Tim Lott: What about the violence men suffer?
We highlight one problem, while ignoring a much bigger one
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
One would surely have to be a monster to take exception to the government measure suggesting that children should be compulsorily taught in schools that domestic violence and sexual assault are wrong.
So why do I have this sense of unease about the whole thing? Firstly, I just can't get with the idea that my seven-year-old daughter should be taught about sexual assault. She's too young. And does a five-year-old really need to be "taught" that violence is wrong? If she (or he) sees one parent hit the other, wouldn't the natural reaction be revulsion and fear, even if his teacher hadn't previously informed him or her that it was the proper response to a social evil?
Likewise for the older children. Domestic violence is so self-evidently improper that moral lectures to a 15-year-old on the subject are superfluous. If some stupid thug thinks that slapping his girlfriend is acceptable, than I doubt that the imprecations of his teacher is going to make much difference.
Beyond these largely practical points, my unease stretches into the area of what I think of "moral bullying." What are schools for? They are about teaching children how to think, and most importantly, to think for themselves. To deliver moral lectures reeks of distasteful Victorian nannying.
The most powerful argument in favour of this programme would be that there are clearly people who believe "a bit of a slap" is somehow a routine and justifiable method of settling an argument. This is obviously unacceptable, as is the idea that sexual assault is just a bit of "rough sex", but I doubt that a teacher is going to be able to do much to convince any party that thinks otherwise.
But without in any way diminishing the seriousness of the issue, it may be that a mosquito is being swatted while an elephant runs rampant. The British Crime Survey records that the rate of domestic violence is about 0.4 per cent in the female population as a whole. Victimisation from violence among adult women generally is 2.1 per cent. Which is nasty and without any possible justification.
However, the chance of being a victim of violence for a 16-24 year old male is far higher – an extraordinary 13.2 per cent. As a young man you have a terrifying one in eight chance of being a victim of violent assault in a given year, as opposed to the less than one in 200 chance a woman suffers from being the victim of domestic assault.
Well those young lads put themselves in the position didn't they? They were asking for it, weren't they? Their body language was provocative, wasn't it? Do those arguments sound familiar at all? I would not wish – dare? – to argue against these lessons to inform children that domestic violence and sexual assault are bad things.
But perhaps it might be worthwhile during the "Why It Is Bad for People to Hurt One Another" double period, to deliver a few doubtless ineffectual words about the continuing and disgraceful casualisation and normalisation of violence among and towards young men – which arguably is a phenomenon that overflows seamlessly and poisonously into male/female relationships.
The violence of men against men is not necessarily a more serious problem than the violence of men against women. But it is a far bigger one. If this project of men learning not to hit or assault women is to be addressed in our schools, then it is surely worth wasting an equal amount of time rehearsing the injunction that men should not hit other men either.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis
I would like to add that women should not hit men.
Domestic violence of men hitting women is wrong, but so is women hitting men, & don't assume it doesn't happen, because it does. I am sure it is under reported because of the stigma of a man being shown to be weak!
the root cause of mostly male violence is to assert some masculinity, power and control over a situation and results in another person's humiliation or pain. this holds true for male on male or male on female violence. more outlets for young men to talk about their gender identity and a positive vision of masculinity and negotiate potential violent situations whether this is at school or home can only be beneficial.
When this violence against men by women is treated with the same severity as vice versa we might get somewhere.
With serial misandrists like Harriet Harman in the government introducing blatantly sexist anti-male legislation we need to fight back.
What I will say is that as the mother of both an amazing son and a wonderful daughter, I have no problem with a strategy that highlights the disproportionate levels of harm and violence that women and girls experience. No one at all is saying that violence against men and boys is acceptable (unless I missed that part of the strategy - yes I've read it, have you?), but what they are trying to point out, challenge and remedy is the fact that some types of violence are perpetrated against women to a disproportionate extent and are often condoned, excused or receive an inadequate response precisely because the victim of that violence is a woman.
In a time when sexual bullying and assualt in schools is increasing; UK rape conviction rates are the lowest in Europe; when statutory agencies are often reluctant to intervene in cases of female genital mutilation or forced marriage; when stalking is often dismissed as a minor irritation; domestic abuse and violence are still seen by many as a private matter that was probably provoked by a nagging woman; and many women fear to report rape because both society and statutory agencies treat them as though they are lying - you can google all of these issues and find reports and personal accounts that illustrate these points - I consider that a strategy to address these issues is timely, even overdue.
Many charities (NSPCC, Zero Tolerance to name two) have conducted research that points out the high numbers of young women (as young as 13) who have experienced violence from a male partner or boys they know and, most worryingly the fact that girls often internalise blame and are reluctant to challenge men and boys who abuse them. I don't understand this reluctance to ensure that these girls are safer.
Of course schools should be endorsing a credo of non-violence that applies to all, but to pretend that the particular types of violence that girls are most likely to experience are not excused by many social attitudes is to do our sons and daughters a deep disservice. Without some kind of context to inform their views and to support their actions, we won't equip our daughters to resist those (few) men who will abuse them and we won't allow our sons the strength to be the kind of men who stand up against their peers to challenge violence against women.
Addressing the types of views that challenge violence against women (in an age appropriate way) can only have an improving and reducing effect on the incidence of other types of violence. If we teach all of our children that they deserve respect, are not allowed to touch or hurt others inappropriately and that trying to control another person is an act of weakness and not one of strength, I think we will all benefit.
A final point, my 15 year-old son has just read this text over my shoulder. His comment? "I like it when you stand up for the right thing, Mummy." I feel a bit better now, some men (or nearly men) get it.
That so-called stringing together of so-called different types of violence is precisely the point, and is the point that the Govt's strategy is trying so hard to make. (Seriously, am I the only person who's read it???) Teaching about violence in schools is part of the Prevention strand of the strategy and is designed to address these issues early on in life in a way that supports better outcomes for women and girls in later life (not better than men, by the way, but better than they currently have).
I don't agree that attitudes that condone or facilitate female genital mutilation are vastly different from those that condone or excuse rape or stalking - it's just a different manifestation of the belief that it's acceptable to try to exert control over a woman whom you dislke, feel threatened by or whose behaviour you believe you have a right to control. Whether it is a comfortable idea or not, some attitudes support and faciliate violence against women - or those types of violence which women experience to a disproportionate extent. That is not supposition, it is fact. Both women and men experience domestic violence, but the ratio is 80:20. Clearly there are other issues at stake...? Not least the view that nagging can be so bad that it can merit or excuse a violent response. Even if that were true, in my view, nothing condones violence. At all, ever.
You make other points with which I disagree and which I find both sexist and horribly stereotypical and which, worryingly, seem to rely on your own supposition for their validity. I would be very interested to know the source of your assertion that stalkers are predominantly women or the supposition that "... a high percentage of those who "Stalk" where in fact the victims of bullying by girls at some part of their lives." Surely that wouldn't excuse such abhorent behaviour, even if it were true?
Finally, you have misunderstood me if you think that I'm not in favour of a broad view of social responsibility and that I do not support the idea of mutual respect and non-violence. I do. What leaves me cold is what appears to be others' need to minimise the violence that women experience by promoting a dismissive six of one, half a dozen of the other view that will continue to leave women and girls vulnerable to violence.
1. My points are not supposition - they are fact. Read research by the Home Office on attitudes to rape and sexual violence, work by Imkaan, work from ACPO on forces' inadequate responses to rape, the Sara Payne work published earlier this week, research from the NSPCC, Zero Tolerance, Amnesty, the BCS, work and information from Women's Aid - really the list goes on. I won't point you to specifics as my supposition is that you would be reluctant to give credence to research to which I direct you, you might even accuse me of selectively identifying resources for you to read. Google it, you'll find more than you can bear to read.
2. Read the strategy (see quote from the strategy in the post below). Among other things, it sets out very clearly the causal link between attitudes and incidence of violence. Anyone who believes that Govt, statutory and non-statutory agencies, the London Mayor's office et al. would produce or endorse violence against women strategies based on my supposition assumes that I have considerably more power than I can claim.
3. My Granny was a mine of pithy Midlands sayings, in this situation I think she would say, "There's none so blind as them that won't see."
"supporting the promotion of healthy relationships, gender equality and non-violence through work with children and young people in schools, and with adults, for example through parenting guidance and family support"
If people have a problem with that, then we really are in a hell of a lot of trouble.
Men also get attacked, but also young boys and the elderly. What do they want to tell these children? .. Hitting girls is wrong .. but hitting your grandad is A-OK? ... if you dad hits your mum, he's evil but if mum hits dad its fine?
I have been witness to domestic violence and I am not blind to what happens to many woman but I also believe in fairness and equality. This is not it.
Second point: Young men beating each other up on the streets is not domestic abuse, which is what these classes are about. And your figures are wrong. 1 in 4 women suffers domestic abuse. (amongst others, Amnesty International provides reliable statistics, but there is general consensus on the 1 in 4 figure. And you might want to note that 1 in 10 men suffer domestic abuse.)
Third point: Presumably in the "Why it is Bad for People to Hurt One Another" classes, violence towards ANYBODY from ANYBODY will be discouraged. I can't really imagine any teacher with a brain telling the class that it's bad if daddy hits mummy, but just fine for daddy to bottle someone in the street before he comes home. If the cycle of domestic violence can be stopped in the younger generations, not only will these young people not feel that it is acceptable to abuse their nearest and dearest, but they will also feel that abusing complete strangers is out of order as well.
Last point: Before belittling and complaining about a proposed scheme of education, perhaps you should consider not only looking at the actual lesson plans (as opposed to lesson titles) but getting details of such programmes from schools/organisations already providing such classes.