Domestic violence on the school curriculum?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes, That one sided, but that's because of a cultural perception. However what you said what be objectionable if the women was portrayed as a victim and it was glorified. If they were righting and it was equal it wouldn't be outrageous.

The thing is there are some very reactionary people in the world (there's a few of them on CF) in which any mention of male-on-female violence is considered an outrage regardless of the circumstances but are noticeably silent when it's the reverse situation. Any objections to the status quo is considered to be a sympathetic vote for the violent male.

I won't ever deny that male on female domestic abuse is a major problem (my OH was in an abusive relationship for 10 years) but the way it is fronted in the media today you'd be forgiven for thinking it simply does not happen the other way around. Mention 'domestic abuse' to anyone and I'm sure the vast majority would think of the woman as the victim.

The media is happy with a "stupid male/smart woman" combination. If they think that's the way to redress the balance then it's a BIG mistake. Making women strong by physically fighting back against men makes them as worse as the violent men they are against.

Some interesting reading at http://physical-abuse.suite101.com/a...estic_violence

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I read that thank you, but I can not see any problem with it. Don't you think that it should be a priority to reduce domestic violence?

The quote does not say that violence against men should be ignored, but as a further link pointed out, women are disproportionately victims of domestic violence. Are you sure that your objection to this isn't just because it is Harriet Harman who is saying this?

As usual for Harman and this government, the quote ignores any mention of violence against men and if nothing else therefore trivialises the issue and makes it even harder for those male victims of it. If the idea here was an even handed stance against abuse, which would be a very worthy cause, then it's clearly a poor attempt. If the intention of HMG is to acknowledge that men are also vicitms of abuse show me some evidence and tangible measures they've implemented which recognise that fact and provides resources for men in that situation. Why should the fact that women represent the largest group of victms of DA preclude any other group from a the same level of acknowledgement, protection and services? It strikes me as highly ironic that a government which has show itself to be so fixated by minorities and equality that they can at the same time be so prejudiced against a particular minority group - abused men.

Originally Posted by Russ

The thing is there are some very reactionary people in the world (there's a few of them on CF) in which any mention of male-on-female violence is considered an outrage regardless of the circumstances but are noticeably silent when it's the reverse situation. Any objections to the status quo is considered to be a sympathetic vote for the violent male.

Yes. I was careful to make it clear in my post that I obviously am not sympathetic to the perpetrators of such violence for that reason. Just that as long as the sides are equal, then it's no worse than any other type of violence in the media. You hit someone in real life, it's shouldn't matter the sex. Obviously in a relationship it's even worse because there is a sense of being trapped there. Real life Violence = Never Justified.

The media is happy with a "stupid male/smart woman" combination. If they think that's the way to redress the balance then it's a BIG mistake. Making women strong by physically fighting back against men makes them as worse as the violent men they are against.

I don't think it's 'dressing the balance' but it is a popular theme to have strong women beating up (equally) strong men and I don't really have a problem with that anymore than men beating up men.

[Jules]

Should schools deal with this? I don't know to be honest I do know I went through it and some how made it out the other side, I also know that it can not be one sided as men sadly do get abused by women and need help also.

*sigh* more political correctness.

No wonder so many pupils these days have no qualifications, more and more of the school week is wasted on useless lessons like this instead of the basic requirements (reading, maths etc).

How about spending the £13 million or more on repairing the schools that are falling to bits.

[Osem]

Here are some figures pertaining to male victims of domestic violence:

http://www.mankind.org.uk/PDFs/Key%2...2009_final.pdf

(1) One in five (20%) men have experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16 and this equates to 3.2 million men

Three in ten (30.2%) women have experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16 and this equates to 4.8 million women.
(2) Men make up 40%* (two in five) of the victims of domestic abuse

Clearly the official figures show it to be far from a trivial matter and the numbers are on the increase. When you factor in the amount of official effort directed at encouraging women to report abuse and the abject lack of any camparable effort directed at male victims, I'd say the likelihood is that under-reporting by males far exceeds that by females. Of course, you wouldn't get that impression from anything Harman and this pathetic excuse for a government says or does.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Okay...where does it say that is what they are going to teach children?

As I said before, there is nothing "sexy" about it at all. I think you mean "sexist."

---------- Post added at 11:45 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------



They are not "failing" to teach them anything. There is a whole raft of reasons why children can not read or write, it is not always the school's fault. To teach children to be better citizens is just as important as teaching the three "R"s

Oh that's me told.....

I know of plenty of schools in the London area where kids as old as 8 are getting 1 hour homework a week, and not knowing how to read or write properly.

I know what I'd prefer my 5 year old being taught, and its certainly not issues relating domestic violence. Why not teach them that its wrong to abuse people fullstop, instead of focussing on one area.

Originally Posted by Paul M

*sigh* more political correctness.

No wonder so many pupils these days have no qualifications, more and more of the school week is wasted on useless lessons like this instead of the basic requirements (reading, maths etc).

How about spending the £13 million or more on repairing the schools that are falling to bits.

My sentiments exactly. The time could be better spent teaching that age group something more useful.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

Oh that's me told.....

I know of plenty of schools in the London area where kids as old as 8 are getting 1 hour homework a week, and not knowing how to read or write properly.

8 isn't old. They spend quite a bit of time at school I don't think it fair to bombard them with more work when they get home. For another topic I guess though.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Damien

8 isn't old. They spend quite a bit of time at school I don't think it fair to bombard them with more work when they get home. For another topic I guess though.

1hr a week??!!! That's not bombarding them. Anyway you're right, thats another thread.

[lucy7]

I would not of wanted my little loves to be educated about domestic violence at school at this tender age. Way too young in my opinion.
Possibly at the senior school age would be more appropiate, when they have more of a mind to understand about all of this.

[Flyboy]

First of all, one hour of homework a week is typical for an eight year old and is not confined to inner city schools. Having just one hour of homework has no bearing on a child's ability to read or write. Flyboy8 has only one hour a week and reads very well. But as has been suggested, children's ability to read and write and the causes thereof, are for different thread.

How do you imagine these subjects will be addressed for a five year old? Do you think they will be showed videos of local A+E departments full of women covered in blood and bruises, or of men wielding pick axe handles over cowering women?

---------- Post added at 22:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul M

*sigh* more political correctness.

No wonder so many pupils these days have no qualifications, more and more of the school week is wasted on useless lessons like this instead of the basic requirements (reading, maths etc).

How about spending the £13 million or more on repairing the schools that are falling to bits.

As speaks someone who has very little idea of how a school timetable works.

[alferret]

Originally Posted by Osem

BIT OF A SNIP! I wonder just why we have yet another inititaive which entirely overlooks domestic violence against men?

When I heard this on the radio I thought exactly the same. Her comments are sexist, god know what she would say if someone from the opposing party said they wanted all kids to be taught that violence by women against men is ....... Well you get the gist.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

----------



As speaks someone who has very little idea of how a school timetable works.

I know how a school timetable works and I frequently find myself in Paul's frame of mind as to why some children are forced to learn say French or Spanish when their basic English skills are so weak.

[alferret]

Originally Posted by punky

If anyone hasn't worked out why this won't work, i'll tell you.

Male domestic violence abusers broadly fit into two categories:

1. People that have uncontrollable rage. They know they shouldn't but once they are annoyed the red mist comes and lose control of their actions. Therefore telling them at 5 they shouldn't do it wouldn't be any use.

2. People that are just evil. They know they shouldn't do it but there brains are such badly-wired they don't care. Telling them at 5 they shouldn't do it wouldn't be of any use.

As for women, they know they shouldn't put up with domestic violence. They also know there are many organisations (of which many are female-specific) that can help. However the reasons they don't are often practicality such as kids, opportunity to get or emotional issues such as love or if they have been in long enough, they have become dependent on their abuser.

There has been several campaigns over the last couple of decades to get women to be more proactive in highlighting and fighting abuse. Reporting has risen dramatically and now almost plateaued. There are many domestic violence laws that have been enacted.

The cynic in me thinks this is just postering to appease the pink vote.

If anyone actually does care about domestic violence then its violence against males and LGBT that truly need help. Both are dramatically underreported and lacking in organisations to help.

One issue that particularly gauls me about domestic violence against men is that its considered funny or normal. i.e. A man asking a girl out getting a slap. Imagine the same happening in reverse? Its social attitudes like this which are causing women to believe they have the right to abuse men.

Totally agree with that punky, well put.

[punky]

http://newsarse.com/2009/11/25/child...-hitting-women