Domestic violence is not just about misogyny

[stui magpie]

I lost interest on line 4.

[Tannin]

Wokko, fair go mate, no-one is going to bother reading that known, certifiable lunatic hate-bag. No-one. She may have (in this one instance, by some miracle) the most compelling and lucid argument ever, and it might (in the imagination of some acid-frazelled hippie) be carefully evidenced and watertight. Grant all of that, just for the sake of discussion. Now who the hell would ever bother reading it knowing the source? Seriously, anyone who knows anything has better things to do with his time. You might as well join a discussion on nuclear physics and start quoting the Bible. It just might be right, but who is ever going to take it seriously?

[Wokko]

I said I was saving you the trouble.

[Tannin]

You missed my point.

[Mugwump]

^ Superb articles from Rundle, as usual, David. Thanks. As my philosophy lecturer used to say, "anything significant that happens is usually overdetermined"... in other words, anything unusual tends to happen because many strands of causation twist together and become more powerful than the restraining forces. Trying to untwist them and blame one factor leads you into false certainties. So it is, I imagine, with DV. Poverty, physiology, the duality of a given relationship, specific provocation, anti-role models, access to weapons etc all bubble together until there is more than enough heat to make the pot boil.

Looking for a unicausal explanation is a fool's errand. We love the illusion of believing that inquiries and government can fix things - even personal things - for us. I'm sure it can make some difference on this issue, but probably less than we want to believe. In practical terms, remedial things like women's shelters, income support and counselling to support victims can no doubt help, but I'm less sure that prevention is amenable to government action.

[pietillidie]

^That's a great term, Mugwump; now you've reminded me of it I'll try not to thrash it to death Unlike when I was at uni, it's also used in empirical work now, not just radical philosophy.

This is a tricky one because people get trapped in needy relationships. No doubt economic independence can go a long way for women in every way imaginable. But that won't get at the emotionally-entwined cases, which of course a lot of domestic violence involves.

Again, I just wish the access to assistance was there for people from the outset, so family well-being checkups were as standard as medical insurance checkups. Not waiting until the signs are picked up by a social worker, but having them broached by a doctor from the word go as a matter of standard, diligent medical treatment. And, as discussed in the past, that would build on psychological well-being classes for kids from the first day of school.

We just don't take healthy psychology seriously until we see something broken or violent, so that's the problem I would be focusing on. I would make domestic violence a subset of open, everyday healthcare. People need the emotional fitness and a trusted professional to confide in, not a way-too-late-Jack billboard or legal approach. You've got to give both parties an everyday accessible route to treatment from the start of a relationship and early in life.

Related to the topic somewhat is the palpable fear of public space women have, which is quite upsetting to see as a citizen who enjoys the urban environment. It really is an unfair and unacceptable situation to have a huge swathe of the population unable to enjoy public space.

This has really been driven home to me since I started exercising around urban areas back in Korea, and now here in the UK. Women are constantly nervous and startled, and I now find myself changing sides of the street to avoid startling them, or I make sure I don't stay in their blind spot or whatever. The fear is palpable, and it's not just because I exercise in a Jason Voorhees hockey mask!

So this is also a sad and unacceptable fact. Yesterday afternoon I was mentally redesigning one of the walking paths I take for greater actual and perceived security.

[Wokko]

If you keep telling people they're going to get randomly attacked when they walk outside it's no surprise they're scared. A man is far more likely to be the victim of a random act of violence than a woman.

[pietillidie]

[David]

^ We are told all the time nowadays that a woman is far more likely go be raped or assaulted by someone she knows. But I wonder if the logical corollary of that message is getting through, that incidents like Jill Meagher's are as rare as hen's teeth.

The media can do a great job at convincing people that they're less safe than they actually are. But I probably also need to acknowledge that I don't know what it's like to be catcalled, approached or leered at on a regular basis.

Unlike many talking heads in the media right now, however, I think the link between that behaviour and domestic violence is quite tenuous. They're really quite separate issues. I think Rundle makes that case well in the articles above, albeit obliquely.

[Tannin]

[pietillidie]

[think positive]

[David]

^ I think it's good to be vigilant, certainly, but paranoia is not a healthy state. You're still probably something like 100 times more likely to be killed in a car accident than raped or kidnapped by a stranger on the street after dark, yet we don't tell young men or women not to get behind the wheel.

As PTID says above, I think it's deeply sad that many women feel they don't have the freedom to exercise their basic right to be in public. Part of the solution to that is making public spaces safer and more respectful, but another part of the solution is to discourage paranoia.

[KenH]

[think positive]