Is gender inherently oppressive? »« Breaking the silence on male abuse victims.

Some important findings from the ONS crime stats: Intimate & sexual violence

The Office for National Statistics have published the latest crime statistics for England and Wales. As they do almost invariably, the mainstream media have published selected figures without any trends or historical context, to provide alarming headlines. Typically, the Guardian proclaims “Domestic violence experienced by 30% of female population, survey shows.”

It is true, after a fashion, if one chooses to define domestic violence as any one single adult lifetime incident of emotional or financial abuse, threat or minor force’ by any partner or family member. That is not, however, how most people (including most agencies and academics) would choose to define domestic violence. The total is here

CSEWTotalCount

If we look at the table which breaks down the experience of all those victims, a rather less dramatic picture emerges.

CSEW1Abuse_Type

This shows a couple of interesting things. The first is that only about a third of all victims reported any instance of severe force or serious sexual assault. Of course some forms of non-physical abuse can be devastating and terrifying, but it is important to note that the reality of the data is not quite as dramatic as headlines would suggest.

The second notable thing here, I think, is that while (as most of us realise) female victims of most forms of intimate violence are more numerous, male victims here were much more likely to report having experienced severe force as women. This doesn’t match the stereotype which paints male violence as severe and frightening, and women’s as trivial acts of self-defence.

Where headlines like the Guardian’s really slip up though, is in hiding the trends. You really wouldn’t know it from reading the papers, but we are in the midst of an ongoing and dramatic decline in partner violence. A rather more appropriate headline would be: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AT AN ALL TIME LOW. You could go further. Partner violence is at an all time low. Sexual violence is at an all time low. Stalking is at an all time low. Domestic homicides are at an all time low. And if you’re wondering, for male victims the rates hit an all time low in 2010/11 and have remained roughly constant since.

As these tables show, both male and female victimisation has dropped by about 20-25% over the past decade. (Regular readers will know that the decade prior to that saw even more dramatic declines. Partner violence was at its peak in the mid 90s) The trend is probably clearest on physical violence, but even sexual violence against women is now at the lowest point since records began.

CSEW2Trends

The trend is even more marked in the domestic partner homicide figures. There were 75 women killed by partners and ex-partners last year, and 15 men. In 2004/5 the equivalent numbers were 106 and 39. It goes without saying that any homicide is one too many, but it would be wilfully obtuse to ignore the good news here. (Should also be pointed out that figures are just about the only police stat that can be relied upon for accuracy.)

CSEWHomicides_domesticr

Elsewhere in the data, another couple of statistics that intrigue me, because they are so unexpected. If anyone can offer credible explanations, I’m all ears.

UPDATED: THE FOLLOWING APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE IN THE ORIGINAL DATA TABLES, SINCE CORRECTED (see comments, and hat tip to Unity at Ministry of Truth

First, it appears that the majority of serious sexual assaults on women are committed by strangers. This flies in the face of received wisdom, which holds that women are much more likely to be raped or seriously sexually assaulted by their partners, loved ones and acquaintances. Look

CSEWRelationships

The only explanation I can offer is that the dramatic improvement in rates of domestic and relationship violence – including much improved capacity and greater willingness of people to leave abusive relationships – mean that those types of assaults have become less common, while frequency of stranger attacks have remained broadly unchanged. I had a quick look at the stats from last year, and they were heading in the same direction, which would confirm that.

One final point regards the consequences of intimate violence on the victims. A point I’ve often seen raised in relation to male victims is that compared to their female equivalents, they are less likely to live in fear and terror, less likely to be traumatised, and are therefore in less need of support, protection and services.

Well the CSEW asks a question in that vein, and it turns out that yes – male victims are less likely to have lasting psychological damage from their abuse – but the difference is marginal.

CSEWconsequences

In a nutshell, 4 out of 10 female victims have lasting psychological impacts, but so do 3 out of 10 men. Five women in a hundred feel suicidal, so do three men in a hundred. Yes, there are differences there, but I’d suggest they are not dramatic enough to really operate as justification for any kind of discriminatory policy.

Some final notes on the CSEW, from which these stats are drawn. For those who don’t know, it is a survey of around 50,000 people and is one of the best regarded, most reliable victim surveys in the world. But it is not perfect. There are problems with it – notably it misses data from people on the margins of society, who are temporarily homeless or who have chaotic lifestyles. There are always doubts about the accuracy and honesty of subjects’ reporting in surveys like this. There is a particular issue with the intimate violence modules, which is that it does not record high multiples of instances – it is counting the numbers of victims, not the numbers of incidents. So the CSEW does not really pick up on rates of systematic coercive controlling violence which (some researchers claim) is the type of DV which is most likely to be male perpetrator – female victim.

For all that, what the CSEW does do is provide really quite reliable data on trends. Whatever doubts we may have about total counts and some of the details, I’d be pretty confident that what this survey is telling us about the long-term trends is pretty much true. And that really is good news, whatever you might read in the newspaper.

Comments

  1. CitymanMichael says

    Perhaps the reason why women are reporting severe sexual assaults by strangers is because a sexual assault by a boyfriend/wife is not really severe – a case of her not wanting sex and he pushing boundaries. This reasoning would not go down well with feminists because, as we know, they think that rape is rape is rape is rape…… Ken Clarke was hauled over the coals a couple of years ago for daring to suggest that a 16 year old boy having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend was not the same as a stranger jumping out from the bushes and violently raping a passing woman. The feminists had conniptions and Ken had to eat his words.

  2. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    “It is true, after a fashion, if one chooses to define domestic violence as any one single adult lifetime incident of emotional or financial abuse, threat or ‘minor force’ by any partner or family member. ”

    You meant to say of course: if one chooses to define domestic violence according to its legal definition in England and Wales where the stats apply to? Rather than some random definition you made up to suit you better?

  3. Lucy says

    “The second notable thing here, I think, is that while (as most of us realise) female victims of most forms of intimate violence are more numerous, male victims here were much more likely to report having experienced severe force as women. This doesn’t match the stereotype which paints male violence as severe and frightening, and women’s as trivial acts of self-defence.”

    It means nothing of the kind. Domestic attacks on males includes those by male partners or ex-partners and male family members over 18 years old. The majority of serious or fatal domestic attacks, 90% of them according to US stats, are perpetrated by males.

  4. mildlymagnificent says

    There is a particular issue with the intimate violence modules, which is that it does not record high multiples of instances – it is counting the numbers of victims, not the numbers of incidents. So the CSEW does not really pick up on rates of systematic coercive controlling violence which (some researchers claim) is the type of DV which is most likely to be male perpetrator – female victim.

    Surely someone in the organisation must understand this. It’s perfectly obvious from their definitions. Surely they could have a sub-category or separate category for repeated or persistent threats or repeated violence. We’ve all filled in various surveys where the options are never, rarely, monthly, weekly, daily for things like reading newspapers or going to the movies or having sex or how much we might drink or smoke. You could easily frame questions about violence and threats of violence along the same lines. Couldn’t you?

    For most of us, once a violent atmosphere is established, the perpetrator only needs to “remind” about what happened “last time” to reduce the victim to a subservient wreck without a hand or a voice being raised. A simple, gentle but firm, shake of the ladder when the victim is busy cleaning, or rehanging curtains or whatever, is a not-so-gentle reminder that the danger to life and limb is constant. And the occasional noisy and fairly spectacular damage to door hinges and various household items is a not-subtle-at-all indicator to keep quiet and keep out of the way.
    There has to be some way a survey of dangerous interactions could be structured to get a picture of how many, how often, how serious this is.

  5. Lucy says

    While the Crime Survey collects data on victims, it does not collate information on those who perpetrate crimes. However, in the area of domestic abuse Scotland collects information on both the “abuser” and the “abused”.

    Since 2002 Scotland’s police forces have been producing gender-specific data. From the Scottish Executive’s most recent statistics, we can see that in 2011/12 there were 59,847 incidents of domestic abuse. In 9,569 incidents (17% of the total) a man had been abused by a woman. We can compare this with the 659 incidents in which the victim and the perpetrator were both male (1% of the total).

    To put these numbers in context, it’s worth noting that 46,439 incidents (81%) involved a female victim and a male perpetrator. In the case of more serious incidents involving violence or sexual assault, men were far more likely to be the perpetrators of abuse.

    In fact, in 90% of incidents involving a female perpetrator, a woman was either guilty of a “miscellaneous” offence or of “behaviour not resulting in a crime”. (For men, the equivalent statistic is 86%).

    It’s important to note that the definition of domestic abuse applied by the Scottish government appears to be slightly different to that used in the Crime Survey of England and Wales. There’s a general acknowledgement that the term “domestic abuse” includes a range of behaviours, ranging from emotional coercion to rape (whereas the definition of “domestic violence” relates specifically to any type of physical assault). However, the Scottish government adds a number of other offences, including “drunkenness”, “drugs” and “vandalism” to its list of domestic abuse incidents.

  6. Lucy says

    Who does what to whom, Professor Marianne Hester, Violence Against Women Research Group School of Policy Studies, Bristol University

    Conclusions
    The research found that:
     While cases were very varied, there were distinct patterns by gender, with significant differences between male and female perpetrators of domestic violence in many respects …

    http://www.equation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Who-does-what-to-Whom-Gender-and-domestic-violence-perpetrators.pdf

  7. CitymanMichael says

    I think Lucy & Mildlymagnificent have missed Ally’s point in their rush to defend the public misperception that women are victims and males are perpetrators.

    Ally was pointing out the good news that there appears to be decreases in instances of DV.

  8. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    “Elsewhere in the data, another couple of statistics that intrigue me, because they are so unexpected. If anyone can offer credible explanations, I’m all ears.

    First, it appears that the majority of serious sexual assaults on women are committed by strangers. This flies in the face of received wisdom, which holds that women are much more likely to be raped or seriously sexually assaulted by their partners, loved ones and acquaintances. ”

    It’s perfectly obvious why this is. People are more likely to report attacks by strangers than by partners and family members. The crime survey only captures reported and successful prosecution figures.

    The higher figures for domestic sexual assaults are not captured in the crime survey, they are captured in other kinds of research surveys, of primary care services, counselling services, the public, etc. Or in “anecdotal reports” as you prefer to refer to them.

  9. Ginkgo says

    Lucy,
    “It means nothing of the kind. Domestic attacks on males includes those by male partners or ex-partners and male family members over 18 years old.”

    In the US mothers commit the majority of physical abuse against children. Gay male relationships have the lowest levels of IPV while lesbian relationships have the highest. You can find these stats on the DOJ website.

    This is probably not beciause women are inhenretly more violent but ebcuase women have more license in Anglophone cultures to commit physical violence, with cultural norms of the “sugar and spice” and “You NEVER, EVER hit a girl” in play. In other words, the culture is deforming girls and women.

  10. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    “As these tables show, both male and female victimisation has dropped by about 20-25% over the past decade.”

    In the same period, single person households and single parent households have skyrocketed. According to the market research firm Euromonitor International, the number of people living alone globally has risen from about 153 million to 277 million – an increase of around 80% in 15 years. In the UK, 34% of households have one person living in them and in the US it’s 27%.

  11. Lucy says

    Ginkgo

    “In the US mothers commit the majority of physical abuse against children. Gay male relationships have the lowest levels of IPV while lesbian relationships have the highest. You can find these stats on the DOJ website.”

    Please post the stats.

    But more relevant would be English and Welsh stats on who is perpetrating this serious domestic violence on male victims. Because at the moment, all I’m seeing is unsubstantiated accusations against female intimate partners. All Ally Fogg has demonstrated is that a proportion of men suffer attacks at the hands of somebody and suffer lasting psychological damage as the result of attacks by somebody, he had not demonstrated who that somebody is.

  12. Lucy says

    “I think Lucy & Mildlymagnificent have missed Ally’s point in their rush to defend the public misperception that women are victims and males are perpetrators.

    Ally was pointing out the good news that there appears to be decreases in instances of DV.”

    It’s not the good news he is claiming it is. He is discounting the data that fall outside of his unique, preferred definition of domestic violence/abuse. He is discounting the data that fall outside the remit of the Crime Survey. He is discounting the demographic changes that most likely account for any fall. He is also playing fast and loose with the stats to make unsubstantiated claims about female partners.

    The overall effect is one that downplays the seriousness of violence against women while slandering them. I wish he’d stop banging this particular drum so noisily because some people won’t see through it.

  13. Ally Fogg says

    Lucy (2)

    You meant to say of course: if one chooses to define domestic violence according to its legal definition in England and Wales where the stats apply to? Rather than some random definition you made up to suit you better?

    No, there is no ‘legal definition’ of domestic violence in England and Wales.

    I was really alluding to organisations such as Women’s Aid and Refuge who define DV along the lines of “a systematic pattern of violent and controlling behaviour.”

    Domestic attacks on males includes those by male partners or ex-partners and male family members over 18 years old.

    They include a small number of male partners, but if you look, the stats separate out partners/ex-partners from other family members. Gay couples are included in households, but only make up about 4% of households so even if every single gay couple was beating hell out of each other, it still wouldn’t account for much of the total.

  14. Ally Fogg says

    Lucy (12)

    It’s not the good news he is claiming it is. He is discounting the data that fall outside of his unique, preferred definition of domestic violence/abuse. He is discounting the data that fall outside the remit of the Crime Survey. He is discounting the demographic changes that most likely account for any fall. He is also playing fast and loose with the stats to make unsubstantiated claims about female partners.

    You seem to have overlooked my final paragraph. CSEW are a very poor guide to absolute numbers, but they are a solid guide to trends. All the problems with catching the full incidence in 2013 also applied in 2003 and 1993.

    I place no faith in the baseline count. I can see no reason to doubt the validity of the trend.

  15. Ally Fogg says

    Lucyhe

    It’s perfectly obvious why this is. People are more likely to report attacks by strangers than by partners and family members. The crime survey only captures reported and successful prosecution figures.

    No, this is just flat out 100% wrong. We are NOT talking about crimes reported to the police. I explain what the CSEW is at the end, but if you are not sure, please Google the ONS user guide.

  16. unity says

    Ally:

    There’s a plot of annual prevalence of BCS domestic violence going back to 1981 in this post of mine that should usefully illustrate your point regarding long term trends – http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2013/12/22/domestic-abuse-statistics-and-margins-of-error/

    I’d suggest you grab a copy and add it to your post to clarify that particular issue.

    Like you, I’m a little perplexed by the high % of stranger assaults in the serious sexual assault data set although as we’re looking at the full 16-59 cohort there may be some under reporting of marital rape in older women due to it not having been criminalised until 1991.

    That said, the 2004 report by Walby and Allen put the number of stranger rapes for the 16-59 cohort at just 17%, so there does seem to be a question that needs posing – I’d suggest you contact ONS, point out the discrepancy, which is far too large to be a cohort effect, and see if they have an explanation.

    Lucy:

    Let me spell this out for you clearly.

    In the the case of both domestic violence and sexual violence the annual prevalence has fallen substantially in the UK, the US and a number of other Western countries since it peaked in the early-mid 90s. In the case of domestic violence, the fall in the annual prevalence over that last 20 years is around 60%.

    Thing have got better but that doesn’t mean we should be complacent, rates are still far too high just not as high as they were.

    The reasons for this fall are complex and not fully understood BUT there is broad consensus view amongst criminologists that the most plausible explanation for a substantial portion of this change lies in generational shifts in public attitudes to violence against women which are attributable to the work of domestic violence and rape crisis organisations, and other campaign groups, in keeping these issue high on the public agenda.

    In regards to rape, in particular, the promotion of a greater understanding of consent is thought to have been particular importance, especially in the US where.IIRC.18 states still have forcible rapes statutes rather than purely consent-based rape statutes.

    No one is trying to downplay violence against women as significant issue requiring further concerted efforts but, to be brutally honest, I find your general attitude deeply irritating as it amounts to a refusal to acknowledge that the hard work that a lot of very good people have put in over the last 20 years has had any kind of impact at all, when this is categorically NOT the case.

  17. says

    Ally:

    Remember when I pointed out that in the CSEW 2011/2012 victims of Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 section 4 subsection 4 point c – d (person B signifies the victim):

    (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved—

    (c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or

    (d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,

    is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

    either were counted as non-victims in the “serious sexual assault” category (those who answered that they had been forced without their consent to some sexual act other than being penetrated) in one of two possible question set assigned at random to the respondent or they would at best be counted in the “less serious sexual assault” category if those victims answered affirmative to the question:

    Touched you sexually when you did not want it (e.g. groping, touching of breasts or bottom, unwanted kissing)

    You (Ally) argued that men being made to penetrate (SOA 4.4.c-d) would be captured by this question. I am far from sure about that. Note how being made to penetrate in any way isn’t listed as an example. I’d also like to point out that technically a man raping a woman would also fall under this. I am sure most people would disagree if someone were to say that asking this question is enough since it would also capture all victims of rape.

    Well, reviewing the question sets for the CSEW 2012/2013 I see that the 2011/2012 option under serious sexual assault (ch. 19.7 NIPV36AA-
    NIPV36AF)
    (“some other sexual acts not described above” where above referred to a list of acts where the victim was penetrated) no longer exists for either of the 2012/2013 question sets (ch. 19.7, ch 19.3).

    This means that the classification of the respondents selecting that option as “non-victims” in CSEW 2011/2012 has now been formalized.

    It would be very interesting to see how many of the sample population getting the newer question set in 2011/2012 answered “some other sex act not described above” in question NIPV36AA-NIPV36AF. Was the size of that number a factor in excluding that answer from the question set?

    In the US 4.8% of men reported having been victims of acts falling under SOA 2003 or attempts thereof. 1.1% of men reported having been so in the last 12 months.

    This is potentially a large number of victims of a crime being punishable with up to life in prison not being counted in the CSEW.

  18. Sans-sanity says

    @Ally
    “This flies in the face of received wisdom, which holds that women are much more likely to be raped or seriously sexually assaulted by their partners, loved ones and acquaintances.”

    In the table you see that a higher percentage of serious sexual assults were comited by strangers while a higher percentage of less serious assults were committed by partners. You would expect that there are probably far more less serious assults than serious assults, and consequently more partner sexual assults overall than stranger.

    Therefore an explanation could be that the “recieved wisdom” is based on studies which have measured rape, sexual assult or etc… and lumped all instances together at the end to say that “women are most likely to experience sexual violence from a partner, loved one or aquantance”.
    Recieved wisdom is notoriously unreliable and it easy to imagine that a quote that refers to sexual violence would quickly shift to be used to refer to rape.

    We would have to know what studies the recieved wisdom is based on to find out for sure.

    That said, your explanation of lowering rates of serious partner assults is credible too, and fits with with the trend that you have noted.

  19. Paul says

    Interesting post Ally raising a number of issues which no doubt will lead to an interesting debate on this thread..

    Just wanted to make a few points.Whilst any decline in the incidence of domestic violence and domestic homicide is to be welcomed can we be certain that this decline is evenly spread across society.? I for instance have concerns about the levels of unreported dv occurring in certain religious and ethnic minority communities.Because for a variety of reasons victims of dv in these communities have always been less likely than those from the white british majority to involve the authorities let alone talk to those conducting research.And what about the relevance of social background ? For despite the decline in overall crime rates many socially deprived communites still have relatively high crime rates.So are levels of dv declining in socially deprived neighbourhoods as much as they are in more affluent areas ?

    I accept that the outcomes of dv are worse on average for women than they are for men.But that’s no excuse for ignoring or playing down the extent to which straight men and lesbian women can be abused by their female partners.And that’s no excuse for ignoring or playing down the role women are involved in both the sexual and non-sexual abuse of children.Which is why i hope that one day-sooner rather than later- a more holistic approach to dv will become the norm in this country.And this will be reflected in the language used when addressing the issue of dv and child abuse.For at the moment the language used still tends to focus primarily on women as victims and men as perpetrators .And that clearly doesn’t give the full picture.

  20. sirtooting . says

    Strange .. all these statistics based on what?
    The police turning away rape victims because it screws up their statistics..? We got gun gangs and gang violence across the country .. we got muslims and indians & their hidden family violence behinds closed doors and girls going missing from schools being tricked into arrange marriages abroad .. We got 100,000 child porn web sites on the internet, we got internet fraud, the internet is awash with misogyny and abuse .. We got the whole world at war .. but hey .. everything looks fine .. if you wear blinkers..
    We live at the mercy of the violent, self entitled, self indulgent merciless male .. we lock our doors for fear of intruders invading our homes .. and who is most likely to intrude into your home to rob you or worse.. is it the male .. we live at the mercy of the male .. Every culture fears the male and what he can do, if he feels slighted .. he won’t hold back, he will let everyone know, in his childish tantrum, exactly how he feels.

    Football hooliganism is tribal, and males in large group become tribal .. it is a well known fact the football hooligans after a punch up with the opposing team, with the adrenalin still running in their veins, would go home and beat their wives .. you may not of noticed the government has tried to reduce the effects of this tribalism by making football stadiums a more family orientated affair .. Encouraging women to attend, to reduce the affects.. not only in this country but in others ..
    This proves the point, that men are more easily aroused to become violent and women have the calming effect..
    Tribalism = violence ..
    One gets sick of seeing the news and seeing men armed to the teeth pogoing up & down in delight, because they feel slighted .. irrational big babies with guns .. is never a good combination ..

  21. sirtooting . says

    Strange .. all these statistics based on what?
    The police turning away rape victims because it screws up their statistics..? We got gun gangs and gang violence across the country .. we got muslims and indians & their family violence behinds closed doors and girls going missing from schools being tricked into arrange marriages abroad .. We got 100,000 child porn web sites on the internet, we got internet fraud, the internet is awash with misogyny and abuse .. We got drug gangs, we got mafia gangs. We got the sex slave trade, forced prostitution ..
    We got the whole world at war .. but hey .. everything looks fine .. if you wear blinkers..
    We live at the mercy of the violent, self entitled, self indulgent merciless male .. we lock our doors for fear of intruders invading our homes .. and who is most likely to intrude into your home to rob you or worse.. is it the male .. we live at the mercy of the male .. Every culture fears the male and what he can do, if he feels slighted .. he won’t hold back, he will let everyone know, in his childish tantrum, exactly how he feels.

    Football hooliganism is tribal, and males in large groups become tribal .. it is a well known fact the football hooligans after a punch up with the opposing team fans, with the adrenalin still running in their veins, go home and beat their wives .. You may not of noticed the government has tried to reduce the effects of this tribalism by making football stadiums a more family orientated affair .. Encouraging women to attend, to reduce the affects of tribalism.. not only in this country but in others ..
    This proves the point, that men are more easily aroused to become violent and women have the calming effect..
    Tribalism = violence ..
    One gets sick of seeing the news and seeing men armed to the teeth pogoing up & down in delight, because they feel slighted .. irrational big babies with guns .. is never a good combination ..
    The world at war and always at the centre of it .. is the male .. we live at his mercy ., the violent self indulgent stupid little greedy self loving thug.
    He isn’t happy if he isn’t at war with someone ..Man has no enemy except himself ..

  22. mildlymagnificent says

    I think Lucy & Mildlymagnificent have missed Ally’s point in their rush to defend the public misperception that women are victims and males are perpetrators.

    Sorry if I gave the impression that I was critiquing the whole post. I intended merely to expand on just the one part of one paragraph that I quoted.

  23. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    “No there is no legal definition of domestic abuse in England and Wales”

    Alright, but there is a Home Office definition and that is:

    The cross-government definition of domestic violence and abuse is:

    any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to:

    psychological
    physical
    sexual
    financial
    emotional

    The British Crime survey of England and Wales is commissioned by The Home Office.

  24. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    “No, this is just flat out 100% wrong. We are NOT talking about crimes reported to the police. I explain what the CSEW is at the end, but if you are not sure, please Google the ONS user guide.”

    The Crime Survey for England and Wales measures the extent of crime in England and Wales by asking people whether they have experienced any crime in the past year.

    The Crime Survey records crimes that may not have been reported to the police and it is therefore used alongside the police recorded crime figures to show a more accurate picture of the level of crime in the country.

    An interviewer will visit your address to ask you to take part in the survey.

    The interviewer will ask a few questions about the people who live at the address. If more than one person lives at the address they will randomly select one person aged 16 or over to take part in the study.

    The interviewer can only interview the person who has been selected. If the selected person does not wish to take part then no-one else in the household can take their place.

    http://www.crimesurvey.co.uk

    Think I’ve solved that particular mystery.

  25. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    “They include a small number of male partners, but if you look, the stats separate out partners/ex-partners from other family members. Gay couples are included in households, but only make up about 4% of households so even if every single gay couple was beating hell out of each other, it still wouldn’t account for much of the total.”

    But it might very well account for the largest proportion of serious incidents that lead to hospitalisation and fatality. This is likely given that males make up the most significant proportion of perpetrators of this type of domestic violence, across the board.

    You haven’t demonstrated that female partners or ex-partners are not the ones making up the bulk of charges for “any one single adult lifetime incident of emotional or financial abuse, threat or ‘minor force’ by any partner or family member.” Which you said was “not, however, how most people (including most agencies and academics) would choose to define domestic violence.” And until you do demos grate this, then your claims about female violence are anecdotal at best.

    Which agencies and academics by the way?

  26. Lucy says

    Men are significantly more likely to be repeat perpetrators, 83%. Two thirds of women were recorded as having only one incident.
    Men are significantly more likely to use physical violence, threats and harassment. Incidents involving women as perpetrators were more likely to involve verbal abuse.
    Men are significantly more likely to damage women’s property. Women are more likely to damage their own.
    Where men were the sole perpetrator, it was more likely to involve fear by or control of the victim.

    http://www.equation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Who-does-what-to-Whom-Gender-and-domestic-violence-perpetrators.pdf

  27. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    “You seem to have overlooked my final paragraph. CSEW are a very poor guide to absolute numbers, but they are a solid guide to trends. All the problems with catching the full incidence in 2013 also applied in 2003 and 1993.

    I place no faith in the baseline count. I can see no reason to doubt the validity of the trend.”

    I didn’t overlook it. The trend may very well be accurate, but your optimism may well not be.

    It’s most likely not because of reduced propensity to violence, but reduced opportunity. Single person households in the UK have risen by a comparable percentage to the fall in domestic violent incidents. A leading cause of relationship breakdown and separate households is domestic violence.

    So it looks like we are replacing battered wives and mothers with single ones.

  28. unity says

    Lucy [24]

    Again, NO.

    You need to read the technical appendices to understand the survey methodology properly.

    The data on intimate violence comes from a set of self-completion modules which respondents have the option of completing either in conjunction with the interviewer or independently and in complete confidence.

    As for people choosing not to participate in the survey, the BCS methodology includes both a representative primary sample group and a backup group which the survey can and does call upon to ensure they get the size of sample they’re looking for. The user guide provides extensive information on the sampling methodology, actual sample sizes response rates and the degrees of uncertainty in the estimates for each statistic, using 95% confidence intervals.

    Now, if you’d like to acquaint yourself with that detailed information and advance a reason critique of the methodology and its limitation then we can talk but if all you’re going to do is piss and moan because a very carefully constructed and rigorously designed scientific survey doesn’t produce results consistent with your personal beliefs and prejudices then you don’t have anything of value to contribute to this discussion.

  29. CitymanMichael says

    Sirtooting – any sentence which starts with the words “It is a well known fact” is immediately suspect.

  30. Ally Fogg says

    MildlyMagnificent (4)

    Sorry, missed this last night. I’m afraid I don’t have a simple answer, I agree with you, and can’t really explain why they don’t do better at this. I once read a Govt statistician explain that there were statistical problems with counting multiple incidents of the same crime to the same victim, which brings in sampling errors or something like that, but it didn’t make much sense to me at the time and I think it might have been bullshit.

    Unity (16)

    Thanks for this, and yes, nice graph (I’ll pinch it and edit in in a minute, thanks)

    Tamen (17)

    I appreciate your points on this. I think the situation is that an act of sexual coercion like being forced to penetrate does officially count as an ‘other serious sexual offence’ but you are quite correct to worry that unless that is spelled out in the process, many victims might not know it applies to them and may answer no when the answer is yes. I’d certainly support having a phrase like “for example, being made to conduct a sexual act against your will’ being included in the text.

    Sans Sanity (18)

    Yes, there is a longstanding problem with research which throws together all forms of sexual assault together, however serious or minor they may be. Whether or not this accounts for this discrepancy, I honestly don’t know.

    Paul (19)

    There is info on ethnic background collected in the CSEW. Off the top of my head, they don’t tabulate the DV data by ethnic group in the routine releases, but they do with homicide data. There are different patterns of DV in different ethnic groups, but the differences in numbers are not as dramatic as people might thing. So (forgive some broad stereotyping) South Asian families might have higher rates of sexual violence relating to forced marriages or to coercive controlling violence, but tend to have lower rates of alcohol-related battering. I think it is broadly true (not just a liberal myth) that DV is fairly proportionally spread between ethnic communities and occurs everywhere. Of course you would expect to have different trends within different cultures, and without a dedicated analysis of different communities you wouldn’t pick up on those, but I think it is unlikely that ethnic / community variations account for much of he broad trend.

    Sirtooting (20)

    With the one exception of homicide, where (for obvious reasons) a victim survey is not much use, no, these statistics are not based on police figures. Please see the last paragraph. Then please go read about the CSEW to answer your questions.

    The point about football violence is interesting though, as (for whatever reasons) it is now almost unheard of in the UK, compared to the 70s, 80s and 90s, when it was a massive social crime issue.

    Lucy (24)
    I’m not sure which mystery you think you’ve solved. The study is designed to minimise the risks of an abusive partner taking over the responses and answering on behalf of the victim, as that passage describes.

    Yes, there is a problem that seriously victimised partners might be afraid to take part in the survey. That would result in an under-reporting of serious DV, but it would not explain the trend over time

    Lucy (25)

    The homicide statistics are broken down in just this way. You are right to an extent, in that male partners are over-represented. Over the past three years, two thirds of relationship murders (64% to be precise) with a male victim have been committed by a female partner and 36% by male partners. This does however still leave us with a large majority of female killers.

    Which agencies and academics by the way?

    Women’s Aid, for example.

    “What is domestic violence?
    In Women’s Aid’s view domestic violence is physical, sexual, psychological or financial violence that takes place within an intimate or family-type relationship and that forms a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.”

    Lucy (27)

    It’s most likely not because of reduced propensity to violence, but reduced opportunity. Single person households in the UK have risen by a comparable percentage to the fall in domestic violent incidents. A leading cause of relationship breakdown and separate households is domestic violence.

    So it looks like we are replacing battered wives and mothers with single ones.

    No, that doesn’t make any sense. Rates of single parenthood and divorce have remained entirely constant over the period we are talking about. But even if they were I’m not really sying why rates of violence are declining, just pointing out that they are.

  31. Crys T says

    @CitymanMichael as a woman who was raped & sexually abused by a partner, fuck you. Fuck off. And preferably die. Seriously, you’d do the world a favour.

    I can’t believe this forum let that load of shit stand without comment.

  32. Ally Fogg says

    FWIW I tend to agree with CrysT . It was a quite breathtakingly ignorant and offensive first comment

    As a routine policy, I don’t generally censor or remove opinion unless specifically requested, but I have no problem pointing out that it was fuckugly stinker of a comment.

  33. says

    Ally @30:

    I once read a Govt statistician explain that there were statistical problems with counting multiple incidents of the same crime to the same victim, which brings in sampling errors or something like that, but it didn’t make much sense to me at the time and I think it might have been bullshit.

    The NISVS 2010 Report counted the number of perpetrators by basically asking “How many people have…”.
    Which again really doesn’t say anything about number of incidents since one victim reporting 3 perpetrators may have experienced only 3 incidents (once from each perpetrator) while one victim reporting 1 perpetrator may have been victimized by their partner on a weekly basis the last several years resulting in hundreds of incidents.

    I think when it comes to number of incidents it is hard to get an accurate results due to recollecting issues. One researcher who I recently heard holding a presentation on violence against youths by their parents stated that when the number of incidents were above 10 the numbers were getting unreliable and they used the categories: 0, 1, 2-4, 5-10 and more than 10.

    The CSEW did something similar. They gave a set of ranges and asked the respondents to respond how many incidents they’ve experienced. About 50% of respondents either didn’t want to answer that question or answered “don’t know”. On partner abuse the CSEW wrote:

    The level of repeat victimisation is not statistically different between men and women.

    Ally wrote:

    I think the situation is that an act of sexual coercion like being forced to penetrate does officially count as an ‘other serious sexual offence’

    I can’t seem to find the category “other serious sexual offense” in the CSEW rerport (chapter 4) and has to wonder how it could officially count in a non-existent category? Perhaps you could point me to where you found this category. Under the category “serious sexual assault” I only found the sub-categories rape and “assault by penetration”. Neither one of them covers being made to penetrate.

    If these victims were to answer yes to the question whether they’ve experienced sexual touch that would be classified as “less serious sexual assault” together with unwanted touching of bottom, breasts, unwanted kissing and having been exposed to a flasher.

    Ally wrote:

    I’d certainly support having a phrase like “for example, being made to conduct a sexual act against your will’ being included in the text.

    That is unfortunately still a poorly designed question. Kissing someone in a sexual manner is a sexual act, touching someone on their breast, crotch or ass is a sexual act. All things which the CSEW classify as “less serious sexual assault” and which are covered by an existing question. This means that using the suggessted phrase would not allow us to look at the prevalence of victims of SOA 4.4.c-d without them disappearing into the much larger subset of respondents who have experienced unwanted touch, kiss etc.

  34. says

    Unity:

    Based on your comments you seem to me to be knowledgable about survey methodologies and seem to have looked into the CSEW and it’s methodology in some detail. If you don’t mind me asking I’d like to know your take on the criticism I levelled at CSEW in my comment @17 ?

  35. CitymanMichael says

    Ally & Crys T. – I was merely pointing out that there are different degrees of rape. This is acknowledged in our legal system, where there is opportunity for police to hand out cautions and where judges hand down varying sentences for sexual assault and rape.

  36. says

    Crys T:

    I tend/try to ignore the more egregious comments like the first one by CitymanMichael and the ones by sirtooting. Sometimes I fail to ignore them and if I am completely honest I am probably more likely to fail to ignore those that hits close to home for me as a victim of a female perpetrator.

    I disagree strongly with CitymanMichael implying that one can use a blanket statement saying that partner abuse is less serious than stranger abuse for women. I also believe that you can’t with a blanket statement say partner abuse against men is less serious than stranger abuse for men. I also, contrary to some other commenters here, also believe one can’t with a blanket statement say that partner (sexual or otherwise) abuse against men from women is less serious than partner abuse against women from men.

    I hope you are safe now and wish you the best.

  37. says

    CitymanMichael:

    Then I presume you can point to the sentencing guidelines or similar which state that the reaction from the police or the sentencing by the courts may be dependent upon whether the perpetrator is a partner or a stranger?

    I can’t seem to recall that that particular thing is one of the things listed as aggravating factors for rape in the sentencing guidelines: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/

    Personally I think your argument completely ignores the extra trauma caused by having this crime against your body being perpetrated by someone you trusted and loved.

  38. CitymanMichael says

    Tamen, There may not be a specific section on partner rape as opposed to stranger rape (within judges guidelines), but it is true that police do hand out some cautions – normally where it is a case of a 16 year old boy having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl. It should also be quite plain that a judge would hand down a different sentence to a stranger who raped a woman at knifepoint to a long term husband who raped his wife – something that was not a crime 30 or 40 years ago.

    At any rate, this forum is at the very least having some sort of debate on rape, which normally is not debated and seen as a “taboo” subject. Only by discussing the issue can people develop a more holistic and balanced view.

  39. Lucy says

    Unity

    “The data on intimate violence comes from a set of self-completion modules which respondents have the option of completing either in conjunction with the interviewer or independently and in complete confidence.

    As for people choosing not to participate in the survey, the BCS methodology includes both a representative primary sample group and a backup group which the survey can and does call upon to ensure they get the size of sample they’re looking for. The user guide provides extensive information on the sampling methodology, actual sample sizes response rates and the degrees of uncertainty in the estimates for each statistic, using 95% confidence intervals.

    Now, if you’d like to acquaint yourself with that detailed information and advance a reason critique of the methodology and its limitation then we can talk but if all you’re going to do is piss and moan because a very carefully constructed and rigorously designed scientific survey doesn’t produce results consistent with your personal beliefs and prejudices then you don’t have anything of value to contribute to this discussion.”

    Interviewer arrives at your house, where you live with your sexually abusive partner or male relative. Interviewer selects you to complete the crime survey. Interviewer sits with you in dining room while male partner or relative occupies himself in the lounge and asks if you would like to complete the survey now or later. Interviewer leaves. Crime survey results show lower number of sexual assaults perpetrated by male partners and relatives. Men announce the good trend news! Confusion reigns.

  40. says

    Ally, thanks for an excellent article, which we’ll link to now. Just one point. At Mankind Initiative’s last National Conference on Male Victims of Domestic Violence, one of the presenters was Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan, a leading authority in this area. In her outstanding presentation one of the things she reported was that in cases of unreciprocated domestic violence, the majority of perpetrators are women, and the majority of victims men. She attributed this partly to men being better able than women to recognise they were in danger of becoming physically violent, and exiting the situation. Women, she said, appear to be less able to control themselves at that key point, especially when they know their partner will simply ‘take it’ or exit the situation. Another point she made was that only 4% of female perpetrators of DV reported ‘self-defence’ as a motivator – demolishing the decades-old feminist narrative that women are only violent towards intimate partners in self-defence.

    Mike Buchanan

    JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)

    http://j4mb.org.uk

  41. says

    as a woman who was raped & sexually abused by a partner, fuck you. Fuck off. And preferably die. Seriously, you’d do the world a favour.

    I can’t believe this forum let that load of shit stand without comment.

    ally:

    FWIW I tend to agree with CrysT .

    Lolwut? Chrys T did not formulate a opinion and you agree with a generic and horrible suggestion leveled towards CitymanMichael? This is rather egregious. Prove others wrong but preferably do not whish death upon them. In ay case sine it seems necessary to point it out, I disagree with CtyanMichael. It is unclear to me why a stranger disrespecting you boudares is worse than someone familiar. Are there studes done on the respective damage?

  42. unity says

    Tamen [35]

    You pose an interesting question there to which I don’t have an immediate answer.

    The only thing I would note is that a while back – 2010/2011 – a split survey design was used for the intimate violence module in which half were given the standard questionnaire, in which the sexual offences were described using pretty much the same language that’s use in SOA 2003 and in the most recent questionnaire, and half were given an open ended questionnaire which invited them to define sexual offences, for the purposes of answering the relevant questions, in their own terms.

    So, for example, half were given the legal definition of rape to consider and half were just told ‘rape’ and were left to decide for themselves whether or not their personal experience of sexual violence counted as rape.

    As I recall, when the two response sets were compared, there was little or no difference in response rates, i.e. what people colloquially understand to be rape is as near as damn it what SOA2003 defines as rape.

    Whether that would apply to the offence of causing sexual activity without consent, which is perhaps a little obscure – prosecutions are certain extremely rare – is an interesting question. Maybe, but I can’t be certain.

  43. Rick Bradford says

    Well done, Mr Fogg. I too have been scrutinising the latest crime survey data and pulled out exactly the same points. You can deduce from them, incidentally, that the same number of men and women suffered the most severe category of PV in the last year, namely 1% of the population. The data on the perpetrators of sexual assault is a great surprise and totally contrary to what we have been led to believe previously. Whilst partners are twice as likely as unknown persons to commit “less serious sexual assault”, strangers are three times as likely to commit serious sexual assaults. One might suppose that the former is merely a result of the widening of sexual assault to include the highly dubious. The suicide data is, of course, incomplete in a serious way – because it only covers attempted suicide – not those that have succeeded, which I expect will be disproportionately male. And finally, like you, I noted that the trend of all the DV data is downwards – directly contrary to the strap line in The Guardian article on 14th Feb. I wonder who could be benefiting from talking up the figures….Hmm……

  44. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “she reported was that in cases of unreciprocated domestic violence, the majority of perpetrators are women, and the majority of victims men”

    The fact that when men initiate violence it is more often met with reciprocal violence from victims than when women do tells you something important about that violence don’t you think?

    It indicates is that when women initiate violence, it is less severe than when men do. Female domestic abuse more likely to be verbal rather than physical; where physical, more likely to be less severe than that perpetrated by men; and is more likely to be a one off incident; which doesn’t induce fear or control.

    Dr Nicola’s other finding is that most men don’t regard what they experience as abuse. And MRAs are keen on self-defined abuse aren’t they? e.g. when it comes to rape?

    Dr Nicola Graham-Kavan also says there is insufficient data to draw conclusions about male domestic violence. So her theories are largely speculative.

  45. CitymanMichael says

    Sheaf [42}

    I think that Ally automatically jumped to the aid of either a “women in distress” or a person who had been hurt.

    I often wonder about degrees of rape. Is there a degree just on the wrong side of a woman or man who does not want sex but in order to “appease” their partner agrees albeit unwillingly.

    The other degree may be the Julian Assange type, where a couple have had an intimate night and in the morning he has non-consensual sex while she is still asleep.

    And indeed, what are the effects on the person who has been “violated” and perhaps also the effect on the other party.

  46. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    “It is true, after a fashion, if one chooses to define domestic violence as any one single adult lifetime incident of emotional or financial abuse, threat or ‘minor force’ by any partner or family member. That is not, however, how most people (including most agencies and academics) would choose to define domestic violence. ”

    This is a pretty bizarre paragraph. Since when do we define things according to what “most people” understand? Particularly violence and sexual violence against women. According to “most people” in the world, domestic violence doesn’t include giving your wife a light beating. Child abuse wouldn’t include caning or child labour. Rape wouldn’t include marital rape or date rape or rape when drunk or rape when in possession of visible female body parts. It’s nonsense.

    It would be helpful if you were explicit on what you believe the alternative, common currency, domestic violence definition is.

    It would help me to understand if you are applying it consistently to male and female perpetrators and victims, or whether you are using the wider Home Office definition for female perpetrators and your narrower definition for male ones.

  47. Lucy says

    Rick

    “The data on the perpetrators of sexual assault is a great surprise and totally contrary to what we have been led to believe previously.”

    What on earth is surprising about data collected about domestic crime being collected in a domestic setting being totally unreliable?

  48. says

    Unity:
    I wasn’t aware that there had been a different split sample experiement also in the 2010/2011 survey, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

    I must say I wasn’t suprised that people colloquially understood to be rape in 2010/2011 were pretty close to the legal definition of rape. Regardless of one’s opinion whether “made to penetrate” should be categorized as rape or have a separate name I at least think it should be included in the superset “serious sexual assault” rather than (possibly) in the “less serious sexual assault” category.

    You wrote:

    Whether that would apply to the offence of causing sexual activity without consent, which is perhaps a little obscure – prosecutions are certain extremely rare – is an interesting question.

    NISVS 2010 in the US reported that 1.1% of men experienced this (incl attempts) in the last 12 months – the same number as women experienced being raped (incl attempts) in the last 12 months. 4.8% of men reported it happening in their lifetime (18.3% for rape for women). So although prosecutions are extremely rare I’d be careful to imply that the prevalence of the crime is obscure just like that.

    Another thing that puzzles me is that I can’t really see why SOA 4.4.a-b exist as it seem to redundant as the act described alread is covered by “Section 1 Rape” and “Section 2 Assault by penetration”. Any idea why that is? Could this be the remnant of (failed) plans to phase out the legal term rape as the Canadians have done?

  49. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    “Lucy (24)
    I’m not sure which mystery you think you’ve solved. The study is designed to minimise the risks of an abusive partner taking over the responses and answering on behalf of the victim, as that passage describes.

    Yes, there is a problem that seriously victimised partners might be afraid to take part in the survey. That would result in an under-reporting of serious DV, but it would not explain the trend over time”

    The partner doesn’t have to take control of responses in order to skew results in his favour. He just has to be aware the survey is taking place. In fact he just has to be a person’s partner in order for this skewing of results to take place.

    Fear is not the only factor to consider; there are also loyalty, love, shame, denial. Surely you know this already! How willing would you be to tell a complete stranger who visits your home that your spouse hits or rapes you? A) at all? B) with said spouse in the same building?

    The lowering trend over time, I have already addressed twice now. It may well reflect improved access to divorce, child custody rights, injunctions, welfare benefits, access to shelters, single occupancy. Meaning women are removing themselves from violent or potentially violent situations in greater and greater numbers. You haven’t provided any evidence that I’ve seen to suggest that this trend is due to any improvement in male behaviour or attitudes towards their partners, let alone being due to access to online porn as you’ve implied in the past.

  50. says

    CitymanMichael:

    It should also be quite plain that a judge would hand down a different sentence to a stranger who raped a woman at knifepoint to a long term husband who raped his wife – something that was not a crime 30 or 40 years ago.

    I think you’ll find that any difference in sentence in these two examples is because on of them (the stranger) used a knife (an aggravating factor) while the other did not. Not that one of the crimes were not criminalized 30 or 40 years ago and if the latter factor played a role in what sentencing the judge administered the judge should be fired for not being able to adhere to current laws and guidelines.

    FWIW: although I vehemently disagree with you on this point I think that wishing death upon you was out of line according to my standards.

  51. Lucy says

    Rick

    “Whilst partners are twice as likely as unknown persons to commit “less serious sexual assault”, strangers are three times as likely to commit serious sexual assaults. One might suppose that the former is merely a result of the widening of sexual assault to include the highly dubious. ”

    Can you clarify what you consider to be a highly dubious sexual assault by a male partner?

    Is it anything like what one might consider to be a highly dubious domestic assault by a female partner?

    Or are wider assault definitions okay for female perpetrators, just not male ones?

  52. says

    Lucy @45:

    Dr Nicola’s other finding is that most men don’t regard what they experience as abuse. And MRAs are keen on self-defined abuse aren’t they? e.g. when it comes to rape?

    My experience is that those MRAs who aren’t keen for self-defined abuse (usually manifested by criticism of Koss 1 in 4 result are similary sceptical to the results of for instance the NISVS 2010 Report which used operational questions rather than questions using term like rape and sexual assault and they often caution against falling into the same trap as feminists have. I do not agree with them.

    When you brought it up in the way you did I became curious as to what you Lucy think of self-defined abuse?

    Let’s for instance take the oft-mentioned Koss survey where 1 in 4 women answered yes to operational questions describing situation which falls under the legal definition of rape and I think about 1/3 of those again answered “no” to the question about whether they ever had been raped. Do you think those 1/3 of victims weren’t actually raped because they answered no that that particular question? If not, then why protest against MRAs using self-defined abuse for male victims rather than protest against those MRAs who have stated that they are against self-defined abuse whether that apply to female or male victims?

    Because frankly, I suspect you’ll say that those 1/3 of victims in the Koss survey were raped (so would I btw) and if my suspicion is correct then the way you brought up that argument came off as rather hypocritical as it read as an argument against using self-defined abuse for male victims.

  53. sirtooting . says

    “Perhaps the reason why women are reporting severe sexual assaults by strangers is because a sexual assault by a boyfriend/wife is not really severe – a case of her not wanting sex and he pushing boundaries”

    This is called coercion and this is called rape for a very good reason .. Because that is exactly what it is.

    Consent.
    Sexual consent plays an important role in defining what sexual assault is, since sexual activity without consent by all parties is considered rape.
    Children below a certain age, the “age of consent”, are deemed not to be able to give consent to sexual acts in most jurisdictions. Within the literature concerning sexual activity and consent there is no consensus on a strict definition of the term consent or how it should be communicated.
    Consent must be voluntary and not obtained by coercion or threats. Consent can be revoked at any moment.
    Hall defines sexual consent as “the voluntary approval of what is done or proposed by another; permission; agreement in opinion or sentiment”
    Hickman and Muehlenhard state that consent should be “free verbal or nonverbal communication of a feeling of willingness’ to engage in sexual activity”
    Pineau has argued that we must move towards a more communicative model of sexuality so that consent becomes more explicit and clear.

    But what is clear is ..Consent must be voluntary and not obtained by coercion or threats .. Otherwise it is rape.

    When sex is seen as a conquest, a victory, the spoils of war … it panders to the androcentric point of view of sex
    http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sue/warrape.htm

  54. unity says

    Tamen [49]

    SOA 2003 was preceded by a Home Office report “Setting the Boundaries” and a consultation that lasted over 2 years, and the Act itself received very detailed scrutiny in both Houses for all that it enjoyed cross-party support – it’s a prime example of what can be achieved when legislators of all parties put their heads together and decide to take something really seriously.

    Going all the way back to the Home Office report, the underlying rationale for the section 4 is, I think, covered is this passage:

    One aspect of sexual behaviour which is potentially very serious, and clearly criminal, is that of compelling others to carry out sexual acts against their will. It is possible, for example, for someone to force another person to perform a sexual act on themselves, the compellor or a third party. That act is not voluntary – it may indeed be a criminal act such as sexual assault or even rape or sexual assault by penetration. The compellor may want sexual acts performed on him or herself, want the person to masturbate in front of them, or to perform acts with or on a third person, or even on or with an animal. The law should be able to state very clearly that compelling others to do such acts against their will is an offence and that the guilt lies with the person who compels the act rather than his or her immediate victims. We had evidence of incidents
    of forced masturbation which was accompanied by the threat that the victim was committing a crime of indecent assault, but that the compellor was not doing anything wrong. We have also noted concerns about women who compel men to penetrate them. We do not regard that as rape, but as a serious assault on the man’s sexual autonomy. We think that compelled penetration should be caught by this new offence. In its 1984 report the CLRC noted that there was no specific provision that applied when a man compelled his wife to perform acts of bestiality, and recommended a new offence to fill this gap. We have also recommended that compelling children to do sexual acts should form part of our sexual abuse of a child offence in Chapter 3.

    Although some of the language is a little different – this talks of compulsion rather than simply causing – I think this is the relevant section in terms of explaining the intent behind s4 and suspect tat the change in verbiage reflects a realisation, either in drafting the bill or during its committee stage that specifying compulsion would leave a loophole in the law in terms of the procurement of consent by deception.

    As far as hypothetical deception scenario goes, the one that comes to mind is a situation in which the perp tricks someone into taking part in a porno by falsely claiming to be a talent scout for one of the big San Fernando Valley porn operations like Vivid but doesn’t, themselves, engage in any sexual activity with the deceived party/parties. That, for me, would having the makings of a plausible s4 offence.

  55. says

    Lucy

    “The fact that when men initiate violence it is more often met with reciprocal violence from victims than when women do tells you something important about that violence don’t you think?”

    What it tells me is that many (possibly) men are socially conditioned to ‘take it’ when a woman hits them. If you’re interested in Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan’s presentation I’ll put up a link to it. It presents a picture of DA very different to that which you clearly believe. Among the reasons given by men for not fighting back is the fear that if they leave the relationship, they’ll never see their children again. A very justifiable fear, given the justice system’s reluctance to enforce Contact Orders made against vindictive mothers. We recently posted a story about a man who’d spent over £100,000 in legal fees trying to see his daughter, over 10 years. She’s now 14. The mother had all sorts of problems including substance abuse, and was found hiding knives in her handbag. The judge described the father as ‘beyond reproach’. His ex-partner had frustrated 82 Contact Orders and suffered no consequences. You’re hopefully aware that denial of access to children is a significant driver of male suicide? I know of no person working to help men get contact with their kids, who hasn’t known a number of those men commit suicide..

  56. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    ‘Me: Which agencies and academics by the way?
    You: Women’s Aid, for example. “What is domestic violence? In Women’s Aid’s view domestic violence is physical, sexual, psychological or financial violence that takes place within an intimate or family-type relationship and that forms a PATTERN of coercive and controlling behaviour.”’

    Well putting aside the fact that you have retrieved that from their home page after I asked the question – how does this support your original contention that the Home Office definition is too wide?

    You were scornful of the HO definition not because it didn’t require a pattern of behaviour but because it included what you considered to be trivial behaviour: “It is true, after a fashion, if one chooses to define domestic violence as any one single adult lifetime incident of emotional or financial abuse, threat or ‘minor force’ by any partner or family member. “. You didn’t mention pattern at all or make it at all clear that was what you meant if you did mean that.

    Right after the bit you’ve quoted from Women’s aid is another bit you didn’t quote: “Domestic violence may include a range of abusive behaviours, not all of which are in themselves inherently ‘violent’.”

    Domestic violence is not the same thing as domestic abuse. It is abuse that is characterised by a pattern of behaviour, not violence.

    It looks like the Home Office recognises the distinction.

  57. Lucy says

    Tamen

    “When you brought it up in the way you did I became curious as to what you Lucy think of self-defined abuse?”

    I think it’s an inherently unreliable measure because people habituated to abuse are notoriously bad at recognising abusive boundaries.

    ” why protest against MRAs using self-defined abuse for male victims rather than protest against those MRAs who have stated that they are against self-defined abuse whether that apply to female or male victims?”

    I am protesting against MRAs who support self-defined abuse for women victims and oppose it for male ones.

  58. Lucy says

    Tamen

    I would underline “habituated to”. Habituation (cultural, personal) can distort a victim’s ability to define things correctly.

    A teenage girl, raped, branded and traded by a pimp who thinks she is in a relationship or a wife who is raped by her husband and thinks it’s his right or a woman who is raped by a date and blames herself because she trusted him has a distorted reality.
    A man who is slapped by his girlfriend and doesn’t consider himself to be a victim probably has an accurate one.

  59. says

    Lucy, I can scarcely believe you’re equating a women being raped, with a man being slapped. Your narrative is always the same. Men are actors, women are acted upon. Men are perpetrators, women are victims. It’s ridiculous beyond words. Erin Pizzey has been pointing out for 40+ years that it’s wrong to look at DA/DV primarily as a gendered phenomenon. We know from the British Crime Survey that 40% of victims of DA/DV are men. For every place available in refuges for battered straight men, there are 266+ places available for battered women (source – The Mankind Initiative). Do you think the balance is about right?

  60. Lucy says

    Can somebody post the figures for how many domestic violence* incidents against men are perpetrated by their female partners?

    * According to how most people understand it.

    Anyone?

  61. says

    Lucy (60)

    The misandry running through your narratives can be exposed with some simple gender switching. You write:

    “A man who is slapped by his girlfriend and doesn’t consider himself to be a victim probably has an accurate one (grasp on reality).”

    Would you be as appalled as I (and other MRAs) would be by the following? If so, why the double standard?

    “A woman who is slapped by her boyfriend and doesn’t consider herself to be a victim probably has an accurate one.”

  62. unity says

    Tamen [53]:

    Arrrgh Koss!

    You are, of course, right about MRAs and Koss but we really are long past the point where Koss needs to be retired from the debate due to advancing age and wholesale misrepresentation. There a far more myths circulating about Koss, on both sides of the debate, than there are honest accounts of its findings – and I say that as someone who actually has copy of her full 1987 journal paper sitting on my hard drive.

    First, Koss is now getting on for 30 years old, if you go by the survey phase of the study.

    The much fabled 1 in 4 statistic isn’t for completed rapes, it includes attempted rapes and that’s part of the reason for the discrepancy between the figures operationally-defined and self-defined abuse; the question of at what point a serious sexual assault turns into an attempted rape is lot fuzzier than the distinction between serious sexual assault and rape.

    Koss’ study population – college students – falls short of providing the kind of representative sample population from which we can confidently generalise and there were, and still are, open questions about the extent to which the prevailing culture in US colleges may act as a source of confounding in studies that rely on student populations. A particular of university/college life is that many, if not most students, move aware from home to study and some theorists have argued that the change in individual social capital that comes with relocating to a new social environment may a contributory factor in college-based rape and sexual assault.

    There are also ambiguities in the questions relating to alcohol, which Koss freely acknowledges, which may serve as a further source of confounding, although that’s an issue that Koss and other have directly addressed in later research by refining their inventory questions.

    Don’t get me wrong, Koss is still an important study for both historical reasons and because the academic criticism it received has led to marked improvements and refines in quantitative research approaches to rape and sexual violence, but the statistics from that study are no longer relevant to contemporary debate surrounding the prevalence of sexual violence.

  63. unity says

    Lucy [63]

    CSEW doesn’t record the gender or perpetrators in its victimisation survey for either male or female victims.

    However, based on it prevalence estimates for partner abuse where the victim is male and allowing for estimates of the size of the gay male population and prevalence of domestic abuse within that population, which according to US figures are comparable to levels of domestic abuse experienced by women, the mid range estimate for the number of male victims of domestic abuse perpetrated by a female partner in the survey period would be around 480,000 with a low to high range of 387,000 to 579,000.

  64. Sig says

    Lucy @ 45

    Women initiate both reciprocal and non- reciprocal IPV more often.

    Higher victimization for male than female high school students
    Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)
    Among large population samples, 57.9% of IPV (intimate partner violence) reported was bi-directional, 42% unidirectional
    13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male to female, 28.3% was female to male

    http://www.springerpub.com/content/journals/PA-KnowledgeBase-41410.pdf

    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

  65. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    “Rates of single parenthood and divorce have remained entirely constant over the period we are talking about. ”

    Between 2004/5 and 2012, all domestic violence fell by 1.8%.

    Between 2003 and 2013:
    Lone parents with dependent children have risen by 100,000.
    The number of people aged 45 to 64 living alone increased by 28%.

    Notes:
    12% more lone women than men between 16 and 64 have previously been married.
    65% of divorces are initiated by women.
    Divorce rates are calculated as a proportion of annual marriages.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2013/stb-families.html?format=print

    —–

    “But even if they were I’m not really sying why rates of violence are declining, just pointing out that they are.”

    You said people would have to obtuse not to recognise the good news. It’s news certainly, but hardly good.

    —-
    You also said:

    “The only explanation I can offer is that the dramatic improvement in rates of domestic and relationship violence – – mean that those types of assaults have become less common, while frequency of stranger attacks have remained broadly unchanged.”

    Which now I look at it again is a tautological argument. But still very telling.

  66. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “The misandry running through your narratives can be exposed with some simple gender switching. You write:

    “A man who is slapped by his girlfriend and doesn’t consider himself to be a victim probably has an accurate one (grasp on reality).”

    Would you be as appalled as I (and other MRAs) would be by the following? If so, why the double standard?

    “A woman who is slapped by her boyfriend and doesn’t consider herself to be a victim probably has an accurate one.””

    Appalled? No.
    Exasperated? Yes.

    A woman getting slapped by her boyfriend is not the same thing as a man being slapped by his girlfriend. Men and women live in different cultural landscapes. Men and women are physically differentiated in most cases strongly in the male favour. Men and women have different personality traits. Men and women have different tendencies towards self-abuse. So stop drawing lazy comparisons.

    That’s not to say that female on male violence doesn’t happen, or isn’t ever serious or abusive. Or that a man being slapped by his girlfriend can never be an abuse victim. Just that if he doesn’t think he is, he’s most likely right given that in most cases incidents are one-off, verbal or mildly physical in nature, and don’t involve coercive control or fear.

    If it’s any help, I was once slapped by my boyfriend once and I didn’t consider myself a victim either and still don’t. It wasn’t very hard, and he said sorry and didn’t do it again. Shit happens.

  67. says

    Lucy

    “A woman getting slapped by her boyfriend is not the same thing as a man being slapped by his girlfriend. Men and women live in different cultural landscapes.”

    On this we can agree. We live in a cultural landscape in which it’s OK for women to assault men, and it’s not OK for men to assault women. The first needs to change. The lack of compassion feminists show for male victims of DV is appalling. At the Mankind Initiative conference one of the speakers was a disabled man speaking about his experience of DV at the hands of his former partner. She attacked him with a hammer and he was lucky to survive the attack – the source of his disability. When he spoke over the phone during an episode of Woman’s Hour, the women in the studio had the gall to say many men who present as victims were actually perpetrators, the inference being women never do. They said this whilst talking to a man they knew had been left disabled by a woman attacking him with a hammer.

  68. Lucy says

    “can be exposed with some simple gender switching”

    Nothing of use was ever exposed by simple gender switching.

  69. sirtooting . says

    @ Mike Buchanan
    If women are like men regarding violence and sex, then why were the 20,000 Web users that contacted a digital 10-year-old named “Sweetie,” with 1,000 of them offering ‘her’ money to perform sex acts on camera .. Entirely all men and not one woman amongst them?

    Your study is from Martin S. Fiebert .. OOPS ..
    http://manboobz.blogspot.co.uk/p/not-so-great-debate-on-domestic.html

    Mr Fiebert has gathered many surveys from around the world, and merged their findings to create an illusion.

    One of these surveys is from India and one question it asked males, .. In what way was your partner aggressive towards you and the same response was given many times over, and that response was, when these men got home from work, their dinner was not ready and waiting for them on the table.
    That was accepted as a reasonable answer, and was included in the survey as a statistic of female aggression towards the male

    Others surveys he has included, and accepted as part of his statistics have included surveys that accept female aggression being as trifling as a female throwing a toothbrush at her partner or nudging him in the ribs to get his attention.
    Every one of these surveys needs to be looked at individually to see exactly how he is getting his statistics and are they correct.
    Most of the surveys he uses would be rejected due to the way the information has been gathered and nonsense accepted as legitimate.

    It is no good quoting Mr Fiebert and claiming all these things are legit, unless you have access to what he is quoting .. And if he is merging and quoting gibberish, then gibberish is all that it is.

    Can we trust Mr Fiebert and his statistics, when we have no access or knowledge where they have come from or even what they consist of?
    Misinformation, propaganda .. a distortion of the truth .. We aren’t all sheep .. So scrutinise what they say ..

    Lazy Academia, just quoting it, because it props up your bias .. be wiser than that .. Always Check their source first.

  70. says

    Four weeks ago we lodged our first official complaint with the BBC, concerning an episode of Newsnight which – as usual for the BBC – was concerned only with female victims and male perpetrators of DA. We included an analysis of the programme’s 50+ breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines. We’ve just received the BBC’s contemptuous response:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/further-proof-that-the-bbc-doesnt-give-a-damn-about-male-victims-of-domestic-abuse-violence/

    Is it any wonder that people in general are so ignorant about the realities of DA, when the mainstream media relentlessly paints a false picture (women are always victims, men are always perpetrators) decade after decade?

  71. Ally Fogg says

    Lucy

    It would be helpful if you were explicit on what you believe the alternative, common currency, domestic violence definition is.

    It would help me to understand if you are applying it consistently to male and female perpetrators and victims, or whether you are using the wider Home Office definition for female perpetrators and your narrower definition for male ones.

    My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that there is no such ‘thing’ as domestic violence.

    There are instead a number of different phenomena which occur for different reasons, have different causes, different impacts and consequences but they are all muddled together in a single debate about ‘domestic violence.’

    I personally try to be clear as to whether I’m discussing relationships with situational violence, coercive controlling violence, sexual violence or whatever. Although simplicirty does sometimes lead me to use the same terminology as everyone else;.

    If you ask people “have you personally ever been a victim of domestic violence” the large majority of people would say no. However if you ask people “at any time in your life, has a boyfriend, girlfriend or partner thrown something at you, slapped you, scratched you, physically grabbed you or threatened you?” then a much higher proportion will say “oh yes, there was that one time when I was 17″ or whatever.

    The headline statistic (30% of women) is capturing the latter question. However that is not necessarily what most people conjure to mind when they hear the phrase ‘domestic violence.’

    Anyway, it is such a minor point in this context I’m not really sure why we’re arguing about it. The point is that however you define domestic violence, all the evidence from the CSEW is that it is in decline in all forms, and specifically as far as women are concerned, every indicator is that it is the lowest it has ever been since records began.

  72. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg

    “The headline statistic (30% of women) is capturing the latter question. However that is not necessarily what most people conjure to mind when they hear the phrase ‘domestic violence.’”

    Why have most people become important in this discussion? Do you think most people have evolved ideas on violence and gender relations?

    —-

    “Anyway, it is such a minor point in this context I’m not really sure why we’re arguing about it.”

    I can’t agree. I think it’s vital that you are clear about your definition and how it is being applied across different perpetrator groups. Otherwise you risk drawing bogus conclusions and feeding MRA propaganda about over-estimated female victimisation and under-estimated female aggression.

    “The point is that however you define domestic violence, all the evidence from the CSEW is that it is in decline in all forms, and specifically as far as women are concerned, every indicator is that it is the lowest it has ever been since records began.”

    No, by this indicator. An indicator that is intrinsically flawed.

  73. Lucy says

    ST

    “If women are like men regarding violence and sex,”

    They aren’t. But it helps to pretend they are so that people can draw neat little graphs that exclude the salient axis.

  74. says

    Ally

    Thank you for your comment about the misleading ‘Guardian’ headline at the start of your piece.

    Lucy

    “Otherwise you risk drawing bogus conclusions and feeding MRA propaganda about over-estimated female victimisation and under-estimated female aggression.”

    It’s not ‘feeding MRA propaganda’ you’re concerned about, it’s the truth emerging about DA (and many other areas) because of the efforts of MRAs and others (including Ally in this case). MRAs are trying to counter decades-old lying narratives that are relentlessly generated by, or communicated by, the mainstream media (online, print, radio and TV). Hordes of hate-driven professional feminists rely for their living on keeping misleading narratives on DA, sexual assault, and much else, alive in the public mind. They aim (and often succeed) in keeping women in a state of exaggerated fear towards men, and therefore hateful towards men collectively.

    We should be applauding the evidence which shows assaults on women by men are in decline, whilst being a damned sight more concerned about assaults on men by women.

  75. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “Is it any wonder that people in general are so ignorant about the realities of DA, when the mainstream media relentlessly paints a false picture (women are always victims, men are always perpetrators) decade after decade?”

    Nobody thinks women are always victims, men are always perpetrators.

    ‘Most People’ think women are the majority of victims and men are the majority of perpetrators. That women’s violence is less severe than male violence. And that most of the most severe violence against males is perpetrated by other males.

    They think that because that’s what they see and because it’s the truth.

    I think the biggest misconception about DV that seems to be circulating at the moments that it means heterosexual partner violence. Largely thanks to The Man’s Republican Army, ‘Most People’ think that male victim of domestic or sexual violence = female perpetrator.

  76. says

    Lucy @59:
    On self-defined abuse:

    I think it’s an inherently unreliable measure because people habituated to abuse are notoriously bad at recognising abusive boundaries.

    Lucy @60:

    A teenage girl, raped, branded and traded by a pimp who thinks she is in a relationship or a wife who is raped by her husband and thinks it’s his right or a woman who is raped by a date and blames herself because she trusted him has a distorted reality.
    A man who is slapped by his girlfriend and doesn’t consider himself to be a victim probably has an accurate one.

    Do you realize you’re just as dishonest with selecting examples to compare as CitymanMichael?

    Lucy @70

    Men and women live in different cultural landscapes. Men and women are physically differentiated in most cases strongly in the male favour. Men and women have different personality traits.

    Now, where have I heard this before? Right, from traditionalists arguing that men are inherently better at leading than women. that women can’t be soldiers, police officers, firefighters etc. all because of different personality traits and physical difference between the genders.

    But here and in the replies to JMB you reveal what you didn¨t answer my question for you straight: You actually think that self-defined abused shouldn’t be used for women, but should be used for men. A stance that is a holy trifecta of misogyny (women doesn’t have the same mental capability to self-define abuse as men have), misandry (because, fuck male victims who struggle to come to grip with what happened to them – right?) and gender essentialism on par with the best of the traditionalists.

    I note that there is only one (two if counting sirtooting) persons here talking up the victimization rate found for one gender by the CSEW while simultaneously talking down the victimization rate found for the other gender by the CSEW. I understand why you Lucy doesn’t think gender-switching have ever exposed something of use since applying gender switching to your stance in this thread would lead us to the conclusion that you are exactly like the worst stereotype of MRAs as imagined by feminists.

  77. unity says

    GOT IT!

    Silly me, the Victim-Offender table (figure 4.5) is wrong – it’s actually 60% of LESS serious sexual assaults that are committed by strangers compared to 23% of serious sexual assaults, with 46% of serious sexual assaults being committed by a partner.

    They’ve transposed the column headings in the main report = the correct figures and column heading are in the appendix tables dataset (table 4.08).

    I’d expect a correction to be issued shortly.

  78. Gjenganger says

    @Ally 33
    Could you clarify a bit under what circumstances you think it is OK for commentators on your forum to tell each other to fuck off and die? Seeing as you thought comment 1 deserved censure but comment 31 deserved nothing but support?

  79. CitymanMichael says

    Tamen: I am not selecting examples & certainly not being dishonest.

    I have never been raped or have ever raped.

    I simply wonder about degrees of rape. Some say there are no “degrees” of rape.

    One commenter here wished me dead – Ally stated that my comment was “fuckugly”. I can sort of understand someone who is emotionally traumatised by rape and acts accordingly.

    I believe people generally on a public forum do not discuss the differences between coax, cajole, coerce, in a sex context. I simply do not know why.

  80. unity says

    Gjengangar [82]

    Based on Ally’s comment at 33, “when the commenter to whom ‘fuck off and die’ is directed is a misogynistic shitgibbon” would seem to cover it.

    That the comment at 1 also completely misrepresents what Ken Clarke actually said as well – his comments were made on Question Time and I happen to have watch that particular programme so I know exactly what Clarke said and it had fuck all to do with consensual adolescent shagging, then ‘when the commenter is full of shit’ would also seem applicable.

    Ally may well have a somewhat different but that’s my reading of his remarks and if you own comment is intended as a starting point for a bout of half-arsed concern trolling then I’d suggest you grow up and take your concerns elsewhere.

  81. CitymanMichael says

    Unity,

    You are wrong about Ken Clarke’s comment. It was actually made on a radio programme (BBC) – cannot remember which one. Perhaps BBCQT covered it, but it was definitely a radio programme. And the thrust of what he said was what my comment was.

    At any rate, it appears that anyone who wishes to discuss rape in any way is deemed to be a misogynist. Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good attack.

  82. unity says

    Ah yes, the old ‘degree of rape’ thing…

    Well, here’s the scientific view based on the latest research in the prevalence of PTSD and other long term mental health problems in rape survivors that is attributable to rape trauma.

    At the bottom of the scale there is rape.

    Above that there is rape with physical violence.

    And above that there is rape with extreme physical violence.

    This is because the extent and degree of physical violence used by the perpetrator has been found to be an independent risk factor for PTSD, etc. in rape survivors.

    There is, however, nothing below rape – no ‘not quite rape’, not ‘not really rape’ or ‘only a little bit rapey’ or any other self-exculpatory MRA bullshit.

  83. says

    sirtooting @73:

    Lazy Academia, just quoting it, because it props up your bias .. be wiser than that .. Always Check their source first.

    Every once in a while one finds a nugget of gold in unexpected places. Checking sources is indeed good advice and I am going to apply it right now:

    One of these surveys is from India and one question it asked males, .. In what way was your partner aggressive towards you and the same response was given many times over, and that response was, when these men got home from work, their dinner was not ready and waiting for them on the table.
    That was accepted as a reasonable answer, and was included in the survey as a statistic of female aggression towards the male

    Then I presume you checked this source and that you know the citation to this Indian survey and can easily provide it here so I can check for myself that this survey categorized not having dinner ready for their husbands as aggression from wifes towards they husbands?

    Others surveys he has included, and accepted as part of his statistics have included surveys that accept female aggression being as trifling as a female throwing a toothbrush at her partner or nudging him in the ribs to get his attention.

    I also presume you could provide the citation for these surveys since you presumably have checked the sources.

    Most of the surveys he [Fiebert] uses would be rejected due to the way the information has been gathered and nonsense accepted as legitimate.

    And I trust you have a source and citation for this evaluation of the surveys Fiebert have included in his bibliography?

  84. CitymanMichael says

    Unity.

    Ok – I now know you’re views. Do you have any studies (scientific or otherwise) backing up your views?

    I can understand how you say that rape is a bit like being pregnant – you can’t be just a little pregnant. I just fail to see that there cannot be differing degrees of rape – meaning the effect on the victim differs & the effect on the perpetrator..

    This stuff is never covered in the media nor seemingly discussed in any rational manner

  85. unity says

    Try:

    Zinzow et al (2012) Prevalence and risk of psychiatric disorders as a function of variant rape histories: results from a national survey of women.

    Walsh et al (2012) National prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder among sexually revictimized adolescent, college, and adult household-residing women.

    Walsh et al (2013) Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: a mechanism in the relationship between early sexual victimization and incapacitated/drug-or-alcohol-facilitated and forcible rape.

    As for Clarke, I stand corrected on the source of his comments, which were made on the Victoria Derbyshire show, however having looked up the incident Clarke’s problem was that he didn’t understand the definition of statutory rape, which applies only to sex with under 13s, and managed to confuse consensual adolescent sexual relationships with date rape, which is why he ran into problems because he was talking out of his arse for most of the interview.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13444770

  86. says

    Unity @65:

    I used the Koss survey due to it having a clear example demonstrating that there is a difference between using a self-defined question about rape and operational questions using quite detailed description of particular acts, not because of it’s 1 in 4 finding. I referred to the 1 in 4 finding since that immediately identifies what survey I was talking about to most people who are interested enough in the subject of sexual violence victimization to actually go ahead and read some of the more cited studies.

    Does your statements here:

    The much fabled 1 in 4 statistic isn’t for completed rapes, it includes attempted rapes and that’s part of the reason for the discrepancy between the figures operationally-defined and self-defined abuse; the question of at what point a serious sexual assault turns into an attempted rape is lot fuzzier than the distinction between serious sexual assault and rape.

    amount to an argument that you believe there is no big difference in using operational based questioning rather than self-defined question about rape (when not including attempts)? I am wondering since almost all of newer research I’ve read have mostly used operational questions – many of them very similar to Koss et al’s SES or the newer revised SES.

    The problem with the operational questions used by the CSEW is that they are not exhaustive for the kind of victimization men (and women for that matter) may experience.

    Unity @88:

    There is, however, nothing below rape – no ‘not quite rape’, not ‘not really rape’ or ‘only a little bit rapey’ or any other self-exculpatory MRA bullshit.

    You aren’t going to acknowledge that there are feminists in this thread making basically the gender-reversed argument as CitymanMichael?

    If I may ask another question. If given the power to actually make it happen – do you think that it should be called rape if a man is forced to have sexual intercourse (PIV,PIA,PIM) by a woman without his consent and against his will?

  87. says

    If a sober woman has sex with a man under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs), has she raped him? Whether or not she has, he’ll be financially responsible for 20 years for any offspring that result. If a drunk woman has sex with a drunk man, are they both rapists AND rape victims?

  88. says

    CitymanMichael:

    Tamen: I am not selecting examples & certainly not being dishonest.

    I was referring to you stating that there would be a sentencing difference between a stranger raping a woman at knifepoint and a husband raping his wife and that you attributed any sentencing difference to marital rape not being against the law 20-30 years ago (it actually is 23 years ago, it was abolished in 1991 in the UK).

    I’ll admit I don’t know whether you were intentionally dishonest or not making that argument so I’ll modify “dishonest comparison” to “piss-poor comparison”.

    There isn’t any degree of rape – either you’ve been made to have sex you didn’t consent to or you haven’t. There may be degree of force or threat of force etc used to make the victim endure a sexual intercourse they didn’t consent to. There may be different tactics/actions used by the perpetrator to ignore and override the victims consent. There may be individual degrees of trauma experienced by the victims.

    If you want to talk about these I suggest you take more care in how you write and that you try to do some research and see if there has been done any related research done before you run with your intuition.

  89. Gjenganger says

    @Unity 86
    That would be one explanation, yes. “People with the right opinions deserve respect, politeness etc. and people with the wrong opinions deserve whatever shit people with the right opinions feel like throwing at them. ” The problem with that approach is that it becomes quite hard to explain to people who disagree with you why they should not shower obscene threats over whichever Sarkeesian they think has the wrong opinions. Personally I think we are better off if the rules apply to both sides.

    Anyway, I would hope that Ally has a better explanation than you do.

  90. unity says

    Tamen [92]

    Ah, no – what I was referring to specifically was Koss’ original 1987 paper “The Scope of Rape: Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of Higher Education Students” and limitations and ambiguities in the original SES inventory, which Koss has herself freely acknowledged.

    All I was actually having a moan about was the absurd spectacle of people still, even today, arguing over the validity of Koss’ 1987 findings when then entire field has moved on and that data is really only of historical interest. The whole field has moved in terms of study design, sampling methodology and the quality and design of the operational inventories that are now in use so let’s debate the contemporary research not the historical stuff.

    It’s not like there is serious methodological flaw in Koss (1987) that invalidates the entire field of study, it;s a bit flakier than many more recent studies in which researchers have improved on Koss’ original design, so let’s let the arguments about that study go, they’re no longer relevant to the research community, it’s only the ideological headbangers on both side that refuse to move on.

    As regards CSEW not being as exhaustive as, say, the revises SES, that may not be as much as problem as your seem to fear it could be. Remember Koss’ inventories were developed in a specific cultural context, that of the United States, and there brings into play a range of cultural issues and indeed legal issue that aren’t necessarily relevant to research conducted in other countries, for example I think there are still 18 US state with forcible rape statute rather than purely consent based statutes so in US research there is much greater need to spell out the centrality of consent to the definition of rape than there is in the UK.

    That doesn’t mean to say that the CSEW wouldn’t benefit from using a more exhaustive inventory but there is no guarantee it would either. The thing to do is run another split design test using an SES style questionnaire and see if anything shakes loose.

    If you want to investigate the issue surrounding the use of operational surveys in rape studies I’d suggest you try and dig out a copy of Bonnie Fisher’s 2004 paper “Measuring Rape Against Women: The Significance of Survey Questions”.

    As for your other question, perhaps the best answer I can give is to suggest, if you’re not already familiar with it, that you read Orwell’s classic essay ‘Notes on Nationalism’ as it is still by far the best essay I’ve read on the problematic nature of the ideological mindset, so you can perhaps take it as read that that essay encapsulate my personal view on the subject.

  91. unity says

    Gjanganger [95]

    Oh dear, you appear to be mistaking Ally’s blog for the BBC so I rather expect that if Ally tells you to piss off you’ll probably start with the usual bullshit about the 1st amendment and free speech – BIG HINT, Ally’s not the US government either.

    Really are people like you really what the Internet has turned into… be grateful you weren’t around on Usenet twenty years ago. Being told to fuck off and die would have been the least of your problems.

  92. 123454321 says

    Do you know what i’ve come to realise? That there isn’t one single day that goes by without switching on the BBC news, TV or radio, and hearing an article related specifically to women’s issues. Not one single day. And how many articles have I heard or seen lately relating specifically towards men’s issues? Precisely none.

  93. says

    123454321, you make a very sound point. The same is true of all mainstream media outlets, of course. The Fawcett Society appears to have editorial control of Channel 4 News in general, and Jon Snow in particular. Snow didn’t even challenge Kat Banyard on an OUTRAGEOUS claim she made, the subject of one of our public challenges:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R3fMxygLXw

    I’ve been on ‘Woman’s Hour’ but the BBC Radio 5 Live programme ‘Men’s Hour’ won’t have me on. Jenni Murray is a big fan of the programme and its presenter Tim Samuels, which might explain a lot:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/mens-hour-an-endorsement-from-a-militant-feminist-jenni-murray/

    Onwards and upwards!

  94. Greg Allan says

    Unity said…

    “There is, however, nothing below rape – no ‘not quite rape’, not ‘not really rape’ or ‘only a little bit rapey’ or any other self-exculpatory MRA bullshit.”

    Oh, yes there is.

  95. johngreg says

    123454321 said:

    Do you know what i’ve come to realise? That there isn’t one single day that goes by without switching on the BBC news, TV or radio, and hearing an article related specifically to women’s issues. Not one single day. And how many articles have I heard or seen lately relating specifically towards men’s issues? Precisely none.

    Ah, well, the explanation, young Grasshopper, is simple and plain. As any True Feminist™ knows, any and all programs, articles, memes, etc., that are not specifically focussed, and explicitly ascribed to, for, and about, feminism and women’s issues, are, by known default, always and completely and undeniabley soley about men’s issues, even when they’re not.

    If it doesn’t say, and/or isn’t titled, described, filed, and tabulated as specifically about women’s issues; then it’s about men … and their, erm issues, even when it’s not.

    It’s a privilege thing; a patriarchy thing, dontcha know?

  96. mildlymagnificent says

    #100 Greg Allan

    Oh, yes there is.

    Do you have some definition for rape other than “without consent”? As I see it, consent is a fairly bright line.

    I think Unity was exactly right. There is nothing below rape although there is plenty above that line. Implicit threat of violence, constant background threat, explicit, specific threat on a particular occasion, all the way through to actual physical violence to actual visible and/or measurable harm caused by violence in addition to the rape itself.

  97. sirtooting . says

    @ Tamen No.89
    I Suggest you do your own leg work, and go straight to Mr Fiebert, who I am sure will be willingly supply you with the surveys he has taken his dubious information from ..
    If you want me to do it for you, then my time costs .. and I will charge a fee for my time and effort . .

  98. says

    Sirtooting

    I have no interest in promoting my website, I’m very happy with the traffic it gets. My interest is in directing people to materials that so far as I can see aren’t referred to by Ally or commenters. J4MB has a very strong interest in DA, as you can imagine.

    Far from ‘scurrying’ off any of Ally’s blogs, I’ve spent a great deal of time on them after commenting. So keep right on with the personal attacks, other commenters will see them for what they are, shaming tactics which will have never silenced me in the past, and won’t now.

    In a previous comment I offered to post a link to the very interesting presentation slides used by Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan at the last National Conference on Male Victims of Domestic Violence. Does anyone wish me to do so? They paint a very different picture of DA to that which Lucy in particular is committed to.

  99. Ally Fogg says

    Morning all

    Just on Gjenganger’s question, when is it acceptable to tell someone to fuck off and die?

    If you look at my ‘comments on comments’, I say that the freedom of speech that allows you to be a racist arsehole is the precise same freedom of speech that allows me to tell you that you are a racist arsehole.

    Similarly, the freedom of speech that allows CityManMichael to blether ignorant shite suggesting rape and sexual abuse within relationships is not so bad really is the same freedom of speech that allows someone else to tell him to fuck off and die.

    Where I will intervene is when people have given up even talking about the issue and are just flinging turds at each other to the extent that it kills the debate for everyone. In my judgement that hadn’t happened yet.

    Although I would take the opportunity to remind everyone to try to keep a vague fingernail on the topic. So, for example, I will not tolerate this thread veering into yet another slagging match about Justice for Men and Boys.

  100. Ally Fogg says

    Unity (81)

    GOT IT!

    Silly me, the Victim-Offender table (figure 4.5) is wrong – it’s actually 60% of LESS serious sexual assaults that are committed by strangers compared to 23% of serious sexual assaults, with 46% of serious sexual assaults being committed by a partner.

    They’ve transposed the column headings in the main report = the correct figures and column heading are in the appendix tables dataset (table 4.08).

    I’d expect a correction to be issued shortly.

    Well spotted, but it’s more strange than that. I took those tables from the XLS data set, not the report., Since Friday they have sneakily corrected them (they also seem to have renumbered them)

    Anyway, glad it is cleared up – shall edit the OP to be clear.

  101. Gjenganger says

    @Ally 107
    OK, so we all have even more freedom to be nasty to each other on this blog than I would have thought.

    I still do not plan to make use of it myself.

  102. says

    Ally:

    Similarly, the freedom of speech that allows CityManMichael to blether ignorant shite suggesting rape and sexual abuse within relationships is not so bad really is the same freedom of speech that allows someone else to tell him to fuck off and die.

    I agree. What disturbs me about your behavior though is that you side with people who do not present an opinion or argument and make a far more horrible suggestion than warranted against someone you disagree with.

  103. sirtooting . says

    @ Mike Buchanan .. No. 106

    That is what happens, you know .. when the human has a feminine side and a masculine side .. and in the female, when her masculine side, that is part of her is allowed to be revealed and all inhibitions removed, she does masculine things, and one of those things, is become violent .. that is why the feminine side of the human, should be more encouraged in everyone .. otherwise all we have is a violent world ..
    Viva the Feminists .. and the femininity is all of us ..

  104. sirtooting . says

    @ Mike Buchanan .. No. 106
    “In a previous comment I offered to post a link to the very interesting presentation slides used by Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan at the last National Conference on Male Victims of Domestic Violence. Does anyone wish me to do so? They paint a very different picture of DA to that which Lucy in particular is committed to.”

    No .I don’t wish to join you .. “They paint a very different picture of DA to that which Lucy in particular is committed to.”
    And no they don’t paint a very different picture to domestic violence .. it’s the same picture, but from a different side .. You know what it is they are showing .. Violence .. And they are telling us, it is a bad thing .. As if we didn’t know? .. And they are telling us .. this violence comes from parents who are violent, and their children due to the violent nature of their parents, who come from abusive relationships .. become violent .. and drink & drugs removes the inhibitions the person has that holds back that violence in the name of civility .. but it is only a veneer .. which is easily stripped away once they have had a few drinks inside them or drugs ..
    If you teach your children, the way to get what you want is by bullying others, then that is what they will do. It is aggression and intolerance of others ..
    For everyone woman that kills another woman. By the same ratio, men kill 25 men ..
    Women should be admired for their inner strength in not to resorting to violence, when it is the hardest emotion to resist.
    Bad parenting is bad parenting and leads to bad relationships in later life for their children who go on to perpetuate the same situation for their own children.

    Aggression is the thing apparently that men admire in men, it supposed to get them ahead, so why don’t they admire it in women?

  105. says

    @sirtooting 101

    So, men are violent, women aren’t? RUBBISH!!! The majority of male violence is directed against men, while the majority of female violence is directed against… er… men. Robert St Estephe has posted a huge body of material on A Voice for Men http://avoiceformen.com about violent women reported in the mainstream media for the past 100+ years.

    I could post pieces every day about violent women, and women who persuade male friends and relatives to be violent on their behalf. Only today we posted a piece about a woman in Wales who told her drunk boyfriend – he had ‘previous’ for physical violence – that she’d been raped. She hadn’t been raped. She described the alleged rapist’s clothes, the boyfriend went out and found a man with the same clothes, and dully assaulted him. So a man was attacked, the boyfriend’s been punished, and the woman faced no consequences. Women are treated by the justice system as barely more accountable than young children, as we see with the women who make false rape allegations and ruin men’s lives – driving some to financial ruin, even suicide – and suffer no consequences, not even their identity being exposed so other men can take precautions.

    It’s long been claimed that if there were more women in politics, there would be less war. It’s seldom I agree with George Galloway, but in a recent Question Time he pointed out that of the 101 ‘Blair’s Babes’ – new female Labour MPs in 1997 – 99 had voted for the Iraq war. Like myself, he’s not a fan of all-women PPC shortlists.

  106. sirtooting . says

    “The majority of male violence is directed against men”

    Hmm .. So what is this?
    http://uncensoredhistory.blogspot.in/2012/07/brutal-rape-of-german-women-during-and.html

    You can post this one on your site if you like ..
    I could post millions upon millions of incidents where males have been violent towards females in fact I could post probably billions of them .. We can all play that game .. And I know who will win.

    Who kills Millions of males why Millions of men .. Who kills millions of females?. Why .. Millions of men.
    The mass murder, the mass rape, the mass enslavement of the female is the foundation of all male run totalitarian cultures..

    Oh yeah you can put this on your site if you like as well..
    http://www.ibtimes.com/deadly-preference-male-offspring-killing-baby-girls-India-pakistan-1406582

    The mass murder of females because they aren’t born the gender the male prefers .. ” The Male”

    Killing Females because they aren’t born male .. That is Gendercide.

    “Women have no existence and no essence; they are not, they are nothing.”
    Otto Weininger

    John Wesley (1703-91): “Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born.”

    Do males in the West try to coerce females to abort their children? Because the male regards them as nothing but a fucking financial inconvenience for men?

    Males are totally against arming females in times of war, but they have absolutely nothing against shooting them or bombing them, or raping them whilst they are unarmed and claiming them as spoils of war .. It’s the male payoff his self styled self reward ..In playing in dramas of his own making.. Hey we have been hired as killers and we are armed to the teeth .. We have a license to kill and a license to rape .. And now we deserve our just reward .. Our Spoils of war .. No, Geneva Convention for females .. The personal war of the Male against the Female in cultures that reveres male aggression.

    Only females can create Democracies because otherwise all you have is male run totalitarian cultures that are based around male violence and aggression

    Have you ever noticed the only people who are against Democracies are Male run totalitarian states ..

    The male is getting his full recognition for what he has done and is doing.
    We can see this reality of how the male protected the female by the example of Saudi Arabia, who’s traditions are firmly entrenched and in Afghanistan, China, India, where they fall over themselves in the rush to murder females because they aren’t born the gender the male prefers .. “THE MALE” .. Who THEY REGARD IS MORE VALUABLE THAN THE FEMALE, Due to male propaganda that is still perpetuated all over the world

    The feminine side of human nature has been stifled and suffocated by the male, in favour of promoting masculinity and aggression and now they have come to the conclusion violence is regressive not progressive .. What was once admired is now in question ..
    Viva the Feminists .. And the femininity is all of us ..

  107. says

    Putting complete nonsense in bold text definitely makes it seem true. I could spend hours debunking your narrative, but there would be no point. So I leave you with the following videos by Karen Straughan and Zara Faris asking if women and girls were historically ‘oppressed’ in developing countries, and if they are now. Or maybe there’s something more nuanced going on, when we consider responsibilities as well as rights?

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/girlwriteswhat-were-women-historically-oppressed-are-they-now-in-developing-countries/

  108. Paul says

    @ Mike Buchanan.

    I’m mindful of our host’s request that we stay on-topic but i do agree that the role females can play in encouraging a macho attitude amongst males- which can manifest itself in violence- is one that is invariably played down or ignored.And to my knowledge no serious research has ever been conducted on the subject

    It’s a fact that violence and abuse perpetrated by females- against men,women and children- is not taken as seriously in this country as violence and abuse which is perpetrated by males.Additionally there’s little or no recognition of the role females can play both encouraging and instigating male violence .And the police and courts do seem to take a much more leniant view when dealing with abusive women than they do with abusive men.Certainly there’ve been cases where male victims of dv have either been arrested or ”encouraged” to leave the home even though the woman has been the abuser. And i’ve witnessed incidents where the police have blatantly used double-standards -which favour females- when dealing with incidents of dv.

    There’ve also been numerous instances reported in the press of females either instigating or participating in violence but not being fully called to account for their actions.One incident i heard of which isn’t disimilar to the one you described was where a female told her fiancee she’d been raped and pointed the ”rapist” out to him in a crowded pub.Egged on by the female he attacked the ”rapist”and gave him such a severe beating it left him disabled for life.The fiance was arrested and was rightly sent to prison.However the female ,who admitted she’d lied and was well aware of her fiancee’s potential for violence was given an £80 penalty fine even though she’d instigated the whole thing.

    Of course men have got to be held fully accountable for their behaviour.But i believe that males and females are pretty inter-dependant. And that if problematic male behaviour and attitudes are to change then many women are also going to have to change their attitudes to what makes a ”real man”. For when men and boys are a problem i think it’s probably the case that women -as well as men- have played their part in creating that problem.

    You might be interested in reading the following which is relevant to the discussion in hand.

    http://www.rense.com/general47/enc.htm

  109. sirtooting . says

    @ Mike Buchanan ..
    Did I just put you a link up to the gendercide of the Female in Pakistan? And females are murdered because they are not born the gender the male prefers .. “The MALE”

    Karen Straughan, said women didn’t deserve the vote because they didn’t go to war.
    And this is why her reasoning is a monument to her stupidity

    Circular reasoning, ,..
    Women weren’t allowed to be involved in the military for exactly the same reason they weren’t allowed the vote.

    If you heard that a female professor of literature was employed by a university and this professor stated she did not and would not recommend books written by males to her students, purely due to the fact that the authors were male .. What would you say to that?
    because Karen Straughan believes this is acceptable an no one should criticize the woman for her choice to express her bias and her prejudice, because if Karen finds that acceptable then presumably she would not find anything wrong in other professors, refusing to recommend other authors they may be prejudiced against who are gay, black or disabled.
    So what do you think, is Karen right?

  110. says

    ‘Women weren’t allowed to be involved in the military’. Priceless, simply priceless. I’m sure Afghani women and girls in the relative safety of compounds would MUCH rather be out in the fields armed with AK47s, as even young Afghani boys routinely are. What’s your analysis? For millennia the patriarchy has selfishly reserved all ‘likely to be killed or injured’ occupations for men?

    In 2012/13, 126 of the 128 people who died in workplace-related incidents in the UK were… men or women?… come on, you can do this. ‘Big Red’, a Canadian gender feminist who’s the toast of the global MHRM, claims patriarchy keeps women out of dangerous jobs. Enjoy this video of her in full magnificent flight:

  111. says

    Paul, thank you. I agree with your analysis. In an earlier comment I alluded to a newspaper story in which a woman told her drunk boyfriend – who had ‘form’ on physical violence – that a man in certain clothes had raped her. She was lying. The full story:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/false-rape-allegation-led-man-to-assault-innocent-bystander/

    The ‘rapist’ was assaulted by the drunk boyfriend, the boyfriend charged and punished… and the woman? No punishment for making a false rape allegation. Par for the course, even when huge police investigations have resulted from rape allegations. Let me know if you want a link to another story we posted today, on exactly that issue.

  112. sirtooting . says

    @ Mike Buchanan
    ‘Women weren’t allowed to be involved in the military’. Priceless, simply priceless. I’m sure Afghani women and girls in the relative safety of compounds would MUCH rather be out in the fields armed with AK47s, as even young Afghani boys routinely are.”

    I am absolutely certain females would love a chance to be fully armed and to given the right to fully defend themselves on any battlefield against an enemy instead of being left totally unarmed and at their mercy

    Do females die in war .. are females safe in times of war..?. FROM THE ENEMY and who is the enemy? The one who calls himself a liberator but who liberates and unleashes only his own sadistic perverted sexuaf fantasies ..

    This is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector

    http://uncensoredhistory.blogspot.in/2012/07/brutal-rape-of-german-women-during-and.html

    Tell us why the information of the rape of millions of females aged from 1 year to 80 years was suppressed until 1992 by the government and military.. Was it too give sufficient time to let those men who were guilty a chance to escape prosecution.
    Tell us about those men who raped one year old females, who jammed broken bottles inside their vaginas, and ripped their little bodies to shreds. Tell us about those men, who raped holocaust victims and their own female comrades.

    Tell us, how best should baby daughters best defend themselves against their fathers who are armed to the teeth in China and Islam and who are intent on murdering their daughters in the hope of replacing them with sons.

    You do know what gendercide is don’t you ..?
    Karen Straughan justifies all this by claiming the fault lies not in the male engineered system that devalues the female, but the failure lies in the female for not being born male.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2497630/Pakistan-BANS-memoir-Malala-girl-shot-Taliban-going-school.html

    How best should females defend themselves against the Taliban who want to shoot them in the head for being born female .. ?

    Men are superior to women because Allah gave men supremacy over women. Therefore, men receive from Allah twice as much as women. Husbands who are disobeyed by their wives can punish them, confine them to bed and even beat them. Women are the greatest calamity men received fro Allah.” Quran, written by disciples of Mohammed, Arabia, circa 700 BCE.

    “A woman should venerate her husband like a God. Every day in the morning, nine consecutive times, she must postrate at the feet of her husband and ask, ‘My lord, what do you want me to do?’” Zaratustra, Persian philosopher, circa 600 BCE.
    Clement of Alexandria (150?-215?): “Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.”

    Religions are just vehicles for the male to promote his hatred of the female, he hides behind it, to justify it .. Every religion is the same, THERE IS NOTHING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN ANY OF THEM.

  113. 123454321 says

    Paul @ 116 – nodding with every word you wrote there, buddy.

    Sirtoot said:

    “I am absolutely certain females would love a chance to be fully armed and to given the right to fully defend themselves on any battlefield against an enemy instead of being left totally unarmed and at their mercy”.

    It’s hard to define just how ludicrous your pathetic arguments are really, sirtoot. In all seriousness, it’s absolutely astonishing it is, the shear amount of crap that you come out with! – your blithering nonsense has my jaw permanently locked to the floor.

    “Tell us about those men who raped one year old females, who jammed broken bottles inside their vaginas, and ripped their little bodies to shreds.”

    How many men in a World of 4 billion men did that? Show us how many cases there were matching the description you posted above. If this is representative of the entire male population then you ought to be able to provide a huge number of examples.

    “Tell us, how best should baby daughters best defend themselves against their fathers who are armed to the teeth in China and Islam and who are intent on murdering their daughters in the hope of replacing them with sons.”

    Prove it’s the Fathers who are behind the decision to abort female foetuses and that the decision is not the Mothers or Grandmothers in the family. Go on, prove it. You couldn’t answer this question before and I doubt you’ll be able to answer it now.

  114. sirtooting . says

    @ Mike Buchanan..

    You appear to be in awe of Karen Straughan and her mental contortions in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

    Karen advocates violence against women.
    A conversation between Karen Straughan and a fan of her on the internet awhile ago.
    Fan .. “Correct me if I’m wrong, but a good summary of what you’re saying is “Violence isn’t right but a slap here & there is better than the guy taking all of her nagging & exploding in such a way that he beats her within an inch of her life?”
    girlwriteswhat .. Reply
    That’s pretty much it. ..
    YEP .. She confirms she is in favour of violence .. That is pretty much it .. She says

    Perhaps Karen thinks men are so pathetically unstable, they need a male privilege, a special dispensation to accommodate their inherent lack of self control.
    Perhaps Karen believes if men aren’t allowed the option of being able too use a controlled amount of violence in stressful situations to ease their tension, then men will rapidly become totally irrational & uncontrollably violent towards those causing them stress, and possibly causing them fatal injuries in the process
    If this is what Karen thinks of men, then perhaps she bases it on the knowledge of certain statistics, where
    statistically for every female that kills another female, males kill 25 males & males also kill females virtually by the same ratio

    So the male is the most violent and is the most likely of the genders to lose control, and kill someone, where the female gender seldom loses control and seldom kills anyone.

    So Feminism is good for men’s well being. Feminists are men’s allies in the struggle against the system of violence where men dominate other men.
    So Stand up for all men against sexism. Stand up for feminine men. Stand up to other men to fight sexism against men, stand up for femininity and less aggression in all of us.

  115. sirtooting . says

    @ 12345 .. Once I caught a fish alive ..

    Why are they killing females in the hope of replacing them with males? .. and why do they want to replace them with males .. because the male is thought more valuable than the female..
    Is that male supremacy? Is it saying the fault lies not in the system engineered by the male but the failure lies in being born female?

  116. sirtooting . says

    @ 12345 .. Once I caught a fish alive ..

    An old chinese say .. if you ask a chinese man how many children does he have, if he has both boys and girls, he will only count the boys, if he has only girls, he will answer NONE .

    This how Otto Weininger justified his statement in 1903
    “Women have no existence and no essence; they are not, they are nothing.”

    http://allgirlsallowed.org/statistics

    All cultures are contrived, social constructs, traditions are human inventions. Propaganda in cultures brainwashes it’s inhabitants and few are immune to the propaganda.
    We hear people tell us women in Islam choose to wear the hijab but they fail to tell us whay will happen to the women if they choose not to .. Will they be killed in Saudi A

  117. johngreg says

    Do we really have to be so continually pounded by Toot’s rabid racism, sexism, and paranoia? Is he offering anything, anything at all of value to this forum?

  118. sirtooting . says

    Whilst Mr Buchanan and the likes of 12345 accuse females of being evil

    and we have comments like this.
    “How many men in a World of 4 billion men did that? Show us how many cases there were matching the description you posted above. If this is representative of the entire male population then you ought to be able to provide a huge number of examples.”

    He & his buddy keep telling us women are evil .. How many women in a World of 4 billion women are that? Show us how many cases there are matching that description you posted above. If this is representative of the entire female population then you ought to be able to provide a huge number of examples.

    It is tit for tat ..
    and I think male violence is the problem, which is cultural and is deadly and when he asks how many men have done these things .. Well all the armies in the world are involved in raping females and claiming them as spoils of war and governments are involved and the militaries are complicit in attempting to covering it up.

    Whilst they continue to attack females in this way, I will defend them.

  119. says

    Johngreg, I for one am no longer going to respond to anything ‘sirtooting’ writes. He (or she) keeps mentioning Saudi Arabia. I was thinking of linking to a post about the country having introduced legislation last year making domestic abuse / violence a criminal offence, but only for men who abuse women, not vice versa. Then I thought, what’s the point?

  120. Darren Ball says

    It’s quite depressing to see the statistics being lobbed around in the comments section like hand grenades rather than considered as casualties. That notwithstanding, Ally’s article is very welcome for two reasons, I opine:

    Firstly because UK policy, the national conversation, mainstream media, the Zeitgeist, etc. etc., hugely ignores the problems faced by men at the hands of abusive partners; and secondly because prevalence of domestic violence is reported by some news agencies (the Guardian being a serial offender) as evidence of increasing misogyny in our society – women increasingly living under siege, etc.

    It is very clear to me that Lucy would find fault with absolutely any survey, no matter how expertly conducted, that didn’t support her narrative. Even though the exact same survey is cited by the leading women’s groups in the UK as evidence of women living in abusive relationships, it’s apparently unreliable insofar as it relates to the prevalence of male victims.

    Okay, let’s assume for a moment that men are not a huge minority of victims, the statisticians have it wrong, their methods are flawed, etc. In fact men are only 10 per cent of victims (nobody seriously believes that men are such a low proportion, but for illustration purposes). Under such a scenario male victims should qualify for special help and recognition precisely because they’re a minority.

    Where else in our society do we ignore a vulnerable group because they’re only a minority? On the contrary, we have a special focus on vulnerable minorities because they have special difficulties accessing support structures. For instance, in the UK, there is a huge push to improve outcomes for female prisoners. Women represent only five per cent of the prison population of England and Wales – they are a focus group because they’re a minority. It is argued that traditional support services are too focused on the needs of male offenders because they’re the majority.

    In fact, almost every recommendation of the Corston report into female offenders would also benefit men but it is not being implemented for men – only for women. There are just 4000 women in our prisons (circa 0.01 per cent of the national female population) and yet women’s groups regard this as a big issue in need of fixing. It certainly get’s much more national discussion and focus than male victims of DA and DV (of whom there are about 800,000 annually).

    What proportion of a problem do men need to be to be considered worthy of support? If they’re 95 per cent of the problem then it’s women who need special support because they’re the minority group. But when we shift the conversation to an area when men are the minority of a disadvantages group, then there are efforts to show that the men are such a minority that we needn’t concern ourselves with them.

    Whatever the statistics, and it looks depressingly like we’ll never be able to convince people like Lucy, surely nobody can seriously believe that DV against men is taken as seriously as equivalent DV against women (like-for-like); that it receives proportionate funding and awareness-raising, that men’s particular difficulties are considered when trying to access help (prejudice, disbelief, ridicule, you must have deserved it, etc.). In truth, both male and female victims are under-funded, but male groups more so by several orders of magnitude.

    As Erin Prizzey said back in the 1970s, militant feminists seized DV for political purposes. They want to show that violence is a characteristic of men in their relationships with women. This narrative doesn’t hold when we note that the CSEW/BCS has consistently shown that the group most at risk are women living with other women (circa three-times more so than heterosexual women), followed by gay men (about twice as likely as straight women). The evidence shows the complete opposite of the militant feminist narrative, and yet this has prevailed to this day due to biased reporting of the facts.

  121. Jim Unique says

    sirtooting,

    Ally just got done asking people to stay on topic and you seem intent on turning this thread into an ideological war. Cut it out!

  122. carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Hello Mike, not sure I have the inclination to get involved in this discussion, just wanted to say hello to my favourite MRA.

    Did you have a pleasant Valentine’s day?

  123. 123454321 says

    Sirtoot – you didn’t answer my questions and show me where I (or Mike) said women are evil).

    You ruin your own credibility – not as you ever had any in the first place!

  124. 123454321 says

    There goes Carnation implying that there are potential sexually related ramifications for being a man standing up for other men’s rights. Carnation would rather take the white-knight approach where shaming tactics and belittling other men wins him the girl on Valentine’s day. Am I right, Carnation ;-)

  125. carnation says

    @ MikeBuchanan

    I asked because it’s the most recent “red letter” day, Easter hasn’t happened yet. I usually ask Mike about his weekend or dogwalking.

    @ 1234…

    No, you are wrong again. On the positive side, you will be used to being wrong, given your politics.

  126. says

    @ carnation

    So you don’t have the ‘inclination’ to get involved with this discussion, which follows an important piece by Ally, but you’re happy to waste my time (and those of other followers and commenters on this blog), and then throw a gratuitous insult at 123454321 – his politics make him ‘wrong’? Is that the level you deem appropriate in this forum? Embarrassing, to put it mildly.

  127. sirtooting . says

    Some important findings from the ONS crime stats: Intimate & sexual violence

    Serious sexual assaults on men (including attempts) .. zero

    Erin Prizzey said back in the 1970s she fled from her fathers home because she feared he would start raping her instead of her mother, since her mother was now dead.
    She never saw him again, until he was point blank dead and that took 20 years for her to feel safe, which she never did really, because she said anytime she saw a man resembling her father, she would freeze with fear.

  128. Darren Ball says

    I haven’t read that about Erin, however, if true it only reinforces my high opinion of her: that she can remain balanced on the issue. Recognise that both men and women can be abusive; both men and women can be victims; and want to help both. A lesser person may have become a misandrist.

  129. carnation says

    @ MikeBuchanan

    Good God, man! You seem a bit hostile today…

    123454321’s political views caused him to recite half-baked bunkum in an accusatory fashion at me. I treated him with an appropriate amounr of disdain.

    I broadly agree with Ally’s sentiments in the OP. Similarly, I agree with Judge Harries verdict today. As always, abd with bemused to genuine contempt, I disagree with many others, including your good self, whilst retaining some respect for your tenacity and polittesee.

    excuse typos. ..

  130. says

    I haven’t read it either, though on many occasions she’s said that while both of her parents were abusive, her mother was the more abusive of the two. The prevailing gender feminist model of DA – the Duluth model – means that decade after decade DA isn’t addressed appropriately, the only ‘beneficiaries’ being hate-driven professional feminists who care nothing about male victims. So deep is their misandry, they won’t even pretend to care.

  131. sirtooting . says

    A 1997 interview with Erin Pizzey
    Erin says she blames herself for how things have turned out. “When I ask myself how I have come to this, I say: `This is a consequence, Erin, of the things you’ve done.'” But, that said, she then goes on to blame everyone but herself: her parents; her husbands; the hard-core feminists who were always out to get her; even her various publishers. Oh yes, everything would have been all right if only she’d been nicer to editors. “I once wrote a cookbook in which I called one chapter Beans Means Farts. Immediately, my editor called me up, crying: `It’s unpublishable.’ `Why,’ I asked. `Don’t you fart at Oxford University Press?'” Erin chuckles joyously.

    HarperCollins, her last publishers, dropped her two years ago. Their acquisitions committee told her she was no longer what they wanted and, anyway, her recent sales had been disastrous. She says this is nonsense. They gave her the boot because she’s too “difficult”. Her novels, she insists vigorously, sell magnificently all around the world. (But, if so, then where is the income?) And she is currently writing her next book, The Fame Game, which is about the way men always want to destroy powerful women.

    The idea came to her when she was interviewed by Hello! and the journalist said to her: “The trouble with you, Erin, is that you cast such a large shadow.” Erin Pizzey? Inspired by Hello!? It would seem so.

    She doesn’t, as yet, have a publisher for The Fame Game. She published her last book herself. And the one before that was remaindered after a week or two. So, no wonder she now owes pounds 35,000 to banks in Italy and pounds 15,000 to banks here. She has no idea how she is going to pay these debts off. Especially as she is now on pounds 47 a week and has only the prospect of basket-weaving and a spot on The Bob Mills Show ahead of her.

    Erin is now 58. The face, once so lovely in its plump, strong, wonderfully fearless way, is now that of a very old woman. Deep lines criss-cross it, then come back and criss-cross it again. The eyes swim in opaque pools. The stapled-together kaftan has been replaced by a baggy track suit that may once have been black but is now a tired, washed-out grey. She smells jolly splendid, though, very Hello! “It’s Femme, by Rochas, my one little indulgence,” she confesses sheepishly.

    Certainly, you wish things had worked out better for her. She did something magnificent once, and it would seem only fair. But, that said, she had a rotten childhood and maybe the seeds were laid then for a rotten old age. Once messed up, do you inevitably go on to mess up? Is that how life works? Perhaps.

    Her father, Cyril, was in fact a brilliantly clever man. One of 17 children born to a poor Irish family, he was, she says, the first person ever to get into the Foreign Office from grammar school. He became a diplomat, travelling endlessly; Erin’s childhood was played out all over the world until she was sent to an English boarding school at the age of nine.

    Her mother, Ruth, was a gorgeous-looking woman, with a superb figure, blue eyes and glossy, chestnut hair. But she was cold, snobbish, wholly unaffectionate and given to explosive fits of violence. “She would beat me very badly using the flex of the iron. She would do it for no reason, although I always knew when it was coming because her face would twitch and a red spot would appear on her cheek.”

    Erin could not go to her father for comfort. He was a terrible bully who threw things and whose idea of a good joke was blowing cigarette smoke up the dog’s nose. As far as can be made out, her parents’ only pleasure came in tormenting each other. “Their rows were endless, with the worst being about money. My father lived on the imagined abyss of destitution, she lived in the never-never land of imagined plenty. They were doomed never to meet in the middle. She bought whatever she fancied: antiques; paintings; hand-made underwear from Harrods. He saw no reason to spend money on anything. In fact, it was hard to get him even to change his clothes or take a bath, because he considered baths weakening.” Erin doesn’t know why her parents were as they were. Probably, they were messed up, too.

    She did not, she insists, hate her mother. She pitied her. “She just got everything hopelessly wrong, didn’t she?” And her father? Well, two days after her mother died – when Erin was 17 – she walked out of the house and never saw him again, even though he lived another 25 years. Enough said.

  132. Darren Ball says

    One might argue that some of the more militant feminists involved in this sector aren’t primarily concerned about female victims either. According to Erin, they refuse to accept that some women actively seek out violent partners – this is seen to be victim-blaming, whereas what they want is man-blaming.

    But if Erin is right and they’re denying this fact for ideological reasons, then they’re not providing the best help and advice to this group of abused women.

    I suspect Erin is right because it makes perfect sense – where people grow up in a family where parents are violent (one or both), very likely this is the only model they have for their own intimate relationships, and so the cycle continues.

    DV is too serious for the facts to be ignored to suit an agenda.

  133. says

    @ Darren

    Erin has repeatedly made the point that militant feminists took over her Chiswick refuge and then developed the DA industry – which is what it’s been for 40 years, in the UK at least – primarily for financial reasons. The amount of government and private money going to organisations running women’s refuges is colossal, both in the UK and across the world. There’s a consensus that the money isn’t well accounted for.

  134. Darren Ball says

    @ Mike,

    I doubt it’s just money. I suspect it’s because it supports a narrative that men are inherently violent towards women within relationships.

    You must have heard such statements as “all men are potential rapists”, “all heterosexual sex is rape”, “women don’t understand how much men hate them”, etc. Violence towards women in relationships, so it is claimed, is endemic. To maintain this view, it is necessary to refuse to acknowledge female violence towards men; violence within lesbian relationships (consistently about three-times as high as their heterosexual counterparts); or violence between gay men (about twice as high as it is for straight women).

    If DV is because men hate women, then women hate women much more than men do, and men hate men much more than they hate women. A more sensible conclusion is that men are more likely exercise restraint when their partner is female then when their partner is male, and that women are actually more violent within relationships than men are – but only if the physical disadvantage is removed.

  135. Ally Fogg says

    Dear everyone.

    Last night I received the latest of several emails I’ve had from regular readers saying that they no longer feel they can comment on my blog, since the debate below the line is entirely dominated by a small number of commenters with no apparent interest in constructively debating the topics and interested only in using this as a venue for a frankly self-indulgent and narcissistic flame war, more interested in attacking their ideological opponents than debating the issue.

    As I’ve said many a time before, I’m proud of the fact that I’ve only ever banned one person from this site, and that was for advocating the sexual abuse of children.

    I warn you all, I am to losing my patience and there are three or four people who are on very, very thin ice.

  136. Superficially Anonymous says

    @Ally Fogg 155

    In all honesty the entirety of Freethoughtblogs is like this. You’re committed to fairness and open debate and I respect that but:

    You founded a blog committed to rubbishing the idiocy of both the Feminist and Masculinist movement.
    You did it on the Internet.
    You publicly committed to not moderate unless something illegal happened.
    You allowed anonymous sign ups if people feel like it.
    You moved the blog to a website devoted to letting people of a certain opinion denigrate others with different opinions, despite what the name says.

    What did you think was going to happen?

  137. says

    @Superficially Anonymous (156)

    I couldn’t claim to represent the men’s human rights movement, and never shall, but I’m honestly bemused by the term ‘masculinist’. None of the people of the slightest import in the MHRM ever uses the term. Does it refer to an imagined male response to feminism? It’s perfectly clear to me and other MHRAs that there will never be such a thing. Feminism will inevitably crash and burn not because men have created a counter movement – ‘masculinism’ or other – but because feminism has long been a female supremacy movement driven by misandry i.e. hatred of half the world’s population. Day after day I see that feminists haven’t started to understand why their hate-driven ideology is inevitably doomed.

    Conscious of Ally’s reasonable request that commenters stay OT, I’d like to point people to the presentation given by Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan to the 2013 Mankind Initiative ‘National Conference for Male Victims of Domestic Violence’. It’s the ninth URL in the following, please be sure not to look at anything else:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/our-first-official-complaint-to-the-bbc-the-newsnight-piece-on-domestic-abuseviolence-7-january-2014/

  138. Superficially Anonymous says

    @Mike Buchanan 157

    It’s purely because I tend to prefer acronyms or names for organisations that don’t sound like terrorist groups. If someone tells me they’re an MRA I picture a car bomber.

  139. says

    Thanks. We increasingly term ourselves MHRAs (men’s human rights advocates) rather than MRAs (men’s rights advocates) and I honestly haven’t come across the ‘terrorist groups’ point before – perhaps surprisingly, on reflection. The MHRM is resolutely anti-violence, I can assure you. I honestly doubt there’s ever been a more inclusive social justice movement. Our only enemies are those who are driven by hatred of men and boys, and we challenge them with evidence-based arguments, nothing more.

  140. JT says

    It’s purely because I tend to prefer acronyms or names for organisations that don’t sound like terrorist groups. If someone tells me they’re an MRA I picture a car bomber.(Super)

    Now THAT was pretty f…… funny. ;)

  141. Bugmaster says

    @Ally #155:

    IMO it would be relatively easy to implement some software solutions to the problem. Without getting into machine learning, you can implement some simple rule-based checks; for example:

    * A user may not post more than N comments per minute

    * On a thread with more than M comments, a single user may not post in such a manner that his total characters posted exceed P% of total characters on the thread

    * No comment may contain more than B% of text that is bolded, italicized, etc.

    Even these simple rules would go a long way toward normalizing the conversation, I think.

  142. lelapaletute says

    Hi Bugmaster,

    I really don’t think it’s as simple as that – while the sheer volume (and voluminousness) of some posters’ ‘contributions’ are hindering debate, the key problem is content and tone – off-topic, illogical, aggressive and unengaged posts are the problem.

    e.g. It is often the case, especially after the first 100 comments or so, that the argument has boiled down to a few hardened bickerers working out some highly detailed point of disagreement together; by this point, the debate has got so granular that posts can become extremely lengthy, and if people are sad enough (like me) the back and forth can reach the frequency point of almost real-time conversation. That would be buggered by your B and P rules, I fear.

    As for the B rule, I really think the niceties of formatting are the least of anybody’s worries; OK, relentless and seemingly random bolding is a bit embarrassing to watch, but it is not actually shutting down the debate or derailing it; just makes the bolder look a bit silly.

    Frankly I think Ally is in a real bind here. Without getting authoritarian, it is difficult to get the vocal minority to shut up and make room for the rest of us. Prolific and opinionated posters, for all they may often also be the biggest arses, do generate debate and drive activity on the blog, so pissing on their bonfire must feel pretty counterintuitive when you’ve gone to the trouble of putting your stuff out there. I certainly hope that a way forward can be found, as it has become a touch hard work on here of late – although my main complaint is people who should bloody know better engaging with posters who have shown time and time again they have no interest in or capacity for rational debate.

  143. bugmaster says

    @lelapaletute #162:

    You’re right in general; that’s why I started off by saying, “without getting into machine learning…”. But still, IMO, even such simple rules can at least cut down on some of the worst offences. The rules would prevent any one commenter (or a pair of them) from monopolizing the discussion.

    the back and forth can reach the frequency point of almost real-time conversation.

    You are right, but I believe this is an acceptable price to pay, especially if you allow something like one post every 15 minutes — which many people would still find acceptable. Besides, I believe that a cooldown timer on posts will have the collateral benefit of requiring the posters to consider their words carefully.

    But as you said, automated tools can’t solve all or even most of the problems; until we have Turing-grade Strong AI, enforcing a rule like “don’t be an asshole” will always require some amount of human intervention.

  144. leni says

    Regarding the earlier discussion of having people self-define rather than use legal definitions, I am reminded of the studies in which rapists were much more likely to admit to having raped someone if the word “rape” was not used in the question. Just like victims, suddenly the numbers go up when people have less room for generous interpretations.

    From the conclusion in the link above:

    Second, the sometimes-floated notion that acquaintance rape is simply a mistake about consent, is wrong. (See Amanda Hess’s excellent takedown here.) The vast majority of the offenses are being committed by a relatively small group of men, somewhere between 4% and 8% of the population, who do it again … and again … and again. That just doesn’t square with the notion of innocent mistake. Further, since the repeaters are also responsible for a hugely disproportionate share of the intimate partner violence, child beating and child sexual abuse, the notion that these predators are somehow confused good guys does not square with the data. Most of the raping is done by guys who like to rape, and to abuse, assault and violate. If we could get the one-in-twelve or one-in-25 repeat rapists out of the population (that is a lot of men — perhaps six or twelve million men in the U.S. alone) or find a way to stop them from hurting others, most sexual assault, and a lot of intimate partner violence and child abuse, would go away. Really.

    This obviously discussing the majority of rapists who are indeed male, but I think the same principle applies to female and other variously gendered or gender-identitied (I know that’s not a word and I don’t care) perpetrators.

    Still, I would rather live in a world where abusers had to do their own damn work and didn’t have legions of people making their excuses and gaslighting their victims for them. The worst abusers among us are are bad for all of us. They don’t need your help, CitymanMichael. And the Taliban and other various fundamentalists of Afghanistan do not need yours, Michael Buchannen.

    Not that knowing that would stop you from posting some weapons grade bullshit like this:

    Putting complete nonsense in bold text definitely makes it seem true. I could spend hours debunking your narrative, but there would be no point. So I leave you with the following videos by Karen Straughan and Zara Faris asking if women and girls were historically ‘oppressed’ in developing countries, and if they are now. Or maybe there’s something more nuanced going on, when we consider responsibilities as well as rights?

    (Here was a link to GWW vlog that I deleted from MB’s original comment because one link is too many- leni)

    Whatever presumption of reasonableness I might have given you just evaporated with that link. This is the woman who said she didn’t find anything “seriously ethically questionable” in an article that stated “Women should be terrorized by their men; it’s the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps.”

    For context, you posted that in a thread about domestic violence. Without an ounce of irony. And you, for some unfathomable reason which I can only assume is a total disconnect from reality exacerbated by a crippling narcissism that makes me feel uncomfortably sorry for you, still expect people to take you seriously.

    Unbelievable. Or totally believable if you know people like GWW exist.

    (And no, I will not link directly to it. Poison your own google search algorithms if you are curious. Although you can find links at Manboobz.)

  145. Gjenganger says

    @leni 166
    Very interesting quote:

    Second, the sometimes-floated notion that acquaintance rape is simply a mistake about consent, is wrong. (See Amanda Hess’s excellent takedown here.) The vast majority of the offenses are being committed by a relatively small group of men, somewhere between 4% and 8% of the population, who do it again … and again … and again. That just doesn’t square with the notion of innocent mistake.

    But:

    – It might well be true that the vast majority of rapes are committed by a small minority of men, but is it really commonly accepted, rather than just a hypothesis? I wold quite like to believe it, but these debates are so full of dubious ‘facts’.

    – Even if ‘mistakes’ are a small minority of rapes, they are the cases that the (hypothetical) non-criminal majority is most likely to get involved in – and certainly the case that they worry about and identify with.

    – The big propaganda message is ‘watch YOUR behavior’ to avoid being a rapist; watch YOUR attitudes’, or you might be an accomplice. As far as the debate goes, we are all responsible. That makes it pretty impossible to avoid those (hypothetical) non-violent men worrying that the kind of things that they might get involved in really do count as rape – and debating accordingly. If the message was ‘YOU do whatever you like, you are OK, it is only the evil minority who rape) you would get a different attitude. I can see why this is not the way the propaganda is done, but it is hard to split the violent minority away from the rest in the debate if you do not make the distinction clear in your campaigning.

  146. sirtooting . says

    “The big propaganda message is ‘watch YOUR behavior”
    It is not the Female Gender that makes the Male Gender looks bad, it’s the Male Genders own history, and there the mistreatment of the Female.

    Males will turn cartwheels in their rush to associate themselves with man’s achievements, and so in awe are they, they will gleefully brag and boast .. “Look at us men, look, WE have achieved so much” .. But when it comes to “Man’s Atrocities” Then that is a different story, and the same males will trample over each other in the rush to distance themselves from Men’s atrocities and cry .. “Oh look now, you can’t associate those men with us” .. It seems Males are completely willing to take all the glory, but totally unwilling to take any of the responsibility or blame .. But, one must ask, why not? When they went out of their way to take everything else..

    You really can’t have it both ways .. Men’s hurt feelings = women safety..
    That is the price you pay for blatantly ignoring atrocities and not acknowledging them and dealing with them to try and put things right.

    Few people trust the ONS statistics .. it’s nothing but a blame game .. When it should be a why game?

  147. Adiabat says

    Personally I like the ‘rough and tumble’ of this blog*, but its Ally’s place so I’ll go along with whatever rules he wants to implement. I will say though that in my experience a ‘Safe Space’ is where original thought goes to die.

    * If that means having to purposefully ignore the blathering of… unique individuals like Toots then so be it.

  148. carnation says

    No, SirToot, SOME males, a tiny, deluded minority of them, will turn cartwheels to associate themselves with man’s greatest achievements. A similarly deluded minority of people will associate males with male’s worst actions, and similarly deluded individuals will collectively condemn all women based on the actual, and imaginary, actions of a minority.

    You belong to this deluded cohort.

  149. sirtooting . says

    “If that means having to purposefully ignore the blathering of… unique individuals like Toots then so be it.”

    Who typed that ?.. Ah .. It’ don’t matter .. It wasn’t any one of any importance and what does one think of people such as these .. Well, one never thinks anything of them .. When they are just as pointless as their own vacuous opinions… as they never gave any cause to think anything of them in the first place..

  150. Gjenganger says

    @Adiabat 170
    Well, you should not be safe from opinions you do not like, but I would prefer a debate that was less full of insults, less repetitive, and where the answers actually had something to do with the posts they were supposed to answer. And where the moderator did not think “fuck off and die” was an appropriate reaction to a post you did not agree with. But hey, I am just a guest here.

    But, FYI, it takes two to make a flamewar. If you do not want to see lots of posts from people, you should not throw random insults in their direction. That only stimulates further debate.

  151. Adiabat says

    Gjenganger (173): All fine in an ideal world, but enforcing “appropriate reactions” will just stagnate the debate, and even the most well intended moderation often just ends up silencing views that the moderator just doesn’t agree with (which is fine if all the mod wants is an echo-chamber). Compare the discussions here on Ally’s blog with the rest of “Freethought” blogs, where strong moderation is largely in effect: there’s a reason why FTB has got the reputation it has, and why people from all sides point to Ally’s blog as a notable exception.

    And FYI flame wars don’t bother me; people can throw whatever insults they want my way. I’d much rather people think I’m an asshole but grudgingly accept it when I am right, than humour people and say they are making valid points when they’re talking gibberish, or that their “theory” or argument is worthy of discussion when it’s not.

    I know I’m making good arguments when people simultaneously think I’m right and an asshole, rather than just agreeing because I’m ‘on their side’ or I’m ‘polite and respect people’s fee-fees’.

  152. Gjenganger says

    @Adiabat 174
    Well, to each his fun. I find flame wars boring. Filtering off the insults to find whatever interesting stuff might be hiding is work. And writing arguments to people who will shout at you no matter what you say is a waste of time. At a certain percentage I just filter out the poster and scroll past him. At a certain percentage I stop reading the blog.

    As for Ally, I am fine with the fact that he tolerates a lot of pointless abuse. It is when he starts backing it that I get a bit disappointed.

  153. Gjenganger says

    @Adiabat 174 contd.
    In fact, if flame wars do not bother you, bully for you, but I really wish you would hold them somewhere else, to save on the scrolling.

  154. Adiabat says

    Gjenganger (176): Are you trying to start a flame war with me? :)

    As for Ally, I imagine he recognised that the poster who wished that someone die was having an emotional reaction to a point of view she found upsetting, due to her prior rl experiences, and cut her some slack. Sometimes the right thing to do as a moderator is to look past such outbursts.

  155. Bugmaster says

    @Adiabat, Gjenganger:

    The problem with moderating for content (“flame wars”, “off-topic”, “rude”) rather than structure (“posting too frequently”, “posts are too long”, “too much formatting”) is that once you start, it’s very hard to stop. Before you know it, your discussion threads become a “safe space” where the party line is exalted and everyone who does not sing its praises gets shouted down and banned. Human beings are biased by nature.

    Personally, I sort of agree with Gjenganger, in that I’d like to see more informed discussion and fewer personal feuds. But I am willing to tolerate them, because I just don’t see a way of moderating them without inadvertently converting this blog into a “let’s all praise Ally’s wisdom” safe space.

  156. Gjenganger says

    @Adiabat 177
    So next time somebody upsets me, do I tell them to go and get raped? And if I do, will people sympathize with my emotional reaction? I somehow doubt it. We all have our sensitive spots around here, myself most definitely included. Sometimes that can make any of us behave like five-year-olds. So, we cannot always manage to be adult. That is not a reason to tell people they do not even have to try.

  157. Adiabat says

    Are you trying to start a flame war with me?

    In case it’s not clear, I ask because I made two valid points above: that of the dangers of introducing moderation in creating an echo-chamber. And that open and honest views, no matter how insulting, are better than humouring people and pretending to “reach common ground”. I believe Lucy, and a couple others, have pointed out discussions with you where you end it by agreeing, in some fashion, then continue in other threads as before as though the discussion never happened. This is just wasting their time.

    You just ignored these arguing points of mine and instead just told me how annoying you find my posts and that you want me to go away. I’m not particularly bothered by this reply, nor am I insulted, but you are kinda contradicting your own argument.

    Gjenganger (179): Don’t get me wrong, her emotion doesn’t make her point valid. In fact her outburst and closeness to the topic is reason to be even more sceptical of any of her arguments and position on the topic. And feel free to criticise her as you see fit; you are right that what she did was rude. But I don’t blame the moderator for overlooking an emotional outburst like that. Remember, we are talking about moderator responses to posts, not whether someone is rude, or that they shouldn’t be criticised at all by other commentators.

    And if your “sensitive spot” is pressed I’ll be sure not to criticise Ally’s failure to chastise you for it as well. That’s one advantage of ‘light touch’ moderation.

  158. Gjenganger says

    @Adiabat 180

    OK, then.

    As I have already said twice, I do not have any problem with Ally letting tings run and leaving it at that. But once he chooses to intervene in the debate, I do have a problem when he backs CrysT in agreeing how awful and nasty posts 1 was, implies that he would remove it if asked, and says absolutely nothing about the fact that just maybe making death threats is not the best way of debating. The message is clear: That first post was so awful that it could be banned, and Ally is happy to support people who want to make death threats in return. Of course we both know that any antifeminist who starting making death threats would be out on his ear – and rightly so. Basically I guess we have found the limits of Allys tolerance, which is fine, but it would be more honest if he either banned post 1 outright or came out against both the opinion and the death threat, instead of implying that one was so nasty that it justified the other.

    As a matter of policy I refuse to discuss which posters are obnoxious idiots, whether it be about me or someone else. Suffice it to say that I ignore the obnoxious idiots, and I clearly do not ignore you. But you are contributing to the flame wars, by spattering empty insults about the landscape and by taking part in discussions that will never contribute anything interesting, or relevant or polite to the debate. And yes, I wish you would stop.

    As for your arguments, when I am talking to people as far away from me as Lucy or Freja, saying clearly why I think they are wrong simply does not lead anywhere. On any topic you care to mention there will be a zillion things we totally disagree about, and where the assumptions and the very meaning of language are sufficiently different to make it hard to understand. what is being said. In order to get anywhere – and in order to get them to listen to what you are saying – you need to look for some area of agreement you can use as a starting point. Or even just for an area where you understand the meaning of each others’ words. As it was, I noticed that they and I seemed to have fairly similar ideas about cultural and innate differences between the sexes, and I hoped that we might find some useful agreement that we could both learn from. Well, it did not work out, but it was time well spent, as far as I am concerned. It certainly taught me more than I could have got by telling them that they were “blethering … unusual people”, the way you do. But to each his own. If they think I am wasting their time they are free to stop engaging with me. And if you think I am wasting yours, I would suggest that you do the same.

  159. says

    Adiabat 180,

    But I don’t blame the moderator for overlooking an emotional outburst like that. Remember, we are talking about moderator responses to posts, not whether someone is rude, or that they shouldn’t be criticised at all by other commentators.

    Sure
    ally explicitely agreed with the message:

    as a woman who was raped & sexually abused by a partner, fuck you. Fuck off. And preferably die. Seriously, you’d do the world a favour.

    I can’t believe this forum let that load of shit stand without comment.

    I think this is questionable.

  160. johngreg says

    At the risk of being moderated, deleted, and/or banned — as I seem to be under the threat of excommunication, if I read Ally’s last comment correctly — I am sort of between both Adiabat and Gjenganger. I really get tired of some of the personal rage wars that go on, but at the same time, I would be loath to actually remove those people (with one exception, I guess — shame on me for my human weaknesses), because I really do believe that any moderation tends to open up the door to the slippery slope that will in time, almost inevitabley, lead to what Bugmaster describes as:

    Before you know it, your discussion threads become a “safe space” where the party line is exalted and everyone who does not sing its praises gets shouted down and banned.

    Now, as I am the 28th commenter to comment after Ally’s last note, and as I have focussed on what seems to me to be the primary topic of those post-Ally-comments, I do hope I am not vanished.

  161. JT says

    Sticks and Stones people……….Sticks and Stones. But on the banning notion, isnt Idiot an ableist term? ;)
    Just teasing ya Gjenganger. :)

  162. Gjenganger says

    @JT 184
    Indeed it is. But I am collecting merit badges anyway. I asked for ‘heteronormative’, I have been awarded ‘misogynist’ and ‘bigot’, and Freja sort of half offered me ‘male supremacist’. I would be happy to accept ‘ableist’, if offered.

  163. Gjenganger says

    @JohnGreg 183
    Not sure we really need to ban people. For single offenses, gentle guidance from Ally works reasonably well. For persistent offenders, well, if nobody ever answers your posts you sooner or later leave. It takes two to make a flame war. People should just take on board that answering somebody’s posts (even to insult them) encourages them to keep posting. So, you either stop encouraging people and discussions you would rather be rid of, or you take your share of the blame.

  164. Ally Fogg says

    Hi everyone

    Just so you all know, I’ve been following this conversation with interest. I had thought about starting another ‘let’s discuss moderation’ type thread, but this has kind of served the function.

    I’ve been thinking over what additional steps / changes to modding policy might be needed here.

    I’m bearing in mind that while I don’t have the tech capacity to introduce limits on posting per day or anything like that, I can put individuals into pre-moderation of comments.

    So at present I’m leaning towards using that as an approach to dealing with persistent offenders against the guidelines, particularly with regard to:

    A/ Being persistently off topic
    B/ Being persistently hostile and making this site less conducive to constructive debate
    C/ Being persistently a bit of an arse in an non-specific way.

    But I’m actually very happy that you’re kind of sorting it out amongst yourselves, which is my preferred option.

  165. Adiabat says

    Gjenganger (181): Nice post, well argued. I have a couple of points though:

    I do disagree that Ally supported the death threat. I read him as supporting CrysT’s fundamental point, that the 1st post was out of line (I disagree but that’s not the point here), but that he just overlooked the outburst. He made a decision to deal with the merits of her post without getting hung up on the tone. But maybe prefacing his post with “I don’t think the threat is acceptable but…” would solve the problem.

    I don’t reply to Toots either, not worth the time, but for anyone else on here I’ve generally given my reasoning why I’m replying to them rudely; because they keep making unsupported statements against all common knowledge about “how things are” to support their favourite worldview, or they refuse to accept or even address evidence that I’ve laid out fully for them (instead making the same arguments in every new thread), or they accept there’s a problem but instead of dealing with it they just expect critics to shut up and accept NAFALT as an argument in itself. I’m happy to be polite and discuss things nicely to people who have some integrity and intellectual honesty, but I don’t see why I have to treat someone with respect when they fail to hold enough respect for me to debate reasonably and rationally, to support their points or to acknowledge mine. There’s more than one type of disrespectful discourse, and I don’t believe that mine is the worst by a long shot.

    All moderation will do is encourage passive aggressive argumentation and baiting. We’ve all seen heavily moderated threads where regulars post inflammatory, but deniable, material to get a rise out of newcomers and ideological opponents. The intention of course is to get them banned or moderated. The disrespect is still there, and so is the abuse, it’s just driven underground and expressed through various deniable sociopathic behaviours. In these cases the debates are rarely constructive or valuable, they just become a game for certain types of individuals.

    Expect for structural measures like those Bugmaster has suggested, moderation rarely produces constructive debate. And “creating space for others” is just a euphemism for silencing those they disagree with.

  166. Adiabat says

    Ally (187): Out of curiosity, what’s your reasoning for pre-moderation?

    Pre-moderation comes with its own issues. Firstly if a thread is very active and comments from those on pre-moderation are approved some time later then the comments get missed. This serves the function of killing constructive debate, not encouraging it.

    Secondly, it enables piling on. Imagine someone says something controversial but not rude or offensive (imagine Sid posting here again), normally someone will respond and Sid will reply and a discussion gets going with both sides getting expressed. However with pre-moderation someone will reply to Sid and his reply won’t appear for maybe a full day (I don’t know how often you intend to drop by to approve comments). In that time someone else who disagrees with Sid posts his 2-pence worth, and someone else, and so on. So we end up with a massive pile on where Sid feels he has to respond to half-a-dozen people, which is a huge time and energy investment. It’s more likely that rather than encouraging constructive debate, people with less popular opinions go away and are effectively shut out of the debate, and we end up with the echo-chamber again.

    As I see it, either go for moderation or not (and you know my view on this already). Pre-moderation is just moderation with the belief that you’re “not really moderating”.

  167. Gjenganger says

    @Adiabat 189
    The best solution would still be for the community to sort it out. I think that if someone (myself included) insists on starting long and annoying debates, the others should help him out by showing the self-discipline he lacks and refusing to get involved. That would help quite a bit.

    For the rest it is possible to figure out what you are doing wrong, and to find a way to say pretty much any opinion without falling foul of the rules. Certainly as long as the moderator is Ally, who is gloriously willing to tolerate people spouting what he himself thinks is harmful shite. So pre-moderation serves to put someone on notice that he is going further than the community (or Ally) will tolerate and encourage him to find a way to participate that is less annoying. WIthout casting him out as unworthy of participation. Not ideal, maybe, but there is certainly worse.

  168. Paul says

    Ally

    With the best intentions a totally unmoderated site will almost certainly end in tears whilst a pre-moderated site will prove to be a pain in the arse all round.I think the best thing you can do is spell out what you absolutely won’t tolerate from anyone under any circumstances .And then address any other issues as and when they occur ..Provided you’re fair and even-handed i doubt anyone would have a problem with that.

  169. sirtooting . says

    The Cynic philosophy (Caird writes) was one of those beginnings of progress
    which take the appearance of reaction. When some aspect of thought or life has been
    for a long time unduly subordinated, or has not yet been admitted to its rightful place,
    it not seldom finds expression in a representative individuality, who embodies it in
    his person, and works it out in its most exclusive and one-sided form, with an almost
    fanatical disregard of all other considerations—compensating for the general neglect of
    it by treating it as the one thing needful. Such individuals produce their effect by the
    very disgust they create among the ordinary respectable members of the community. . . .

    Their criticism of the society to which they belong, and of all its institutions and modes
    of action and thought, attracts attention by the very violence and extravagance of the
    form in which they present it.
    And the neglected truth or half-truth, which they thrust into exclusive prominence, gradually begins by their means to gain a hold of the minds of others, forces them to reconsider their cherished prejudices, and so leads to a real
    advance of thought.
    In this fashion the Cynic seems to have acted upon the ancient world,
    world, as a disturbing, irritating challenge to it to vindicate itself—a challenge
    which was violently resented, but which awakened thought and in time produced a
    modification, and even a transformation of prevailing ‘opinions.

    One is meant to be in awe of Isaac Newton .. but one can’t ignore the fact that whilst Isaac Newton enjoyed the privilege of a University Education he happily denied that privilege to the other half of the human race ..
    How then, did he benefit the human race in doing that?
    Mr Newton and his ilk did not encourage scientific enlightenment but rather went out of their way to stifle it and the world was made lesser for it, not more ..

    This is what I pick upon, you all ignore atrocities to circumvent the truth ..

  170. Ally Fogg says

    Adiabat

    Out of curiosity, what’s your reasoning for pre-moderation?

    Pre-moderation comes with its own issues. Firstly if a thread is very active and comments from those on pre-moderation are approved some time later then the comments get missed. This serves the function of killing constructive debate, not encouraging it.

    The one and only function of pre-moderation is to curtail the corrosive posting of those who are literally adding nothing to constructive debate.

    It is also, I unapologetically admit, a largely punitive step. it is intended to have an adverse and restrictive impact on someone’s participation here, and so act as a discouragement. The only advantage it has over a total ban is it allows someone to limited ability to make their own contribution to the debate, while preventing them from self-indulgently and narcissistically making themselves centre of attention.

  171. Paul says

    I wasn’t thinking straight- the discussion was about pre-mod as in individual posters being temporarily pre-modded. That could work and it’ d be preferable to immediatedly banning.people.You obviously can’t put people permanently in pre-mod so about about having a policy of ” Three Strikes-ie spells in pre-mod-and you’re out.But people would have to be clear of the offences that would get them put in pre-mod in the first place.Over on cif it’s anyone’s guess.

  172. sirtooting . says

    With regard to the statistics above, there could be so many factors involved in peoples lives, there is no knowing what the truth is. Women who suffer post natal depression, can become apathetic or violent and if the illness is not dealt with, then it can go on for years and this illness will ultimately affect their own children and the relationship with their partners. We are left in limbo, not knowing about these peoples lives.

    What we do know is male run totalitarian cultures are very violent and when females have an influence and a say, a culture becomes more tolerant and less violent, and females have a calming effect on the society as a whole.
    It is one of the reasons why corporal punishment has been removed from schools and hitting a child as a punishment has become less palatable and far less acceptable because of the influence of the female in the culture, that has just begun to allow the female potential to flourish and it will benefit the culture, no end.

    The idea that males protected females, is only an androcentric point of view, and it couldn’t be further from the truth if you tried.
    It was never the premise of the female that the female was weak, but rather that she was weaker than the male, and to explain, that for a female to achieve the same goals as a male in exactly the same labour intensive task, then she would have to work twice as hard a male to achieve her goals and she usually does .. and that can never be construed as a weakness, unless you are an idiot, it can only be seen as a strength.

    And if you admire men who are aggressive because you believe it gets them ahead, then you must admire the same thing in women .. But if you do not admire it in women, then why are you admiring it in men?

  173. Darren Ball says

    “What we do know is male run totalitarian cultures are very violent and when females have an influence and a say, a culture becomes more tolerant and less violent, and females have a calming effect on the society as a whole.”

    Do we know this? citation required. Of the so-called 101 “Blair babes”, all but three of them voted to go into Iraq.

    Israel is one of the most aggressive countries on the planet, and also one of the few countrioes with female conscription.

    Thatcher.

    Emmeline Pankhurst and her white rose shaming tactics during the WW1

    “It is one of the reasons why corporal punishment has been removed from schools and hitting a child as a punishment has become less palatable and far less acceptable because of the influence of the female in the culture, that has just begun to allow the female potential to flourish and it will benefit the culture, no end.”

    Citation required. Also, where I live in London, I see plenty of mums hitting their kids.

    “The idea that males protected females, is only an androcentric point of view, and it couldn’t be further from the truth if you tried.”

    We would be a very poorly adapted species if men weren’t predisposed to protecting women in our community. I understand from evolutionary biologists (Matt Ridley), that in species where males are stronger than females, it’s usually for the reason of protecting their families. Given that women can only reproduce every nine months (maximum), and they’re very vulnerable whilst pregnant, and may very well die in childbirth, it is almost certainly true that men have evolved a protective role.

    Certainly men are more violent than women, but it’s usually directed at other men, which may explain why gay men are twice as likely to suffer DV in their relationships that straight women – basically men are less violent to women than they are to each other.

    “that for a female to achieve the same goals as a male in exactly the same labour intensive task, then she would have to work twice as hard a male to achieve her goals and she usually does”

    Citation required.

  174. sirtooting . says

    “Emmeline Pankhurst and her white rose shaming tactics during the WW1″

    “HERS” .. Are you sure it was hers? And not the invention of a male run totalitarian culture.

    The white feather campaign was instigated by a retired rear admiral and he got the idea from a well known, well read novel, written by a male author.

    There were posters posted everywhere across the country, there was kitchener.. With his finger pointing at everyone .. Your country needs you to do your duty .. Patriotism was rife .. And not to be patriotic was seen as treachery, was regarded as treason..

    The white feather campaign only occurred in 1917, three years after the war had begun, because, so many men had been killed due to the strategies of men, that ultimately failed so many men, they needed more & more fodder to throw at the enemy and they did not have conscription until near the end of the war but they did have a fervent patriotic campaign asking everyone to do their duty and for women who were excluded from the front line, that was to be encouraged to encourage men to do theirs ..

    There were women who were dressing up as men, who wanted to fight the enemy & be involved defending their country in that way, but when they were discovered, they got thrown out ..

    The government got desperate in their campaign, due to the failed strategies of men, that ultimately failed millions of their fellow comrades .. the first mistake .. was going to war in the first place ..they could have ended it very early, if men had wanted to, when in the first christmas the soldiers on both sides, declared a truce and played a game of football .. but the powers above .. frowned upon this truce and never allowed it to occur again, not until millions had been wastefully slaughtered in dramas of men’s own making

    The male slighted, must have his honour satisfied, even at the cost of millions of lives.,
    The irrational are in charge, at the drop of a hat, at the slightest slight, they call for war .. this is violence over reason .
    War is mass hysteria ..and few in a culture are immune to that illness., when it has a firm grip on the culture.

  175. sirtooting . says

    @ Darren Ball you are so perfectly ignorant, you can’t even check your fucking facts .. It was the white feather campaign, instigated by a male .. not a white rose campaign instigated by a woman.. you ignorant idiot ..
    you can’t even give those people who died any justice .. because you remain ignorant of the facts ..

    You try to blame women for decisions that were wholly made by men .. that failed millions of men .. you really are a piece of ignorant work..

  176. sirtooting . says

    @ Darren Ball,
    How did men protect women by denying them access to politics and universities?

  177. sirtooting . says

    Citation required. Also, where I live in London, I see plenty of mums hitting their kids.

    I don’t live in London and I see plenty of fathers hitting their kids .. but is illegal in Sweden , but I don’t live..
    These changes take time, some countries are further ahead than others, and some are refusing to change at all .. but the influence of the female is gathering momentum for many..

  178. johngreg says

    I would like to express both my agreement with and support for Adiabat’s comments, and ideas, in numbers 188 and 189. I think those comments are well reasoned and supported by fact and past experience in a wide range of blogs.

    Paul said (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/02/14/some-important-findings-from-the-ons-crime-stats-intimate-sexual-violence/#comment-44614):

    With the best intentions a totally unmoderated site will almost certainly end in tears….

    I’m not sure about that. The Pit is unmoderated (beyond watching for spam and potential illegalities), and no topic is verboten. Nonetheless, there are no tears. There have been three or four noted desertions over the last couple of years — mostly right at the start of the bbs — and certainly some angry raised voices, but no tears; no major meltdowns, etc.

    I think the best thing you can do is spell out what you absolutely won’t tolerate from anyone under any circumstances .And then address any other issues as and when they occur. Provided you’re fair and even-handed….

    That is precisely what happens at the Pit. And it seems to work quite well.

  179. sirtooting . says

    I’M IM A HURRY,
    But the last comment got written wrong

    re do ..I don’t live in London and I see plenty of fathers hitting their kids .. but it is now illegal in Sweden , but I don’t live there either..
    and
    “that for a female to achieve the same goals as a male in exactly the same labour intensive task, then she would have to work twice as hard a male to achieve her goals and she usually does”

    Citation required. ah, i suggest you ask your mother for a demonstration the ay

  180. johngreg says

    Darren Bell said (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/02/14/some-important-findings-from-the-ons-crime-stats-intimate-sexual-violence/#comment-44674):

    Certainly men are more violent than women, but it’s usually directed at other men, which may explain why gay men are twice as likely to suffer DV in their relationships that straight women – basically men are less violent to women than they are to each other.

    I am under the impression, and I think it was pointed out on one of Ally’s blogs earlier, including some stats and links, that male homosexual relationships suffer the least amount of domestic abuse and violence of all couplings and female homosexual relationships the highest.

  181. carnation says

    @ Ally

    Most of the big derails are around (alleged/actual) MRA theories vs (alleged/actual) theories and/or gender essentialist/historical practises/revision.

    Perhaps an open thread to allow those who indulge in that slug it out? Amongst the commentators, I’m sure “take it to the open thread(s)” might enter the lexicon.

    What do you think?

  182. leni says

    Gjenganger:

    - It might well be true that the vast majority of rapes are committed by a small minority of men, but is it really commonly accepted, rather than just a hypothesis? I wold quite like to believe it, but these debates are so full of dubious ‘facts’.

    Yes debates are full of dubious “facts”. Ultimately you have to go with what you think is right and I can’t answer that for you. All I can do is advise you that replicated studies from reliable sources are probably a better gauge of reality than your gut feelings about the variety of “facts” you encounter.

    - Even if ‘mistakes’ are a small minority of rapes, they are the cases that the (hypothetical) non-criminal majority is most likely to get involved in – and certainly the case that they worry about and identify with.

    Neither I nor the article said the people who committed relatively fewer rapes were “non-criminal”. It said they were less likely to admit to other habitual criminal behavior such as child and spousal abuse.

    - The big propaganda message is ‘watch YOUR behavior’ to avoid being a rapist; watch YOUR attitudes’, or you might be an accomplice. As far as the debate goes, we are all responsible. That makes it pretty impossible to avoid those (hypothetical) non-violent men

    Again, neither I, nor the article, nor any of the studies that it quoted (so far as I know) equate “admitting to committing just the one rape” with “nonviolent”. Non habitual, I think, might be the word your looking for.

    … worrying that the kind of things that they might get involved in really do count as rape – and debating accordingly. If the message was ‘YOU do whatever you like, you are OK, it is only the evil minority who rape) you would get a different attitude. I can see why this is not the way the propaganda is done, but it is hard to split the violent minority away from the rest in the debate if you do not make the distinction clear in your campaigning.

    Honestly, you lost me here. I don’t even know what your point is.

    .

  183. Gjenganger says

    @leni 208
    OK, my language was too loose. Looks like I need to explain myself better.

    You said this in your first post:

    Still, I would rather live in a world where abusers had to do their own damn work and didn’t have legions of people making their excuses and gaslighting their victims for them. The worst abusers among us are are bad for all of us. They don’t need your help,

    And you quoted that post about the ‘vast majority of offenses’ being committed by a fairly small group. As I understand it you are dividing people in two groups: habitual rapists, who commit the vast majority of rapes, and ‘normal people’, who generally do not rape. And you are complaining that the ‘normal people’ keep arguing on behalf of the habitual rapists, keep muddying the waters by describing acquaintance rape as a mistake in negotiation of consent, etc.

    Now, if rape is mainly a problem of habitual rapists, several things follow:

    First it means I am not part of the problem. I am not a habitual rapist, so I do not need to worry particularly about enthusiastic consent or putting too much pressure on people etc. and I can safely ignore all the campaigning because it it not addressed to me. I rather like this idea, but the consequences are pretty radical so I would want a high level of proof before I took it for granted. And before I could convince WAR and all the others that this is how it is.

    Second, it means that the statistics for ‘normal people’ are very different from the average. ‘Mistaken consent’ rapes may be quite rare, but for ‘normal people’ who generally do not rape, they might be (one of) the rape situations they are most likely to encounter. That makes ti natural that ‘;normal people’ worry about this, even if it is quite rare as rapes go.

    Finally, the rape debate is not based on the idea that most men need not worry and only a minority commit most rapes. Rape is described as something that men, in general do, and that men, in general, have a duty to deal with. That makes it natural that men, in general, feel accused, feel under pressure to change their behavior, and feel the need to defend themselves and to argue about the kind of situations that they, personally, feel are likely to involve them. Even if the net effect is that they are defending habitual rapists that they may have very little in common with. Essentially there is a choice: you let men in general off the hook and isolate the habitual rapists, or you keep all men under pressure and accept that habitual rapists can hide behind the natural and expected defenses that the ‘normal men’ come up with.

  184. Darren Ball says

    @sirtooting

    Emmeline Pankhurst most certainly did have her very own White Feather campaign. That’s not to say that she invented it, but she most certainly went around campaigning for it. That is what I meant by that statement. You’re quite right though, I meant to write feather not rose. That slight error prompted you to write:

    “Darren Ball you are so perfectly ignorant, you can’t even check your fucking facts…”
    “… you ignorant idiot ..”
    “…you remain ignorant of the facts…”

    Over the last week you must have wasted the better part of a whole working day bemoaning male aggression, then,for the slightest reason (or no reason, really), you post a comment that is outrageously aggressive – the irony. Do you really believe that such a response is justified, proportionate and befitting a reasonable adult?

    You will note that I write under my real name, and you know that I live in London. I do not hide behind a pseudonym barking abuse at people. You have not meaningfully contested anything I’ve said but have instead preferred major on a minor error. I shall do my best to ignore you in future – I do not keep your sort of company in the real world, so I shan’t keep it on-line. However, I cannot resist commenting on this post of yours.

    “I’M IM A HURRY,
    But the last comment got written wrong

    re do ..I don’t live in London and I see plenty of fathers hitting their kids .. but it is now illegal in Sweden , but I don’t live there either..” [ellipses in the original]

    You were in a hurry, but felt the desperate need to share that little nugget of wisdom with the world. Delicious.

  185. Darren Ball says

    @johngreg

    “I am under the impression, and I think it was pointed out on one of Ally’s blogs earlier, including some stats and links, that male homosexual relationships suffer the least amount of domestic abuse and violence of all couplings and female homosexual relationships the highest.”

    I think not in the case of male homosexual relationships, but I will re-check in a quieter moment. You’re certainly right about female homosexual relationships – they’re consistently at around three-times the risk of heterosexual women.

    However, not to get bogged down on that one statistic, what is germane to my argument is that men direct most of their violence at other men. Men are much more likely to be victims of violence in general.

  186. lelapaletute says

    @Gjenganger:

    Finally, the rape debate is not based on the idea that most men need not worry and only a minority commit most rapes. Rape is described as something that men, in general do, and that men, in general, have a duty to deal with. That makes it natural that men, in general, feel accused, feel under pressure to change their behavior, and feel the need to defend themselves and to argue about the kind of situations that they, personally, feel are likely to involve them. Even if the net effect is that they are defending habitual rapists that they may have very little in common with. Essentially there is a choice: you let men in general off the hook and isolate the habitual rapists, or you keep all men under pressure and accept that habitual rapists can hide behind the natural and expected defenses that the ‘normal men’ come up with.

    I have several issues with what you say in this paragraph. Firstly, this:

    Rape is described as something that men, in general do, and that men, in general, have a duty to deal with.

    I disagree that this is how rape is presented. Saying that rapists are generally men is not the same as saying men are generally rapists. It is not even slightly the same. To make that equation would be to embrace a total fallacy.

    Secondly, I hardly think that by saying that ‘only a minority of men commit most rapes’ means that men in general don’t have to worry about rape. Unless men’s sole, exclusive concern regarding rape is that they do not get accused of/convicted for it. Presumably men, being human beings who know and love women who may be victims (and indeed, know and love men who may be victims, and indeed, may become victims themselves) have a host of resasons to be concerned about preventing rape that go beyond preventing themselves from committing it or being percieved to have committing it. Don’t they? Unless they are a total misanthrope?

    And then this:

    Essentially there is a choice: you let men in general off the hook and isolate the habitual rapists, or you keep all men under pressure and accept that habitual rapists can hide behind the natural and expected defenses that the ‘normal men’ come up with.

    This is a false choice. Tese are far from the only options. And what do you mean by ‘letting men in general off the hook’? What hook? The hook of having to be aware of the effects of their behaviour and aware of and responsive to their partner’s feelings and behaviour in a sexual context? The hook of having to resist subscribing to and promoting a rape culture?

    Also, earmarking habitual rapists as ‘outside’ normal manhood does not actually ‘isolate’ or expose them. By labelling rapists ‘perverts’ and ‘monsters’, it allows them to hide in the herd more easily – because if people think a rapist is a special kind of evil, they’ll think it couldn’t possibly the charming man who’s been wooing them for weeks, couldn’t possibly be their dear old friend from college, couldn’t possibly be their father; and they will miss the subtle warning signs because their rapist doesn’t have a big flashing neon badge saying ‘Evil Rapist’ on. Yes, rape is an abnormal behaviour; but it comes in a normal disguise for the most part.

    Habitual rapists are habitual precisely because they seem normal – until suddenly they don’t. Apologies if making potential victims aware of this fact is making life a bit difficult for ‘normal men’ on the pull, who thus have to be aware of and perhaps moderate their sexual behaviour, who can’t just ‘forget about rape’ any more. But to be fair, that is normal women’s experience too. We never ‘forget about rape’. We can’t. It’s only fair that men share that burden with us, and that we all work together to promote a healthier, clear consent-basedsexual culture which will shine a bright light and make the habitual rapists easier to spot. In such a culture, anyone who tries to blur the edges of consent, who tries to bully or force or cajole you into doing something you don’t want to do, will become such a rarity that they will instantly ring a warning bell, by contrast with the prevailing culture of respect. They will, in effect, start wearing that big neon badge. This could only be a good thing.

  187. Gjenganger says

    @Lelapaletute 212
    This will take some thinking. And some very detailed descriptions, to avoid being misunderstood.

    By labelling rapists ‘perverts’ and ‘monsters’, it allows them to hide in the herd more easily – because if people think a rapist is a special kind of evil, they’ll think it couldn’t possibly the charming man who’s been wooing them for weeks, …

    I am aware of that. That is one reason I am presenting this as a dilemma, rather than arguing for a preferred solution. I do not know what the preferred solution is.

    Nobody here is saying that ‘all men are rapists’ – I know. But we are all held to be complicit in ‘rape culture’, be it only if we are not explicitly fighting it. We are faced with the demand that we must be much more sober and careful and empathetic and attentive and refrain from pushing too hard for what we want – not just because we should not be boorish (which I agree with) , but because otherwise we may become rapists, possibly without knowing it. If you compare it to e.g. child abuse or bank robbery you will notice the difference. People in general are not under accusation of promoting those crimes by being insufficiently careful or by being complicit in ‘bank robbery culture’. I do worry about both child abuse and rape, in the abstract, but for child abuse I do not feel the need to defend myself against implicit accusations. For rape I do.

    Again, I do not know what the preferred solution is. What I do say is that as long as people who are sure that they would never want to rape anybody feel they are under accusation, they will feel the need to defend themselves, and they will worry that with all the good intentions in the world they could still end up being blamed as rapists. And they will quite reasonably argue their corner, even if it also does mean giving help and succour to nastier people than themselves.

  188. lelapaletute says

    @Gjenganger:

    At work, will reply more fully later, but I think it is a massive misconception that men alone are ‘all held to be complicit in ‘rape culture’, be it only if we are not explicitly fighting it’. We are all libing in a rape culture, men and women – that’s why it’s a culture. People can respond to that culture in a variety of ways – some people, men and women, actively participate in it (by subscribing to and advocating stereotypical and unequal views of sexual morality, blaming victims for the circumstances under which they came to be raped, etc). Some people fail to notice it is there,or deny it is there, and thus perpetuate it. Others fight against it by speaking out against its manifestations,and consciously examining their own behaviour and attitudes for symptoms of rape culture. Rape culture is not something men are doing all by themselves, or something they alone are responsible for. But because until fair recently (and still in wider society) rape is seen as a ‘women’s issue’, it has been very much left for women (mainly feminists) to lead fight against rape culture. Men are being asked to participate in that fight. But there are still plenty of women who are either supportive of, complicit in, or unaware of rape culture (cf Helen Mirren). No-one’s saying it’s all men’s fault or all their problem; we’re just pointing out that this is their fight too.

  189. Darren Ball says

    In what way do we live in a “rape culture”?

    Rape is a very serious crime, and not one that society forgives. You can be a gangster and torture people (as did the Krays etc.), and be a celebrity, but nobody celebrates rapists. Society is disgusted by rapists. I suspect that most men would rather be convicted of murder than rape. The idea that we live in a rape culture sounds absurd.

  190. lelapaletute says

    @Darren Ball

    The arguments have been made for and against the term ‘rape culture’, and for and against its existence. I can’t be bothered to run through it again, especially for the benefit of someone whose opening gambit is a massive straw man that in order to live in a rape culture, we have to be living in a culture that celebrates rapists qua rapists. No-one, but no-one is saying that.

    I have come down on the side of believing rape culture exists and that it is a bad thing. Feel free to disagree.

  191. Gjenganger says

    @Darren 215, Lela 216
    I’d have to back Lela on this one. I take it that ‘rape culture’ has to do with: men pushing for and women permitting sex; men seeing sex as in itself desirable, divorced form whom it is with, and even as proof that you are loved, admired, a man; it being seen as acceptable (for a man) to push, cajole, and scheme to get sex; sexual ‘conquests’ increasing the status of the man who gets them (and maybe making the woman tho gets them seem cheap). Lela could make a better list/ Anyway, you can argue to what extent these things are unavoidable / in itself bad / natural consequences of male (if not female) sexuality, … but there is no reason to challenge the term itself, as you do.

  192. Darren Ball says

    @Gjenganger,

    I challenge the term because the definition of rape is penetration with a penis without consent. For this act (rape) we live in a culture where the vast majority of people believe the law is correct, and that people who break this law are vile. We do not., therefore, live in a “Rape Culture” – i.e. a culture that thinks rape is okay. This is perfectly obvious.

    It seems to me that you’ve extended the definition of rape to include women who consent to sex because their partner won’t stop asking, pleading and scheming. We may very well live under a culture where that is common, but that’s not the legal definition of rape, so it can’t be called a rape culture.

    Some women expect their partner to initiate sex which will often involve a little pleading and persistence. It’s called courting, not rape.

  193. Darren Ball says

    @Lelapaletute,

    Re my straw man, I was merely comparing they way rapists are viewed by society relative to other criminals. A train robber or gangster is celebrated, whereas a rapist is vilified. I do not see how you can argue that we live in a Rape Culture given the fact that rape is regarded by most people as a vile crime.

  194. Schala says

    If rape culture is something that both men and women promote. If rape rates are similar between the sexes.

    Then it follows that “Men can stop rape” is EXTREMELY MISGUIDED. To say the least. And fun enough, feminists are behind those campaigns.

  195. Gjenganger says

    @Darren 218
    OK, go ahead and challenge. You have a point, I am just not particularly interested in the argument. The people who use the term ‘rape culture’ mean that our culture has certain specific characteristics, and that these characteristics make rape more likely than it otherwise would be. Now whether their description of society is correct, and whether those characteristics do indeed make rape more likely are interesting subjects for discussion (though I have no time now). I do put ‘rape culture’ in inverted commas, but whether it this is a good choice word or an unwarranted insult is pretty boring in itself.

    Just for comparison: I have been called a misogynist on occasion. According to the dictionary that is incorrect – I do not have an irrational hatred of women. But when nice, progressive people say ‘misogynist’, all they mean is that this person has nasty, unprogressive anti-woman opinions. Which, by their lights, I do. I am always happy to discuss what I actually think and what the consequences are, but I really do not have time to argue over who gets to define the word ‘misogynist’.

  196. says

    Schala 220,

    I would say: “Men can stop rape” is not only flat out wrong (women rape as well), but also highly misleading when it comes to defining the nature of the crime. Sociopaths will not be influenced by shaming tactics like this, they in fact feel little to no shame and moral considerations are unlikely to have any effect. People without sociopathic traits are not the majority of rapists as far as I know.

    I think the best way to prevent rape and whole slew of other crimes is to make people more aware of the speific traits of sociopaths,n ot tring to change grown sociopaths snce any attempt of that matter has failed so far. There were rather popular experiments done where people tried to heal them, with the only effect that criminal sociopaths returned to crime at an even higher rate since they felt they could deceive people veen more easily.

  197. Darren Ball says

    The word misogynist was defined by the Greeks and can only mean hatred of women. It cannot mean somebody who is chauvinistic (no matter what the Australians think). Chauvinism is not even on the same continuum as misogyny. The term has been wrongly applied to exaggerate grievances.

    Similarly the phrase “Rape Culture” is also hyperbole and is used to try and create the belief that British women are living under siege – it’s complete and utter nonsense.

  198. Gjenganger says

    @Darren 223
    I wish! But unfortunately the world is not like that. ‘Gay’ changed from ‘merry, fun-loving’, to ‘sexual deviant’, to ‘proud member of the gay community’, to [teenage slang]: ‘bad’. ‘Literally’ changed to mean ‘practically’, which is the opposite. Normal, well-established words like ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘chairman’, … have been given all kinds of gender-political meanings, IMHO as an act of deliberate political manipulation. Of course people have used ‘misogynist’ as a way of delegitimizing their opponents. But as people kept doing it, the meaning changed by use, as meanings do. Now it just means [left-wing slang]: a man with strongly right-wing gender politics. I would rather engage people on what they mean than on the correctness of their semantics. More pragmatically, ‘Yes, I am a misogynist, perfectly good thing to be’, leaves me much better off in the debate.

    For what it is worth I deplore all this. I still use ‘chairman’ rather than ‘chair’ whenever I can get away with it (I mean: women who would rather be compared to a piece of furniture than to a male human! Pretty insulting really). Fight the losing fight by all means. My good wishes go with you, but I would rather spend my own time debating more substantial issues.

  199. Darren Ball says

    224

    You know you can’t resist debating the point, despite your protestations to the contrary.

    If it were only semantics then fine, but it isn’t. By using misogyny to mean chauvinism, we’ve lost a word from the English language – now we just have two words for chauvinism and no word for a man who literally hates women (and I mean literally in the original sense too, and not as an exclamation).

    More importantly, the use of the phrase “Rape Culture” to mean what you described is not just semantics, it’s hugely misleading and alarmist. It doesn’t mean what any normal person would think it means. You’re right to put it in inverted commas, but I don’t think it’s sufficient to simply dismiss this as the evolution of language, so the I’m supporting a Rape Culture if I plead for sex with my wife, or some rot like that. They (whoever “they” are) need to find a different term that actually describes what they mean.

  200. Gjenganger says

    Touche’. But I am debating abstract semantics rather than the word ‘rape culture’.

    I totally agree that it would be better ton keep the words we have, instead of misusing them, losing them, and having to invent new ones. But however much we complain, we cannot achieve that. We have this culturally very powerful group that continues to change language in such a way that anybody who disagrees with them is by definition ‘mad, bad. and dangerous to know’. As they say, the right dominates industry, but the left dominates culture and media. So, a culturally powerful group keeps calling us misogynists and insists that it is terribly bad. Arguing that ‘yes, it is terribly bad, and therefore it is unjust!!’ plays into their hands – it associates us with a word that everybody, ourselves included agree means we are terrible, and concentrates the debate on our wriggling to escape a nasty accusation. We cannot stop it. We can accelerate it, though. As ‘misogynist’ gets used more and more, for less and less, we can take the word on board, own it, and weaken its poison. Hopefully we can end up back where we are seen as normal people with normal opinions and the attention is on what we are actually saying, not on our so-called nastiness.

    ‘Rape culture’ is not so obvious a case, but then ‘rape culture’ is immediately understood as ‘leftish-feminist doublespeak’ by most of the population. And then it applies to all of society, not to indivuduals. It does not have much of a sting.

    Sure, it is too bad for teh ENglish language. But meanwhile we have a debate to deal with.

  201. sirtooting . says

    @ Darren Ball No. 210
    There were posters posted everywhere across the country, there was kitchener.. With his finger pointing at everyone .. Your country needs you to do your duty .. Patriotism was rife .. And not to be patriotic was seen as treachery, was regarded as treason..

    The white feather campaign happened after three years of war, because by the third year, thousands of men had been slaughtered due to the strategies of men, that ultimately failed so many men, they needed more & more fodder to throw at the enemy and conscription was not enforced until the near the end of the war but they did have a fervent patriotic campaign asking everyone to do their duty and for women who were excluded from the front line, that was to be encouraged to encourage men to do theirs.

    Emmeline Pankhurst was doing her patriotic duty and the only reason for that, was because she was encouraged to ..
    What is is it, you are trying to blame Emmeline Pankhurst for?
    The strategies that killed millions of men? .. The outbreak of war?

    You are so lazy and ignorant you couldn’t even be bothered to check your facts about a war that killed millions and that is because you are not really interested in the pain and suffering of those who died, but more interested in attacking women via a feigned indignation that so many died and all due to women, not men’s failed strategies,that in the end failed so many.

    If Emmeline Pankhurst was encouraged to do her patriotic duty to encourage men to do theirs, then blame those who created that situation in the first place ..
    Emmeline Pankhurst and the men who went to war,, were all involved in doing their patriotic duty and not to, was seen as letting the side down and was regarded unpatriotic, cowardly and treachery ..Emmeline Pankhurst is no more guilty than the men who went off to fight .. they were all doing their patriotic duty .. in the cause of defeating an enemy .. which is exactly what the Germans and French were doing as well .. they were all involved in a mass hysteria ..

    People like you, go around the internet looking for things to damn women with and the same usual little list of complaints are used ad infinitum .. They are endlessly trundled out .. And used as evidence to damn women with .. But people like you have no interest in the subject matter as such, you have little knowledge of it because that is not what you are concerned with ..
    You have a feigned interest .. You act like you care but you really don’t care at all, except to use it to damn women with.

    I really do care that females are being slaughtered because they aren’t born the gender the male prefers .. ” The MALE”
    I really do care that females are treated as spoils of war and are abused for some sick perverted pleasure it gives men to inflict pain and suffering on women and children.

    I really do care that the information of the rape of thousands of females at the hands of thousands of males during WW2 was suppressed for years to allow those that were guilty, time to escape being convicted.
    A collusion of the male to suppress the details of their sadistic behaviour towards the female of the species.

    A collusion of all the governments and the military involved and all run by males, sought to suppress that which would have damned them all as vile sexist misogynists who unleashed their sadistic perversions because they could .. A licence to kill, then gave them a licence to rape ..
    What’s that coming over the hill is it a monster, is it a monster?. No, it is just the boy next door, armed to the teeth, looking for a female to rape ..

    That is what war is to the female .. At the mercy of men armed to the teeth .. How many are being raped in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, The Congo, Syria, Thailand, Russia, Sudan, ETC ETC

    All of these atrocities are whitewashed by men in order to allow men to escape prosecution .. They help each other by their collusion to suppress that which would damn them and their perversions..

    We pander to men, and let them get away with putting an image across of them being brave and heroic, when this image in reality should also show men at times are a bunch of violent bullying thugs and cowards who do terrible things when they are allowed to, when they are armed to the teeth in tribalism and believing not only do they have a licence to kill, they also have a licence to rape and all under the banner of defending their country ..

    This true image warrants being fully focused on, until it is confronted, it will not change.

  202. Darren Ball says

    Gjenganger@226

    I don’t know what else to say on the matter.

    I’ve just seen a post directed at me from sirtooting which I’m going to try hard to ignore. She/he was terribly rude to me yesterday and also my wife is beckoning me with some Prosecco and a couple of Champaign flutes. It’s cocktail hour!!!!

    All my best

  203. sirtooting . says

    @ Darren Ball
    I am absolutely sure you will find it very easy to ignore it .. under the policy of “See no evil, Hear no evil & Speak no evil”
    The broom is always in place, ready to conveniently sweep it all under the rug and ignore it, which suppresses any chance to discuss it’s ramifications on a culture that has always ignored male atrocities to disguise the unpalatable reality of the putridness of the human race.

  204. Adiabat says

    Gjenganger (226):

    but then ‘rape culture’ is immediately understood as ‘leftish-feminist doublespeak’ by most of the population

    Pretty much. It’s one of those ill-defined concepts that are largely used to mean whatever any particular feminist wants it to mean today.

    Take your own definition:

    The people who use the term ‘rape culture’ mean that our culture has certain specific characteristics, and that these characteristics make rape more likely than it otherwise would be.

    Sounds sensible enough. However I can easily take that and apply it to prevalent attitudes and beliefs held by many people that may increase the prevalence of rape, but which you, and I, and everyone here agree are overall good and “correct” attitudes to hold. This means that something contributing to “rape culture” isn’t automatically a bad thing, and in some cases is something to support (now isn’t that a disconcerting thought).

    Of course if I do this then they’ll try and shift the definition and what counts as “rape culture”. In fact if you google it you’ll find that this is the preferred “definition” of “rape culture”: a gish-gallop of things that they disapprove of with no explanation of what criteria makes them count as “rape culture”. Which of course isn’t a definition at all.

    Personally I don’t think that it’s a coherent theory at all, nor do I think it’s even intended to be. It’s a tool for political activism, largely without any substance but which creates all the ‘impressions’ and reactions that the user wants. Even the term makes no sense, semantically speaking; it’s just used to create an impression in people’s minds.

    And that’s why the “theory” should just be dismissed when used.

  205. sirtooting . says

    How many males would like to rape females?
    That would be a very interesting survey wouldn’t it ?.. Just as long as they answered truthfully of course ..
    Especially those in the armed forces who are involved in armed conflicts and are armed to the teeth..

    “Churchill said to the Germans in January, 1945, “We Allies are no monsters. This, at least, I can say, on behalf of the United Nations, to Germany … Peace, though based on unconditional surrender, will bring to Germany and Japan immense and immediate alleviation of suffering and agony.” Austin Joseph App says that those Allies who were “no monsters” literally raped more European women than had ever before been raped in the history of the world.”

  206. carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the concept of rape culture. Rape jokes are common, particularly regarding male rape in prisons. Not so long ago, racist jokes were perfectly acceptable in mainstream media – not any longer.

    I have seen numerous comedians use rape (and DV) jokes at “cutting edge” events. Racist jokes wouldn’t be allowed – rape (and DV) jokes are.

    Now, of course the fact that many self declared opponents of “rape culture” are feminists, which will instantly raise hackles, but that’s not to say that elements of culture support a permissive attitude to serious sexual assault, to men and women.

  207. lelapaletute says

    @ Darren:

    I do not see how you can argue that we live in a Rape Culture given the fact that rape is regarded by most people as a vile crime.

    Rape culture does not refer to a culture that valorises rape, but to one which facilitates it and tolerates it. i.e. a culture where sexual morality is wildly divergent for men than for women; where women are seen as sexual gatekeepers who do not feel sexual desire on its own account, but withhold or grant sex for other reasons, usually in order to acquire power; where women are discouraged from voicing their sexual desires or making approaches lest they be deemed ‘slags'; where men are generally believed to be chronically gagging for it all the time, to the point where they ‘can’t help themselves'; where it is therefore considered acceptable for men to use a variety of ‘persuasive’ techniques to cajole sex out of reluctant women (and there are no clear universally accepted guidelines about the point at which these tactics cease to be acceptable); where a woman can be accused of lying about being raped because she has been known to have had sex (with her rapist or with others) before, and is therefore considered generally ‘easy'; where the circumstances of a woman’s rape are considered relevant to the severity of the crime and the culpability of the rapist even when it is acknowledged she WAS in fact raped (what she was wearing, where she was at what time, whether she was drunk, whether she had engaged in sexual activity with the rapist preceding the rape, etc).

    All these things are true in British society, and they all contribute to a culture where rapists feel safe to rape, victims feel ashamed to have been raped rather than furious and indignant, victims don’t report their rapes, rapists are left free to rape again. This is a rape culture. A culture which acknowledged, encouraged and defended women’s rights to their sexual appetites and their sexual agency; which had very clear minimum standards as to what constituted coercion and what constituted consent; which made it clear that we have a collective responsibility to look after people when they are vulnerable, not take advantage of them and then blame them for being vulnerable in the first place; would go a long way to combatting this culture.

  208. lelapaletute says

    Also, to be clear, a rape culture isn’t the ONLY culture we have, and there’s no reason why it should mean that. We also have a consumerist culture, a individualist culture, a sexualised culture, and a host of other cultures. Rape culture is just one aspect of British society. But it is an aspect of it.

  209. Ginkgo says

    “All these things are true in British society, and they all contribute to a culture where rapists feel safe to rape, victims feel ashamed to have been raped rather than furious and indignant, victims don’t report their rapes, rapists are left free to rape again. This is a rape culture.”

    Amen. Here’s a post about the rape culture in Britain:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/02/13/breaking-the-silence-on-male-abuse-victims/

    It fits everyone one of those criteria.

  210. lelapaletute says

    Damn right that’s an example of our rape culture. And all the factors I listed above contribute to the invisibility of male victims as much as they damage female ones. I know it pretty much goes without saying, but rape culture hurts us all.

  211. Gjenganger says

    @Lelapaletute 234
    Thanks for your definition of rape culture. My attempt was not totally different, I’d say, though here are things in yours that I agree with but think are hard to avoid, and things I think you see a bit distorted. Still the main point:

    where it is therefore considered acceptable for men to use a variety of ‘persuasive’ techniques to cajole sex out of reluctant women (and there are no clear universally accepted guidelines about the point at which these tactics cease to be acceptable)

    A culture which acknowledged, encouraged and defended women’s rights to their sexual appetites and their sexual agency; which had very clear minimum standards as to what constituted coercion and what constituted consent; which made it clear that we have a collective responsibility to look after people when they are vulnerable,

    I agree, with the words, especially that some more clear and practical guidelines would be highly desirable. I would add that men have their right to their sexual agency and sexual appetites as well, so that whatever solution we come up with should also include the right to the active pursuit of sex, should have some guidelines for the behaviour of both sexes, and should not solve the problem by effectively giving all power of decision either to the woman or to whoever is least interested in sex. As you know from other discussion we can agree up to a point, but may well start to disagree on specifics.

    I shall probably spend much of my limited time on Ally’s next post, but if you have a clear point for me I will do my best not to ignore it.

  212. Gjenganger says

    However I can easily take that and apply it to prevalent attitudes and beliefs held by many people that may increase the prevalence of rape, but which you, and I, and everyone here agree are overall good and “correct” attitudes to hold. This means that something contributing to “rape culture” isn’t automatically a bad thing, and in some cases is something to support (now isn’t that a disconcerting thought).

    I agree. In fact some things on Lelas list and mine I think are hard or impossible to change. But would rather discuss this by looking at what ‘rape culture’ is supposed to involve in each case, and then argue which of the components can, needs to or should be changed, and what the consequences would be. I think discussing more practical matters can lead to more insight (on both sides) than dismissing or defending the concept of ‘rape culture’

  213. says

    carnation

    I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the concept of rape culture. Rape jokes are common, particularly regarding male rape in prisons. Not so long ago, racist jokes were perfectly acceptable in mainstream media – not any longer.

    I have seen numerous comedians use rape (and DV) jokes at “cutting edge” events. Racist jokes wouldn’t be allowed – rape (and DV) jokes are.

    This does not mean that there is a coherent corpus of ideas represented by the label rape culture. Attempts to define it I have read so far mostly falter under the criticism Adiabat has raised.

    I think claiming we live i a rape culture is on weaker ground than claiming we live in a serial murder culture. I have seen plenty of people making jokes about such dark concepts and popular TV anti heroes and movie protagonists are sociopathic/schizoid serial killers (Dexter, or Hannibal Lecter), while a show a following the exploits of a charismatic rapist is unlikely to happen. In fact in season five of Dexter, where Dexter is confronted with a gang of multiple rapists/murderers has Dexter being in unbelief about the villaneous nature of his antagonists, despite the fact that at this point he has killed well over 50 people after submitting them to both psychological and sometimes physical torture. And to be honest, other than genocidal dictatorship i thik there are no lifestyles more worthy of damnation.

  214. Darren Ball says

    @sirtooting 229

    Or perhaps I’m ignoring your earlier post because I reasoned that spending my Friday night sipping Prosecco with my wife would be more rewarding than commenting on your rant that contributes absolutely nothing substantive and is peppered with personal insults.

    If I do find time to engage in debate this weekend, it will be with posters who afford me basic courtesy.

  215. sirtooting . says

    Austin Joseph App says that those Allies who were “no monsters” literally raped more European Females than had ever before been raped in the history of the world.

    War Crimes the male absolves himself of ..

    The War they never focus on .. The war they dare not mention .. The war they never acknowledge .. The one and only war.. they want to distance themselves from.

    We are bombarded with images of the male acting in his dramas .. in his wars of his own making .. We are bombarded with images of his so called heroics .. It is a constant theme ..

    Males will turn cartwheels in the rush to associate themselves with men’s achievements, and brag, boast and gloat “Look, see, us MEN” have achieved so much, but when it comes to “Men’s Atrocities”, then it is a different story, “and the same males will trample over each other in the rush to distance & disassociate themselves from those men and announce .. “but That’s not us”

    Justice has not been seen to be done .. Justice is swept under the rug in order to absolve males of their atrocities, of their crimes against humanity to assist them to evade prosecution.

    They are all complicit .. They all circumvent the truth in order to ignore the truth

    A collusion of all the governments and the military involved and all run by males, sought to suppress that which would have damned them all as vile sexist misogynists who unleashed their sadistic perversions because they could .. A licence to kill, then gave them a licence to rape ..
    What’s that coming over the hill is it a monster, is it a monster?. No, it is just the boy next door, armed to the teeth, looking for a female to rape

    The collusion of the male is complicit .. War Crimes .. Crimes against Humanity .. Justice for girls and women who are at the mercy of merciless men.

    Justice needs to be seen to be done .. These crimes .. This War ..
    Mike Buchanan won’t be publicising it any time soon .. or any MRA’S

    Men’s rights .. What about men’s wrongs?

  216. carnation says

    @ Sheaf

    Good points but serial killers remain mercifully rare. It is true to say society deals with many tabboos inappropriately, rape and DV are amongst them. Personally, I don’t think it’s a particularly huge issue but it affects men and boys as much as females.

    That said, freedom of speech and artistic expression usurps it.

  217. sirtooting . says

    What’s that coming over the hill is it a monster, is it a monster?. No, it is just the boy next door, armed to the teeth, looking for a female to rape

    The War they never focus on .. The war they dare not mention .. The war they never acknowledge .. The one and only war.. They want to distance themselves from.
    And this war is the capitulation of the entire male population of the world, who look the other way, whilst males are committing their crimes of inhumanity against the Female of the species
    oh yeah
    Tell us, how best should baby daughters defend themselves against their fathers who are armed to the teeth in China and Islam and who are intent on murdering them in the hope of replacing them with sons.?
    Murdered because they aren’t born the gender the Male prefers “The Male”

    The Sudan The Congo Saudi Arabia .. etc etc ..

    And this war is the capitulation of the entire male population of the world, who look the other way, whilst males are committing their crimes of inhumanity against the Female of the species

    War Crimes the male absolves himself of .. Crimes against the Female.
    This war will get no publicity .. This war will be swept under the rug .

  218. sirtooting . says

    And what have they on here got to say about the above? .. Well, absolutely nothing.

    This is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is protector ..

    And he protects himself and his gender by saying absolutely nothing about it ..

    He builds a brick wall around himself and he sees no evil, hears no evil speaks no evil.

    As long as the female concurs with the male, as long as she capitulates .. as long as she wears the burkha, as long as she wears the hi-jab, as long as she aborts her daughters, as long as he can coerce her, as long as she obeys the husband under his marriage vow and stays silent .. then there is no problem .. as far as the male is concerned, as far as he can see .. the problem only arises when she refuses any longer to agree to be coerced and murdered for the benefit of he ..

  219. johngreg says

    The main problem I have with this concept of “rape culture” is how generalized and all-encompassing the claim is. I mean yes there are almost certainly sub-cultures, or what might be called small sub-cultural pockets in some Western countries/societies/cities that comprise some men (and women) who believe in and support/condone/facilitate what might be called rape culture, but to accuse and assume that all Western cultures in toto, or even in a general sense, are all about supporting, condoning, accepting rape as something to be allowed and not overly worked against is just plain bullshit nonsense. We wouldn’t have the laws we do, the social condemnations, the rigorous “outing”, etc., etc., etc., that we do if Western societies were over-archingly, or even largely rape cultures.

    lelapaletute said (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/02/14/some-important-findings-from-the-ons-crime-stats-intimate-sexual-violence/#comment-45207):

    Rape culture [refers] to one which facilitates it and tolerates it.

    Except Western cultures/societies do not tolerate it; they condemn it; vilify it; raise many laws against it, etc.

    i.e. a culture where sexual morality is wildly divergent for men than for women.

    That’s not rape culture; that’s social/sexual/individual diversity — some men and women believe/act that way, most do not.

    where women are seen as sexual gatekeepers who do not feel sexual desire on its own account, but withhold or grant sex for other reasons, usually in order to acquire power.

    That’s not rape culture; that’s social/sexual/individual diversity — some men and women believe/act that way, most do not.

    where women are discouraged from voicing their sexual desires or making approaches lest they be deemed ‘slags’.

    Women have been encouraged, lauded, published, and celebrated for voicing their sexual desires, etc., since the late 60s. But there have always been, and probably always be small groups of prudes to rain on anyone’s parade.

    And etc. Most of the stuff you refer to is not in any way a rape culture, and it by no means represents all or even most of any Western society or culture. It’s like you’re some special snowflake tourist crossing into the “bad” part of town in a major metropolis, a crime ridden, poverty stricken small part of a major city, and then saying, Sheeit, this whole town sucks and is crime ridden, dirty, poor, and ugly.

    Nah. I don’t accept your definition of rape culture at all, at all.

  220. sirtooting . says

    British soldiers ,six of them,’ she says. ‘It was about 7pm and they had been drinking in a nearby pub. They were big men and, once in, they offered me and my friend money for sex. When we refused, three raped my friend. The other three raped me.

    ‘They were in uniform but had no weapons. Still, we did not scream, because we were certain they would kill us. They just waited their turn, did what they wanted and left. I had never seen them before; I never saw them again. I was injured, but I never went to hospital or told anyone. It was a terrible shame to be raped and, back then, who would have listened to our story?’

    Now 48, Elizabeth says the rape took place 24 years ago when British troops training on Masai land were building Dol Dol primary school. Erecting the building was an exercise in community relations. But according to Elizabeth and nine other Masai women, who also allege gang rape by British soldiers, no amount of new buildings made up for the terrifying reality of the military presence.

    The women claim to have been raped between the mid- Seventies and mid-Eighties. They say they have been silent until now because of shame and fear that their claims would bring punishment to the Masai, then marginalised and despised by their own government.

    Simon Ole Kaparo, a Masai community leader, believes the women’s allegations are just the tip of the iceberg in a part of Kenya where the British Army has trained for 50 years. His organisation, Impact, is checking medical and other records for evidence to support the women’s allegations. It wants to launch a legal case against the Ministry of Defence similar

  221. sirtooting . says

    The Government is facing a £20 million compensation bill if the alleged rape of hundreds of Kenyan women at the hands of British soldiers is found to be true, it was claimed today.

    Some 650 women claim they were raped by soldiers on exercise in Kenya between 1965 and November 2002.
    Today they were granted legal aid to sue the Ministry of Defence in the High Court, alleging the Government did nothing to prevent the systemic attacks.
    It is claimed the British authorities knew of the rape allegations as early as 1977, but failed to do anything about it.
    The case is being brought by solicitor Martyn Day, who expects to get between £20,000 and £30,000 for each alleged victim.
    Women ‘gang raped’
    He said the number of reported rapes stood at 650, but could rise to as high as 1,000.
    “In virtually every instance, we are talking about two, three, four soldiers lying in wait, seeing the women, running after them and group raping them,” he said.
    Mr Day, who gave his briefing at the Amnesty International headquarters in central London, told of one reported incident as recently as 1999.
    He said a group of Gurkhas went on exercise in central Kenya near a place known as Dol Dol.
    The lawyer alleged that a group of 18 men went down to the river where they knew the women took their animals, and group raped six of them.
    Amnesty International, who are supporting the mass case, claimed in their report that approximately 40 women gave birth to mixed race children after alleged attacks.

    Other women said they were attacked when heavily pregnant and claim they lost their babies.
    Mr Day said he hoped to settle the case out of court and expected to have gathered and corroborated his final evidence within a year.
    Stigma attached to rape
    He conceded that many of the 650 women had come forward after news of a possible court case became public, and acknowledged that some of them may be motivated by a desire for compensation money.

    But he said that the stigma of admitting to being a rape victim was so great in Kenya that the women had a lot to lose by joining the action – some are even thrown out of their houses by their husbands as a result.

    “There is no interest in them coming forward and saying they have been raped unless they genuinely have,” he said.
    British soldiers go to isolated parts of Kenya every year between the months of October and April.
    On average over the six months, 3,000 men will spend six weeks on exercise in one of five designated areas, carrying out targets and weaponry practice.
    Mr Day said the alleged rapes continued until his solicitors firm, Leigh, Day and Co, contacted the MoD last November.
    In the eight months since that approach, not one rape has been reported, he said.
    “It is the first time in 30 years there have been no rapes,” he said.
    “Not a single rape in that time, why on earth did that not happen in 1977?

  222. sirtooting . says

    johngreg is trying to play down the enormity of the rape culture.
    He is trying to minimise the collateral damage.

    “Most of the stuff you refer to is not in any way a rape culture, and it by no means represents all or even most of any Western society or culture. Its like you’re some special snowflake tourist crossing into the “bad” part of town in a major metropolis, a crime ridden, poverty stricken small part of a major city, and then saying, Sheeit, this whole town sucks and is crime ridden, dirty, poor, and ugly.”

    Of course it is everywhere across the culture, it is in your face, it is so common .. It is like not being able to see the wood for the trees.

    Just type a few random words into the search engines and see how awash the internet is with it. Just type in the word porn or sex .. They demand females should be made readily available for them to abuse or watch them being abused. Who the females are in the videos are no concern to these males ..They couldn’t careless about women being pimped, being sold to meet men’s sexual needs. .. They couldn’t careless, as a culture, as men.
    What they who procure & own indecent images of children and women ,care about is, that their sexual needs are met, how that is achieved is irrelevant, only that it is achieved .. No questions asked .. An attitude of indifference to other peoples suffering, because it achieves them, their hard on by being indifferent.

    The attitude of the male in all these cultures through the centuries, is .. Get me my indecent photos, get me my indecent images, get me women and children that I can abuse .. It will give me a hard on .. I don’t care how you do it, no questions asked .. Just get them .. I have a need to wank .. And that desire is greater, than any need to have a conscience, and to recognise they are abusers who couldn’t careless who is being abused to satisfy their needs.

    It’s in the home, it’s in the living room, it’s in the bedrooms .. it’s in the minds of every man ..
    Get me my indecent photos, get me my indecent images, get me women and children that I can abuse .. It will give me a hard on .. I don’t care how you do it, I don’t care who you abuse to get it and no questions asked .. Just get them .. They demand it, they expect it and someone is readily waiting to supply it and absolutely no questions asked ..

  223. redpesto says

    @ lelapaletute #234:

    The thing that strikes me about your definition is the way in which it mixes attitudes to criminal sexual behaviour (rape, sexual assault) with attitudes towards consensual sexual behaviour (e.g. non-monogamy) under a term that refers exclusively to the former, especially in relation to heterosexual relationships.

  224. johngreg says

    Little Toot said:

    johngreg is trying to play down the enormity of the rape culture. He is trying to minimise the collateral damage.

    No, Little Toot, I’m not, really I’m not. I am trying to say I do not believe “rape culture”, as it has so far been variously defined by various feminists round the ‘net, even exists.

    As for the rest of your post, it’s raving nonsense, and not deserving of an honest or meaningful response.

  225. sirtooting . says

    It is raving nonsense is it? .. the abuse of women and children .. the internet awash with pornography .. and no questions asked, Who is being abused for your sexual perverted pleasure?

    100,000 Web sites dedicated to child porn alone ..

    Just type in the word porn and see what appears .. these women and children are human beings and they are being abused for your sexual perverted pleasure .. and you care not a jot .. what you care about .. is that this porn exists for you to wank to ..Supply and demand ..

    We cater to men’s perversions .. to their sexual wants and desires .. and who is abused is to satisfy their wants is irrelevant to men… No questions asked

    He builds a brick wall around himself and he sees no evil, hears no evil speaks no evil.

    As long as the female concurs with the male, as long as she capitulates .. as long as she wears the burkha, as long as she wears the hi-jab, as long as she aborts her daughters, as long as he can coerce her, as long as she obeys the husband under his marriage vow and stays silent .. then there is no problem .. as far as the male is concerned, as far as he can see .. the problem only arises when she refuses any longer to agree to be coerced and her potential murdered for the benefit of he ..

  226. carnation says

    SirToot

    I would actually rather go for a pint with Paul Elam than read a paragraph of your fetishistic diatribes against men. You clearly don’t serve the cause you claim to support.

    I wonder if you might be kind enough to discuss how the person came to hold your politics?

  227. Darren Ball says

    @ Lelapaletute, 234
    I’ve been thinking about your response over the weekend.

    We would be a very poorly adapted species if men and women had the same attitudes towards sex. Without contraception, abortion rights, the welfare state, child support payments and good health care, women have much more invested in a sexual liaison – they are vulnerable whilst pregnant, may die in labour, or have a dependent child. While pregnant they can’t get pregnant by another man whom they may regard as a better mate, so they’d better make sure they only mate with worthy specimens. For men the reverse is true. Biologically speaking, it behoves men to accept the best offer available on any given occasion since it doesn’t preclude them accepting another opportunity tomorrow. Our innate sexuality will reflect the world as it’s been for millennia (and in places, remains), not since the post 1960’s sexual revolution.

    We are here as a species because evolution has selected characteristics that have lead to successful reproduction – this will mean women choosing their mates wisely; what you call “gate-keeping”.

    Women are now 60 per cent of graduates, the pay gap amongst young people is tiny and unemployment amongst young women is much lower than it is amongst you men. Therefore women in mainstream UK culture do not need to exchange sex for power. Some women do, but this is a in minority sub-culture.

    What you describe is the behaviour of some women who are having consensual sex with men they fancy but, having realised that they are the gatekeepers of sex, are holding out for a bit more in the bargain. This is actually disingenuous behaviour on their part – to call it abuse of the women requires a perverse inversion.

    Men using “persuasive techniques to cajole women into sex” is an oxymoron. If they are persuading then they are not, by definition, raping.

    Our culture manifestly does not tolerate rape. Surveys do show that around 20 to 25 per cent of men and women think that a woman can be fully or partially responsible for being raped, but around 75 to 80 per cent (i.e. the dominant culture) do not.

    Sadly there will always be men who rape, and rape without being punished. This is because it’s a crime that is often very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The culture at work here is that of Habeas Corpus which I hope you’re not suggesting we should relax.

  228. leni says

    Now, if rape is mainly a problem of habitual rapists, several things follow:

    For the second time, I didn’t say that.

    I said a minority of rapists admitted to committing the majority of rapes. .

    That does not mean the minority of rapes committed by people who are not as likely to rape as often are “ok”. Or that anyone who excuses that behavior after the fact is in the clear.

    Please stop rephrasing that incorrectly.

    Essentially there is a choice: you let men in general off the hook and isolate the habitual rapists, or you keep all men under pressure and accept that habitual rapists can hide behind the natural and expected defenses that the ‘normal men’ come up with.

    Again, I don’t see your point. And I don’t really agree with your choice, which really just looks like a false dichotomy to me.

    I don’t have to let one-time murderers off “the hook” because some people are serial killers. Acknowledging that some people murder more than others does not:

    1) Preclude other people from murdering at lower rates
    2) Make those less prolific murderers safe from prosecution or,
    3) Imply that everyone who isn’t a serial killer suddenly has a free murder pass.

  229. Daniel Murray says

    What is most worrying is the amount of people “offended” by male victims and seem to feel a strong need to counter this. THe same “they could be victims of an ex or another male” logic applies equally to women.

    Feminists seem not to be in any way able to see their blind and stupid, double standard.

    Men do not appear to have a need to have the exclusive on being victims or use extremely flawed logic that applies to both male and female numbers, but only think it applies to female victim numbers.

    The hate of people towards men in these comments is really revolting.

    Not only does it perpetuate the very attitude that leaves victims of female abusers utterly isolated, not only will a mother using her children to hurt the father be believed when she makes an accusation without proof (hurting father and most importantly the child, but it ensures the problem can not be tackled properly. THis betrays, male female and child victims of abuse.

    By the way mothers are far more abusive to their children than fathers and the number one protection for a child from abuse, is their father present.

    Men are such a significant proportion of the victims, any humane person would insist we address this, any sane person would say we need a review of how we perceive the nature of domestic violence.

    This is really disheartening as a man and a father to see.

  230. Daniel Murray says

    A rape culture is one where society accepts rape and sees it as just something that happens. We do not have a rape culture in any way.

  231. says

    I think that everything said made a great deal of sense.

    But, what about this? suppose you composed a catchier title?

    I am not saying your content isn’t solid, but suppose you added a
    post title that makes people want more? I mean Some
    important findings from the ONS crime stats:
    Intimate & sexual violence

  232. says

    I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you design this website yourself or did you hire someone
    to do it for you? Plz answer back as I’m looking to design my own blog and would like to find out where u got this from.
    kudos

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>