A podcast can also be accessed at http://eurekastreet.com.au/uploads/media/audio/13/38186.mp3
Domestic violence is a
crime in
which – overwhelmingly – the victims are women and the perpetrators are
men. A
recent 11-year summary of domestic violence trends in Victoria by the
Department of Justice found that nearly 80 per cent of victims were
female and
over 90 per cent of perpetrators were male
(http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/resources/cc44d0bd-cd54-42e1-a471-dfa54a9b8988/fvdb_1999_2000.pdf).
Yet lately it seems that there has been a subtle
shift in
community perception. Whenever the topic of domestic violence is raised
in the
media,
talkback
radio,
online comments and letters to the editor are suddenly flooded with
demands
that we acknowledge that men, too, are victims. According to a
VicHealth
report, one-fifth of the community now believes that men and women are
equal
perpetrators of violence in the home
(http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/Publications/Freedom-from-violence/Violence-against-women-in-Australia-research-summary.aspx).
The “battered husband” claim has flourished within
the
online space known as the “manosphere” where aggressive men’s rights
groups
blame women, and more specifically feminism, for everything gone wrong
with the
world – from high unemployment rates and shorter male lifespans, to
false rape
allegations and poor family court outcomes. The time has come, they
say, to
knock women off their pedestal.
Groups such as One in Three claim that as many as
50 per
cent of domestic violence victims are male, and that women are as
physically
aggressive – if not more so – than men. According to one men’s rights
group website,
feminists (or femo-nazis, to use the term preferred by many) “invent
fake
domestic violence” so that they can continue to control, dominate,
destroy and
extort from men. Males, says another site, are facing increased
hostility and
being portrayed as the perpetrators of “evil”.
There is no doubt, of course, that some victims of
domestic
violence are men. No one disagrees that this abuse is unacceptable and
unforgiveable, and that these men are equally deserving of resources
and support.
But to suggest that domestic violence is a gender-equal crime is a
plainly
incorrect and dangerous argument that benefits neither men nor women.
Just as climate change denialists cherry pick
studies with dubious
methodology, so too do these men’s rights groups. The studies they cite
have been repeatedly refuted for their highly controversial approach
that does
not differentiate between the type and context of violent acts (for
example,
between a push in self-defence and a push down the stairs, or between a
single
act of retaliation and years of ongoing abuse). This research has also
been
criticised for interviewing only one partner in the relationship and
for
ignoring post-separation abuse, which accounts for a very large
percentage of
intimate partner violence. And of course it blatantly contradicts the
vast
majority of studies on the topic, such as the ABS report
(http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/056A404DAA576AE6CA2571D00080E985/$File/49060_2005%20(reissue).pdf)
that showed that less than five per cent of men who experienced
violence in a
12-month period were assaulted by a female partner or ex-partner.
Men’s rights groups claim, however, that such
statistics
are meaningless because males are less likely to report domestic
violence. A
study by the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse
(http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Men_as_Victims.pdf)
directly addressed this concern, stating that “the evidence is that men
tend to
over-estimate their partner’s violence while women under-estimate their
partner’s violence by normalising or excusing it … men upgraded women’s
violent
behaviour while women discounted or downplayed their male partner’s
violence”.
Furthermore, research
(http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/resources/cc44d0bd-cd54-42e1-a471-dfa54a9b8988/fvdb_1999_2000.pdf)
consistently shows that “men’s violence is six times more likely to
inflict severe
injury and is more humiliating, coercive and controlling. Women’s
violence is
more likely to be expressive in response to frustration and stress
rather than
purposeful with the intention to control and dominate.”
Danny Blay, Executive Director of No to Violence,
explains
that the arguments used by men’s rights groups “seem appealing and
credible
because they simplify something that is actually quite complex. But
they’ve
fudged the numbers dramatically. The thing about this issue is that it
is quite
personally affecting. When you hear figures like one in three women
will
experience family violence at some in their lives, you immediately
start
reflecting on your mother, your sister, your relationships and it’s a
hard
place to be. It’s much easier to say, ‘it’s not men’s responsibility,
it’s
equally women’s fault’.”
The misrepresentation of domestic violence as
gender-neutral
is dangerous for a number of reasons. Firstly, this “what about men?”
campaign
wastes precious air time and column space that Blay believes would be
better
spent “having real conversations about family violence – examining the
figures,
exposing the myths and getting the stories out from behind closed
doors”.
Secondly, it raises suspicion about all domestic
violence
claims by suggesting that women routinely exaggerate or invent abuse.
But finally, and perhaps most dangerously of all,
the claims
of men’s rights groups downplay the amount and impact of domestic
violence on
women. By characterising violence as mutual or a two-way street, they
trivialise the ongoing, severe and sometimes fatal nature of domestic
violence.
A compelling reminder of its devastating effects can be seen in the
recent report
of the Victorian Systemic Review of Family Violence Deaths
(http://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/resources/54bbc2f9-bb23-45c0-9672-16c6bd1a0e0f/vsrfvd+first+report+-+final+version.pdf).
It found that over half of all homicides
in the state occurred within the context of family violence. Of
intimate
partner homicides, females accounted for more than three-quarters of
the fatalities;
in just under half of the cases where the deceased was male, a history
of
family violence was established which identified the deceased as the
perpetrator of that violence.
Men’s rights groups are using domestic violence
victims as
pawns in a larger game that seems to be less about protecting males
(and females)
from abuse, and more about discrediting women and promoting other
ideological ideas.
Crime statistics show that men are at most risk of
serious
injury and violence not from women, but at the hands of other men
(http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Flood,%20Husband%20Battering_0.pdf).
If men’s rights groups cared about male victims, they’d also be
addressing
male-male violence. If they cared about all men, they’d be advocating
for the
most marginalised in our society, including gay men, Indigenous men and
refugees. And if they really cared about putting an end to domestic
violence,
they'd advocate for egalitarian relationships and examine concepts of
manhood
in which violence is seen as acceptable and seeking help is shameful.
According to Blay, to truly address domestic
violence it’s
time for “the much bigger and more difficult conversation about what
modern
masculinity means. We need to look at how we socialise young men and
look at
how violence is not just sanctioned in our society, but is celebrated.
It’s
time to examine the narrative that says that being bloke means you can
be
violent.”
