Domestic Violence Advert
This advertisement featuring Keira Knightley has been banned in the UK as it is “too violent”. Madness they allow all sorts of violence in the TV shows, but won’t allow an ad that shows domestic violence.
It is a good ad – shows the brutality. And the end scene make me think of a certain recent case in NZ!
Hat Tip: Frog Blog
1 Total TweetBacks: (Tweet this post)
Tags: Advertisements, domestic violence, Keira Knightley, You Tube
April 28th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
They didn’t show the guy’s face. Couldn’t tell if it was Tony or Chris Brown.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Perhaps the brits are out growing anti-male propaganda which is what it is.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Particularly dedicated anti-male propaganda, what with two women being killed a week to maintain it.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
So what was the trigger? She was sleeping around? Doing drugs? Who knows. Should have had her beaten up by a sandwich, that would explain her reluctance to eat healthily.
By the time governments start wasting money on mega-dollar actresses in their ads they’re admitting the problem is well and truely out of control. Or maybe not out of control, maybe they just have a feminist agenda. So many possibilities within UK politics. Are there others in the series? Maybe have Simon Pegg beaten up by Helen Mirren.
Back here in NZ all the ads of people driving off the road and drowning in the rain or burning in a fire while stuck in the seat did nothing to stop drunk driving, in fact incidences increased. So tell me again what this type of money pit solves?
April 28th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
There’s a good chance Knight did it for free for the charity.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
The trigger – he was jealous of the leading man she was working with
The money – yes, probably free in light of hat happened to one of her family members
Out of control – definitely, if two women are dieing a week from it
Feminist agenda – I doubt that two men die in a year from domestic violence
Incidences of drunk driving increased – compared to what would have happened without the ads over the last 12 years?
April 28th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
And so it should be bloody well banned!
The message they are trying to get across is that ALL men are violent and that ALL men fly into these violent rages for no apparent reason.
I have no time for men who “Vietch” women, IMHO they are spineless gutless wankers, however I have even less time for the feminist maggots who think that the worst crime anybody could commit is being born with a Penis.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
What the fuck is the gummint putting out this shit for?
I do not elect politicians to insult me, or to insult my intelligence, or to scold me like some fucken demented school teacher, or to even worry about disgusting propaganda like this.
This public good advertising has to stop. All it does is line the pockets of advertising executives and TV executives and their cronies in the public service. This is corrupt and unnecessary.
Just give me back the tax you wasted on this you self serving shiny arsed stealing amoral lying cheating socialist arseholes, or fuck off out of parliament. Fucken fascists.
Edit- and especially after you have conspired to produce the social circumstances whereby this kind of event thrives. Fucken hypocrites.
[DPF: It is a UK advertisement, not NZ]
April 28th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Redbaiter, at least you and I agree that there is no free will.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
BTW, for those confused about why I’m still attacking socialism when Labour is gone, its because even with National in power, we’re still governed by lame arsed socialists. The degree of over-bearing government may be just the sightest bit less, but fuck all to make any real difference. Not enough difference for me anyway. National just do not get it.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Feminist agenda – I doubt that two men die in a year from domestic violence
Men can’t die from domestic violence Ryan, by definition domestic violence is perpetrated by a male against a female.
This of course is not domestic violence
Nothing to see here folks, move along
April 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
[DPF: It is a UK advertisement, not NZ]
OK, fair enuff, I thought you were saying it had its origins there but was now being shown in NZ. My incorrect assumption.
That aside, I earnestly hope that someone in National has the damn balls and the damn sense to stop all of this stuff.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I wasn’t the one who mentioned men dying from domestic abuse.
I was the one who said it was a pretty dedicated propaganda campaign that kills two women a week to maintain its claims.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“Redbaiter, at least you and I agree that there is no free will.”
I dunno about that. Even sheep have free will. It is the exercise of that will that is the issue.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
You suggested that socialist policies had caused violent and abusive behaviour.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Is that an average or did it just recently happen?
April 28th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
First of all, I don’t support government funding of anything that is not directly related to law, order, justice or defence.
However those of you who think that domestic violence does not work the way the ad portrays it are naive fools.
Yes sometimes domestic violence is the result of a two way esculation.
Yes it is not always as violent as the ad portrays.
Yes women engage in it to, probably more than men do.
Yes sometimes it is just an isolated incident and not worth ending a relationship over.
BUT
Soetimes it is precisely the way it is depicted in that ad. If you think sick bastards like that do not exist you just blow my mind.
Sometimes it is that violent or worse.
While women might engage in the act more often, when men do it they are more likely to be more violent so the men take out the worst abuse aware and the women take the most frequent. Does that even things out? Can we all ignore it now? It is still wrong no matter who is doing it.
If the ad is privately funded then I have no issue with it being screened. However, the solution to this problem is for violent offenders to be slammed by law.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“You suggested that socialist policies had caused violent and abusive behaviour.”
I do more than suggest it. I have for a long time on here asserted quite strongly that one of the primary outcomes of socialism is an amoral and violent society.
However free will still exists, it is merely overshadowed by the propaganda fed concept that one must conform to socialist doctrine, or one cannot expect to be welcomed into their society.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I expect it’s an average. It was put up in the propaganda ad at the end of the propaganda. Could be a lie, you reckon?
April 28th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
“What’s that nice girl doing on the TV there, Earl?”
“I don’t know, Sally, I think it’s a cinema trailer.”
“Wasn’t she in the movie we saw on our anniversary?”
“Oh, yes, I believe she was.”
“What’s that one about, then?”
“Looks like she dies in this one.”
“Oh, she died in the last one too.”
“Do you want your tea in there, Earl?”
…and another case of domestic violence in North London is stamped out before it catches fire. Meanwhile, down at the Frog and Casket, Kazza and Dimples come face to face with some angry chavs…
April 28th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
But can’t people use their free will to choose to be moral and non-violent?
April 28th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Ah, I haven’t watched it. Well seeing as it’s propoganda, and government propaganda, and lefty government propaganda it’s probably a lie. If not a lie then teh feminazis have obviously started killing for their own nefarious purposes – again.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Come on Ryan, this doesn’t sound like you. Has the liberal life finally lost it’s shine?
April 28th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
It is the exercise of that will that is the issue
Chemicals in your brain made you say that.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
This ad had to be banned, a kicking like that would very likely be fatal and there’s no way anyone would allow that to be screened on the telly.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
So when are we going to see the adverts for anti verbal abuse. Oh I forgot Verbal abuse only causes internal injury just like mental illness does and we dont acknowledge that either.
Lets see some balance wouldnt that be a novelty.
No excusing the physical abuse buts lets cut the 2 faced attitude.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Am I usually more precise?
It’s not really essential to what I’m saying, so I’m hardly going to get bogged down in precisely how many women are being killed in order to provide back-up for this “anti-male propaganda” campaign. It’s like suggesting that drunk-driving ads are an anti-car campaign. You’d have to believe that no one dies in alcohol-related car accidents to take it seriously.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
To be more correct, Danyl, chemicals in his brain said that.
To be more correct again, chemicals in general said that.
To further the precision:
That was said.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
You don’t remember NZ’s “Do I have a sign on my head that says I’m fucking invisible? Do I? DO I?!” anti-verbal-abuse campaign? It was in the ’90s.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I propose a new offence Female on Male verbal abuse causing mental injury.
Bet the feminazis will love that if it became law
April 28th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
ryan the antis just smile smugly at those adverts
You see it doesnt fit their agendas
April 28th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
The anti-whats?
April 28th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
It’s only anti-male if you think that veitching your partner is an inherent part of being a male.
Even if a majority of serious assaults in the home were perpetrated by women (talk to any police officer who does active duty and they’ll disagree), this would still be a worthwhile ad, because anything that reduces the amount of violence in the home is a good thing.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
What about a TV series made with tax payer money called “Killing Brenda”
The story would be based around a dead beat wife who constantly nagged her husband until he snapped and killed her by bashing her in the back of the head with a garden spade.
The husband along with a couple of mates could then bury her in the back yard, the series would then detail the “hilarious” ways the husband and his mates evaded the police and avoided capture.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
It’s like suggesting that drunk-driving ads are an anti-car campaign. You’d have to believe that no one dies in alcohol-related car accidents to take it seriously.
Lesbians HATE cars!
April 28th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Ryan the feminazi who believe all men are rapists and bashers and indulge in verbal abuse knowing they can get away with it.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
That’s a pretty good point, Big Bruv.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
big bruv How dare you even suggest that That could never ever…………………………….. oh dear.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
You don’t find it disrespectful to the victims of the Nazi regime to throw those syllables around willy-nilly?
And by “getting away with it”, you mean not getting physically hit as a consequence?
April 28th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
What’s new, during the past decades the media have often presented men as potential rapists, unable to resolve conflict without violence and marriage as warfare. But no, this country thinks – Once Were Warriors movie and Jake the Muss are so cool bro. Talk about violent movie bro!~! Ironic, that we applaud Maori domestic violence eh bro. Pin on your white ribbon Mr. Brown and spew your hateful propaganda! Expect much the same from the wimps in National.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“Lesbians HATE cars!”
Because the gear stick reminds them of a male penis.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Can’t agree with you here DPF. I think domestic violence is extremely serious but I cannot imagine how the screening of domestic violence can make the world a better place? In my opinion TV has got uglier since the government has decided to socialise its citizens by telling them what to do every 10 or 15 minutes. Don’t drink and drive, watch out for high ladders, don’t swing your children around and smash them against the wall, watch out for accidents in the home, make sure you have a cervical smear, as well as a mammogram, if you drink and drive you are a bloody idiot — the list goes on and on. So I think the screening of this type of advertisement will make the world an uglier place.
Secondly is it effective? Would I want my boys for example to see an advertisement like this? You see I don’t think the idea of doing this would even enter their heads. To me this just puts scary images into the minds of our citizens. It traumatises the more sensitive of our citizens and I wonder how much difference it will make to those actually doing the violence?
Sure let’s do something about domestic violence. Bring back marriage and stop living together would be a start. Living together is positively associated with domestic violence. People living with partners are much more likely to abuse their partners than people who are married. Living together is also characterised by instability, people who live together act more like single people — they behave less responsibly on average and again on average are more likely to cheat on their partners. So there’s my proposal. Help stop domestic violence — consider marriage rather than living together.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Living together is positively associated with domestic violence. People living with partners are much more likely to abuse their partners than people who are married.
And your proof for this is?
April 28th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
And Nu labour wonder why the British Nationalist Party is the fastest growing political party in the United Kingdom.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
If you know for absolute certain that some bloke is bashing his missus and/or kids, get a bunch of you together and go round there and kick the living shit out of the coward. I have seen this treatment work very effectively on three occaisions. No more beatings were dished out.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Agree with you Murray M – nothing like a bit of violence to prevent violence and show the violent the error of their ways.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Now how do i get negative Karma for stating a fact? too many pinkos not willing to realize the fruits of their folly?
Murry M, i dealt to an individual who thought it a good idea to beat his wife in my presence, put an iron welding bar around his head, got charged with grievous bodily harm while he was allowed to walk free, so i wouldn’t say it is a good idea.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“Now how do i get negative Karma for stating a fact? ”
BL – the pinkos are twisted slimy cowards and they can only put in a shitty thumb down. They are timid keyboard filth. Face to face they would run a mile.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Murray M
Funny you should say that, many years ago I worked with a thug who used to be proud of the odd “hiding” he dished out to his wife, according to him she deserved it.
Not long after I learnt of this we had a couple of new chaps start, it turned out that one of the new chaps wife was a very close friend of the poor lady who received these “hidings”.
One day the thug was found in an alley that ran down the side of our workplace with a broken jaw and a broken leg, we never did find out how he came to be injured as he told the ambulance driver and the police that he “fell over”, not long after he resigned, I am reliably informed that he never again touched his wife.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Radical feminists believe that men are always at fault for domestic violence, the KBR believe that women are always at fault for domestic violence.
Snore, nothing new here.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
racer show me where I said a good word about Vietchy. Studies from Otago and Canterbury Uni’s show both genders are equal in numbers as the guilty party to DV. Actually mothers seem to be the largest guilty group represented in the child abuse statistics. Man that will get the feminazi’s in a hissy fit. Fact gals! Go Hand Mirror gals, give em thumbs down.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Redbaiter said;
“[DPF: It is a UK advertisement, not NZ]
OK, fair enuff, I thought you were saying it had its origins there but was now being shown in NZ. My incorrect assumption.
That aside, I earnestly hope that someone in National has the damn balls and the damn sense to stop all of this stuff.”
It would have been a good idea to look at the ad, then you could have avoided displaying your ignorance.
It was produced by a British charity called Women’s Aid. It’s seeking donations. You seem to be calling for National to impose nanny state controls on private charities.
Ryan Sproull said
“There’s a good chance Knight did it for free for the charity.”
Indeed, from their website
“CUT – the movie THANK YOU!
The making of this film would not have been possible without the generous support and commitment of the following people. Many thanks from Women’s Aid for giving your time, skills and dedication to this project:
Grey London
Joe Wright
Keira Knightley
Dominic Delaney
Elliot Cowan
Tony Briggs”
etc etc
Donations of time and facilities to such causes is not uncommon in the film industry.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
the film is crap,
grossly emotional artistic violence
and of course all violence is perpetrated by men not,
a violent woman is a dangerous thing dudes,
April 28th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
William2 – why doesnt she just leave him – does she need a sick ad to tell her?
If I was in the UK why should I have that crap rammed down my throat?
April 28th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
” You seem to be calling for National to impose nanny state controls on private charities.”
I’m not actually as anyone not trying so hard to be clever would recognise. I did make a mistake in assuming the ad was government funded however even tho the makers donated their services for free, Woman’s Aid itself does seem to be a quasi-government agency that gets at least some of its funding from the taxpayer. Here’s one example-
————————
Devon County Council funding is helping North Devon Women’s Aid refurbish and extend their main offices to improve the support they provide victims of domestic violence and their families. The County Council has given £30,000 to the service, and the Council’s Leader, Cllr Brian Greenslade, will be visiting the Women’s Aid centre in Barnstaple on Friday 17 April, at 4pm, to meet victims and see how the improvement works are progressing.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Just more shock, horror, don’t think, shallow emotional response seeking crap.
Domestic violence bad.
Me male, need be told what do all time.
The idiots doing this already know its wrong, all this add would do is subltely guilt the vast majority of men that treat their wives with respect.
It is a thinly veiled attempt to make ALL men responsible for domestic violence and it is not acceptable, I am not responsible for some thug who beats his wife.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Um, watch any episode of CSI or whatever other crime drama is screening these days. You’ll see people being brutally and explicitly killed in front of you most nights of the week.
April 28th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“Um, watch any episode of CSI or whatever other crime drama is screening these days. You’ll see people being brutally and explicitly killed in front of you most nights of the week.”
Yeah, and thats why punk teenagers (male and female) start hundreds of drunken fights every friday night with the resultant casualties. People watch the impossible to survive violence on tv, and think the human head is as tough as a soccer ball.
Showing more of the same won’t help anyone.
April 28th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“You’ll see people being brutally and explicitly killed in front of you most nights of the week.”
Gee George, You know this because? – maybe they should run a telly ad against those naughty people as well?
The point is most victims of CSI type crime don’t live with the perpetrators as a matter of choice .
If you don’t want to be a victim of domestic violence – Just leave. Running graphic TV ads just make people more desensitised to that type of behaviour
April 28th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Have you all seen the follow up ad. It turns out the guy is a celebrity and he pays for her medical care after the beating. He then walks free and expects his old high profile celebrity job and lifestyle back.
It’s a weird story really, would never happen like that in real life eh……
April 28th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
For a second I laughed cause even though I knew it wasn’t I thought it was a parody on that well known NZ court case.
Bad Littlebluedroid
April 28th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Domestic violence is a blight on our society. It destroys families, and broken families are a major cause of crime and other social problems. So I support any initiative that raises awareness of the issues.
The fact that the vast majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men on women should be enough to explain why most ads like these protray women as victims. I don’t see any feminist agenda here. Mind you, I don’t tend to look for evil feminist agendas everywhere…
April 28th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Hi there Myname is Jack. In response to you asking for proof of my statement- “Living together is positively associated with domestic violence. People living with partners are much more likely to abuse their partners than people who are married. ”
I offer this link – http://www.jennifer-roback-morse.com/articles/cohab_fast_facts.html
The benefits of marriage are well researched and reliable. Outside of the world of Steve Maharey and others of the hard left we need to get a grip on what is now pretty reliable data on the good of marriage and the incredible downside of living together.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Scott
Interesting correlation, now all we need to do is find the causal factor that makes people co-habitate rather than marry and then we are getting somewhere.
As interesting as this is it’s a bit like saying that people who drive aggressively are more likely to be involved in road rage incidents. Sure great – but why did they drive aggressively in the first place.
Please don’t take me the wrong way, I’m not undermining the research or the conclusions, this information should be widely known (and probably is in an anecdotal sense) by law enforcement and justice agencies. It backs up the words I once heard a cop utter… ‘It’s always the stepfather’ !
April 29th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Scott, the article you link to doesn’t prove anything – it is an opinion piece that talks about research but doesn’t specify what that research is. I’d be inclined not to rely on it. I don’t buy into the argument that marriage (rather than mere cohabitation)reduces the risk of domestic violence, but if you have actual evidence I’m happy to reconsider my view.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:03 am
SBY, can you support your statement with any proper scientific evidence. By that I do not mean police figures? There is plenty of evidence in New Zealand and overseas which show that spousal violence is initiated equally by men and women.
In regards the links between marriage and child abuse one just needs to read the newspaper to see the marital status of where the partner of the mother kills her child. While there are many very good step parents it would seem self evident that someone who cares enough to commit for life to a woman is less likely to harm her child. The same applies to physical and sexual abuse.
As I pointed out in an earlier thread children often set out to destroy their mother’s relationship. This can also be the case when the mother remarries but is less likely.
The chance of child abuse by a partner in as long term de facto relationship would no doubt be a lot less than a short term one. However, if one compared a one year marriage with a one year de facto relationship it should be obvious that the risk of abuse would be higher in the latter case.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Patrick Starr wrote
“William2 – why doesnt she just leave him – does she need a sick ad to tell her?
If I was in the UK why should I have that crap rammed down my throat?”
The ad is not telling anyone to do anything. It is a fundraising campaign. It seeks donors to pledge regular payments.
If you were in the UK you could use the on/off button, like you presumably do with everything else you don’t wish to watch.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Regular payments to a charity that provides support and housing to people who do “just leave him”.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Redbaiter wrote
“” You seem to be calling for National to impose nanny state controls on private charities.”
I’m not actually as anyone not trying so hard to be clever would recognise. I did make a mistake in assuming the ad was government funded however even tho the makers donated their services for free, Woman’s Aid itself does seem to be a quasi-government agency that gets at least some of its funding from the taxpayer. Here’s one example-”
snip
It would be sensible if you tried harder to be clever by actually watching the clip before making comments. Even after dpf corrected one error you went off making another.
In 2005 the English national body of Women’s Aid got about 38% of its funding from taxpayer funds. Should that mean the Govt can control how they get the rest of their income? That surely would be heavy handed state control.
Last year in NZ The Salvation received 61% of their income from the Govt, I don’t think that makes them a quasi -goverment church.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Chuck Bird, I wouldn’t be so quick to discount police figures. And as for the evidence you refer to about spousal violence being initiated equally by man and woman, what is this evidence? Because in the absence of such evidence I simply cannot believe it. And when you say violence, do you mean hitting?
April 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Hi SBY,
In terms of evidence that cohabitating couples are more violent than married couples one just needs to google it. But here is another link-
http://www.allbusiness.com/human_resources/3482861-1.html
The benefits of marriage I would think to be self evident. But they are also well established in scientific research.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:40 am
SBY, the following is one study from New Zealand. Some critics point out that the survey only involved young people. However, there have been many studies overseas such as Straus and Gelles. Those who have the unshakable belief the men initiate most of the domestic violence will be able to find flaws in any study. However, random studies are much more reliable than police stats.
There a number of reasons why police stats do not reflect the true picture. The main reason is that many of the female initiated acts of violence are not in the stats. This is because men often do not complain to the police and when they do the police do not take their complaints seriously.
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2006/08-02-06_press_release.html
Domestic Violence and Mental Health
08 February 2006
Latest research from the long-running Christchurch Health and Development Study (CHDS) at the University of Otago’s Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, calls into question conventional thinking about domestic violence between partners, and its effects on mental health.
This study by Professor David Fergusson, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, surveyed 828 males and females at 25 years regarding violence between partners and the impact on mental health. The violence recorded ranged from psychological abuse to serious physical attack.
“In broad terms the results provide a challenge to the dominant view that domestic violence is a ‘women’s issue’, and that it arises predominantly from assaults by males against females,” says Prof. Fergusson.
“In fact, what our findings suggest is that amongst young adults, men and women are equally violent towards partners, in terms of the range of acts of domestic violence examined in this study.”
The research shows the range of violence committed by men and women is similar, and that both men and women engage in serious physical attacks on their partners. The consequences of this domestic violence in terms of injury and psychological effects are also similar for both sexes.
The findings confirm other overseas studies that violent partnerships are more likely to be associated with psychosocial problems relating to childhood adversity, mental health disorders and other life course difficulties.
“Domestic violence tends to occur in those relationships which have a wider psychosocial history of disadvantage and difficulty,” says Professor Fergusson.
The research shows that domestic violence also has an impact on the mental health of those involved, even when other background factors, which might result in mental problems, are taken into account. With increasing exposure to violence there is a greater likelihood of mental health problems developing in both men and women.
Disorders such as depression, anxiety and suicide are between 1.5 and 11.9 times higher in those people who experience domestic violence than those who don’t.
However, Professor Fergusson says this study suggests the need for a broadening of analysis of domestic violence away from focussing on male perpetrators and female victims, to examining violent couples who use aggression in their relationship.
“This points to family policies that encourage couples to work together to harmonise their relationships and to overcome the collective adversities they face.”
Professor Fergusson says we need to understand why studies of community samples such as the CHDS usually show an absence of gender differences in domestic violence, whereas other sources dealing with severe violence, such as Women’s Refuge or police complaints, report a predominance of male perpetrators. “The best way of doing this is to study a large sample to examine the frequency of common couple violence involving mutual assaults and the frequency of more severe forms of domestic violence,” he says. This study only applies to young people, and domestic violence tends to decrease with age.
The research was funded by the Health Research Council, the National Child Health Research Foundation, the Canterbury Medical Research Foundation and the Lottery Grants Board.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Scott, thanks for the link. I haven’t got time today to read all of the article you linked to (as I should be working), although it is quite interesting. It does, however, indicate that the matter might be more complex than simply marriage = good, co-habitation = bad.
For example, take this part of the report:
“The “creaming off into marriage of the “best” cohabiting relationships will tend to lower the average quality of cohabiting unions relative to marital unions in the population. Smock and Manning (1997) found that cohabiting couples were more likely to marry if the man had higher earnings, higher education, and full-time employment-all of which are negatively associated with intimate-partner violence. More directly, DeMaris (2001) found that violence by the female partner was associated with a reduced likelihood of marriage. These findings suggest that more-violent couples may tend to accumulate in the cohabiting population.”
So people who have better prospects (e.g. educational, employment, higher earnings) are more likely to get married. We know that crime and domestic violence statistics generally over-represent the poor and the the poorly educated. Those people are less likely to get married.
So this article would suggest that co-habitation (as opposed to marriage) is not a causal factor in higher rates of violence.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Chuck Bird, the methodology used in the Otago study you refer to has been called into question. Below is a link to a factsheet about the flaws in the mehodology. The factsheet also includes some damning statistics about male on female violence.
http://www.nzfvc.org.nz/PublicationDetails.aspx?publication=14144
We all know some women hit men, but the evidence shows that male on female violence is much more prevalent.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
SBY I am not sure you are going to be convinced anytime soon by any amount of evidence.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
SBY, I have read the opinions masquerading as facts from such organisations before. I have put a source with a couple of tables below that show the facts. The facts are clear. Women initiate violence as often as men do.
The claims by the government funded group you referenced make wild claims and use such terms as research shows without showing the research. For example
Retaliatory like when Gaye Oakes murdered her partner, Doug Gardiner. It was easy to claim she was abused after she murdered him.
People tend to what to make excuses for women’s violence yet expect men to be held fully accountable.
Another quote
That may be the case of minor violence that a man is able to block but I doubt if many men would find a solid punch in the eye humorous or a glass that hits them with force in the head.
These apologists for female violence are actually putting women at risk. There are many men some on this blog who have been conditioned from very young that there is no excuse to hit a woman even in self defence. Some women are prepared to exploit this.
These men are able to fend off some blows from a woman especially if they are very much bigger. However, it does not matter how big anyone is if a glass hits you on the head it hurts. These men who think they can just restrain the little woman can easily lose control as the assaults get worse.
If female violence against a man was treated more seriously by authorities there may be fewer women hurt. That of course will not protect a woman against a bully who does not need any provocation to be violent. In these cases a woman should walk away. At least a woman is able to do so unlike children.
Young children have no defence; they cannot run away, cannot defend themselves and sometimes cannot tell anyone. Children are where the focus should be in domestic violence. There would not be the votes there that there is in portraying women as victims and men as perpetrators.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/VB2%20Societal%20Change%20and%20Change%20in%20fam%20viol.pdf
470 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
TABLE 2. 14,uuTAI. VIOLENCE INDEXES: COMPARISON OF 1975 AND 1985
Violence Index Rate per 1,000 Couples
t for 1975-1985
1975 1985 Difference
A. Husband-to-Wife
Overall Violence (1-6) 121 113 0.91
Severe Violence (4-8) 38 30 1.60
(“wife beating”)
B. Wife-to-Husband
Overall Violence (1-6) 116 121 0.57
Severe Violence (4-8) 46 44 0.35
C. Couple
Overall Violence (1-6) 160 158 0.20
Severe Violence (4-8) 61 58 0.46
Number of cases 2,143 3,520
TABLE 3. MARITAL VIOLENCE: COMPARISON OF SPECIFIC Acrs, 1975-1985
Husband-to-Wife Wife-to-Husband
Type of Violence 1975 1985 1975 1985
A. Minor Violence Acts
1. Threw something 28 28 52 43
2. Pushed/grabbed/shoved 107 93 83 89
3. Slapped 51 29 46 41
B. Severe Violence Acts
4. Kicked/bit/hit with fist 24 15 31 24
5. Hit, tried to hit with something 22 17 30 30
6. Beat up 11 8 6 4
7. Threatened with gun or knife 4 4 6 6
8. Used gun or knife 3 2 2 2
Number of casesa 2,143 3,520 2,143 3,520
April 29th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Unfortunately, I was not able to post the tables so that they are easily readable. Does anyone know if this can be done?
April 29th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Scott, if you are going to make a statement about the benefits of marriage and then link to a study that doesn’t prove the benefits of marriage, is it any surprise that I remain unconvinced?
Chuck Bird, you said “People tend to what to make excuses for women’s violence yet expect men to be held fully accountable.”
I’m not sure who you mean by “people”. Most people I know would consider any instance of domestic violence unacceptable, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.
Also, the document I linked to had extensive footnotes and citations. I don’t think it can be dismissed as easily as you would like.
You also said “There are many men some on this blog who have been conditioned from very young that there is no excuse to hit a woman even in self defence. Some women are prepared to exploit this.” I’m not sure what your point is, although you seem to be suggesting that maybe it is okay in some circumstances for a man to hit a woman. What are those circumstances? In self defence? Defence of others? When she’s been a bit lippy? Is it okay if the man lashes out because she’s been goading him? Your response might help me understand where you’re comng from.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
SBY I have linked to two articles now on this subject. I actually think it is a well evidenced point but suggest you sit on it as a hypothesis and watch the evidence come in. The subject of domestic violence is not going to go away and the benefit of a different approach to the feminist cabal that rules our thinking on these issues at present should not lightly be dismissed.
Scott out.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
SBY, I think “people” is self explanatory. It appears that you have not been long on this blog. Many people on this blog continually comment that it is never okay for a man to hit a woman. If they said there is no excuse for domestic violence I would agree. However, the comment it is never okay for a man to hit a woman has the clear implication that may be times that it is okay for a woman to hit a man.
I repeat the comment from the feminist research.
I can accept some violence on the part of a man or a woman to defend themselves but one has to be careful justifying violence as a form of retaliation. How long after the initial event is it justified?
Let us get the time sequence correct. You stated first stated
I challenged you to produce scientific evidence. You instead challenged me to produce the evidence. I did this twice. The fact that domestic violence is initiated about equally by men and woman is not in dispute. The feminist “researchers” that women’s violence is either in self defence or retaliatory whatever that means. They produce no evidence to support their claim. A footnote is not evidence. Someone could put their opinion down as a claim in another article.
The studies I quoted asked both men and women if they were the victim or perpetrator of domestic violence. The figures roughly added up. When feminist get involved in so called research they just ask women. The “Hitting Home Report” funded by Labour government just interviewed women. It was awarded the “Bent Spoon Award” by the New Zealand Skeptics. The New Zealand Skeptics are not anti-women but they are anti-shonky research.
The two groups that I quoted who did research on domestic violence did not have a political axe to grind. When Straus and Gelles did their original research they were surprised at the results. They were counter intuitive. They double checked to make sure they had not made an error.
Professor David Fergusson is a well respected researcher on many subjects. Violence was just one of the things he studied about a group of young people born in the year.
Compare this with the feminist who set out to “proof” that woman are good and men are bad.
In regards your question about what justification a man has for using violence in a relationship I would say just the same as a woman. Provocation is not an excuse but it can be a mitigating factor. Personally there are two things I would not accept in a relationship. One is infidelity and the other is violence. My advice to any man who was the victim of domestic violence would be to make it clear that it is unacceptable and if it is repeated the relationship will end. It would also be helpful for him to get prove.
My comment “There are many men some on this blog who have been conditioned from very young that there is no excuse to hit a woman even in self defense. Some women are prepared to exploit this.” means that if a woman believes that a man will not hit her back she if free to hit him without fear of retaliation. That is what I mean exploit. This can be dangerous. I am not taking about justification. Many if not most people will snap if provoked enough.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Chuck Bird, I think we’re at an impasse here. I just googled the subject and found plenty of reports that show male on female violence is more prevalent than female on male. There is also evidence from around the world that more women are murdered by their partners than vice versa.
I suspect you’d just google and find a whole pile of reports that show otherwise, so I didn’t bother linking to them. This is obviously a highly politicised issue, and I frankly don’t have the energy for the debate…
I do take issue with your argument that the research is all undertaken by feminists. Some of the research I found was from male researchers.
Anyway, let’s just agree to disagree on this one.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:40 am
SBY, I realised long ago that one seldom changes the view of those who one is arguing or debating with. However, the reason I blog to sway the view of others on the blog who do not have a fixed view on the issue whether it is AGW or gender issues.
I produced good research not just by googling but because I know the subject and read the research previously. The domestic abuse industry gets a lot of government funding worldwide just as the sexual abuse industry has and those pushing the AWG myth.
False sexual abuse claims in the 80’s seriously affected fathers for many years. The Telethon campaign in the NZ Herald featuring the picture of 4 baby girls with the caption “1 in 4 of these girls will be sexually abused by the time they are 18, half by their own fathers” did a lot of damage. It was claimed that these figurers were supported by research. This is now known to be rubbish.
The domestic abuse industry also does a lot of damage to fathers in the way it affects fathers in relation to custody and access. A Domestic Protection Order is based as much on how a woman feels as any violence she may have suffered.
I do not recall using the word “all”. However, I stand by my statement. The male researchers you refer to are also likely feminists. Just as there are white people who not only support reasonable Maori claims there are some who support the claims that the vast majority of the population reject including many Maori. Fortunately many women many of them older mothers of men reject the militant anti-male feminist propaganda.