Poppy Devey Waterhouse was 24 when she was murdered by her ex-boyfriend Joe Atkinson last year. The couple had dated for three years after meeting at university, although they split up in 2018. Atkinson found it difficult to accept that the relationship was over and, on one occasion, punched Poppy’s new boyfriend after seeing them together. Atkinson began to stalk Poppy by finding out where she was socialising and turning up unannounced.
On the night he took Poppy’s life, Atkinson had been drinking at a Christmas party. Fuelled by jealousy, rage and alcohol, he returned to the flat the couple still shared and stabbed Poppy more than 20 times. Atkinson told police that he had acted in self-defence after Poppy tried to attack him with a knife, a claim he later admitted was false. As such, on 17 January this year, he pleaded not guilty to femicide and the case was sent to court.
The term “femicide” was only coined in 1974, by Diana Russell. There was, she insisted, no word to document the killing of females by males because they are female, even though this sort of violence was historically and culturally significant and far from uncommon. It is now the leading cause of premature death for women globally.
There was huge resistance from male academics at the time, who claimed the word was a bastardisation of the English language. Surely “homicide” did the job perfectly well? But this rather unspecific term didn’t distinguish the motivation and circumstances of this particular sort of deadly male violence from other homicides. And so femicide stayed.
According to Poppy’s mother, Julie, perpetrators of femicide are not deemed to be as dangerous as other murderers. “Some of the sentences handed out to these men are shocking,” she says. She should know. She has been campaigning to raise awareness about the effects of femicide on the loved ones left behind.
The court case was a nightmare for Julie and her family, not least because Atkinson was planning to plead not guilty to her murder. “The idea of him saying those words, ‘not guilty’ in court had me shaking and hyperventilating,” says Julie. Atkinson changed his plea to guilty at the last minute.
Back in January 2012, Karen Ingala Smith, chief executive of NIA, noticed several reports, day after day, of women killed by men. She began to count them and every year would published the names on her website. These would be read out by Jess Phillips MP in Parliament, and therefore recorded on Hansard.
In 2015, along with Women’s Aid, Ingala Smith published the first ever Femicide Report. It records and remembers the premature deaths of women and girls at the hands of men. It details the numbers of murders, the methods used and the contexts in which the women are killed — as well as their relationships with the men who kill.
This week, it published its ten year report — UK Femicides 2009-2018: “If I’m not in Friday, I might be dead” — and, in its terribly powerful dedication, it lists every single one of those 1,425 women’s names.
A section of the four-page, 1,425-name dedication in the Femicide Census
Little has changed over that decade. Ten years ago, a woman died at the hands of a man every three days. It’s pretty much the same today. The murders have remained constant. However, the compilers of the Femicide Census are not prepared to accept that we should merely “be grateful that the numbers have not increased”. Instead, they describe the situation as one of the greatest public policy failures of the decade.
Many of these tragedies could have been prevented. Almost half of the men who killed women during this 10-year period were known to have a history of violence against women, either the woman they killed or another woman or women. A number of the cases documented are subject to internal or external review into possible police failures or negligence.
In 2016, Dawn Rhodes was killed by her estranged husband Robert in the former family home. Dawn’s throat had been cut so deeply that she was partially decapitated. Rhodes had discovered that Dawn was having an affair with a colleague, and he had soon after met another woman on a dating website which Dawn had discovered, two days before she died.
This detail was relied upon in court which served to help convince the jury that Dawn was a spurned wife.
Rhodes claimed he acted in self-defence when he cut Dawn’s throat. The court heard that Dawn had confronted her former husband about his new relationship. During the row, Rhodes said, his wife grabbed a kitchen knife and made a “growling noise” as she “came at him at speed”. According to Rhodes, he “managed to disarm” Dawn and take the knife, which he then swung out once and slashed her across the neck, leaving a 13cm gaping wound.
Experts told the jury that it was more “plausible” that Dawn’s injury had been inflicted from behind as opposed to a frontal attack but, despite this, the jury found Rhodes not guilty of murder after 36 hours of deliberation.
Dawn’s name is there, at the beginning of the Report.
Dawn’s sister Kirsty Spencer now campaigns to end fatal male violence on behalf of her sister: “Through meeting feminists, I was able to find a voice,” she told me. “Dawn’s death gave me a justification to shout from the rooftops about what men do to women – the disgusting acts of male violence that are normalised and lead to the murder of women.”
“Domestic abuse is perceived as a ‘kerfuffle’,” she continues, referring to the case of Claire Perry. Perry was strangled to death by a police officer with whom she had been having an affair and who was later cleared of her murder. Which means that domestic violence isn’t perceived as being potentially deadly. “It is a disgrace that this is not seen as the crucial issue that it is.”
The majority of women in the report were aged between 26 and 55, accounting for 59% of all victims across the 10-year period. But sometimes the victims are horribly young: 3% were under 18 when they died.
Samantha Shrewsbury’s 17-year-old daughter Jayden Parkinson was murdered by her violent and controlling ex-boyfriend Ben Blakeley in December 2013. Jayden met Blakeley when she was 15 and he was 20. Immediately, Samantha was concerned about the rumours surrounding Blakeley. He enjoyed decapitating cats, for instance, and he had stabbed a boy in the neck with a Biro.
“I wanted to believe that these were just stories,” says Samantha. “But I did warn him that if he ever touched my daughter I would stand up to him. He spat in my face. From then on he kept her away from me.”
Jayden Parkinson (Credit: Getty)
Jayden’s mother was right to be worried. Her daughter suffered violence and intimidation at Blakeley’s hands, only reporting him to the police after he threatened to post naked pictures of her online following their break-up. Then on 3 December 2013, Jayden called Blakeley from the hostel where she was living to tell him she was seven weeks pregnant. He became verbally abusive and claimed he was not the father. Blakeley demanded that she meet him face-to-face, and she travelled to Didcot to do so. When she failed to return that evening, hostel staff reported her disappearance to police.
Blakeley, who was known to be violent towards women, had previously been reported to police for attacking other girlfriends. He had thrown one ex-partner down the stairs when she was pregnant, and another ended up in hospital after he attempted to strangle her.
Jayden’s body was found 15 days after she disappeared in the grave of Blakeley’s uncle in Didcot. At trial, Blakeley claimed Jayden’s death was an accident, and that she had fallen and hit her head while he was strangling her.
“There were warning bells from when he was 12 years old,” says Samantha. “A social worker heard him say that if ever he murdered someone he would put them in somebody else’s grave so that they would mix up the DNA. That’s what he did to my Jayden 10 years later.”
Samantha is one of many grieving relatives I have spoken to who tell me they have found the Femicide Census both a comfort and a call to arms.
“I just happened to see the list in the paper of all the women killed that year and Jayden was number 131,” says Samantha. “The fact that [Karen Ingala Smith] made Jayden not a number was what mattered. For me, that meant everything, that the census gave Jayden that voice.”
Samantha tells me what Jayden was like as a little girl, about her curiosity, her mischievous nature, and how close they both were. When Jayden first became involved with Blakeley, Samantha tried desperately hard to get police and social services involved, but to no avail. The lack of professional help was appalling, she says. Police thought she was a neurotic mum and rather than being vulnerable, Jayden was seen as “an obnoxious little bitch. I never got help, the authorities never saw this as a case of domestic violence. But their mistakes mean that our daughters, sisters, our mothers, women everywhere are dying today because nobody stopped these men.”
A subsequent report into the police failures found that errors had a detrimental impact on the investigation into Jayden’s disappearance.
Today, Samantha is campaigning for a register, similar to the one for sex offenders, for men with a history of domestic violence. “It was obvious he was dangerous. If my Jayden had known what he had done to previous girlfriends, she would have given him a wide berth.”
Samantha does draw some comfort, though, from the fact that at least her daughter will leave a legacy that will help other women in abusive relationships as Jayden’s case was cited in the feminist campaign to introduce a law of coercive control.
So why, I ask Karen Ingala Smith, has the number of women killed by men in her report remained so constant despite the decades of feminist campaigning? “The scale of men’s violence against women in the country is huge,” she tells me. “We all know and yet people act as though it is somehow natural and inevitable.” Because this violence is hidden in plain sight, men are not stopped in the early stages and women will end up dead at their hands.
For Poppy Devey Waterhouse, Dawn Rhodes and Jayden Parkinson it is too late. But there are countless women trapped in abusive relationships with potentially murderous men, with Covid making 2020 far more threatening for them. Who is thinking of these women? Who is calling these men to account? Why is it only the feminists and the grieving relatives of the deceased who are left to honour the dead women and girls, and to demand justice from a broken criminal justice system?
If things were different — if every time a woman reported domestic violence, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service took it seriously, these deaths would dwindle. If the police took domestic violence seriously, particularly when multiple and escalating incidents were being reported, and took proper risk assessments, the perpetrator would be called to task before his violence became fatal. If the perpetrator knew that his actions would have serious consequences, that they could be viewed as a possible prelude to murder, he might think again before raising his fist.
So, yes, we should all be shocked, and we should all be angry. Male violence costs lives. Look at all those names at the beginning of the Femicide report. All those lives. Isn’t it time something more was done?
Julie Bindel is an investigative journalist, author, and feminist campaigner. Her latest book is Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation. She also writes on Substack.
Not sure this is such clear cut issue as Bindel asserts. I mean, you can get kicked to death in the street and your killer will get 8years and be out in 4. An actual male on male homicide in my locality. We don’t take murder very seriously these days, except if we can insert racial or sexual politics into it.
Male victims are never blamed for their murders. Men can fight back. Women do not kill men (on the whole). Women do not rape men. These “politics” aren’t “being brought into the question” — they are already there. A journalist writing an article is hardly society “taking it seriously”. She just showed you how it in fact does NOT take it seriously.
Extraordinarily ignorant posting. “Male victims are never blamed for their murders.” Nonsense. In fact, the notion that men are responsible for their own murder is embedded in law, in notions like ‘coercive control’ being used as an excuse to kill your husband. “Women do not rape men.” Nonsense. Read the data. According to the CDC almost 6% of men have been “made to penetrate” by a woman.
The “women are victims” trope and “women and children first, men are expendable” prejudice are so common in our society that the gender gaps where men fare far, far worse are barely ever even reported.
A woman kills a male baby every 2.6 minutes in the UK.
Mark Shelly
3 years ago
Over 70% murder victims are male. This is not mentioned in the article. Men getting killed by fathers, boyfriends, brothers of a woman in a breakup are not listed as ‘domestic’ but as murder by an ‘acquaintance’. Men who report domestic violence are, removed from their home, lose touch with their children and find the female perpetuator rarely prosecuted. Women who report domestic violence get the man removed from the home, can deny access to the children and find the CPS always willing to prosecute. In a majority of domestic violence incidents the woman hits first. Women are far more likely to use a weapon. Julie wants juries removed in rape cases. The use of ‘control’ in cases or domestic violence will not by usable by men on women. Domestic violence charities call threats by a male partner to restrict access to children, domestic violence. However not when women make the same threat to fathers. I could go on but I think you get the point.
In a majority of domestic violence incidents the woman hits first. Women are far more likely to use a weapon.
These points are ludicrous and disingenuous. What is she hitting in response to? Of course a woman uses a weapon- she is physically weaker and smaller.
Yeah blue bee I don’t think anyone has a clue what you’re getting at. If a man/woman hits first he/she’s in the wrong, period. Can we at least bloody well agree on THAT?
Would you ever use the question “what is he hitting her in response to?” Well then.
BTW – the actual cases of female on male domestic abuse are shocking. After being stabbed in his sleep, one guy took to sleeping in the car to prevent this! Remarkably he didn’t consider himself a victim of abuse.
this may be a gender slanted issue, but it is certainly not one sided.
97% of those killed at work are male. That figures excludes the armed forces.
chiefupstart
3 years ago
“It (femicide) is now the leading cause of premature death for women globally.” Bullshit, Julie! Heart disease, stroke, and cancer are the leading causes of premature death for both men and women globally. “Femicide” doesn’t even rank in the top 10. Assertion without evidence of this magnitude renders mute anything else you have to say. You’re a liar.
Thanks Jeff, it’s astonishing how lazy some commentators are in finding out even basic facts. Never let ignorance get in the way of moralising comment, eh blue bee?
Surely more women die from motor accident than are murdered, let alone murdered by men? Motor accident is definitely premature, even if cancer can be described as a natural death.
Also, I think it pretty bad form to accuse people of wanting to miss the point, just be cause they refuse to nod along to misandronistic hate speech.
Death by cancer can’t be considered premature? What if it’s a 40 year old? Any death before average life expectancy can be technically considered premature. If you die in a car accident before your life expectancy, that’s a premature death. If you die of obesity before your life expectancy that’s a premature death. If you die from smoking ….well get the point?
Killing a woman after she has reached her life expectancy is not less bad than killing one before she has.
It’s worth checking the figures. This claim has been made since forever – and it’s quite untrue.
Simon Newman
3 years ago
I’d be in favour of a public register of men and women with a history of domestic violence that can be checked. I doubt the human rights lawyers would be too keen. Lethal violence vs romantic partner & ex-partner is primarily a male thing (about 5/6), but I don’t see any reason why violent and dangerous women should be excluded.
It’s a feminist thing. Only women count. Why women go with them I don’t know. People say that some women like dark risky characters. It is a fact. If they could make a proper judgment about a man they would stay safe. The answer is not to attack men in general but to teach women how to judge a character.
In my book a man who uses violence against a woman is not a real man. If more men took that attitude and disowned these fake men, there would be fewer of them.
Yes women can be frustrating, they are from Venus whilst we are from Mars and we never truly understand them, but they are beautiful creatures and we should protect them and not beat them up. If we can’t handle that responsibility then we should just leave them alone.
As far as women in abusive relationships go, they need to take some responsibility for their own safety by removing themselves from the relationship and if they need the support of the police then they need to press charges, as there is not much the police can do if the victim won’t do that.
We must not forget that there is a small but not insignificant minority of women who are the real problem in relationships and who manipulate the authorities through false claims of victim-hood. All cases involving violence and mental torture should be properly investigated from an unbiased objective perspective. If the police were not so overburdened with other tasks like getting used to police things that should never be crimes in the first place eg woke bullshit based hate speech allegations, then maybe they would have the resources to do that.
My daughter is Poppy Devey Waterhouse. Her murderer had not shown violence towards her before. You should be clear about your sweeping statements before insulting those who have been violently murdered.
Well said. And Tony, do more research on DA – you might want to look up ‘love bombing’, coercive control, gaslighting, etc, before making unfounded statements about something you clearly know little about.
This is not an attacks on men “in general” it is highlighting the very very real and prevelant issue of male on female abuse and violence. No one mentioned men in general
As for judging character …a minefield by any estimation and if you understood anything about abusive behaviour by anyone at all you would know that plausibility of the perpetrator is a big part of the problem . How many times has it been said of perpetrators “you never would of thought it of them” .
It is easy to broaden the debate to include violent assaults and murder of men and that is an important phenomenon in itself. However, the figures speak for themselves, the vast majority of violence/murder committed against women is carried out by men. It is too easy to label women as ‘from Venus.’ The concept is simply shorthand for perceived psychological differences between men and women and not based on much empirical evidence. The reality is that men need to take responsibility for their actions. The police force as a whole needs to address its assumptions and the courts, should stop considering mitigating circumstances, except in genuine cases of self defence.
If we do not act to correct the failings of liberal reforms in the 1960s, the failing of multiracialisation since 1948, the failing of feminism since 1970, the sheer destructiveness of neo-Marxist identity politics since the 1990s and anti-racism since the mid-1980s, among many other attacks on the European way of life … if we do not correct all this self-harm then we shall never make a predominance of whole and productive human beings.
Chris Milburn
3 years ago
I work in an ER and see victims of violence on a regular basis. The vast majority are men. But who the hell cares right? It’s probably their own fault.
Women may not go to the ER with domestic injuries. They’re often prevented from going by the perpetrator. Which sex is the vast majority of the perpetrators of your patient’s injuries?
Men don’t report stuff either pumpkin, often very serious stuff, because if they do, they would be marked out as wimps (especially by women). All a women has to do is cry a little and she has legions attending to her wellbeing. Understandable of course, but I doubt women are avoiding ER unless they’re in Fritzl’s basement.
What difference does the sex of the perpetrator make? If your skull is cracked, your skull is cracked.
There’s some bizarre reasoning here, as if being male automatically makes you a member of the skullcrackers club – so if your own skull gets cracked that’s only fair.
Of course this is a case for care and huge concern . My own son has been the victim of a violent attack. But the subject here is specifically male violence against women which is a huge issue internationally . For once can people stay on topic. The number of women Whitley killed by men is a huge and disgraceful issue.
How many of those males were involved in criminal activity? The stats say the vast majority of them.
Christopher Barclay
3 years ago
“Who is calling these (murdering) men to account?” Pretty well everyone. When sent to prison, these men have to be isolated so they are not attacked by other prisoners.
“Why is it only the feminists and the grieving relatives of the deceased who are left to honour the dead women and girls, and to demand justice from a broken criminal justice system?” Pretty well every Tory voter and Blue Labour do too.
It is easy to assume that the police and CPS do not care. No doubt mistakes are made and bad faith decisions too. However, each service has to work with the resources available. The police have to respond to men who fight a constant war of attrition against the terms of any court orders made against them. The prisons are already full. The CPS has to bring cases with an expected conviction rate of over 50%. There are only so many court rooms and so many judges. This is often difficult to do if the witness’ testimony is withdrawn or self-contradictory. Domestic violence has a unique characteristic. Punishing the perpetrator often involves also punishing the defendant by depriving mother and children of their provider.
Better decision making by police and social services is possible. However that would need a lot of grindingly boring work, going through case after case and seeing how threatening behaviour escalates. It’s much easier writing articles for Unherd.
BTW In the UK about twice as many men are murdered as women. To ignore their deaths is to imply either that their lives have no worth or that only inter-sex murders matter.
Some common sense spoken at last. Whilst I lament the death of any woman I admit to bias when she said she was a feminist. Partly the way out of this is not to go with certain men prone to this. A lot of women are also murdered through rape especially in London. This is also something to look into. The sentences for this are far too low.
I wouldn’t like to comment on actual numbers of deaths, since I only have experience of murder cases in my own area, but there has certainly been a significant increase in violent domestic abuse since last March. I’ve seen some appalling cases over the past year, including ‘regular’ offenders and people (mostly men but also a few women) with no previous history of violence, who have committed violent acts against their partners/children/parents/others. Not unexpected, given the conditions of lockdown, where people are trapped together, with aggravating factors like money worries, frustration, fear of covid, substance/alcohol abuse and in many cases, poor mental health.
Adrian
3 years ago
Actually, having looked at the cases that happened last year (see my other comment) there seems to be a simpler solution.
Almost every case of man-woman control murder was preceded by some sort of stalking by an EX-partner.
So this is not exactly the same as a domestic abuse issue, since these are all women who have left their partners.
As well as the possibility of an injunction, reportedly violent ex-partners could be railroaded into some sort of obsession management, i.e. treatment, with a lower level of proof than that needed for an injunction. We have a belief that mental health treatment is for victims only. But nasty people can be treated too, and might jump at the chance of learning to control obsessional feelings. I know of some men who have learned to control such feelings, and stopped being manipulative (these ones weren’t violent). This is a bigger intervention than a stern warning, but is less likely to escalate the issue, which means more women are likely to report, if they know their ex-partner is getting ‘help’.
It is shocking to see whataboutery and notallmenery in such droves in these comments. I was clearly wrong to assume the readership here was up to intellectual challenge. Thank you, Julie Bindel for speaking out over so many years in the hope of getting through to cloth-ears.
Whataboutery is the appropriate method for dealing with a grossly biased account of a problem that seeks to set the sexes against each other for evidently false reasons.
Homicide victimhood is extaordinarily rare, several times more so for woman. What about men”that is the real question.
The account is an accurate on of the extent of Femicisebin thesis country . Just face it . It’s not setting sexes against one another unless you choose to take it that way . It’s highlighting what some men do to some women and that particularly in the context of domestic or relationships mean are far more likely to kill than women . It’s just a fact. It doesn’t men all men are killers
False. Women kill far more than men. They abort 205,000 children a year, which is one every 2.6 minutes – 100% women’s doing.
And don’t give me the tired old “abortion is legal” nonsense, because if we legalised the killing of women in the same way, it would still be wrong.
Feminists are in fact fine with killing in general, as long as they’re doing it and the results are personally convenient for their career or lifestyle or whatever. At some point this century, some country somewhere will probably allow the abortion of inconvenient children up to about five years old, and / or the late abortion of elderly parents, as well.
I see the point you’re making, and agree that late term abortion is frightful, but I think it’s an abdication of wider responsibilities to say that abortion is ‘100% women’s doing’. Also I don’t think abortion of elderly parents is a thing
“I think it’s an abdication of wider responsibilities to say that abortion is ‘100% women’s doing’.” – I don’t know of any country where a man gets a say, do you?
The problem is that men who read articles by misandrist feminists aren’t the ones who go murdering ex-partners.
Any readership up to intellectual challenge probably doesn’t even know a violent man, or if they do isn’t at all chummy with them.
Most women wouldn’t like to be compared to Myra Hindley, or told to listen harder to prevent another Rose West. Taking these two as an example and declaring there is a fundamental problem with all women, even the ones who read Unherd, would I suspect wind a few women up.
For the same reason that it makes no sense to run an article with a headline of “Why are so many women sadistic serial killers?” it makes very little sense to come at the real problem of control-motivated violence by men against women from the perspective of “Why are so many women being killed?”
Guess what, men have feelings too, and most men here find violence against women despicable, which is why they read articles such as these. They really get riled when it is assumed that they don’t.
You didn’t get the memo. Women are objects not subjects. Women may never be the protagonists in their own stories. Unless they’re men in dresses, of course.
Dammit where’s my violin! Yes women never tell their own stories, unless you discount literally hundreds if not thousands of authoresses, actresses, bloggers, UnHerd writers, etc….
So what is it then, cat or dog? Excuses it clearly isn’t a husband you have.
Richard Lyon
3 years ago
Murder is horrific, and each of the deaths in Ms Bindel’s essay is a tragedy. It deserves to be taken seriously and so it must be of some consolation, in a country where 70% of murder victims are men, that the Crown Prosecution Service limits the scope of its activity and allocates its resources to “Ending Violence Against Women And Girls”.
From a non-gynocentric viewpoint, though, allocating the majority of one’s resource to the minority victim of crime might be counterintuitive, and it’s worth looking at how it has come about.
A reliable technique in the feminist toolbox is a neologism – mansplaining, manspreading, patriarchy, womyn, etc. Here, the neologism is “femicide”. Where “homicide” is the killing of anyone by anyone for any reason, “femicide” is the killing of a woman by a man because she is a woman. The word establishes that murder of a woman by a man is a different category and more serious than murder of a man by a woman. The causal modifier advances the narrative of oppression and misogyny. Women are not killed because an argument has escalated and men are stronger than women. Women are killed because men hate women.
As with all narratives with a grain of truth, there is quite a bit of detail to overlook. In a domestic argument, women are more likely than men to use a weapon (including boiling water), nullifying muscular strength, and a significant amount of violent abuse of men is unreported. Domestic violence is more prevalent in single sex relationships, and more prevalent again in lesbian than gay relationships. So some of the names in the list of “women-killed-by-men-because-they-were-women” might be “women-killed-by-women-because-that’s-who-the-relationship-was-with”, but it would be considered misogyny to check. And when a grieving young boy who’s innocent shop-keeper father has been killed, he’s told that the death of his father is less significant in Britain because his murderer also had a p***s.
“Isn’t it time something more was done?” Women have already co-opted the resource of the CPS and had standards of evidence altered to make it impossible for men to introduce certain types of exculpatory evidence. The £330,000 a year salary of the CEO of one of the Women’s charities in the UK’s £250 million a year feminist industry earns 8 times more than the entire UK budget for shelters for male victims of domestic abuse (in one year in Cornwall, men were the victims of 5 consecutive domestic violence murders by female partners). The feminist jurisprudence activists embedded in the Law Commission have managed to propose reforms to UK Law that elevate the category of “being a woman” to the same significance in law as “being a religion”.
So it’s not unreasonable to ask: “What more would you like done?”
You need to understand the concept of TLDR mate. Shame because you have some good points.
Joe Blow
3 years ago
For every women killed, three men are. Yet, this seems never to surface terribly much in these ‘discussions.’ It is an “intellectual” slip that is precisely analogous to dismissing murder and other violence in predominantly black communities in the US on the basis that the perpetrators happen also to be black.
And, we mustn’t forget that women are sentenced far more leniently when they are violent.
Sean Arthur Joyce
3 years ago
There’s no denying the reality of violence against women. However, the feminists have so dominated media that almost never do we hear another startling fact: 3 out of 4 suicides are men. Yet in the feminist reckoning, a man’s life is of little value. During the COVID lockdown, suicides are skyrocketing; again, most are men. No tears from the feminists for them.
I think the point of the comment, and others in a similar vein, is that male suffering, disadvantage and death have largely been written out of the cultural narrative. And that this has been done to maintain an overall feminist narrative of male oppressor and female victim – rather than a more realistic and nuanced view.
This is why they are bringing up apparently off topic male suffering and victimhood.
Unless, of course, they are just creating more male tears for feminists to bathe in.
Agree, that is overwhelmingly the case. There is a debate to be had on nature v nurture but trying to deny that fact is not helpful.
Tom Adams
3 years ago
Happy for you to make your point but, ‘he pleaded not guilty to femicide’ is simply untrue – the charge is one of murder.
Thomas Laird
3 years ago
Ask how well received this article would be if it asserted that one white Britons died at the hands of an immigrant every three days? Even if it were true there would be outrage. How do feminists get to this one in three figure? The usual dishonest sleight of hand. Were you as a man driving the family car when a drunk driver broadsided you and killed your wife? Well she died at your hands because you were the driver. Assisted suicides?Yep f**k it bung those stats in as well. Add accidents into the mix and you have an inter gender holocaust on your hands. This chicanery has been debunked repeatedly yet feminists continue(in the full knowledge that they are cooking the books) to regurgitate it. Finally just as one example. In Scotland two WOMEN tied a young boy to a chair an systematically beat him to death over the course of four days. Can he go and F**k himself because he has a p***s Julie? Don’t bother answering, as I know you you already think men should be put in concentration camps. (yes, you said that. A man would not get away with a similar statement on the grounds he was joking.)
Women are easily the biggest killers of all when you factor in pre-natal infanticide (i.e. abortion). Every woman who has an abortion is a murderer and every single one knows it.
Richard Lyon
3 years ago
Note carefully the use of “femicide” – “murder of a woman by a man because she is a woman” – rather than “homicide”. It’s a deliberate tactic in feminist rhetoric. It deftly establishes murder of a woman by a man as more significant than murder of a person by a person, and advances their victimhood narrative.
Thus, a murder is not the outcome (however reprehensible) of the asymmetric use of force in an argument either party can start and in which control has been lost. A woman, it is claimed, is targeted for execution because of the ubiquity of misogyny in patriarchal society. Something Must Be Done – invariably, the granting of yet more social, legal, and economic privilege.
Of course, 70% of homicide victims are men. But feminists claim that the murder of an innocent man is unremarkable, because his murderer also has a p***s. Unsurprisingly, this is a world view that ordinary women and men find repugnant.
Male death prevalence notwithstanding, in our gynocentric society the Crown Prosecution Service explicitly limits the scope of its ambition, and allocates its resource, to the prevention only of violence against Women and Girls.
But naturally, and inevitably, Something More Must Be Done to address the apparently unsatisfiable demands of homicide’s minority victim.
LUKE LOZE
3 years ago
Why not try to reduce the violence all around. No person should face violence in their own home. No person should face violence in their community. No person should face violence anywhere. 70% of murder victims are male, what’s sad is that the causal misandry of the article isn’t even suprising.
Women tend to be murdered by their current or ex-partners. That would indicate hatred of them personally rather than of women as a whole, the definition of misogyny. Serial killers often exhibit misogyny but my guess is that the numbers of their victims are small in comparison to the domestic murders of women.
Women are most often murdered by: – Jealous/controlling partners – Schizophrenic children – Parents
Checking out the first 100 people killed in 2019 on the BBC shows examples of all of these. 1 old woman killed her son (addiction) 1 woman killed her infant (mental illness) 1 woman killed her partner (mental illness)
5 men killed ex/partners (control) 1 man killed his ex partner(control, addiction)
1 man killed his ex partner(mental illness) 1 man killed his infant daughter (addiction)
1 man killed his mother (addiction) 1 man killed his grandmother (mental illness)
Jealousy/control murderers from both sexes usually have the following issues: – An obsessive need for control (they can’t control the way their emotions make them feel so they try to control the world) – A view of the world that is primarily status based – A propensity to use violence to solve problems – The belief that other people cause their problems – They get that satisfying ‘gotcha’ feeling when other people are hurt
The reason that more men kill women because of a controlling nature is simply that points two and three really do depend on being physically stronger.
Finally, the police do and have cared about domestic violence for a long time, but because people who believe that others cause their problems are often paired with low-self-esteem partners, it is a hugely knotty problem to solve. Often women who turn to such men have nowhere left to go, and men who prey on such women couldn’t cope with someone more assertive, so tend to start relationships with low-self-esteem women.
Would a public register help? Or would a woman who has fallen into the clutches of a man because she feels that the whole world is against her, and that he is the only one who understands pay little attention to the register.
Far better would be a process of allowing social workers to query police for records of abusive behaviour, and a way of getting from concerned parents etc. to those social services.
In my ideal world, most violence against living beings would be regarded with disgust – we teach toddlers to be continent with urine and faeces – why not with anger?
How would one do that? Anger is a common emotion. It is what you do with it that counts. It becomes a problem when you can’t control it. Who would teach that apart from a church?
I think violence is regarded with disgust in our culture, and certain types of violence have been regarded with disgust thoughout the ages.
Also, most people do teach their children not to be violent, even more violent cultures. But not all children are the same. Some people are quite extreme, and men are more varied than women, as well as being generally physically stronger than women. Although nurture is definitely necessary, and can be improved on, nature is another matter. At best we can tailor nurture to match nature a bit better, for the oddest cases of people.
I do agree that education can play a part – even forced education on how to control one’s emotions for reportedly violent ex-partners who are stalking women, given that they are the most likely to murder a women by far. (That very rough statistic from looking at women killed in the UK last year). Unfortunately, without knowng how many reportedly violent ex partners do not go on to kill it is really hard to know what the total cost would be per life saved, or per harm reduction generally, assuming that the education would work. Done badly (e.g. getting a sermon from the likes of Bindel) an education program could conceivably increase the number of control-issue related murders against women. If a program doesn’t work it is also taking resources away from more traditional methods of harm prevention for these women, so it is important to weigh up the costs involved.
Note I use the term “reportedly violent” here to indicate that I am talking about the stage before investigations of domestic abuse have commenced in earnest. I.e. a lower standard of evidence for a judge ordering education, or a social/police service recommending emotional education, and a lower level of commitment from the victim, compared to a commitment to prosecution.
The problem with Bindel’s strain of feminism is the implicit assumption that by demanding nice men become nicer, nasty men will stop murdering women. On the other hand, it is good that we think about these issues.
Good God are you even an adult? Will there be free chocolate bars and unicorns to ride to work on? Violence is not always disgusting, sometimes it can even be good (a certain ‘living being’ – a dog – tried to bite my son when it was let off its leash by a stupid owner – I responded with violence, a kick). Little secret? I enjoyed kicking it too, as we should enjoy violence against the dangerous/wicked.
Actually we do try, and arguably succeed to a great extent. To know for sure you would have to know how violent we would be without such socialisation. I suspect very.
karenlovescolin
3 years ago
My daughter is in a domestic violence relationship with her female partner who tried killing her more than once I just wish there could be a law when the peratator gets atrreseted and but on bail not to be allowed near the victim I dread every day that my baby girl is with a violent evil woman I wish she would take notice but police havernt yet
I read that that is true statistically but I would be interested to understand why that is.
cap0119
3 years ago
Women go with violent men due to gullibility, trauma bonds, socialization, and fear None of this is women’s fault. If anything, their murders and rapes need to be taken MORE seriously, since they are more vulnerable. Instead, as Bindel shows us here, they are not even taken AS seriously.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are making a fundamental mistake here.
Domestic violence is a difficult problem for the reasons you state. But there are no simple solutions to the problem.
It is difficult to prosecute violent men who prey on gullible afraid women. Difficult because the women they prey on are often literally less reliable witnesses (due to dependency issues in some cases and emotional issues in most cases). Difficult because the men involved have spent years practicing making those women less reliable witnesses, and difficult because the men involved have often spent years practicing manipulating people and lying.
It can be very demotivating for the police and CPS to try these cases, and can be very resource intensive. That doesn’t mean they don’t care.
I do think it is worthwhile to cultivate techniques to improve conviction rates, but an official register of bad boyfriends would likely do very little if any good to victims of domestic violence, and do considerable harm in many other instances.
70% of homicide victims are men. The Crown Prosecution Service, in its written statement of priorities, states that it limits its goals to “Ending Violence Against Women And Girls”. Feminist ideology in the UK is a £250 million a year industry. The £330,000 annual salary of the CEO of one of the “charities” is five times the UK annual budget for shelters for male victims of domestic violence. Westminster is reviewing proposals to elevate “being a woman” to the same significance in law as “being a religion”. And on it goes.
How much more seriously do feel you would like to be taken?
Women, on the other hand, are killed for merely existing.
If the cause were mere existence then the rate would be far higher. All women exist, the numbers killed are tiny in proportion. The causes a probably vary a great deal.
They go with them because they find them hot. Some women love a bit of rough.
Meghan Kathleen Jamieson
3 years ago
I really wish articles like this would give some numbers for context. I have no idea how many people are killed in the UK every day, or how many men are killed every day in the UK. I suspect that, while most people think that any number of murders are too many, they also would like to have a sense whether the numbers are similar or different than for other groups.
I appreciate that often women are not killed in the same kinds of circumstances, and that means they should perhaps be dealt with differently, and yet I always end up feeling that perhaps I’m being manipulated a little by writers like Bindel. Though maybe what’s more likely is that in areas like women’s studies there is often a completely inadequate approach to situating the analysis.
According to the Office of National Statistics (search for Homicide in England and Wales: year ending March 2020) in the year to March 2020, there were 695 homicides in England and Wales: 506 of the victims were men, that’s 73%.
Exactly the issue is not; why are so many women being killed’ because twice as many men get killed and not men’s violence to women because they are more violent to other men but merely men’s violence.
According to ONS “After 1980, male-on-male cases have dominated and have driven all the main trends.”
Search for Trends and drivers of homicide Main findings Research Report 113
In one of my other comments I’ve made comparison with Sweden – arguably the most feminist of countries. Numbers there are about 25% higher in proportion to population. I suspect numbers in the U.K. are as low as it is realistically possible to get them – which is why they have been so stable over the last ten years.
To be honest, this is just an opportunistic feminist stunt by Bindel et al carried out on the graves of the victims.
janecampaign
3 years ago
Very interesting and moving article. I think the idea of a register might be a good one.
Clive Mitchell
3 years ago
Come on, let’s not try and minimise this by bringing in irrelevant comparisons. Male suicide maybe tragic, but is irrelevant to this topic. The level of male violence against women is a shocking disgrace. The level of rape, violence and murder needs to be addressed and it should be brought up without someone trying to distract from this.
“The level of male violence against women is a shocking disgrace” Second only to the level of male violence against men. It is not worse to kill a woman than a man. Murder is murder.
But that does perfectly illustrate that MALE violence is the issue. As to how much of that is nature v nurture is another topic entirely but it would suggest that the prevalence of male violence throughout history would point to more than just socialisation.
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
I believe that murder is murder. It doesn’t matter who does the murdering or who is murdered. It’s wrong no matter what. Until we stop trying to single out victim groups for special outrage, the public won’t take it seriously. Life is cheap these days, men, women and children are murdered every day on the streets of some US cities as well as at home and no one does a single thing about it. No one says enough, (some US states do have the death penalty and do take it seriously but the states and cities with the biggest problems do not).
Self defense is not murder. Execution is not murder. Murder is the intentional, extrajudicial killing of anyone not defending themselves from the same.
Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
I believe that murder is murder. It doesn’t matter who does the murdering or who is murdered. It’s wrong no matter what. Until we stop trying to single out victim groups for special outrage, the public won’t take it seriously. Life is cheap these days, men, women and children are murdered every day on the streets of some US cities as well as at home and no one does a single thing about it. No one says enough, (some US states do have the death penalty and do take it seriously but the states and cities with the biggest problems do not).
Self defense is not murder. Execution is not murder. Murder is the intentional, extrajudicial killing of anyone not defending themselves from the same.
Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
David Uzzaman
3 years ago
This article like many others suggests that women are uniqued subject to violence from men. In fact three times as many men are murdered as are women. Men’s lives like white lives apparently don’t matter. Violence is largely carried out by men but the majority of victims are also men. It’s not therefore purely a problem for women. The majority of men are not violent so it’s worth examining the difference between violent men and the rest of us. There is a lot of research done across the world it’s generally associated with trauma particularly head injuries. I read an article about a doctor who examined the medical records of death row prisoners and found a very close correlation between head injuries and murderers. None of this plays well to Ms Bindel’s theory that all men are Basard’s .
But it is also true that most of those men are also killed by other men. You cannot get away from it, men are more violent than women. However I also agree that women can wreak damage in their own way, maybe the only comparison might be the number of men who commit suicide as a result of relationship breakdown, female abuse or loss of access to children due to pro-female bias. It still does not take away the fact that violent death, is something that men overwhelmingly cause.
David Uzzaman
3 years ago
Collective guilt does seem to be the prevailing culture. All white people are responsible for slavery. All men responsible for all murders but there are exceptions to the general rule. You can’t blame all Muslims for jihad terrorism or all black youngsters for all knife crimes. It’s difficult to understand the logic behind these nomes. This latest crime appears to have been committed by a police officer. Can we now categorise all police officers as murderers?
David Uzzaman
3 years ago
Collective guilt does seem to be the prevailing culture. All white people are responsible for slavery. All men responsible for all murders but there are exceptions to the general rule. You can’t blame all Muslims for jihad terrorism or all black youngsters for all knife crimes. It’s difficult to understand the logic behind these nomes. This latest crime appears to have been committed by a police officer. Can we now categorise all police officers as murderers?
David Morley
3 years ago
Little has changed over that decade. Ten years ago, a woman died at the hands of a man every three days.
That sounds very sensational, but it’s actually a remarkably small number given the size of the U.K. – about 120 in a year.
Perhaps one per year in a city of half a million people. In the context of the closest living arrangements and most intense emotions that most of us feel. And that half a million will include all of the criminals, generally violent people, seriously mentally ill people, and generally strange characters that such a city will contain.
One in half a million. Am I the only person who is amazed it is so low.
David Morley
3 years ago
Little has changed over that decade. Ten years ago, a woman died at the hands of a man every three days.
That sounds very sensational, but it’s actually a remarkably small number given the size of the U.K. – about 120 in a year.
Perhaps one per year in a city of half a million people. In the context of the closest living arrangements and most intense emotions that most of us feel. And that half a million will include all of the criminals, generally violent people, seriously mentally ill people, and generally strange characters that such a city will contain.
One in half a million. Am I the only person who is amazed it is so low.
David Morley
3 years ago
Following on from my previous comments that the number of deaths is in fact remarkably low – perhaps almost as low as it can get – i thought I would make a comparison. I chose Sweden, as a country in which you would expect the figures to be low.
Although most victims of deadly violence were male (69 percent), most people killed by a partner or ex-partner were women, with this kind of violence accounting for 67 percent of all murders of women: 22 women in total.
Given the population difference, that would equate to about 145 deaths if Sweden were the size of the U.K. or about 25% more than we have.
So the number in the U.K. is surprisingly low, and really may be almost as low as we will ever get.
While death is never something to celebrate, we really should all be very glad that we live in such a safe country.
David Morley
3 years ago
Following on from my previous comments that the number of deaths is in fact remarkably low – perhaps almost as low as it can get – i thought I would make a comparison. I chose Sweden, as a country in which you would expect the figures to be low.
Although most victims of deadly violence were male (69 percent), most people killed by a partner or ex-partner were women, with this kind of violence accounting for 67 percent of all murders of women: 22 women in total.
Given the population difference, that would equate to about 145 deaths if Sweden were the size of the U.K. or about 25% more than we have.
So the number in the U.K. is surprisingly low, and really may be almost as low as we will ever get.
While death is never something to celebrate, we really should all be very glad that we live in such a safe country.
polidoris ghost
3 years ago
How many human beings are the victims of murder every day? Sentencing policy, in the UK at least, suggests that it is not viewed as a serious crime by our governing class.
sallyshere56
3 years ago
Why are so many people reading this article so determined to wilfully miss the pint of it? The article is about the extent of Male on Female violence which results in death of women. That’s the topic . Others deaths and violence matter as much but constantly deflecting from the actual topic doesn’t make it go away, minimise it or make it not matter. And male on female violence ( not ALL men) is a big and complex issue . Face it
No, all murder is wrong, no matter who is doing the murdering or who is being murdered. It’s not worse to murder a woman than it is to murder a man. If you want to create a murder sweepstakes prize, it would have to go to men in fact, not women. Murder is not a complex issue at all and refusal to take action against those committing murder, in such a way as they cannot do it twice, does not make it more complex. It simply makes it more common.
If the author had written an article about black people committing violence against white people and arguing that white people should stand up and fight back, how would you react? What about if politicians were talking in parliament about the subject and demanding that Something Must Be Done about these black people? What if the leader of UKIP started arguing that black people not be allowed out of the house after 6pm? What if an endless stream of white people appeared online to complain that seeing black people at night made them feel uncomfortable? How would you react then?
JB has form – most people are suspicious of her presenting an honest and balanced picture free of ideological bias
Karl Juhnke
3 years ago
Would you ever run a headline ‘when men fight back?’ No. Of course not, but you run one about women fighting back. It has been well known for 50 yeas that men and women abuse each other in about equal numbers and when men lose it, there is more likely going to be physical damage whilst women rely more on emotional and mental damage. But go ahead with the feminist narrative as it will keep the dv industry growing with one side given a pass card to carry out violence with impunity. Evil.
David Morley
3 years ago
According to ONS, year ending March 2018:
A third of women were killed by their partner or ex-partner 1 (33%, 63 homicides) in the year ending March 2018. This is the fewest number of women aged 16 years and over killed by a partner or ex-partner in the last 40 years.
David Morley
3 years ago
if every time a woman reported domestic violence, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service took it seriously, these deaths would dwindle.
Actually, the numbers are so low in relation to the population of U.K. that reducing them much further might prove impossible.
They will never be zero, and in proportion to the population we may be almost as close to zero as it is possible to get.
David Morley
3 years ago
If we can step back a moment from the specifics, I think what we are seeing is the manifestation of an ideological contest within identity politics.
Feminism needed its George Floyd, and now it has found her.
Following it’s revival feminism has found itself somewhat overshadowed both by the trans movement and more especially BLM. It has lost its position at the top of the victimhood league. It’s just not dictating the main narrative anymore.
Not only that, but both the trans movement and BLM paint feminists, and especially white middle class feminists in a poor light. They become part of the problem rather than part of the solution, both as TERFs and as carriers of “whiteness”. They are white and they are privileged. Do what they might to link themselves to BLM, it only takes one Karen with a phone calling the cops on a black man to blow their cover.
Meanwhile, in the woke demonology, “whiteness” and “white fragility” have left “toxic masculinity” and “the patriarchy” looking decidedly old hat.
Well, they’ve got their martyr, a cop seems to have been involved which helps. And they’re on the streets taking on the cops, but whether they can really topple BLM from the top spot remains to be seen.
Last edited 3 years ago by David Morley
Cheryl Jones
3 years ago
I agree with the thrust of this piece although surely it is right to point out that 3 women a day in 1970 is not the same as 3 women a day now when we have a much larger population. That is actually an improvement, although it is still such a heinous statistic it makes me want to smash something.
Pierre Pendre
3 years ago
While it would be impossible to eradicate violence against women so long as sexual jealousy exists, the restoration of capital punishment for femicide would probably be a powerful deterrent.
Pierre Pendre
3 years ago
While it would be impossible to eradicate violence against women so long as sexual jealousy exists, the restoration of capital punishment for femicide would probably be a powerful deterrent.
Peter Mott
3 years ago
Once, mooning around Twitter, I came across a video purporting to show an ISIS beheading. Surely not, I thought, and looked. Well it did. The victim (whose head was blurred out) was a young boy about 15. He was stretched out on the floor of a pickup while his killer stood over him and sawed away with his short-bladed knife back and forward. I could not watch for very long, and it left me with a visceral loathing of ISIS.
Blindell writes:
Dawn’s throat had been cut so deeply that she was partially decapitated.
Does she want me to feel about men in general what I feel about ISIS lowlife killers? Is that how she feels about men?
Paul Goodman
3 years ago
At birth there are generally 104 males to 100 females, . By the time we get to our 80’s there are 85 males for every 100 females. Gross inequality.
Mark Preston
3 years ago
Intimate partner violence is instigated 40% of the time by women. Lesbians experience more domestic violence at the hands of their partner than straight women do from their hands of their male partner.
Talking about violence as though it’s exclusively a problem with men is just plain wrong. Bindel has a cult like adherence to an ideology and as such deserves no credibility of respect.
Main Edition
US
FR
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeNot sure this is such clear cut issue as Bindel asserts. I mean, you can get kicked to death in the street and your killer will get 8years and be out in 4. An actual male on male homicide in my locality. We don’t take murder very seriously these days, except if we can insert racial or sexual politics into it.
Male victims are never blamed for their murders. Men can fight back. Women do not kill men (on the whole). Women do not rape men. These “politics” aren’t “being brought into the question” — they are already there. A journalist writing an article is hardly society “taking it seriously”. She just showed you how it in fact does NOT take it seriously.
Extraordinarily ignorant posting.
“Male victims are never blamed for their murders.” Nonsense. In fact, the notion that men are responsible for their own murder is embedded in law, in notions like ‘coercive control’ being used as an excuse to kill your husband.
“Women do not rape men.” Nonsense. Read the data. According to the CDC almost 6% of men have been “made to penetrate” by a woman.
The “women are victims” trope and “women and children first, men are expendable” prejudice are so common in our society that the gender gaps where men fare far, far worse are barely ever even reported.
A woman kills a male baby every 2.6 minutes in the UK.
Over 70% murder victims are male. This is not mentioned in the article.
Men getting killed by fathers, boyfriends, brothers of a woman in a breakup are not listed as ‘domestic’ but as murder by an ‘acquaintance’.
Men who report domestic violence are, removed from their home, lose touch with their children and find the female perpetuator rarely prosecuted. Women who report domestic violence get the man removed from the home, can deny access to the children and find the CPS always willing to prosecute.
In a majority of domestic violence incidents the woman hits first.
Women are far more likely to use a weapon.
Julie wants juries removed in rape cases.
The use of ‘control’ in cases or domestic violence will not by usable by men on women.
Domestic violence charities call threats by a male partner to restrict access to children, domestic violence. However not when women make the same threat to fathers.
I could go on but I think you get the point.
In a majority of domestic violence incidents the woman hits first.
Women are far more likely to use a weapon.
These points are ludicrous and disingenuous. What is she hitting in response to? Of course a woman uses a weapon- she is physically weaker and smaller.
Yeah blue bee I don’t think anyone has a clue what you’re getting at.
If a man/woman hits first he/she’s in the wrong, period. Can we at least bloody well agree on THAT?
What is she hitting in response to? Her psychopathy?
Would you ever use the question “what is he hitting her in response to?” Well then.
BTW – the actual cases of female on male domestic abuse are shocking. After being stabbed in his sleep, one guy took to sleeping in the car to prevent this! Remarkably he didn’t consider himself a victim of abuse.
this may be a gender slanted issue, but it is certainly not one sided.
I don’t get your point at all.
Your point being ?
97% of those killed at work are male. That figures excludes the armed forces.
“It (femicide) is now the leading cause of premature death for women globally.” Bullshit, Julie! Heart disease, stroke, and cancer are the leading causes of premature death for both men and women globally. “Femicide” doesn’t even rank in the top 10. Assertion without evidence of this magnitude renders mute anything else you have to say. You’re a liar.
Julie Bindel is a disgraceful perpetrator of lies and bigotry.
You sound like a disgraceful, hateful perpetrator of misogyny, and that includes self-hatred.
Self-hatred is a myth invented to smear people who disagree with them but might obviously know something from experience.
Bindel is quite a misandrist, that doesn’t make people who disagree with her misogynists.
These are causes of death, not premature death. You seem to really want to miss the point and hit out at Bindel. What is your problem?
Wrong! Go do a Google search.
Thanks Jeff, it’s astonishing how lazy some commentators are in finding out even basic facts. Never let ignorance get in the way of moralising comment, eh blue bee?
Surely more women die from motor accident than are murdered, let alone murdered by men? Motor accident is definitely premature, even if cancer can be described as a natural death.
Also, I think it pretty bad form to accuse people of wanting to miss the point, just be cause they refuse to nod along to misandronistic hate speech.
PREMATURE DEATH
Death by cancer can’t be considered premature? What if it’s a 40 year old? Any death before average life expectancy can be technically considered premature. If you die in a car accident before your life expectancy, that’s a premature death. If you die of obesity before your life expectancy that’s a premature death. If you die from smoking ….well get the point?
Killing a woman after she has reached her life expectancy is not less bad than killing one before she has.
It’s worth checking the figures. This claim has been made since forever – and it’s quite untrue.
I’d be in favour of a public register of men and women with a history of domestic violence that can be checked. I doubt the human rights lawyers would be too keen. Lethal violence vs romantic partner & ex-partner is primarily a male thing (about 5/6), but I don’t see any reason why violent and dangerous women should be excluded.
It’s a feminist thing. Only women count. Why women go with them I don’t know. People say that some women like dark risky characters. It is a fact. If they could make a proper judgment about a man they would stay safe. The answer is not to attack men in general but to teach women how to judge a character.
The fact the men are dangerous is a big part of the attraction for women.
At least violent men think they are men
Such a ridiculous assertion
Gosh Sally, I’m convinced. If you call a thing ridiculous, it is therefore refuted.
*** Woman Logicâ„¢ ***
In my book a man who uses violence against a woman is not a real man. If more men took that attitude and disowned these fake men, there would be fewer of them.
Yes women can be frustrating, they are from Venus whilst we are from Mars and we never truly understand them, but they are beautiful creatures and we should protect them and not beat them up. If we can’t handle that responsibility then we should just leave them alone.
As far as women in abusive relationships go, they need to take some responsibility for their own safety by removing themselves from the relationship and if they need the support of the police then they need to press charges, as there is not much the police can do if the victim won’t do that.
We must not forget that there is a small but not insignificant minority of women who are the real problem in relationships and who manipulate the authorities through false claims of victim-hood. All cases involving violence and mental torture should be properly investigated from an unbiased objective perspective. If the police were not so overburdened with other tasks like getting used to police things that should never be crimes in the first place eg woke bullshit based hate speech allegations, then maybe they would have the resources to do that.
My daughter is Poppy Devey Waterhouse. Her murderer had not shown violence towards her before. You should be clear about your sweeping statements before insulting those who have been violently murdered.
Well said. And Tony, do more research on DA – you might want to look up ‘love bombing’, coercive control, gaslighting, etc, before making unfounded statements about something you clearly know little about.
This is not an attacks on men “in general” it is highlighting the very very real and prevelant issue of male on female abuse and violence. No one mentioned men in general
As for judging character …a minefield by any estimation and if you understood anything about abusive behaviour by anyone at all you would know that plausibility of the perpetrator is a big part of the problem . How many times has it been said of perpetrators “you never would of thought it of them” .
It is easy to broaden the debate to include violent assaults and murder of men and that is an important phenomenon in itself. However, the figures speak for themselves, the vast majority of violence/murder committed against women is carried out by men. It is too easy to label women as ‘from Venus.’ The concept is simply shorthand for perceived psychological differences between men and women and not based on much empirical evidence. The reality is that men need to take responsibility for their actions. The police force as a whole needs to address its assumptions and the courts, should stop considering mitigating circumstances, except in genuine cases of self defence.
If we do not act to correct the failings of liberal reforms in the 1960s, the failing of multiracialisation since 1948, the failing of feminism since 1970, the sheer destructiveness of neo-Marxist identity politics since the 1990s and anti-racism since the mid-1980s, among many other attacks on the European way of life … if we do not correct all this self-harm then we shall never make a predominance of whole and productive human beings.
I work in an ER and see victims of violence on a regular basis. The vast majority are men. But who the hell cares right? It’s probably their own fault.
Women may not go to the ER with domestic injuries. They’re often prevented from going by the perpetrator. Which sex is the vast majority of the perpetrators of your patient’s injuries?
Men don’t report stuff either pumpkin, often very serious stuff, because if they do, they would be marked out as wimps (especially by women). All a women has to do is cry a little and she has legions attending to her wellbeing. Understandable of course, but I doubt women are avoiding ER unless they’re in Fritzl’s basement.
when you’ve finished making sandwiches for the men, go and get some data to prove your assertion sweetie.
What difference does the sex of the perpetrator make? If your skull is cracked, your skull is cracked.
There’s some bizarre reasoning here, as if being male automatically makes you a member of the skullcrackers club – so if your own skull gets cracked that’s only fair.
Of course this is a case for care and huge concern . My own son has been the victim of a violent attack. But the subject here is specifically male violence against women which is a huge issue internationally . For once can people stay on topic. The number of women Whitley killed by men is a huge and disgraceful issue.
“Yes but what about us gals?” Solipsism is the essence of the article (indeed Bindel’s entire career) and your comments.
Isn’t any murder a disgraceful issue? Why is the murder of a woman worse than the murder of a man? And why let female murderers of women off the hook?
How many of those males were involved in criminal activity? The stats say the vast majority of them.
“Who is calling these (murdering) men to account?” Pretty well everyone. When sent to prison, these men have to be isolated so they are not attacked by other prisoners.
“Why is it only the feminists and the grieving relatives of the deceased who are left to honour the dead women and girls, and to demand justice from a broken criminal justice system?” Pretty well every Tory voter and Blue Labour do too.
It is easy to assume that the police and CPS do not care. No doubt mistakes are made and bad faith decisions too. However, each service has to work with the resources available. The police have to respond to men who fight a constant war of attrition against the terms of any court orders made against them. The prisons are already full. The CPS has to bring cases with an expected conviction rate of over 50%. There are only so many court rooms and so many judges. This is often difficult to do if the witness’ testimony is withdrawn or self-contradictory. Domestic violence has a unique characteristic. Punishing the perpetrator often involves also punishing the defendant by depriving mother and children of their provider.
Better decision making by police and social services is possible. However that would need a lot of grindingly boring work, going through case after case and seeing how threatening behaviour escalates. It’s much easier writing articles for Unherd.
BTW In the UK about twice as many men are murdered as women. To ignore their deaths is to imply either that their lives have no worth or that only inter-sex murders matter.
“inter-sex murders matter” I think you mean men killing women. Women killing men is fine.
Not just fine, but celebrated. And don’t forget, as feminists always do, about the numbers of men killing men.
Bindel has written elsewhere on this site that women who murder men are pretty much justified because of oppression.
Some common sense spoken at last. Whilst I lament the death of any woman I admit to bias when she said she was a feminist. Partly the way out of this is not to go with certain men prone to this. A lot of women are also murdered through rape especially in London. This is also something to look into. The sentences for this are far too low.
The Women murdered through rape are included in this census
Sexy bad boys, some girls just can’t get enough of them.
The lockdowns aren’t helping. There has been a significant increase in the number of women murdered in the UK since March.
Bollocks.
I wouldn’t like to comment on actual numbers of deaths, since I only have experience of murder cases in my own area, but there has certainly been a significant increase in violent domestic abuse since last March. I’ve seen some appalling cases over the past year, including ‘regular’ offenders and people (mostly men but also a few women) with no previous history of violence, who have committed violent acts against their partners/children/parents/others. Not unexpected, given the conditions of lockdown, where people are trapped together, with aggravating factors like money worries, frustration, fear of covid, substance/alcohol abuse and in many cases, poor mental health.
Actually, having looked at the cases that happened last year (see my other comment) there seems to be a simpler solution.
Almost every case of man-woman control murder was preceded by some sort of stalking by an EX-partner.
So this is not exactly the same as a domestic abuse issue, since these are all women who have left their partners.
As well as the possibility of an injunction, reportedly violent ex-partners could be railroaded into some sort of obsession management, i.e. treatment, with a lower level of proof than that needed for an injunction.
We have a belief that mental health treatment is for victims only. But nasty people can be treated too, and might jump at the chance of learning to control obsessional feelings. I know of some men who have learned to control such feelings, and stopped being manipulative (these ones weren’t violent). This is a bigger intervention than a stern warning, but is less likely to escalate the issue, which means more women are likely to report, if they know their ex-partner is getting ‘help’.
Good point.
It is shocking to see whataboutery and notallmenery in such droves in these comments. I was clearly wrong to assume the readership here was up to intellectual challenge. Thank you, Julie Bindel for speaking out over so many years in the hope of getting through to cloth-ears.
You need to put forward a workable alternative then Brigitte.
Most women crave a real man.
Real men are aggressive risk takers.
What practical advice do you have for readers here?
Whataboutery is the appropriate
method for dealing with a grossly biased account of a problem that seeks to set the sexes against each other for evidently false reasons.
Homicide victimhood is extaordinarily rare, several times more so for woman. What about men”that is the real question.
The account is an accurate on of the extent of Femicisebin thesis country . Just face it . It’s not setting sexes against one another unless you choose to take it that way . It’s highlighting what some men do to some women and that particularly in the context of domestic or relationships mean are far more likely to kill than women . It’s just a fact. It doesn’t men all men are killers
False. Women kill far more than men. They abort 205,000 children a year, which is one every 2.6 minutes – 100% women’s doing.
And don’t give me the tired old “abortion is legal” nonsense, because if we legalised the killing of women in the same way, it would still be wrong.
Feminists are in fact fine with killing in general, as long as they’re doing it and the results are personally convenient for their career or lifestyle or whatever. At some point this century, some country somewhere will probably allow the abortion of inconvenient children up to about five years old, and / or the late abortion of elderly parents, as well.
I see the point you’re making, and agree that late term abortion is frightful, but I think it’s an abdication of wider responsibilities to say that abortion is ‘100% women’s doing’. Also I don’t think abortion of elderly parents is a thing
“I think it’s an abdication of wider responsibilities to say that abortion is ‘100% women’s doing’.” – I don’t know of any country where a man gets a say, do you?
The problem is that men who read articles by misandrist feminists aren’t the ones who go murdering ex-partners.
Any readership up to intellectual challenge probably doesn’t even know a violent man, or if they do isn’t at all chummy with them.
Most women wouldn’t like to be compared to Myra Hindley, or told to listen harder to prevent another Rose West. Taking these two as an example and declaring there is a fundamental problem with all women, even the ones who read Unherd, would I suspect wind a few women up.
For the same reason that it makes no sense to run an article with a headline of “Why are so many women sadistic serial killers?” it makes very little sense to come at the real problem of control-motivated violence by men against women from the perspective of “Why are so many women being killed?”
Guess what, men have feelings too, and most men here find violence against women despicable, which is why they read articles such as these. They really get riled when it is assumed that they don’t.
You didn’t get the memo. Women are objects not subjects. Women may never be the protagonists in their own stories. Unless they’re men in dresses, of course.
Dammit where’s my violin!
Yes women never tell their own stories, unless you discount literally hundreds if not thousands of authoresses, actresses, bloggers, UnHerd writers, etc….
So what is it then, cat or dog? Excuses it clearly isn’t a husband you have.
Murder is horrific, and each of the deaths in Ms Bindel’s essay is a tragedy. It deserves to be taken seriously and so it must be of some consolation, in a country where 70% of murder victims are men, that the Crown Prosecution Service limits the scope of its activity and allocates its resources to “Ending Violence Against Women And Girls”.
From a non-gynocentric viewpoint, though, allocating the majority of one’s resource to the minority victim of crime might be counterintuitive, and it’s worth looking at how it has come about.
A reliable technique in the feminist toolbox is a neologism – mansplaining, manspreading, patriarchy, womyn, etc. Here, the neologism is “femicide”. Where “homicide” is the killing of anyone by anyone for any reason, “femicide” is the killing of a woman by a man because she is a woman. The word establishes that murder of a woman by a man is a different category and more serious than murder of a man by a woman. The causal modifier advances the narrative of oppression and misogyny. Women are not killed because an argument has escalated and men are stronger than women. Women are killed because men hate women.
As with all narratives with a grain of truth, there is quite a bit of detail to overlook. In a domestic argument, women are more likely than men to use a weapon (including boiling water), nullifying muscular strength, and a significant amount of violent abuse of men is unreported. Domestic violence is more prevalent in single sex relationships, and more prevalent again in lesbian than gay relationships. So some of the names in the list of “women-killed-by-men-because-they-were-women” might be “women-killed-by-women-because-that’s-who-the-relationship-was-with”, but it would be considered misogyny to check. And when a grieving young boy who’s innocent shop-keeper father has been killed, he’s told that the death of his father is less significant in Britain because his murderer also had a p***s.
“Isn’t it time something more was done?” Women have already co-opted the resource of the CPS and had standards of evidence altered to make it impossible for men to introduce certain types of exculpatory evidence. The £330,000 a year salary of the CEO of one of the Women’s charities in the UK’s £250 million a year feminist industry earns 8 times more than the entire UK budget for shelters for male victims of domestic abuse (in one year in Cornwall, men were the victims of 5 consecutive domestic violence murders by female partners). The feminist jurisprudence activists embedded in the Law Commission have managed to propose reforms to UK Law that elevate the category of “being a woman” to the same significance in law as “being a religion”.
So it’s not unreasonable to ask: “What more would you like done?”
You need to understand the concept of TLDR mate.
Shame because you have some good points.
For every women killed, three men are. Yet, this seems never to surface terribly much in these ‘discussions.’ It is an “intellectual” slip that is precisely analogous to dismissing murder and other violence in predominantly black communities in the US on the basis that the perpetrators happen also to be black.
And, we mustn’t forget that women are sentenced far more leniently when they are violent.
There’s no denying the reality of violence against women. However, the feminists have so dominated media that almost never do we hear another startling fact: 3 out of 4 suicides are men. Yet in the feminist reckoning, a man’s life is of little value. During the COVID lockdown, suicides are skyrocketing; again, most are men. No tears from the feminists for them.
of course feminists mourn the suicides of men.
Feminists have sons, grandsons and husbands.
I think the point of the comment, and others in a similar vein, is that male suffering, disadvantage and death have largely been written out of the cultural narrative. And that this has been done to maintain an overall feminist narrative of male oppressor and female victim – rather than a more realistic and nuanced view.
This is why they are bringing up apparently off topic male suffering and victimhood.
Unless, of course, they are just creating more male tears for feminists to bathe in.
Here is a non-startling fact: whether homicide or suicide, whether the victim is a man or a woman, in the vast majority of cases the killer is a man.
Agree, that is overwhelmingly the case. There is a debate to be had on nature v nurture but trying to deny that fact is not helpful.
Happy for you to make your point but, ‘he pleaded not guilty to femicide’ is simply untrue – the charge is one of murder.
Ask how well received this article would be if it asserted that one white Britons died at the hands of an immigrant every three days? Even if it were true there would be outrage. How do feminists get to this one in three figure? The usual dishonest sleight of hand. Were you as a man driving the family car when a drunk driver broadsided you and killed your wife? Well she died at your hands because you were the driver. Assisted suicides?Yep f**k it bung those stats in as well. Add accidents into the mix and you have an inter gender holocaust on your hands. This chicanery has been debunked repeatedly yet feminists continue(in the full knowledge that they are cooking the books) to regurgitate it. Finally just as one example. In Scotland two WOMEN tied a young boy to a chair an systematically beat him to death over the course of four days. Can he go and F**k himself because he has a p***s Julie? Don’t bother answering, as I know you you already think men should be put in concentration camps. (yes, you said that. A man would not get away with a similar statement on the grounds he was joking.)
They never mention the 9 million babies murdered since the 1967 act by labour, most simply as a means of contraceptive.
I need a kidney. I’ll take yours. You don’t need it.
Moron.
Women are easily the biggest killers of all when you factor in pre-natal infanticide (i.e. abortion). Every woman who has an abortion is a murderer and every single one knows it.
Note carefully the use of “femicide” – “murder of a woman by a man because she is a woman” – rather than “homicide”. It’s a deliberate tactic in feminist rhetoric. It deftly establishes murder of a woman by a man as more significant than murder of a person by a person, and advances their victimhood narrative.
Thus, a murder is not the outcome (however reprehensible) of the asymmetric use of force in an argument either party can start and in which control has been lost. A woman, it is claimed, is targeted for execution because of the ubiquity of misogyny in patriarchal society. Something Must Be Done – invariably, the granting of yet more social, legal, and economic privilege.
Of course, 70% of homicide victims are men. But feminists claim that the murder of an innocent man is unremarkable, because his murderer also has a p***s. Unsurprisingly, this is a world view that ordinary women and men find repugnant.
Male death prevalence notwithstanding, in our gynocentric society the Crown Prosecution Service explicitly limits the scope of its ambition, and allocates its resource, to the prevention only of violence against Women and Girls.
But naturally, and inevitably, Something More Must Be Done to address the apparently unsatisfiable demands of homicide’s minority victim.
Why not try to reduce the violence all around. No person should face violence in their own home. No person should face violence in their community. No person should face violence anywhere. 70% of murder victims are male, what’s sad is that the causal misandry of the article isn’t even suprising.
Women tend to be murdered due to misogyny. Not for financial gain, ‘respect’, or territory – but because they are women and the killers are not.
It’s not misandry to point this out.
Women tend to be murdered by their current or ex-partners. That would indicate hatred of them personally rather than of women as a whole, the definition of misogyny. Serial killers often exhibit misogyny but my guess is that the numbers of their victims are small in comparison to the domestic murders of women.
Women are most often murdered by:
– Jealous/controlling partners
– Schizophrenic children
– Parents
Checking out the first 100 people killed in 2019 on the BBC shows examples of all of these.
1 old woman killed her son (addiction)
1 woman killed her infant (mental illness)
1 woman killed her partner (mental illness)
5 men killed ex/partners (control)
1 man killed his ex partner(control, addiction)
1 man killed his ex partner(mental illness)
1 man killed his infant daughter (addiction)
1 man killed his mother (addiction)
1 man killed his grandmother (mental illness)
Jealousy/control murderers from both sexes usually have the following issues:
– An obsessive need for control (they can’t control the way their emotions make them feel so they try to control the world)
– A view of the world that is primarily status based
– A propensity to use violence to solve problems
– The belief that other people cause their problems
– They get that satisfying ‘gotcha’ feeling when other people are hurt
The reason that more men kill women because of a controlling nature is simply that points two and three really do depend on being physically stronger.
Finally, the police do and have cared about domestic violence for a long time, but because people who believe that others cause their problems are often paired with low-self-esteem partners, it is a hugely knotty problem to solve. Often women who turn to such men have nowhere left to go, and men who prey on such women couldn’t cope with someone more assertive, so tend to start relationships with low-self-esteem women.
Would a public register help? Or would a woman who has fallen into the clutches of a man because she feels that the whole world is against her, and that he is the only one who understands pay little attention to the register.
Far better would be a process of allowing social workers to query police for records of abusive behaviour, and a way of getting from concerned parents etc. to those social services.
In my ideal world, most violence against living beings would be regarded with disgust – we teach toddlers to be continent with urine and faeces – why not with anger?
How would one do that? Anger is a common emotion. It is what you do with it that counts. It becomes a problem when you can’t control it. Who would teach that apart from a church?
I think violence is regarded with disgust in our culture, and certain types of violence have been regarded with disgust thoughout the ages.
Also, most people do teach their children not to be violent, even more violent cultures.
But not all children are the same. Some people are quite extreme, and men are more varied than women, as well as being generally physically stronger than women.
Although nurture is definitely necessary, and can be improved on, nature is another matter. At best we can tailor nurture to match nature a bit better, for the oddest cases of people.
I do agree that education can play a part – even forced education on how to control one’s emotions for reportedly violent ex-partners who are stalking women, given that they are the most likely to murder a women by far. (That very rough statistic from looking at women killed in the UK last year). Unfortunately, without knowng how many reportedly violent ex partners do not go on to kill it is really hard to know what the total cost would be per life saved, or per harm reduction generally, assuming that the education would work. Done badly (e.g. getting a sermon from the likes of Bindel) an education program could conceivably increase the number of control-issue related murders against women. If a program doesn’t work it is also taking resources away from more traditional methods of harm prevention for these women, so it is important to weigh up the costs involved.
Note I use the term “reportedly violent” here to indicate that I am talking about the stage before investigations of domestic abuse have commenced in earnest. I.e. a lower standard of evidence for a judge ordering education, or a social/police service recommending emotional education, and a lower level of commitment from the victim, compared to a commitment to prosecution.
The problem with Bindel’s strain of feminism is the implicit assumption that by demanding nice men become nicer, nasty men will stop murdering women. On the other hand, it is good that we think about these issues.
Good God are you even an adult? Will there be free chocolate bars and unicorns to ride to work on? Violence is not always disgusting, sometimes it can even be good (a certain ‘living being’ – a dog – tried to bite my son when it was let off its leash by a stupid owner – I responded with violence, a kick). Little secret? I enjoyed kicking it too, as we should enjoy violence against the dangerous/wicked.
Actually we do try, and arguably succeed to a great extent. To know for sure you would have to know how violent we would be without such socialisation. I suspect very.
My daughter is in a domestic violence relationship with her female partner who tried killing her more than once I just wish there could be a law when the peratator gets atrreseted and but on bail not to be allowed near the victim I dread every day that my baby girl is with a violent evil woman I wish she would take notice but police havernt yet
Lesbian relationships are the most violent of all. Sorry to hear about your daughter.
I read that that is true statistically but I would be interested to understand why that is.
Women go with violent men due to gullibility, trauma bonds, socialization, and fear None of this is women’s fault. If anything, their murders and rapes need to be taken MORE seriously, since they are more vulnerable. Instead, as Bindel shows us here, they are not even taken AS seriously.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are making a fundamental mistake here.
Domestic violence is a difficult problem for the reasons you state. But there are no simple solutions to the problem.
It is difficult to prosecute violent men who prey on gullible afraid women. Difficult because the women they prey on are often literally less reliable witnesses (due to dependency issues in some cases and emotional issues in most cases). Difficult because the men involved have spent years practicing making those women less reliable witnesses, and difficult because the men involved have often spent years practicing manipulating people and lying.
It can be very demotivating for the police and CPS to try these cases, and can be very resource intensive. That doesn’t mean they don’t care.
I do think it is worthwhile to cultivate techniques to improve conviction rates, but an official register of bad boyfriends would likely do very little if any good to victims of domestic violence, and do considerable harm in many other instances.
70% of homicide victims are men. The Crown Prosecution Service, in its written statement of priorities, states that it limits its goals to “Ending Violence Against Women And Girls”. Feminist ideology in the UK is a £250 million a year industry. The £330,000 annual salary of the CEO of one of the “charities” is five times the UK annual budget for shelters for male victims of domestic violence. Westminster is reviewing proposals to elevate “being a woman” to the same significance in law as “being a religion”. And on it goes.
How much more seriously do feel you would like to be taken?
Those 70% of male homicide victims are almost all involved in criminal activity. Women, on the other hand, are killed for merely existing.
Women, on the other hand, are killed for merely existing.
If the cause were mere existence then the rate would be far higher. All women exist, the numbers killed are tiny in proportion. The causes a probably vary a great deal.
They go with them because they find them hot. Some women love a bit of rough.
I really wish articles like this would give some numbers for context. I have no idea how many people are killed in the UK every day, or how many men are killed every day in the UK. I suspect that, while most people think that any number of murders are too many, they also would like to have a sense whether the numbers are similar or different than for other groups.
I appreciate that often women are not killed in the same kinds of circumstances, and that means they should perhaps be dealt with differently, and yet I always end up feeling that perhaps I’m being manipulated a little by writers like Bindel. Though maybe what’s more likely is that in areas like women’s studies there is often a completely inadequate approach to situating the analysis.
Why would you deal with the murder of a woman differently than that of a man? Or a child for that matter?
According to the Office of National Statistics (search for Homicide in England and Wales: year ending March 2020) in the year to March 2020, there were 695 homicides in England and Wales: 506 of the victims were men, that’s 73%.
Here is the link [ONS homicides 2020](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020)
And how many of the perpetrators were also men?
Exactly the issue is not; why are so many women being killed’ because twice as many men get killed and not men’s violence to women because they are more violent to other men but merely men’s violence.
According to ONS “After 1980, male-on-male cases have dominated and have driven all the main trends.”
Search for Trends and drivers of homicide Main findings Research Report 113
In one of my other comments I’ve made comparison with Sweden – arguably the most feminist of countries. Numbers there are about 25% higher in proportion to population. I suspect numbers in the U.K. are as low as it is realistically possible to get them – which is why they have been so stable over the last ten years.
To be honest, this is just an opportunistic feminist stunt by Bindel et al carried out on the graves of the victims.
Very interesting and moving article. I think the idea of a register might be a good one.
Come on, let’s not try and minimise this by bringing in irrelevant comparisons. Male suicide maybe tragic, but is irrelevant to this topic. The level of male violence against women is a shocking disgrace. The level of rape, violence and murder needs to be addressed and it should be brought up without someone trying to distract from this.
“The level of male violence against women is a shocking disgrace”
Second only to the level of male violence against men. It is not worse to kill a woman than a man. Murder is murder.
But that does perfectly illustrate that MALE violence is the issue. As to how much of that is nature v nurture is another topic entirely but it would suggest that the prevalence of male violence throughout history would point to more than just socialisation.
I believe that murder is murder. It doesn’t matter who does the murdering or who is murdered. It’s wrong no matter what. Until we stop trying to single out victim groups for special outrage, the public won’t take it seriously. Life is cheap these days, men, women and children are murdered every day on the streets of some US cities as well as at home and no one does a single thing about it. No one says enough, (some US states do have the death penalty and do take it seriously but the states and cities with the biggest problems do not).
Self defense is not murder. Execution is not murder. Murder is the intentional, extrajudicial killing of anyone not defending themselves from the same.
I believe that murder is murder. It doesn’t matter who does the murdering or who is murdered. It’s wrong no matter what. Until we stop trying to single out victim groups for special outrage, the public won’t take it seriously. Life is cheap these days, men, women and children are murdered every day on the streets of some US cities as well as at home and no one does a single thing about it. No one says enough, (some US states do have the death penalty and do take it seriously but the states and cities with the biggest problems do not).
Self defense is not murder. Execution is not murder. Murder is the intentional, extrajudicial killing of anyone not defending themselves from the same.
This article like many others suggests that women are uniqued subject to violence from men. In fact three times as many men are murdered as are women. Men’s lives like white lives apparently don’t matter. Violence is largely carried out by men but the majority of victims are also men. It’s not therefore purely a problem for women. The majority of men are not violent so it’s worth examining the difference between violent men and the rest of us. There is a lot of research done across the world it’s generally associated with trauma particularly head injuries. I read an article about a doctor who examined the medical records of death row prisoners and found a very close correlation between head injuries and murderers. None of this plays well to Ms Bindel’s theory that all men are Basard’s .
But it is also true that most of those men are also killed by other men. You cannot get away from it, men are more violent than women. However I also agree that women can wreak damage in their own way, maybe the only comparison might be the number of men who commit suicide as a result of relationship breakdown, female abuse or loss of access to children due to pro-female bias. It still does not take away the fact that violent death, is something that men overwhelmingly cause.
Collective guilt does seem to be the prevailing culture. All white people are responsible for slavery. All men responsible for all murders but there are exceptions to the general rule. You can’t blame all Muslims for jihad terrorism or all black youngsters for all knife crimes. It’s difficult to understand the logic behind these nomes. This latest crime appears to have been committed by a police officer. Can we now categorise all police officers as murderers?
Collective guilt does seem to be the prevailing culture. All white people are responsible for slavery. All men responsible for all murders but there are exceptions to the general rule. You can’t blame all Muslims for jihad terrorism or all black youngsters for all knife crimes. It’s difficult to understand the logic behind these nomes. This latest crime appears to have been committed by a police officer. Can we now categorise all police officers as murderers?
That sounds very sensational, but it’s actually a remarkably small number given the size of the U.K. – about 120 in a year.
Perhaps one per year in a city of half a million people. In the context of the closest living arrangements and most intense emotions that most of us feel. And that half a million will include all of the criminals, generally violent people, seriously mentally ill people, and generally strange characters that such a city will contain.
One in half a million. Am I the only person who is amazed it is so low.
That sounds very sensational, but it’s actually a remarkably small number given the size of the U.K. – about 120 in a year.
Perhaps one per year in a city of half a million people. In the context of the closest living arrangements and most intense emotions that most of us feel. And that half a million will include all of the criminals, generally violent people, seriously mentally ill people, and generally strange characters that such a city will contain.
One in half a million. Am I the only person who is amazed it is so low.
Following on from my previous comments that the number of deaths is in fact remarkably low – perhaps almost as low as it can get – i thought I would make a comparison. I chose Sweden, as a country in which you would expect the figures to be low.
Given the population difference, that would equate to about 145 deaths if Sweden were the size of the U.K. or about 25% more than we have.
So the number in the U.K. is surprisingly low, and really may be almost as low as we will ever get.
While death is never something to celebrate, we really should all be very glad that we live in such a safe country.
Following on from my previous comments that the number of deaths is in fact remarkably low – perhaps almost as low as it can get – i thought I would make a comparison. I chose Sweden, as a country in which you would expect the figures to be low.
Given the population difference, that would equate to about 145 deaths if Sweden were the size of the U.K. or about 25% more than we have.
So the number in the U.K. is surprisingly low, and really may be almost as low as we will ever get.
While death is never something to celebrate, we really should all be very glad that we live in such a safe country.
How many human beings are the victims of murder every day?
Sentencing policy, in the UK at least, suggests that it is not viewed as a serious crime by our governing class.
Why are so many people reading this article so determined to wilfully miss the pint of it? The article is about the extent of Male on Female violence which results in death of women. That’s the topic . Others deaths and violence matter as much but constantly deflecting from the actual topic doesn’t make it go away, minimise it or make it not matter. And male on female violence ( not ALL men) is a big and complex issue . Face it
No, all murder is wrong, no matter who is doing the murdering or who is being murdered. It’s not worse to murder a woman than it is to murder a man. If you want to create a murder sweepstakes prize, it would have to go to men in fact, not women. Murder is not a complex issue at all and refusal to take action against those committing murder, in such a way as they cannot do it twice, does not make it more complex. It simply makes it more common.
Yes but just not as big or as complex as male violence to people which is what we should focus on its just not a gender issue.
If the author had written an article about black people committing violence against white people and arguing that white people should stand up and fight back, how would you react? What about if politicians were talking in parliament about the subject and demanding that Something Must Be Done about these black people? What if the leader of UKIP started arguing that black people not be allowed out of the house after 6pm? What if an endless stream of white people appeared online to complain that seeing black people at night made them feel uncomfortable? How would you react then?
Would you ever run a headline ‘when men fight back?’ No. Of course not, but you run one about women fighting back. It has been well known for 50 yeas that men and women abuse each other in about equal numbers and when men lose it, there is more likely going to be physical damage whilst women rely more on emotional and mental damage. But go ahead with the feminist narrative as it will keep the dv industry growing with one side given a pass card to carry out violence with impunity. Evil.
According to ONS, year ending March 2018:
A third of women were killed by their partner or ex-partner 1 (33%, 63 homicides) in the year ending March 2018. This is the fewest number of women aged 16 years and over killed by a partner or ex-partner in the last 40 years.
Actually, the numbers are so low in relation to the population of U.K. that reducing them much further might prove impossible.
They will never be zero, and in proportion to the population we may be almost as close to zero as it is possible to get.
If we can step back a moment from the specifics, I think what we are seeing is the manifestation of an ideological contest within identity politics.
Feminism needed its George Floyd, and now it has found her.
Following it’s revival feminism has found itself somewhat overshadowed both by the trans movement and more especially BLM. It has lost its position at the top of the victimhood league. It’s just not dictating the main narrative anymore.
Not only that, but both the trans movement and BLM paint feminists, and especially white middle class feminists in a poor light. They become part of the problem rather than part of the solution, both as TERFs and as carriers of “whiteness”. They are white and they are privileged. Do what they might to link themselves to BLM, it only takes one Karen with a phone calling the cops on a black man to blow their cover.
Meanwhile, in the woke demonology, “whiteness” and “white fragility” have left “toxic masculinity” and “the patriarchy” looking decidedly old hat.
Well, they’ve got their martyr, a cop seems to have been involved which helps. And they’re on the streets taking on the cops, but whether they can really topple BLM from the top spot remains to be seen.
I agree with the thrust of this piece although surely it is right to point out that 3 women a day in 1970 is not the same as 3 women a day now when we have a much larger population. That is actually an improvement, although it is still such a heinous statistic it makes me want to smash something.
While it would be impossible to eradicate violence against women so long as sexual jealousy exists, the restoration of capital punishment for femicide would probably be a powerful deterrent.
While it would be impossible to eradicate violence against women so long as sexual jealousy exists, the restoration of capital punishment for femicide would probably be a powerful deterrent.
Once, mooning around Twitter, I came across a video purporting to show an ISIS beheading. Surely not, I thought, and looked. Well it did. The victim (whose head was blurred out) was a young boy about 15. He was stretched out on the floor of a pickup while his killer stood over him and sawed away with his short-bladed knife back and forward. I could not watch for very long, and it left me with a visceral loathing of ISIS.
Blindell writes:
Does she want me to feel about men in general what I feel about ISIS lowlife killers? Is that how she feels about men?
At birth there are generally 104 males to 100 females, . By the time we get to our 80’s there are 85 males for every 100 females. Gross inequality.
Intimate partner violence is instigated 40% of the time by women. Lesbians experience more domestic violence at the hands of their partner than straight women do from their hands of their male partner.
Talking about violence as though it’s exclusively a problem with men is just plain wrong. Bindel has a cult like adherence to an ideology and as such deserves no credibility of respect.