CPS erasure of male victims…. VICTORY!

Well this was, in all honesty, unexpected. 

I fully accept the concerns raised by some, however, that we need to be clearer in our annual VaWG report about the inclusion of men and boys, which is why I have arranged for amendments to be made to the current, and all future, reports. We will clarify our introductory remarks and we will also, where possible, include a breakdown of gender volumes.

When we first set about getting together our open letter, my most optimistic hope was that the CPS would notice it had happened, grudgingly admit we might have a point, and make some token effort to be less blatant in showing contempt for male victims next time .  But it was really just a plaintive cry.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine the CPS might admit they got it wrong, go back amend the current report and so publicly commit to not doing the same again in future.

As I’m sure you’ll notice, the piece by Saunders is brimful of self-justification and waffle, as well as a lot of words that address complaints which were never actually made in the first place, but right in the middle is everything we asked for and considerably more. Honestly I don’t care.

This is something I don’t often get to write as a campaigner, activist or journalist, so I am going to revel in the moment….

WE WON!

WE ACTUALLY BLOODY WON!

The letters continue: Erasure, misrepresentation and Orwellian doublespeak

To the signatories of the letter Gender is all too relevant in violence statistics.

First let me thank you for the opportunity to continue this important conversation. It is clear your letter in the Guardian today is a reaction to the one signed by myself and 30 others last week, however it would be wrong to call it a response, as you do not appear to have addressed or even understood any of the issues our letter raised, preferring to criticise us on a variety of points which our letter simply did not make.

Allow me to be more specific.

Your correspondents call on the director of public prosecutions to “affirm [her] commitment to eliminating intimate violence against human beings of any gender” and criticise the Crown Prosecution Service’s presentation of statistics in its annual violence against women and girls report for being so explicitly gendered (Letters, 2 July).

We did not criticise the CPS report for being so explicitly gendered. We would expect a report entitled “Violence Against Women and Girls, crime report” to be explicitly gendered. Nor did we condemn the CPS for producing a report with that subject and title.

We criticised the CPS report for being dishonest and misleading in including crimes against at least 13,154 (known) boys and men in a report entitled ‘Violence Against Women and Girls’ while going to some lengths to entirely obscure the experiences of male victims.

It is established fact that these crimes are massively disproportionately committed against women and girls (female genital mutilation exclusively so) and that they are related to women’s broader inequality with men. Your correspondents claim without citation that “one in six of all victims” are male. This is disputed, and certainly does not apply equally to all the forms of abuse in the CPS report.

The figure of 1 in 6 did not require citation as it comes from the CPS report itself and the accompanying data tables. Where gender was recorded, 16% of victims of the crimes described in the report were men and boys. This is most certainly not disputed, the statistics are in Table 8 of the performance information here.

Furthermore, it is also critical that we retain gender in our naming and analysis of these crimes because of the gender of the perpetrators, whom your correspondents do not mention at all.

We did not mention it because we had no dispute with how the CPS report covered the gender of the perpetrators. The report explained quite clearly that around 94% of offenders of these crimes within the criminal justice system were male and 6% female. We accept this, and had no reason to raise it in our letter.

In searching for recognition and then for justice and support for male survivors of abuse, it is a grave mistake to suggest taking gender out of the naming and analysis, and neutralising these crimes into Orwellian “intimate abuse”. A failure to name and call out the abuse of power in these crimes is what kept them invisible for so long.

At no point in our letter did we suggest taking gender out of the analysis. On the contrary, we clearly expressed that male victims have their own gender-specific issues, such as those relating to social expectations of a ‘real man.’ Nor are gender issues neutralised by the phrase ‘intimate abuse’ or ‘intimate violence’ – this term has always been used by many public bodies including the Office of National Statistics, to describe crimes such as domestic violence and abuse – for example, see here, the chapter “Intimate Personal Violence and Serious Sexual Assault.”

You describe this phrase as “Orwellian.” I would suggest what is truly Orwellian is for the experiences of many thousands of violated men and boys to be described with the phrase ‘violence against women and girls.’ War is peace; freedom is slavery; boys are girls. What is truly Orwellian is for the CPS to highlight the conviction of Fr Francis Paul Cullen as an example of their success in prosecuting crimes against women and girls, when the large majority of his victims were boys, and for the gender of those victims to be entirely “taken out of the analysis” by descriptions of his victims only in gender-neutral terms as “young people.”

I would add that it is this type of erasure of male victims – even when the statistics and facts are right before our eyes – which has done so much to keep those crimes invisible for so long, a tragedy which your letter appears to strive to continue.

I do not speak today on behalf of the other signatories to our letter, only for myself, but I for one do not believe in taking gender out of the analysis of sexual and intimate offences. I believe gender issues are crucial to understanding why so many such crimes occur, and what kind of support is needed by victims. What I cannot accept is a cruel and misleading approach which focusses entirely on the gender of victims when they are women and girls and entirely ignores and erases gender when the victims are men and boys, or worse, when the experiences of those men and boys are subsumed into descriptions of violence against women and girls.

I finish on a note of genuine sadness. In our own letter we were very careful to honestly declare our full commitment to supporting all efforts to end violence against women and girls. Many of the signatories to our letter work with female survivors alongside men and boys, and are only too aware of the issues. But even though your response begins by noting our call for the CPS and other bodies to affirm their commitment to recognising and supporting male victims of intimate violence and abuse, in your response you could not even bring yourselves to offer a single equivalent word of support or compassion for the countless thousands of men and boys who are raped, abused, beaten and molested every year. I would add that, despite contacting them directly, we have as yet had no contact from the CPS or any other body that so much as acknowledges the existence of male victims, far less affirming support for their needs.

The male victims I know and support, and those engaged professionally by many of my co-signatories, often report feeling worthless and ignored, as if no one cares about what happened to them in the past or what will happen to them now and in the future. How tragic that your letter may well serve to confirm their darkest suspicions.

The Guardian publishes our open letter to CPS

After I published my blog post last week, several friends and colleagues from organisations involved in men’s health and recovery got in touch to share their astonishment and anger at what I had revealed. The brazen falsehood in the presentation of the ‘Violence against Women and Girls’ data was shocking enough, but possibly worse was the failure of any mainstream media or journalists to pick up on what had happened and challenge the CPS over their work.

We decided to take matters into our own hands. By Monday we had got together a draft letter, nominally to the Guardian’s letters page but really to Alison Saunders and the CPS, The response was phenomenal. We ended up with around 30 of Britain’s leading experts in the fields agreeing to put their names to the letter and this morning, I am very proud to say, the letter appears in the Guardian . We have also sent a press release to all national news desks, so hopefully further media will follow. [Read more…]

Why is the CPS erasing the experience of thousands of abuse victims?

The report by the Crown Prosecution Service, published yesterday, has an unequivocal title: “Violence Against Women and Girls, crime report 2014-15.”

One might reasonably presume from this that the report details statistics for crimes of violence committed against women and girls. Indeed, that presumption appears to have been made by pretty much every journalist who covered the story. The Independent, for example, reported that “107,104 people were prosecuted for violence against women in 2014-15.”

This is quite simply not true. In the very first paragraph of the executive summary, the authors explain that the report is ‘an analysis of the key prosecution issues in each Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG) strand – domestic abuse, rape, sexual offences, stalking, harassment, forced marriage, honour based violence, female genital mutilation, child abuse, human trafficking, prostitution and pornography.’ [Read more…]

Is femicide a leading global cause of premature deaths for women?

There is much in Neil Lyndon’s latest missive that is ill-informed, ignorant or downright ugly.

Under ill-informed, file his claim that since 2.5% of women experienced some form of sexual assault in the past year, according to Crime Survey of England and Wales, it cannot be true that one in three women worldwide is subject to sexual violence. Not only does this fail to allow for the fact that women’s experiences in this country may be far, far from typical of the global picture, it is simply bad maths. If you doubt me, imagine a hundred women evenly spread in ages between 16 – 66. Ask them how many of them had a 16th birthday in the last year? Then ask them how many have ever had a 16th birthday? Only 2% will answer yes to the first question, but 100% to the second.  Since sexual violence happens vastly disproportionately to younger victims, you should easily see how that analogy works.

Under ignorant, file the anecdata about how he has asked all the women in his life and none of them have been sexually assaulted. I very much hope that is true, but Neil, purrlease. We know that a huge proportion of sexual assault survivors tell virtually (or literally) nobody about the attack, and from what I know of him through his writing, I’d suggest that Neil Lyndon might not be top of any woman’s list of potential confidantes. As if to demonstrate the point:

I am nearly 70 years old. In the whole of my life, I have only known two women who claimed to have been raped. Both of them were disbelieved by their own women friends who reckoned the soi-disant victims were making up stories that couldn’t be verified to dramatise their lives.

As I say, ugly. Downright ugly.

That said, there is a question he raises which deserves an answer.

Last month a report in The Independent claimed that “Femicide has been identified globally as a leading a cause of premature death for women” and called for “increasing awareness and understanding of male violence”.

In neither instance does the writer stop to ask, “Can these claims possibly be true? Are these figures backed-up by my own experience and the evidence of my own eyes? Do they tally with the society in which I have grown up and now live? Are they verified by objective research?”

In fact there is an answer available to that question, and in broad terms no, it is not true.

There is a degree of wriggle room in the original claim – what do we mean by “leading cause”? What do we mean by “premature death” etc. However there is something approaching objective research on this question. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, an independent global health research centre at the University of Washington, collates the best available global data on causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. You can search the Global Burden of Disease data here. If we use an age cut off at 49 as a proxy for ‘premature death’ then the table for women’s cause of death looks like this: [click to enlarge]

IPMortality

Now a little bit of caution is needed here, because the categories are not discrete, some are compounds of others. Most notably there is one category for interpersonal violence, another for self-harm (ie suicide) and another for “self-harm and interpersonal violence” however the last of those is merely a tally of the other two. There are also a variety of overlapping causes (particularly several different HIV/Aids related categories). Even tidied up a bit though, it would be a stretch to claim that interpersonal violence was even in the top 25 causes of younger women’s deaths worldwide.

As we often hear phrases used like “ever-growing epidemic of violence against women” it is probably also worth pointing out that the data show a steady but consistent decline over the past twenty years, for both women and men.

IPMortalityGraph

If instead of asking for mortality figures one searches the data for ‘Disability-adjusted life years’ (the preferred measure of morbidity) interpersonal violence does not even figure in the top 50 for women aged 15- 49. I couldn’t even fit the table readably on a single screen to get an image grab.

There have been various bits of research conducted over the years which show much higher rates of death and morbidity caused by various forms of violence against women, even if when examined, they often show far less conclusive (and less arresting) findings than campaigners claim.  It is also important to understand that these are raw figures which could be riven with pollutants, inaccuracies and absent data. For example, there could be a huge number of suicides which arise as a direct consequence of gender-based violence but which do not present as such in the figures. In parts of the world where domestic violence and so-called honour crimes are commonplace there may be huge numbers of homicides being categorised as “accidental deaths” or whatever.

Nonetheless, the IHME data is considered the best available guide to causes of global mortality and morbidity, and even if we were to arbitrarily decide to double the known  figure for women’s deaths by interpersonal violence, it still wouldn’t be accurate to say that femicide is one of the leading causes of women’s premature deaths worldwide.

 

The zombie stat that sucks the brains from development programmes

Note: I wrote this back in 2012 on my old blog. I thought the stat had quietly died the death, but this year it reappeared more prominently than ever, circulating widely on memes on social media, and even used by Annie Lennox in her Guardian piece. There’s a good Washington Post take on it here, but here is my interpretation.  

I bang on about this, partly just because it really annoys me when people unashamedly share demonstrably false statistics in any context, but this particular one is outrageous due to the manner in which it shamelessly ignores and denies the staggering inequality between the world’s rich – including rich women – and the rest of the planet. 

————–

In 1984 a poultry farmer called Sun Guiying became the first Chinese peasant to buy her own car. I still recall the government-authorised photos of her, standing with her family in front of their shiny Toyota. Now we can look back on her beaming smile as a watershed in global economic history. Recently Forbes reported that Chinese women are queuing up to buy luxury sports cars. A third of China’s millionaires are women, and there are now three times as many Maseratis and twice as many Ferraris sold in that country as in the west. Hold that thought. [Read more…]

Update on the sentencing of male and female offenders

William Collins has published a response to my last blogpost, in which I criticised the conclusions he had drawn from analysis of sentencing statistics, and specifically his calculation that if men were sentenced to the same standards as women, there would be 68,000 fewer men in prison. I’ll make a few factual and statistical points below, but first let me express a regret, and issue an apology.

With hindsight, there was a scornful tone to my last blog. What I did not make clear enough was that my scorn is not for William Collins. I’m very pleased that any bloggers are addressing the issue of male incarceration, including gender discrimination in the system. While I maintain that William’s calculations are seriously shaky at best, at the risk of sounding patronising, I appreciate how complex such efforts are and we all get this stuff wrong from time to time, self very much included. Had this just been an exchange between William and I, my tone would have been much more like “Hi William, this is a great effort, but I think you’ve failed to account for . . .”

My scornful tone wasn’t aimed at William Collins, it was strictly aimed at Mike Buchanan, a man who spends most of his life ostentatiously issuing challenges and demanding corrections and apologies from other people whom he believes may have used statistics wrongly, but who then appears on national TV quoting “facts” which he believes for no other reason than he read it on a single amateur blogpost on the internet, so it must be true. Worse, he includes the same statistics in a general election manifesto, no less. [Read more…]

Male suicide and the cynical, mendacious trickery of Conservative Woman

If this article about male suicide rates had merely been wrong, I would probably let it pass. If my only concerns were the critique-free mangling of Durkheim’s brilliant but profoundly flawed monograph, or if this were just a straightforward left-versus-right disagreement on policy, then I would wave it away. If the author were just another cheap hack churning out the usual propaganda for the Murdoch-Rothermere-Desmond axis of weasels I might have done something more uplifting with my morning than immerse myself in suicide statistics. [Read more…]

The astonishing secret success of campaigns around violence against women

In what is becoming an annual ritual here at HetPat, let me point out what the media is not telling us about the detailed analysis of statistics on intimate violence and homicide, released yesterday by the Office of National Statistics, because once again it contains some remarkable – and remarkably good – news.  [Read more…]

A media magic trick – making abused boys vanish

Though they made for grim reading, I was not especially surprised to see press reports this week about the European Commission-funded research into relationship violence among 13 to 17-year-olds. It is well-established that teenagers and young people are, by some distance, at greatest risk. A study in 2009 found that one in three teenage girls had experienced sexual abuse by a boyfriend and one in four had suffered physical violence. So the latest headlines that four in ten English girls had been coerced into sexual activity are depressing but far from revelatory.

Nor was I particularly surprised by the gender-focus of the news coverage. It is a plain fact that a lot of research into partner violence is under the auspices of a ‘violence against women and girls’ agenda. The only reference to boys in the Guardian’s report, to take only one example out of many, was this: “a high proportion of teenage boys regularly viewed pornography, and one in five harboured extremely negative attitudes towards women.” [Read more…]