties on him without any shame in the hope that he will behave in the future and that others will refrain from offending by observing his fate. A society which punishes wicked action with firmness and resolution will not need 90-day detention, ID cards, or CCTV. These measures will do nothing to curb crime anyway unless they are employed to the extent that we become a North Korean style police-state.

We could build more prisons, but a much more effective measure would be to
bring those that exist back under the control of the authorities rather than of the inmates as they are now. Short but punitive prison sentences should be issued at the onset of a criminal’s career. Reintroducing police foot patrols abandoned in the 60s would also be a good step. Restoring some sort of property or educational qualification for juries is another. However, none of these rational measures are considered. Instead, governments of both parties pass draconian laws which only serve to erode the civil liberties of the law-abiding majority. It is likely that both Labour and the Tories find jury trial and the presumption of innocence highly inconvenient. Already an accused man’s has no absolute right to silence without it prejudicing his defence. Without any doubt, this process of erosion will continue. It will continue unless we first collectively accept that criminals are not sufferers in need of consideration but malefactors in need of retribution. That is the only key to escape.

“I really don’t mean to presume, and I’d like to see some figures, but I really don’t think anyone can teach you how to react to someone you think you love hitting you.”

The idea is to teach people not to love people who hit them, to feel they are more valuable and deserving than that (while also teaching them not to harm others). And for that, there is no one solution but I think some of these martial arts that teach self-discipline, focus and control besides self-defence can play a role. It is a bit hard to describe without someone actually experiencing it yourself, and I am sure it depends on how it is taught. It was just interesting that it came up in this discussion as I think it can have real benefits. I am not endorsing it for the national curriculum roll out treatment or anything like that – I just imagine several social problems would be much reduced if more people were learning some form of martial art along with a meditative element.

Well yes, generally if we were all taught, and we all accepted, that being hit by *anyone* is unacceptable and we need to make sure those people at least get help for their behaviour problem and at worst get charged with assault…that’d be great. I just, and maybe this is my cynicism, don’t believe everyone is capable of “learning” that.

We all have different upbringings, we all have different views on how we’re treated and should be treated, and all of that has as much of a bearing as someone objectively telling us that we shouldn’t accept getting thumped.

I am not sure that matters so much. So long as people are given the self-confidence to decide for themselves what is right for them, those wildly differing views on what is acceptable treatment are not problematic. For example, aspects of some sado-masochistic lifestyles are physically (though not mentally) indistinguishable from what majority opinion would label domestic violence. The same could be said of some religious rituals. Whether these behaviours are acceptable or not is inherently subjective, so it would be potentially very illiberal to crack down on these acts against the wishes of their participants. The important thing from a legal point of view is ensuring these acts are consensual, and from a social point of view making sure that the consent is meaningful – that individuals are able to evaluate for themselves the relationships and activities that are good for them.

That is quite a complicated notion and I agree absolutely that there is no guaranteed way of teaching everyone the self-confidence required to really think about what they want and what is good for them. Which is why I don’t favour one method of generating it (martial arts being just one method I have seen to work from experience).

Three point plan:

* Stop pretending that domestic violence means a woman getting beaten up by a man, and only that.

* Stop targeting 100% of the budget along the prejudice outlined above.

* Recognise that women beat up men and even (horror) men beat up men and women women. Enhance knowledge of this little known fact of life to stop people in such situations feeling like deviants instead of victims.

* Stop pretending that domestic violence means a woman getting beaten up by a man, and only that.

Well, yes, and I acknowledge that in the second sentece. But it remains true that women are far more likely to experience domestic assault in their lives, are twice as likely to be assaulted by a partner and three times more likely to have received threats of violence. You have to factor that into policy-making otherwise you’re just not doing your job properly.

As for Charles Murray, well, seeing him put his name to a report with ‘Simple’ in the title is one of the least surprising things I’ll read today; the guy’s commitment to sociological inquiry is about as deep as my commitment to Strictly Come Dancing. He should, though, at least have the honesty to call the form of ‘justice’ he proposes what it actually is – revenge. The problem with his approach is that it relies on the fallacy that every person who commits a crime or gets sent to prison is an irredeemable scumbag and should be treated as such – in fact, he doesn’t even want judges to consider the possibility that this might not always be true. I mean, seriously, the whole of society can be easily divided into ‘Citizens’ and ‘Outlaws’? A child could draw more sophisticated distinctions.

Lee Griffin @ 40,

I think there is a bit more to Leons’ point than you allow. It is less likely that someone who can defend themselves, and understands the inherent nature of violence, as per Nick @ 43, is ever even going to enter into a relationship with an abusive partner.

Which would be a good thing.

The Liberals should take it up. It’s a good idea.

Yes, the problem is low self-esteem and if martial arts training can address that, well and good.

In most cases, I suspect, what happens is a cycling down the generations of absuive behaviour – parents either absent or themselves abusive (including passive-aggressive women) – love of any description, whether familial, sexual or plain self-respect is a completely foreign country to far too many people.

As for Dalrymple’s cogitations [10] – he misses one very simple factor. Alcohol and drug abuse. Endemic (estimates range from one in twenty to one in five). How may women are beaten up by teetotallers? How many abused women themselves abuse alcohol/drugs? The problem with tackling the issue from this end is that we don’t have a method of cleaning up people who don’t want to clean up or dry out.

“It always seems to be inconvenient in these hysterical threads to point out that punishments for serious crimes have risen under Labours watch. The kinds of tarrifs being handed out for murderers are longer than before, inderterminate sentences for public protection are now available and used for other offenders deemed dangerous, and at the lower end of the scale you have asbos used with the threat of prison and offenders doing community service now have to wear uniforms. ”

Planeshift nails it again!

Of course, this does not fit with the right wing trolls view of labour being the party of criminal supporting do gooders .

Society has to get at the root cause of WHY there is so much violence between people who say they love one another…and then we have to take responsibility for what we own. If we come from violent backgrounds, chances are, we are going to go that route ourselves, UNLESS we decide to break the cycle and change. And for that to happen we need to understand at what point we are victims, at what point we become victimizers and at what point we are going to tourn our lives around and leave the violence behind. There is no magic….it takes a lifetime of work to understand and to heal….and that is where we should be putting our resources.

Ingrid Berzins Leuzy
Author
Silent Women

“Well, yes, and I acknowledge that in the second sentece. But it remains true that women are far more likely to experience domestic assault in their lives, are twice as likely to be assaulted by a partner and three times more likely to have received threats of violence. You have to factor that into policy-making otherwise you’re just not doing your job properly.”

1) The most notable recent campaign focused 100% of advertising at men beating women. The police rather disingenuously suggested that this was due to there being a higher proportion of violence of this form in the domestic sphere, with that majority being in evidence an obvious argument for ALL the money for slots being spent aiming for heterosexual or bisexual men.

2) Do you really imagine that the report rate for men who take a battering is as high as it is for women? When they live in a culture which seemingly pretends that this form of violence simply does not exist? When they risk being laughed out of the police station? When it is perfectly simple for someone to use the cultural strength of the “battered woman” concept to make a successful counter-claim and rather more likely that they’ll succeed in getting the victim put behind bars? When to be overpowered by a woman is still a sign of weakness (a notable remnant of the thankfully vanquished Patriarchy)?

I think that you are relying too heavily on statistics which do not give us the complete picture. There is reason to believe that the rate of female-on-male violence is FAR higher than is reported, and studies have shown homosexual couples to be roughly equally violent to each other (as, surely, one would anticipate). Accordingly, we must focus upon altering the cultural meme which states “domestic violence is a man beating a woman” before we can even begin to get proper evidence of the distribution.

[55] Absolutely right.

Of course, this does not fit with the right wing trolls view of labour being the party of criminal supporting do gooders .

They are. No-one believes any stat emerging from that lie machine any more . Immigration . Proven liars . Debt – proven liars ,. Boom and bust – Proven Liars . Political Corruption -Proven liars . Crime stats- proven liars The Labour Party in the last election issued material in each seat showing crime indicators had improved under them . How did they do that ?… They blatantly altered the time scale , the area , the axis until eventually they found a stat to suit their purpose .

And now we are supposed to believe they have cracked down on crime ? Lies

So they were lying when they increased tarrifs by setting guidelines for judges handing out life sentences for murderers? Funny way to lie – passing actual legislation…. (Criminal Justice Act 2003)

They were just having a laugh when they gave judges the power to impose inderminate sentences for public protection?

They were just performing a con trick when they introduced asbos backed up by the threat of prison for actions that previously would have just been considered larking about?

Grow up.

Argue all you like for harsher punishments, but recognise that the ball has been rolling in that direction since around 1993 under Michael Howard, and you may be then taken seriously.

Newmania identifies an important point.

Stats are politically loaded.

Take NHS waiting lists – sound bites like “shorter waiting times” have a cursory sort of appeal.
Dig a bit deeper though and various scams are soon unearthed, furthermore non-targeted standards are invariably neglected (robbing Peter to pay Paul syndrome).

Since the age of spin it is increasingly difficult to get a true picture of what’s really happening in our public services.

Maybe sentencing has become more draconian under NuLab – the problems is very few people trust a word they say.

James,

Y’know, this is the first time I’ve ever been accused of being over-reliant on statistics; I normally encounter someone writing the exact opposite. It’s actually quite refreshing. Anyway, there’s nothing in your response that I particularly disagree with. I don’t think all money to tackle domestic abuse should focus exclusively on man-on-woman violence, but then nor do I think there should just be one homogenous effort. Sensitive, targeted policies generally have more effect than those which operate under broad generalisations, and with all this in mind, I think there’s a case for proportional allocation of money according to what we know (or think we know) about the scale of the problem.

This inevitably brings us back to how we measure it, the flaws inherent in the statistics we use to base policy on etc – which you’re completely correct to point out. It’s certainly possible that even the British Crime Survey underestimates the scale of female-on-male violence, just as it’s possible to argue that it underestimates male-on-female violence, or whatever. However, governments still have to (or, at least, should have to) make policy decisions based on evidence rather than assumptions. The only way I can see of resolving this conundrum is by (a) making sure the evidence you have uses as the most representative methodology as possible, and (b) then responding sensitively to that data. So if a survey shows that men are (for example) 60% more likey to inflict violence on women or other men, that doesn’t mean you should concentrate 100% of the your efforts and money on it. It’s an imperfect solution, but it’s the best I’ve got.

“It is less likely that someone who can defend themselves, and understands the inherent nature of violence, as per Nick @ 43, is ever even going to enter into a relationship with an abusive partner.”

I just think there is a little bit too much absolutist terminoligy being discussed here. “Enter a relationship with an abusive partner”?

I am flying blind, statistically, but I would warrant most domestic abuse happens between family where there is no choice upon “entering” that relationship, and develops in relationships once they become settled.

I don’t imagine for one second that a single woman or man would continue in a relationship with a person that starts abusing them from the first date, but can’t we be realistic and accept that isn’t really the case? Surely abuse between these people develops, either as a result of some change of psychological/emotional circumstances, maybe linked ot alcohol or substance abuse themselves, or just through familiarity and resentment?

Once you’ve got in to a relationship enough that abuse develops, potentially as it always would have, but when a bond has formed…you can’t even begin to try describing things as “not enterting” that relationship. It is entered, and there are emotional ties that are not easy to break.

The only way to break abuse at that stage is if people completely understood that violence is not acceptable and should break any kind of emotional tie you have…but that is a rational view on what is ultimately an irrational set of feelings, so we cannot rely on it. We can teach, and by all means I’m not sitting here arguing that women shouldn’t bother getting self defence classes. If we *all* could have self defense classes for free then the empowerment for society would be great. But I just don’t like to pretend that’s going to solve domestic abuse in what I believe to be the main areas of abuse, given the type of victims most likely to exist.

I also apreciate the comments at 55.

Plane shift old fruit

I have grown up to the point of having three children and thus no time . You will have to take my word for it that examples of New Labour trumpeting some high profile thingummy to disguise policy heading in the opposite direction are legion. Border Police , FOI , Bearing down on inflation , the whole British nonsense , Purnell’s farcical gesture towards Tory welfare reform. In general it entails shifting some figures a change of name and an attempt to undermine real dissatisfaction.
As we well know , in practice there is huge pressure to avoid custodial sentences as there are no prisons .As we also know no-one fears the police who do not even bother to turn up at burglaries …etc. etc.

I shall think of you during the Wizard of Oz , when Scarecrow asks for a brain.

The vast majority of domestic violence in the UK is firstly male on female violence, followed by male on male violence leaving with us approximately 15% female on male DV. (of which mostly is female self defense.) Please do not fool your selves for a moment that there is a huge festering underbelly of abused men afraid to come forward for fear of humiliation. Yes, they exist but quite frankly constitute an statistical outlier within the enormity of male on female violence.

Male violence against women is at epidemic levels but it is never male violence which is responsible but rather ‘rape and domestic violence committed against individuals.’ On no account must the biological sex of perpetrators be mentioned because using the word male is taboo.

Ah so that means ‘domestic violence and sexual violence’ are the criminals. No? Because it is not ‘domestic violence or sexual violence which is affecting individuals but those men who choose to commit sexual, physical and psychological violence against their female partners. Likewise, it is men who choose to rape and commit sexual violence against women because women happen to be female not male. The levels of male on female violence is a disgrace as long as we continue to call ourselves a ‘civilized society’ that has the audacity to look down upon other cultures such as Islam for their treatment of women. At least they don’t hide behind the cry of “but what about the men? We are just as abused as our muslimas” or are Islamic women some sort of physical inferiority in a veil?

Violence against women is a global phenomena and the men of the UK are not some special exempt little snowflakes.

The recent CPS figures.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/CPS_VAW_report_2008.pdf

New years resolution: stop denying male on female violence in 2009. Democracy, safety and equality if for ALL not just the male 49% of the population.

Uhhh – MRJ – the majority of DV abusers are male but that doesn’t make it a problem with men. Its a problem for the individual men who are committing criminal acts. I don’t share any closer relationship or complicity with abusers because of my gender than anyone else, be they women or men. Trying to turn this into an issue of identity politics is counter-productive and immoral because it implicates innocent people, rather like blaming crime on ethnic minorities.

@65 “the majority of DV abusers are male but that doesn’t make it a problem with men. Its a problem for the individual men who are committing criminal acts.”

Absolutely, this is what the words “those men” suggests. Unfortunately there are too many of “those men” and also too many men who turn a blind eye because it does not affect males.

You said it – ” the majority of DV abusers are male” now, how that is extrapolated into NOT being a problem with men is beyond me?

We need to get away from the myth that male on female violence is perpetuated by some sort of deviate monster. Not true – one in three adult women will experience male violence in her life time. Hardly a statistical outlier. (see CPS figs. above @64)

However, If the cap doesn’t fit then don’t wear it.

What is so difficult to understand that womens’ rights are human rights too?

‘ ” the majority of DV abusers are male” now, how that is extrapolated into NOT being a problem with men is beyond me?’

Try this for that logic: ‘ ” a disproportionate number of muggers are black” now, how that is extrapolated into NOT being a problem with blacks is beyond me?’

It is poor logic on both counts because there are plenty of situations where a category of people happen to be disproportionately effected by some characteristic without that meaning anything in particular about the other individuals within that category. I am afraid you have to make a better argument than a simplistic correlation. Else we might as well use BrassEye logic: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hIkLc4xR6Vg

“one in three adult women will experience male violence in her life time. Hardly a statistical outlier.”

That has only a VERY tendentious link to the number of men who are abusers. Women come into contact with a great many men over the course of their lifetime and it would be relatively easy for a small number of serial offenders to harm a very large number of women if you measure it that way. I am sure just about everyone will be a victim of several crimes during the course of their lifetime. That doesn’t mean we are surrounded by criminals – just that we have a number of persistent offenders. We still consider criminals to be outliers even though being a victim of crime is fairly normal.

Of course, once we get past the identity politics, then, of course, it is perfectly reasonable to start analysing why a certain category of people appear to be more violent. For sure, there is plenty in this culture that still legitimises male-on-female violence (though much less than in previous ages). But who are the carriers of these cultural values? Who else turns a blind eye to domestic abuse? Unless you can show a widespread conspiracy amongst men to deny DV is taking place (I haven’t been inducted into one), then I feel that women are just as likely to be complicit in it too. They are just as likely to be part of the wider society that turns a blind eye to domestic violence.

Once you start thinking about culture, you can’t really point the blame on any group. Which is why I prefer to concentrate on the actual offenders when thinking about political responses. I believe the vast majority of men in this country have about as much as chance of effecting where an abuser puts their fist as the vast majority of women do. In other words, very little in the short term and about the same level of significance in the long term. The only person who really can choose not to be violent is the offender. And for being violent, they should be punished when caught and convicted. The only other person who can make DV less likely is the victim, who has the power, in most cases, to leave an abusive relationship. They should be encouraged to do so. But it is isn’t about men and women – it is still about a few individuals in specific cases and EVERYONE (regardless of gender) beyond that.

“Absolutely, this is what the words “those men” suggests. Unfortunately there are too many of “those men” and also too many men who turn a blind eye because it does not affect males.”

You misrepresent men. I don’t think any sane person, man or otherwise, would sit by while a friend of theirs was being abused. It’s not like anyone is sitting by and letting it happen implicitly. The trouble with Domestic Violence, as I keep getting at, is that it is subtle, it is personal and it is private. Men aren’t sitting around begruding that women are complaining about this, they are being distressed, as other women are, that someone is clearly being abused but won’t admit to it and won’t accept any help.

“The vast majority of domestic violence in the UK is firstly male on female violence, followed by male on male violence leaving with us approximately 15% female on male DV. (of which mostly is female self defense.) Please do not fool your selves for a moment that there is a huge festering underbelly of abused men afraid to come forward for fear of humiliation. Yes, they exist but quite frankly constitute an statistical outlier within the enormity of male on female violence.”

See above. This sort of talk is what make men who suffer so afraid to come forwards. Reported rates for women were also immensely low before the fact that the problem existed at all was realised and they were encouraged to come forwards. Please do not fool yourself that for a moment that the statistics tell you the whole story.

Craig @ 10: “The truth is, there has been a massive rise in violence between the sexes over the last 30 years.“. No, it isn’t. Stats or get lost. Also, citing paranoid ultraconservative “there’s no evidence for anything I say, but I’M A DOCTOR!!! so it must be true” Anthony Daniels on *anything* pretty much destroys your case.

Chavscum@8: the point is, it’s not a forced marriage in any meaningful sense, because she’ll never have to live with, sleep with, or even see, the ‘husband’. ‘Forced marriage’ implies abduction and rape; people are deliberately implying that’s the case here, when it isn’t. The fact that the people picking up on it are generally the ones with an ISLAM IS BAD!!!! KICK OUT ALL IMMIGRANTS NOW!!! agenda is a pretty strong indication of *why* they’re doing that…

Lee’s comment @62 is the best one on this thread.

Not that I wish to intrude on you boys having a private discussion, you understand. Carry on.

Lee @ 62,

Yeah, well, maybe. T’wasn’t me that started this absolutist stuff. To remind you, Leon said:

You introduce it in school and it gets all the girls, none are left out, all are empowered.

I’m not joking, if I’m lucky to have kids the girls are going to learn from day one to take no shit of any man.

To which you replied, inter alia,

We can teach people self defense all they like, but all it takes is a woman’s boyfriend or husband to lash out at them and there is nothing about self defense involved in what that person is feeling and thinking from there on out if they are emotionally tied.

I’m not sure that that is true. If you are taught to defend yourself, and are able to do it, your whole psychology is different. Probably to the extent, and I too am flying blind here, that someone looking for an abusive relationship is going to look elsewhere. And even if you are in such a relationship, you are far more likely to walk, I’d have thought.

And, sadly no, it is not the answer for everyone. But there is strength in empowerment, is there not?

Here are some pointers to actual suggestions based on evidence. They probably wouldn’t work but it’s a start.

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV137J.pdf

P.S While this paper is specifically about adult-child mistreatment in the home, it’s obvious that much the same factors will apply to adult-adult violence.

“Not that I wish to intrude on you boys having a private discussion, you understand. Carry on.”

Well…If there had been any women who had wanted to comment (assuming that they haven’t under gender neutral pseudonyms already) then they would have?

“too many men who turn a blind eye because it does not affect males”

I’m baffled by the assumptions behind this. do you honestly think that men look out for other men like we’re in some kind of huge conspiracy? Your statement implies that if a man found out about female-on-male violence they would be less likely to turn a blind eye out of sympathy for their fellow male victim – do you honestly believe that?

Quite apart from the fact that the hundreds of millions of men killed in wars over the course of human history tell a different story – and as everyone knows the majority of victims of violent crime & murder are male – what on earth gave you that idea?

P.S If anyone sarcastically accuses me of being some kind of anti-feminist or male rights whinger, as happened last time I said something like that, they can bloody well whinge elsewhere.

<3 Woebegone

Merry late Xmas.

“I’m not sure that that is true. If you are taught to defend yourself, and are able to do it, your whole psychology is different.”

I only wish that this is true, I’m not trying to put a dampner on optimism. All I know is I was trained to “alleviate conflict” and that doesn’t mean for one second that I can guarantee to myself or anyone else that I wouldn’t escalate conflict if my less conscious emotions got the better of me. I’m sure some people, maybe even a significant number of people, are rational enough to remember the right thing to do, as they’ve been trained, when faced with something that conflicts with their very core feelings and beliefs; but surely we can accept that not everyone is like this?

Lee,

I am not trying to be optomistic. I am just saying that an ability to fight back, which I think was Leon’s point. It would stop a lot of domestic violence in it’s tracks. Because they, women. would not be willing to accept it?

‘Cause they had been taught different?

Douglas, it doesn’t work like that. It really doesn’t.

Yes it does. It really does.

By which I mean – I have no idea if it does or if it doesn’t, but some evidence would be good. (from both sides)

My oh my, as usual a whole load of men denying MALE on FEMALE domestic violence.

Try managing a DV shelter as I have done for the past ten years.

As I have have said “if the cap doesn’t fit don’t wear it” Since when do women not warrant full human status? because quite frankly this is all I see on this site and it continues to be reflected by the marked absence of female input. We are shouted down even on threads such as this when quell surprise we may even have some real life experience, But oh no…

I’m out of here, because as usual this is not about politics but about MALE power.

Men, get over yourselves and start listening to the other half of the world’s population.

Seriously, It will serve you well.

Repeat:

I’m out of here, because as usual this is not about politics but about MALE power.

I’m sorry you feel that way, MRJ. All I was pointing out was that we don’t know from a few stats exactly how many men are abusers, and that whatever the number, it is morally wrong to hold a group collectively responsible for the actions of individuals. That doesn’t do anything to demean women at all.

“By which I mean – I have no idea if it does or if it doesn’t, but some evidence would be good. (from both sides)”

It would be great to have evidence, but since we already have an issue of getting domestic abuse victims OUT of those relationships I hardly think there will be much or any evidence out there to back up what I’m saying. As such I have always precursored everything I’ve said in this thread with the fact it is only my belief.

“‘Cause they had been taught different?”

Douglas, I think it’s clear that you’re not getting what I am talking about here, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to still talk about this as if taking a class would alleviate someone of the internal struggles of dealing with the emotional aspect of domestic violence.

I mean, I was thinking about this earlier in relation to my own girlfriend. Say I started beating her up, what sort of things would she have to go through? She is a very rational person, she’s taken self defence classes, perhaps she’s one of these people that have been “taught different”.

However we own accomodation together, accomodation that would need to be sold and split between us. Indeed living costs currently are such that it may not even be possible to live on her own (nor me on mine, but I’m the abuser so screw me). Our friendship group is the same people, how would they react, who would they end up socialising with? Then there’s the question of whether the violence I’m inflicting on her is the limit, will the break up make it worse, is she going to actually be in more danger given that she can’t simply run away given our joint commitments? And then of course, as I keep harping on about, the emotional angle. If I started abusing her it would be after four years of blissful relationship. What if she *isn’t* as rational because of her self defence, what if she’s questioning herself (wrongly) and what she’s done wrong, what she’s done to cause this…actually rationalising some might say.

I absolutely cannot believe that taking a self defense class would suddenly make all of these situations dissapear, nor the action of trying to come to terms with them, and how to overcome them, easier or more rational sounding. I’m not even going to get in to the issues with even the most rational woman trying to get a conviction against an abusive partner in our legal system.

As I said before, give everyone self defense lessons, it’ll not be a negative…but if we want to stop DV then we need to start understanding how to get victims in to the right frame of mind to escape the conflict they’re in and ensure the support is visible and available for them. Simply barking an initiative like “self defense” without any kind of evidence it will actually lessen DV by any significant proportion is a very Labour kind of thing to do, given that it would take time and money and wouldn’t necessarily change anything.

Understand all aspects of the problem first, then find the solution, not the other way around (while of course not sitting on your hands letting people die and suffer serious harm at the hands of their partners in either case).

“Men, get over yourselves and start listening to the other half of the world’s population.”

Ironically this sort of statement makes me ignore everything else you’ve said.

Someone asked on my entry on my own blog in which I refer to this post why I don’t make more constructive comments on threads like this… On this one, I don’t have to. Lee is doing it for me.

Which is a good job, really, because it saves me getting all upset and angry at some of the other stuff being said in here, by both male and female contributors.

The exchange between MRJ and a handful of male commenters would be amusing if it wasn’t so awful. Would it be so hard for everyone to just stop for a second and agree that the only two sides that matter here are ‘us’ and ‘people who commit violence against others’, and the objective of our side is to make the other side’s behaviour unacceptable?

Alas, Rob, it seems the important argument here is between feminists that want to make DV a women’s only debating ground, and men that, for some reason, won’t actually discuss DV until everyone accepts that men get a disproportionate level of “support” in these discussions.

Thanks for the commendation Jennie, assuming sarcasm isn’t in full swing

“and the objective of our side is to make the other side’s behaviour unacceptable?”

It already is. When was the last time a soap ran a story about domestic violence in which the abuser was the “good guy”? Pedophilia is extremely unacceptable, it couldn’t be any less acceptable, but it still happens. Until recently, adultery was extremely acceptable, but it happened all the time anyway.

The problem is that some people just don’t play by the rules everyone else has set; the solution is not to shout the rules louder but to actually enforce them. Although I’m skeptica that we can do much more than we already are. I think it’s utopian to think that DV rates are going to fall very much, in our lifetime…

What Rob Knight said.

MRJ is it possible for you to accept that maybe, just maybe, DV is not an endemic strain in men that the more “civilised” hold back, but rather an aberrant, violent tendency on the part of a minority of men towards both other men and women? And also for that matter, on the part of a (smaller) minority of women towards men and other women as well?

As soon as you accept that concrete fact it will be possible to have a rational discussion about this, including about the real and concrete roots of social sexism. But whilst you sit there demanding as a pre-condition of any discussion that “men” accept they are essentially eeeevil, you won’t get very far. That’s because the “men are nasty” theory of domestic violence is not only factually wrong but also offensive to the majority who have never had the slightest inclination to hurt a loved one.

Wait, wait, Alan! I didn’t mean it like that! I meant that we’re supposed to stop trying to draw up divisions between people who are in essential agreement about the unacceptability of domestic violence!

See, there’s not all that much factually wrong with what M. R. J said. The vast majority of DV is men committing attacks against women. I think that the rhetoric was a bit dodgy, but surely we can tolerate some members of our own side being a little bit annoying? If you read what M. R. J said closely, you will struggle to find many assertions to disagree with.

Violence in general is part of society. It’s part of how the human brain works and the statistics appear to suggest that men are more prone to it – though this may be entirely due to social factors rather than innate tendencies. M. R. J. is entirely right to say that we can’t just say that violence can only come from ‘deviants’, in exactly the same way that we can’t assume that all paedophiles are ‘monsters’ as the tabloids would have it. They’re human beings just like us, and sometimes – perhaps because of their innate being, but more likely because of situational factors – the tendency to violence finds expression. Society has developed a number of ways of conditioning its members so that expression of violence doesn’t happen as often as it used to (murder rates per capita have been falling in England since the middle ages). However, the domestic situation is different from many other situations in that it includes a large amount of privacy, the possibility of ongoing intimidation, and a significant cost to escape. These factors combine to ensure that once a person begins to act violently, there is a lack of counteracting pressure to prevent it.

The problem is that the very privacy of the domestic environment can make it hard to detect the violence from the outside. The tightly-knit bundle of emotions, dependencies and obligations implied by a domestic arrangement make it hard for victims to get out. The lack of witnesses to abuse make it hard to prove. Even when leaving is the rationally right thing to do, fear can make victims irrationally opposed to doing so. None of this, hopefully, is very controversial. I suspect that we all – yourself and M. R. J included – could agree on this much. M. R. J’s rhetoric was pretty silly, but the response to it was an overreaction. To suggest that it’s simply not possible for good, well-meaning liberal men to be on the same side of the debate as M. R. J is a disservice to everyone.

My point is that we should embrace people who generally share the correct outlook on these problems, and try to work together to refine and improve the details. Perhaps M. R. J is wrong about how most men think about and perceive DV, in which case perhaps the best thing to do is use a bit of empathy and honesty and explain better how we do think about these things.

“My oh my, as usual a whole load of men denying MALE on FEMALE domestic violence.”

So far the only denialism here is your own – of FEMALE on MALE domestic violence.

Wait, wait, Alan! I didn’t mean it like that! I meant that we’re supposed to stop trying to draw up divisions between people who are in essential agreement about the unacceptability of domestic violence!

That’s exactly what I’m saying, Rob. However one of the only ways to achieve that agreement is to analyse the reasons for disagreement in the first place, if you get my drift.

Assuming MRJ hasn’t cast us into the figurative outer darkness for being MEN who disagree with HER (;-) @ MRJ), I think she will agree that there is a root difference between her analysis of the reasons for and roots of domestic violence, and my own. Further I may be wrong but I suspect that as people who both work with vulnerable clients, we would see our social roles in relation to those clients in a different way. I’d be interested to tease out those discussions because I think they’re constructive disagreements from which dialogue could spring, but let’s see if she’s still about first.