insideMAN

VIDEO: Do our beliefs about domestic violence match the facts?

by 9 Comments

Perceptions of ‘typical’ incidences of domestic violence are deeply ingrained in the public consciousness and based on gender stereotypes — but although more women than men are victims of domestic violence, statistics show that many incidences of violence are mutual, or involve a female aggressor and male victim, or take place within same-sex couples.

In December, Prof. Ben Hine, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of West London, gave a presentation at University College London in which he asked challenging questions about these societal beliefs around partner abuse: How do our perceptions of domestic violence influence the judgements we make regarding those involved? Are some victims taken less seriously than others, and why? And how do we change this?

This fascinating, surprising and insightful talk, explores our perceptions of domestic violence, and – for the sake of all victims – emphasises the importance of challenging unhelpful narratives.

To watch Prof Hine’s presentation, which was the latest in the UCL Gender Equity Network’s series of talks on contemporary gender issues, click on the videos below.

Part 1

Part 2

  • Nick Langford

    It is curious how this item begins with mention of deeply ingrained perceptions and gender stereotypes before demonstrating just how deeply ingrained these perceptions are by stating unthinkingly, “more women than men are victims of domestic violence”.

    Of course, superficially, this is true: figures cited from the ManKind Initiative, borrowed in turn from the ONS (why not go straight to the horse’s mouth?), confirm this. But we should be aware that these figures are based on crimes recorded by the police, and ManKind report that only 10% of men report these crimes to the police, compared with 26% of women.

    Where prejudice creeps in is that statements such as “more women than men are victims of domestic violence” lead us – through our deeply ingrained perceptions – to jump to the assumption that all these women must be victims of male perpetrators, but this isn’t the case at all. If one looks at perpetrators rather than at victims, the figures are surprising. Although ManKind note that “the number of women convicted of perpetrating domestic abuse has more than quadrupled in the past ten years from 806 to 5,641 (actually that’s a factor of 7, not 4), they do not provide figures for perpetrators by gender.

    According to the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project (PASK), which aims to present the most accurate and up-to-date statistics on partner abuse, 21.6% of men are perpetrators over a lifetime, and 28.3% of women.

    No abuse by partners of either gender is acceptable, but these figures are important if we are properly to understand this issue and thereby tackle it. The common belief that it is only men who are perpetrators has long prevented understanding. This has led to initiatives like the Duluth model to curb partner abuse which have failed to be effective. The recognition that both genders can be abusive is far more likely to lead to successful intervention.

  • Peter L

    Who wrote this article?

    • insideMAN

      The text for this post was adapted from the original YouTube entry here:

  • Groan

    I came across the politicisation of this issue in the 1990s. In helping an in law. The circumstance being put briefly was that his wife had a drug addiction problem. This manifested itself as abusive and violent behaviour to him and their child and his step child. Being a trained social worker I assisted and tried to support. Now having been trained in the 1980s I knew that the research said that DV/DA was frequently associated with addiction, financial and other family stresses and was frequently developed in a relationship “battle” in which no one gained. In other words it was like many social issues, complex and individual to the extent of the combinations of well known risk factors. Much to my horror I found the professionals applying rigidly one dimensional and determined to make the man the problem even though he’d approached services for help.
    Eventually the result was that his wife’s problem grew to the extent of crime and imprisonment where she finally got help with her addictions. He “got custody” of his son and step daughter. But of course this wasn’t what any of them had wanted. Relationships had by then been soured and the children couldn’t bear their mother and consequently any rebuilding of the couple and family was nigh on impossible. Yet early on preventing that was the goal.Years later one can still see the aftershocks in all the family members.
    My point being that the politicised “Duluth” model completely overrode the therapeutic understandings that were in the literature. Frankly I was ashamed of the members of my profession who were so unprofessional. This was my “Red Pill” experience , in this case how weak and prejudicial the training of “children’s” social workers was.
    I have seen the same decline in the response to young people and abusive relationships and now the response to older people as spouses often have to deal with partners with dementias.
    It is truly bizarre that something so one dimensional and obviously out of step with our understanding of human behaviours, motivations and dysfunctions is treated as if it has any explanatory value at all. Its as if programmes to “reform” homosexuals through religious teaching had become the immediate response to someone “coming out”. To me it is that bizarre.

    • insideMAN

      Thanks for another thoughtful and insightful comment Groan — always enlightening (and often harrowing) to hear how these abstract, intellectual issues manifest themselves on the ground. Dan

      • Groan

        Thank you Dan. For me this is the point. Inevitably its really hard to take each person or case completely individually. Inevitably one has to group things and build some common responses. At least now we have years of research and experience to do this sensitively in so many of the circumstances where people need their fellow citizens support. I am literally still ashamed of people who must know the damage they do and yet continue.

  • paul parmenter

    There is much that can be said about Prof. Hine’s excellent lecture, but can I focus on one point that struck me. This arises from the way that the term “violence” is applied to describe a wide range of events and activities that are often quite different in nature. I don’t want to get bogged down in semantics or definitions, but I think we need to distinguish between behaviour that involves physical force applied to the human body, and behaviour that may certainly be abusive, but does not involve the application of physical force to the human body.

    The reason I think this is important is that at the very least, behaviour that does not involve physical force will not kill you or land you in hospital; whereas physical force may well result in doing so. Also if a relationship between two people starts to turn sour, or an altercation or dispute arises between them, all the while it remains free of physical force there is at least a chance of resolution; and of course nobody is getting physically hurt. But once the first blow is struck, then the picture changes completely. No resolution becomes possible (unless you regard beating the other person senseless as a “resolution”) and somebody is going to get physically damaged; possibly very badly. And of course physical violence so easily begets reciprocal physical violence. We saw this in the excerpt from Hollyoaks where the two women were arguing. Once one of them hit out with a slap, the talking ended and the only possible outcome was physical pain and damage on one or both sides. So it is that act, the decision by one party to start lashing out physically, that marks a critical change. To me, it is the moment when you cease to be wobbling along the cliff top and actually crash over the edge.

    I am not involved in the domestic abuse industry, being only an outside observer; but I would hope that those seeking to end these patterns of abuse would recognise the key moment when one partner feels that the only way to “win” is to apply physical force.

    I am not decrying the seriousness of the other types of abuse, which I recognise can certainly be destructive in a number of ways; but I am asking that we recognise the use of physical force as being in a different and usually more dangerous category, and it is therefore important not to blur the distinction. Certainly I don’t see how it helps to treat financial control of someone, or trying to separate them from their friends, as being on some sort of par with punching them in the face or sticking a pair of scissors in their head.

    And if we do recognise this distinction, it might also help to put an end to the gendered nature of the orthodox narrative; because we all ought to be aware of how it is just as easily the female that will be aiming that first blow. I notice that abusive females seem to be lacking that inhibition against stepping over the line into violence, that is prevalent among the male sex.

    • Bora Bosna

      This is similar to the term “sexual assault”, which is a gigantic umbrella that contains everything from “unwanted staring” according to some US colleges to forced completed rape. By muddying the borders, feminists inflate the number of female victims. Since “violence” has now become a similar umbrella that contains “emotional violence” (whatever that is), and since we know that men are more likely to shout at women, female victims are inflated once again.

      • paul parmenter

        Do we know that men are more likely to shout at women? I am sure nobody compiles statistics, but just based on personal experience, I doubt it. However, I take your general point. If shouting at someone is deemed to be a form of abuse, then it will be women who will do the great majority of complaining that they are on the receiving end, and any help for “victims” that arises will be slanted heavily, if not entirely, in their direction.