Tags
BBC, domestic violence, feminism, gender, male violence, media, men, women
“You’re never going to stop domestic violence.” It sounds oddly like a threat, or a political pledge from an extreme party, but it was simply the scoffing of a news presenter interviewing a Member of Parliament on the radio this morning. John Humphreys was supposedly discussing the subject with Yvette Cooper when he made this statement, which should sound utterly bizarre to us. The fact that many people heard it as a statement of fact, as utterly uncontroversial, should make us pause for thought. I’d like to take apart some of the assumptions behind this sentence, broadcast on the BBC’s flagship morning news programme by an interviewer who considers himself the bluff voice of common sense, the representative of people all over the country listening to the radio this morning.
It seems to put domestic violence in the category of a force of nature. It’s just one of those things, like the tides or the laws of supply and demand, which we have to accept and try to either avoid or accommodate ourselves to the effects. But domestic violence is not a naturally occurring substance. It’s something which people do to other people. It has perpetrators and survivors. It’s not like breathing or gathering food, it’s a choice made by individuals to hurt someone else. Generally speaking, we don’t organise our society on the basis that violent actions are basically inevitable. We pass laws and we prosecute crimes when those laws are broken. Would Humphreys have scoffed at the efforts of the Metropolitan Police to reduce the number of guns on the street by incredulously asking them if they believed they could ever end gun crime?
Perhaps Humphries was speaking on a general and statistical level, suggesting that humans are always going to commit some forms of crime and violence. People have always stolen, have always tried to murder one another, have always hated outsiders, have always tried to cheat whatever political system existed to gain power (or to rig the system so they don’t have to cheat.) Who can plumb the matchless perversity of the human heart, Humphries might be demanding. But domestic violence doesn’t seem a suitable comparison to crimes like theft or fraud, or even to human emotions like greed or hate. It doesn’t spring up equally in the hearts and actions of everyone in our society. It is massively disproportionately committed by men against women.
In one study, 89% of those reporting four or more incidents of domestic abuse were women, and another estimated extended patterns of domestic violence by women against men in only 5% of cases (Walby and Allen, 2004; Hester, 2007). This is not to downplay the seriousness of the offence when committed against men, but to point out that domestic violence does not seem to “just happen” for half of the population. It is not a natural human emotion or an inevitable part of social life. A vast proportion of women never seem to have any problem in not attacking, abusing or terrorising the people they live with. This is the reason activists like Karen Ingala Smith insist on using the term “male violence against women and girl”, highlighting the fact that this violence is not just something which develops out of human life. It is vastly committed by one gender against another. Discussing “domestic violence” as if it is a natural condition of people living together ignores the individual acts by men against women which make up the statistics.
If this is the case, then Humphreys must be making one other terrifying assumption. Men are inherently and lethally violent. The figures suggest that two women a week killed by male partners or ex-partners and that this makes up a third of female homicide victims (Coleman and Osborne, 2010). If the line of logic we have followed is correct, then this is just a thing men do. They can’t stop themselves. They batter and kill people just because they’re men. If you genuinely believe domestic violence can’t ever be stopped, then you’re committed to thinking that one half of our society are brutal animals incapable of rational thought or normal behaviour. And it’s probably the half of our society which you fall into. Whilst feminists are told that they hate men, that they demonise them and blame them for all the ills of humanity, they’re trying to put a stop to domestic violence. Because they believe men aren’t like this. Feminists are the “you” whom John Humphreys scoffs at, apparently not part of his culture, who think that this continual wave of assault and murder isn’t some natural and horrific consequence of having men around. As so often, it’s men who reveal a disturbing view of their own gender, whilst feminists are insisting that men aren’t genetically programmed to destroy and terrorise. Men need to believe that domestic violence can be brought to an end, and that the relentless suffering it brings to hundreds of thousands of women can be stopped. Men who tell us otherwise hate us and hate themselves. I can’t see it any other way.
quiteirregular 
The other worrying implication of his statement there is that he doesn’t think it’s even worth reducing the amount of (domestic) violence going on.
It’s really nastily dismissive (especially when ‘dismissive’ seems to be Humphrys default tone setting anyway) to suggest that it’s not really worth putting in the effort to reduce the rate. What’s one fewer women killed a week/month by her (ex) partner anyway? Hardly worth a politician’s time trying to figure out how to do that when they could be concentrating on important things like fracking or HS2 or whatever other discusssion Humphrys doesn’t treat with this sort of dismissive aim.
(And it’s a really tired feminist point, but Humphrys would be one of the first to complain if we started *treating* men as though they’re inherently violent creatures who can’t control their emotions sufficiently to participate in civilised society. If a significant proportion of men can’t be trained/encouraged/taught/rehabilitated not to hit people when they lose their temper, then men who are unable to regulate their emotions in an acceptable way should be locked up permanently for the safety of everyone else. Or forced to register somewhere so their employers and partners are aware they’re a potential danger.)
Jem – thanks for this, which I’d not heard about. I know you’re analysing the sentence in and of itself, but I’d be very keen to hear what the precise context and emphasis of this comment was (apologies for laziness, but Today is a really difficult programme to locate quotes in!).
Specifically, did this come out of nowhere as a general counterpoint to the issue (‘You’re NEVER going to stop domestic violence’, with the implicit evil villain laugh), or was it a direct response within the conversation appropriating Cooper’s words (e.g. YC: ‘The aim is to stop domestic violence’; JH: ‘You’re never going to STOP domestic violence’, with the implication that it’s the ‘stopping’ that’s ridiculous). Or, indeed, something else?
The comment is hideous either way, but I’d be interested to know if it came across as an attack on the futility of taking measures at all (very worrying) or as a suggestion that we should be aiming for and condoning a more realistic, lesser end goal (very worrying).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04bmxnn
The bit on domestic abuse starts at 1:50 in. (Remembered roughly what time I heard it!)
Cheers! The comment comes about 1:55:10 – Cooper is explaining the level of homicide involved, Humphreys objects that people are charged and convicted for it, Cooper reiterates that if two people a week were dying at football matches there’d be a public outcry, and Humphries tells her you’ll never end it, “you’d have to be living in some sort of…” and she interrupts before we discover what sort of world he imagines one would have to be living in. She hasn’t used the words “stop domestic violence”, but yes it falls into Pete’s second category.
To quote Sheenagh on Twitter – “Humphreys’ line seems to be that we put the murderers in prison once they’ve killed someone so what’s the problem?”
“Would Humphreys have scoffed at the efforts of the Metropolitan Police to reduce the number of guns on the street by incredulously asking them if they believed they could ever end gun crime?”
I think the answer to this is ‘yes’. That’s his style.
“In one study, 89% of those reporting four or more incidents of domestic abuse were women”
Yes. Men commit far more violent crime than women. That is true of muggings, violent street crime, murder, ‘non-domestic’ sexual assualt etc. I’m therefore unsure why you distinguish domestic violence from other crimes in that regard. Perhaps you’re coming at it from the POV that women are disproportionately the victims – this is obviously true, but it’s inevitable because domestic partners of men are disproportionately women.
“If you genuinely believe domestic violence can’t ever be stopped, then you’re committed to thinking that one half of our society are brutal animals incapable of rational thought or normal behaviour.”
No you’re not. No moreso than if you say that other violent crime cannot be stopped. You are accepting that there will always be outliers.
If you interpret Hunphrey’s comment (which I don’t wish to defend.. I thought it was unprofessional and insensitive) as him saying that ‘you’ll never stop it so you shouldn’t try’, then take him to task. I don’t think that interpretation is fair. I don’t think his comments portray a view of domestic violence that is any different to any other violent crime. We’ve been trying to put a stop to murder for a couple of millenia now – there’s no shame in admitting that we’re not likely to manage it.
That’s fair enough if that’s your reading of the interviewed, but – as we discussed above – I don’t think that’s what happened. Cooper was pointing out the way it is accepted in society in ways that other violence isn’t, and he told her he didn’t see the point of treating it differently, taking the view that if killers are put on trial then we needn’t worry about the fact that it’s men killing women. Actually I don’t believe Humphreys would scoff at the idea that police efforts to reduce gun crime drastically were worthwhile – his book “Devil’s Advocate” takes a pretty strong line on the shifts in society which he believes have taken place over the last forty years, and the possibility of altering them. Many thanks for your comment.
Pingback: “You’re Never Going To Stop Domestic Violence” | In my own little world
Frankly Humphries and all politicians, judges, police officers, church leaders, anyone in authority who make such statements should be asked to step down immediately! Attitudes like those expressed give permission for such violence to continue … and perps need to know that they must take responsibility for their transgressions and STOP it now …