In typical feminist fashion, Bindell attempts to portray domestic violence as a one-way street, with only women as victims and only men as perpetrators.
The research presents a different picture, one far more complex. As anyone who has looked at the studies knows, females attack their male partners at the same rate men attack women; 38- 45% of those physically harmed are men, usually at the hands of a woman who wields a weapon; 50% of children harmed in domestic violence are harmed by women ; and the most violent domestic situations are lesbian relationships.
Women do not come to this debate with clean hands.
Quite correct -and if there is to be no meaningful effort to get to grips with this in the feminist side of the court, no better understanding will be achieved. It’s almost as if feminists don’t want there to be a better understanding between the sexes…
Where in the article does it say women do ‘come to this debate with clean hands’? As for your stats on violence, tell me, do these men live in fear? Are they terrorised? Have you bothered to find out about whether these (a citation would help – ‘the research’ is not a credible source) men were ‘harmed’ regularly or just the one time it got reported? What was the extent of the injuries? Hospitalisation? Any time taken off work? You use statistics you don’t interrogate to prove, what exactly?
I certainly can’t give you a full background on the topic in this space. I can, however, refer you to the studies. You might begin with Steinmetz, a woman who studied DV extensively. You can read a brief summary in Wikipedia if you lack access to academic journals.
The problem is that feminists have openly blocked attempts to investigate DV in a gender free manner, focusing instead on female-centric research as a means of pushing a particular narrative which dismisses male victims. Dismissing male victims of female violence is part of the problem.
My point in critiquing Bindell’s article was to raise this issue. Hopefully people are no so blinded by political correct notions of gender equality that they continue to dismiss evidence that doesn’t suit the feminist narrative.
As a Trades Union rep I have to deal with members who need help with all sorts of matters, not just work related, so I have knowledge of much of what you say, a fellow rep is a lesbian and indeed reports much more IPV within her social ‘set’. But lockdown has made things much worse, especially where the womans usually quiet ‘day’ space is affected by their partners presence, and even worse if they’ve had to set up a work office in the home, which has led in several cases of those women assaulting their partners. I have had to take this to our employers and implore them to open up at least some limited office space and train line mangers/HR about the problem, they like many don’t believe there’s an issue as for so long only one sides story has been allowed to be heard, the silence of male victims doesn’t help, but for many men they’ll take a beating and say nothing in preference to being thought of as being less than a man, and their abusers know it.
Interesting points. Furthermore, one wonders why all these women are drawn to choose partners that are anti-social and violent. Surely modern women in an open society (a society not dominated by patriarchy, religious traditions or a caste system) have more scope off choice ?
Juilan Bonmottier
3 years ago
The familiar Bindel narrative continues. it gives the impression that the lives of all women are about subjugation, being bashed up and murdered with male offenders left unpunished. The murder rate for women from domestic violence is about 0.0001666% of the UK population. That is tiny -statistically insignificant -not irrelevant- but nonetheless tiny. By comparison, male suicide is a far more significant cause of death but gets barely any coverage because the victim market is so utterly monopolised and controlled by women. To say ‘these stories are rarely heard’ is just ridiculous -i would say we rarely hear about anything else -especially from Bindel.
Ah yes, the old ‘look over here at something else’ argument. Unless you were trying to highlight that common factor in violence against women by men and violence against men by men.
Male suicide is violence against men by men? True enough I suppose. He tries to highlight the tragedy of men taking their own lives at disproportionate rates, and you can only find a way to blame men. Well, well.
You clearly failed to understand the point of my comment because of your ‘only look over here at this’ argument.
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
While we’re on this subject, can I be the first to say this Johnny Depp chap probably wishes he’d hooked up with Amber UnHerd instead of Amber Herd?
Gabriele
3 years ago
The parts are about self-defense are reasonable. It is also a general problem that does not involve just domestic abuse of women, but domestic abuse of all kind (children are the main victims of domestic abuse, not women) and self-defense in general.
However, I would draw the line at the part “this justifies crime”. There is a widespread belief that most criminals are victims first: victims of poverty, of abuse, etc. Even if this were true, this means that we must work harder on prevention. Once you become a criminal, you are creating new victims. You must be stopped and you must be held responsible for your actions. Otherwise we will never prosecute any crime.
I think plenty, if not all, criminals are victims -but as you infer, that’s not the point. Society still needs to be protected from their potential for criminality -as indeed they need to be protected from themselves in most cases. The purpose of prison is public protection, punishment and rehabilitation. We do a pretty bad job on at least two of those counts, and I think not having this part of the system properly in place often leads to a sewer of decision making at the policing and prosecution end.
Nick Whitehouse
3 years ago
Julie, I have news for you man and women are different. Women are notorious for badgering, the names, “nag”, “shrew” and “scold” are not an accident. I remember an incident with my wife, we had an argument and I walked into the next room to stop it. She followed me and carried on, I was very tempted to hit here – just to shut her up. As it happened, I had been brought up to not hit women, so I did not. I do not remember the topic of the argument – it was most likely some offhand comment I had made months or years previous, of which I had no memory. So, whilst I do not condone hitting women, I am not surprised it happens.
A more balanced article might have gained my sympathy, but this one just showed a lack of understanding.
Benedict Waterson
3 years ago
Try not to marry anyone you don’t think you could win against in a fight
Miriam Uí
3 years ago
It is so important that victims of domestic abuse are not further victimised within an uncomprehending legal system. Legal protection from prosecution for actions taken in self-defense or under violent coercion seem an appropriate means to address this problem, even if it only concerns a tiny minority of women. There is no reason the same legislation should not be applied to male victims of domestic abuse.
Tanya Gold
3 years ago
Brilliant piece, Julie.
Alan Girling
3 years ago
Where on earth is ‘men’s fatal violence’ normalized and accepted? In the UK, Canada, the US, Europe, Japan? Exactly where? I’m not saying it’s not, but tell us where? Because here where I live in Canada, in 60 years of life, I have zero experience of such a thing. And when I’ve visited each of the other places, I never got the sense that murder was normal and accepted. What a strange belief. If that’s true in the author’s country, how on earth can she stand to stay? She’d better get out of there, and fast.
saintsorsceptics
3 years ago
I’m convinced. What can we do to help?
saintsorsceptics
3 years ago
And, for the record, we need the Bindel narrative.
Narrative? From any one individual? The whole idea of ‘narratives’ is to pit one against another. How about the truth? It’s sure to be lost in all the competing narratives.
In typical feminist fashion, Bindell attempts to portray domestic violence as a one-way street, with only women as victims and only men as perpetrators.
The research presents a different picture, one far more complex. As anyone who has looked at the studies knows, females attack their male partners at the same rate men attack women; 38- 45% of those physically harmed are men, usually at the hands of a woman who wields a weapon; 50% of children harmed in domestic violence are harmed by women ; and the most violent domestic situations are lesbian relationships.
Women do not come to this debate with clean hands.
Quite correct -and if there is to be no meaningful effort to get to grips with this in the feminist side of the court, no better understanding will be achieved. It’s almost as if feminists don’t want there to be a better understanding between the sexes…
Now John, don’t be a silly Billy – we all know that all women are Angels and all men are Thugs.
Where in the article does it say women do ‘come to this debate with clean hands’?
As for your stats on violence, tell me, do these men live in fear? Are they terrorised?
Have you bothered to find out about whether these (a citation would help – ‘the research’ is not a credible source) men were ‘harmed’ regularly or just the one time it got reported?
What was the extent of the injuries? Hospitalisation?
Any time taken off work?
You use statistics you don’t interrogate to prove, what exactly?
I certainly can’t give you a full background on the topic in this space. I can, however, refer you to the studies. You might begin with Steinmetz, a woman who studied DV extensively. You can read a brief summary in Wikipedia if you lack access to academic journals.
The problem is that feminists have openly blocked attempts to investigate DV in a gender free manner, focusing instead on female-centric research as a means of pushing a particular narrative which dismisses male victims. Dismissing male victims of female violence is part of the problem.
My point in critiquing Bindell’s article was to raise this issue. Hopefully people are no so blinded by political correct notions of gender equality that they continue to dismiss evidence that doesn’t suit the feminist narrative.
Thank you John – I was just about to make the same point but you have already made it for me.
As a Trades Union rep I have to deal with members who need help with all sorts of matters, not just work related, so I have knowledge of much of what you say, a fellow rep is a lesbian and indeed reports much more IPV within her social ‘set’. But lockdown has made things much worse, especially where the womans usually quiet ‘day’ space is affected by their partners presence, and even worse if they’ve had to set up a work office in the home, which has led in several cases of those women assaulting their partners. I have had to take this to our employers and implore them to open up at least some limited office space and train line mangers/HR about the problem, they like many don’t believe there’s an issue as for so long only one sides story has been allowed to be heard, the silence of male victims doesn’t help, but for many men they’ll take a beating and say nothing in preference to being thought of as being less than a man, and their abusers know it.
Interesting points. Furthermore, one wonders why all these women are drawn to choose partners that are anti-social and violent. Surely modern women in an open society (a society not dominated by patriarchy, religious traditions or a caste system) have more scope off choice ?
The familiar Bindel narrative continues. it gives the impression that the lives of all women are about subjugation, being bashed up and murdered with male offenders left unpunished. The murder rate for women from domestic violence is about 0.0001666% of the UK population. That is tiny -statistically insignificant -not irrelevant- but nonetheless tiny. By comparison, male suicide is a far more significant cause of death but gets barely any coverage because the victim market is so utterly monopolised and controlled by women. To say ‘these stories are rarely heard’ is just ridiculous -i would say we rarely hear about anything else -especially from Bindel.
Ah yes, the old ‘look over here at something else’ argument.
Unless you were trying to highlight that common factor in violence against women by men and violence against men by men.
Male suicide is violence against men by men? True enough I suppose. He tries to highlight the tragedy of men taking their own lives at disproportionate rates, and you can only find a way to blame men. Well, well.
You clearly failed to understand the point of my comment because of your ‘only look over here at this’ argument.
While we’re on this subject, can I be the first to say this Johnny Depp chap probably wishes he’d hooked up with Amber UnHerd instead of Amber Herd?
The parts are about self-defense are reasonable. It is also a general problem that does not involve just domestic abuse of women, but domestic abuse of all kind (children are the main victims of domestic abuse, not women) and self-defense in general.
However, I would draw the line at the part “this justifies crime”. There is a widespread belief that most criminals are victims first: victims of poverty, of abuse, etc. Even if this were true, this means that we must work harder on prevention. Once you become a criminal, you are creating new victims. You must be stopped and you must be held responsible for your actions. Otherwise we will never prosecute any crime.
I think plenty, if not all, criminals are victims -but as you infer, that’s not the point. Society still needs to be protected from their potential for criminality -as indeed they need to be protected from themselves in most cases. The purpose of prison is public protection, punishment and rehabilitation. We do a pretty bad job on at least two of those counts, and I think not having this part of the system properly in place often leads to a sewer of decision making at the policing and prosecution end.
Julie,
I have news for you man and women are different.
Women are notorious for badgering, the names, “nag”, “shrew” and “scold” are not an accident.
I remember an incident with my wife, we had an argument and I walked into the next room to stop it. She followed me and carried on, I was very tempted to hit here – just to shut her up. As it happened, I had been brought up to not hit women, so I did not.
I do not remember the topic of the argument – it was most likely some offhand comment I had made months or years previous, of which I had no memory.
So, whilst I do not condone hitting women, I am not surprised it happens.
A more balanced article might have gained my sympathy, but this one just showed a lack of understanding.
Try not to marry anyone you don’t think you could win against in a fight
It is so important that victims of domestic abuse are not further victimised within an uncomprehending legal system. Legal protection from prosecution for actions taken in self-defense or under violent coercion seem an appropriate means to address this problem, even if it only concerns a tiny minority of women. There is no reason the same legislation should not be applied to male victims of domestic abuse.
Brilliant piece, Julie.
Where on earth is ‘men’s fatal violence’ normalized and accepted? In the UK, Canada, the US, Europe, Japan? Exactly where? I’m not saying it’s not, but tell us where? Because here where I live in Canada, in 60 years of life, I have zero experience of such a thing. And when I’ve visited each of the other places, I never got the sense that murder was normal and accepted. What a strange belief. If that’s true in the author’s country, how on earth can she stand to stay? She’d better get out of there, and fast.
I’m convinced. What can we do to help?
And, for the record, we need the Bindel narrative.
Narrative? From any one individual? The whole idea of ‘narratives’ is to pit one against another. How about the truth? It’s sure to be lost in all the competing narratives.