White Ribbon, Men and Violence: a Response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’S Health Australia

What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

Executive Summary

The White Ribbon Foundation is an organisation that works to prevent male violence towards women – a goal that is extremely worthy and worth supporting. The White Ribbon website states that “all forms of violence are unacceptable,” however in 2009 the organisation issued a document to it’s male Ambassadors which used erroneous ‘facts and statistics’ to downplay, diminish and report incorrectly about male victims of violence. These Ambassadors use federal government funding to take the White Ribbon message into regional, rural and remote communities. These signiﬁcant errors could have led the Ambassadors, and through them the general public via federal funding, to be misled about the nature and dynamics of interpersonal violence in Australia.

Some of the dangerous myths about violence circulated in the document include claims that men are less likely than women to experience violence within family and other relationships; that we don’t yet know the impact of violence on men’s overall health; and that there is no evidence that male victims are less likely to report domestic violence than are female victims.

Men’s Health Australia – Australia’s primary source of information about the social and psychological wellbeing of men and boys – contacted White Ribbon with its concerns about this document. Men’s Health believes that violence prevention is not a competition: that governments and NGOs can work to prevent violence against women and violence against men. We believe it isn’t necessary for White Ribbon to downplay, diminish or report incorrectly about male victims of violence in order to highlight the tragedy of female victims of violence. The horriﬁc statistics about violence against women speak for themselves.

Men’s Health Australia are fully supportive of all attempts to reduce violence against women. However we believe it is essential that a high-proﬁle organisation such as the White Ribbon Foundation provides its Ambassadors and the general public with an accurate picture of violence in Australian society, especially when in receipt of federal government funding. It is only when we start with an accurate picture of violence that we can take the necessary steps to reduce its incidence and impact. If we start with an inaccurate picture, our violence-prevention strategies are bound to be less effective, and could potentially cause harm – especially to children.

White Ribbon’s initial response to our concerns was ﬁve months of silence. Once we pursued the matter we were sent a response to our concerns written by Dr Michael Flood – a White Ribbon Ambassador and Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Wollongong with a long involvement in community advocacy and education work focused on men’s violence against women. This response failed to address our core concern: that it isn’t necessary for White Ribbon to downplay, diminish or report incorrectly about male victims of violence in order to highlight female victims of violence.

In addition, Dr Flood’s response:

• Failed to address a number of our speciﬁc concerns about statistical and factual errors

• Contained more errors than the original document when responding to other speciﬁc concerns

• Resorted to ad hominem attacks in an apparent attempt to discredit Men’s Health Australia

• Failed to successfully challenge any of Men’s Health’s speciﬁc concerns.

Fortunately the White Ribbon Foundation appointed a new CEO, Libby Davies in early 2011, who appears to have adopted a fresh approach to working with men’s organisations. Men’s Health met with her in May 2011 and discussed ways in which our two organisations might be able to respectfully co-exist in the future. Some ideas ﬂoated included:

• To agree on a common set of statistics/data on which to base our work

Page 1 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

• To both issue media releases in areas where we overlap (e.g. genuine respectful relationships programs for boys and girls)

• For both organisations, as much as possible, to avoid gender competition in our work (i.e. ‘men vs women’ thinking) and simply lobby for our respective constituents (e.g. instead of saying “women experience x times as much domestic violence as men”, just say “x% of women experience domestic violence” and likewise for men).

On 11th March 2012, the Fatherhood Foundation’s weekly e-Newsletter titled The High Cost of Being Right re-published our November 2010 media release. As a result readers have contacted us questioning the veracity of Dr Flood’s response to criticisms of White Ribbon materials made by Men’s Health Australia. We felt it appropriate to respond, not in any effort to attack the White Ribbon Foundation, and certainly not to ignite any gender competition, but simply to set the public record straight. This document is that response.

We are hopeful that this issue will now be put to rest and that White Ribbon and Men’s Health can move forward to work side-by-side to reduce all violence in Australia. White Ribbon’s core concern is preventing male violence against women; Men’s Health’s core concern is preventing violence against men and boys (by men and women); other organisations are working to prevent child abuse, elder abuse, lesbian domestic violence and other forms of violence and abuse. There should be no competition for victimhood – all victims of violence and abuse deserve services and support.

Full background

In November 2009, around the time of White Ribbon Day, the White Ribbon Campaign sent a document titled What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence to its Ambassadors - men who are using federal government funding to take the White Ribbon message into regional, rural and remote communities. We believe this document contained a number of serious statistical errors and unreferenced claims about gender and violence which have the effect of downplaying the impacts of violence upon men and boys. We are concerned that these signiﬁcant errors could have led the White Ribbon ambassadors, and through them the general public via federal funding, to be misled about the nature and dynamics of interpersonal violence in Australia.

We are fully supportive of all attempts to reduce violence against women. However it is essential that a high-proﬁle organisation such as the White Ribbon Foundation provides its Ambassadors and the general public with an accurate picture of violence in Australian society, especially when in receipt of federal funding. It is only when we start with an accurate picture of violence that we can take the necessary steps to reduce its incidence and impact. If we start with an inaccurate picture, our violence-prevention strategies are bound to be less effective, and could potentially cause harm – especially to children.

It isn’t necessary for the White Ribbon Foundation to downplay, diminish or report incorrectly about male victims of violence in order to highlight the tragedy of female victims of violence. The horriﬁc statistics about violence against women speak for themselves. The Australian Government has a responsibility to care for both male and female victims of violence - caring for one gender should not mean neglecting the other.

On 4th November 2010 we wrote an open letter, co-signed by almost 20 professionals and organisations working in the ﬁeld of family and domestic violence, to the Chairman and Board of the White Ribbon Foundation about these errors and unreferenced claims but did not receive a response. Page 2 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

On 23rd November 2010 we sent another open letter, co-signed by more than 30 professionals and organisations working in the ﬁeld of family and domestic violence, to the Hon Kate Ellis MP, Minister for the Status of Women. This letter was CC’d to all Federal MPs. It strongly urged the Australian Government to reconsider whether the White Ribbon Foundation are an appropriate agency to be funded to undertake violence-prevention work in the Australian community, and requesting that she personally take steps to ensure that they do not mislead the public – either intentionally or unintentionally – with false or misleading information about violence while in receipt of public funding.

On 24th November 2010, we issued a media release titled Federal funding ‘misused’ by White Ribbon Campaign.

On 31st January 2011, an advisor to the Minister replied to us, completely ignoring the entire substance of our open letter.

On 4th February 2011 we contacted the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) requesting new data from the 2005 Personal Safety Survey to help us conﬁrm the concerns made in our original letters.

On 4th April 2011, we replied to the Minister, requesting a further response that addressed the substance of our original letter.

On 20th April the ABS provided our data request, however on 3rd June they informed us that the request would have to be reissued because of errors in the original data sent to us. The reissued data was provided to us on 10th June, at which time we asked the ABS to conﬁrm the validity of a number of statistical charts and statements derived from the raw data. Most of these requests were conﬁrmed by the ABS by 18th October 2011 but one is still outstanding as of the date of writing this document due to a change in ABS staff.

On 30th May 2011, the Minister’s advisor wrote back, merely “noting the issue our organisation has raised.”

Having heard nothing from the White Ribbon Foundation, we telephoned their Sydney ofﬁce on 4th April 2011, and spoke with their National Marketing and Communications Manager, Kate Alexander. She forwarded us a copy of the document A response to criticisms of White Ribbon materials made by Men’s Health Australia, authored by Dr Michael Flood.

Noting that the response document contained as many – if not more – statistical errors and omissions as the original What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence document, we sought a meeting with the new CEO of the White Ribbon Foundation, Libby Davies, and Ms Alexander. This meeting took place on 2nd May 2011.

At the meeting, we talked about ways in which Men’s Health Australia and the White Ribbon Foundation might be able to respectfully co-exist in the future. Some ideas ﬂoated included:

• To agree on a common set of statistics/data on which to base our work

• To both issue media releases in areas where we overlap (e.g. genuine respectful relationships programs for boys and girls)

Since the meeting there has been no further contact between Men’s Health Australia and the White Ribbon Foundation. White Ribbon has issued no further documents which downplay male

Page 3 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia victims of violence, so we take Ms Davies at her word, and assume that the Foundation is trying to avoid gender competition in the spirit of co-operation generated by our meeting.

On 11th March 2012, the Fatherhood Foundation’s weekly e-Newsletter titled The High Cost of Being Right re-published our November 2010 media release. As a result readers have contacted us questioning the veracity of Dr Flood’s Response to criticisms of White Ribbon materials made by Men’s Health Australia document. We felt it appropriate to respond, not in any effort to attack the White Ribbon Foundation, and certainly not to ignite any gender competition, but simply to set the record straight. This document is that response.

Full response to Dr Flood

In the following section, please use this key to identify the authors of each paragraph:

Text in black bold represents a statement made in the original November 2009 White Ribbon Campaign document tled What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence.

Text in blue bold is Men’s Health Australia’s original November 2010 critique of the White Ribbon material.

Text in green bold is Dr Flood’s paraphrasing of the statement from the original White Ribbon document, made in his November 24 2010 document (revised June 2, 2011).

Text in green is Dr Flood’s response made in his November 24 2010 document (revised June 2, 2011).

Text in blue is Men’s Health Australia’s current March 2012 critique of Dr Flood’s response.

“In contrast to men’s experience of violence, male violence against women generally takes place within family and other relaonships”

Australian men and women were equally likely to be physically assaulted by persons known to them during the last 12 months (ABS 2006: 30).

That violence against women is more likely than violence against men to take place in the context of family and other relaonships.

Men’s Health Australia responds with the asseron that men and women are equally likely to be physically assaulted by persons known to them. This is false.

This is true. The complete correct statistic from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey (ABS 2011a: 2) is as follows:

The 2005 ABS Personal Safety Survey found that there were no statistically signiﬁcant differences in the prevalence rates between women and men experiencing physical

Page 4 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

assault by known perpetrators in the last 12 months (2.6% or 198,500 women and 2.7% or 203,100 men).

Among men and women who are physically assaulted, women are far more likely than men to be assaulted by someone known to them.

This is correct, however the original statement made by the White Ribbon Foundation did not compare the experiences of men and women who are physically assaulted, it compared the experiences of [all] men and women (as does Dr Flood’s response).

There is a stark gender contrast in the proporons of the violence men and women experience which is represented by perpetrators known to them. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Stascs’ Personal Safety Survey (2006) make this clear.

Once again, the data cited by Dr Flood compares the experiences of men and women who are physically assaulted, not the experiences of [all] men and women. It is not indicative of “men’s [and women’s] experience of violence”.

Tables 1 and 2 (below – page 8) give breakdowns for the proporons and raw numbers respecvely among perpetrators of physical assault in the last 12 months. (Raw numbers were calculated by the Australian Bureau of Stascs by extrapolang from its representave sample to the enre populaon of Australia.)

As Table 1 shows, among the large numbers of men physically assaulted each year, in the most recent incident close to 70 per cent were assaulted by a stranger.

The correct ﬁgures are that 66 per cent were assaulted by a stranger during the last 12 months – not just in the most recent incident (ABS 2006: 30).

In contrast, among the female vicms of physical assault, 24 per cent were assaulted by a stranger (ABS 2006: 30).

The correct ﬁgures are that 22 per cent were assaulted by a stranger (ABS 2006: 30).

Using the raw numbers in Table 2, among men, about 330,000 of the most recent incidents involved a perpetrator who was a stranger.

The correct ﬁgures are that 319,100 males were physically assaulted by perpetrators who were strangers during the last 12 months – not just in the most recent incident (ABS 2006: 30).

Among women in contrast, about 57,000 of the most recent incidents involved a stranger.

The correct ﬁgures are that 52,900 females were physically assaulted by perpetrators who were strangers during the last 12 months – not just in the most recent incident (ABS 2006: 30).

Thus, women are more likely than men to be assaulted by persons known to them than by strangers.

This is correct, but this conclusion can’t be drawn from the data cited above, which refers only to females who have experienced physical assault, not to all women. The correct data from the PSS that can be used to reach this conclusion is as follows:

The prevalence rate of women experiencing physical assault by known perpetrators in the last 12 months was 2.6 per cent or 198,500 women (ABS 2011a: 2).

Page 5 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

The prevalence rate of women experiencing physical assault by strangers in the last 12 months was 0.7 per cent1 or 52,900 women (ABS 2006: 30).

Indeed, women are more likely than men to be assaulted by a partner or ex-partner than by any other category of perpetrator.

This is incorrect. Here is the complete table of prevalence rates of physical assault by perpetrator type for females during the last 12 months (ABS 2006: 30):

Table A: prevalence rates and raw numbers of females who experienced physical assault during the last 12 months by perpetrator type

Prevalence rate n ‘000 % Stranger 0.7 52.9 Current partner 0.4 30.7 Previous partner 0.6 43.3 Total partner (a) 1.0 73.8 Family or friends 1.2 89.1 Other known persons (b) 0.6 49.7

(a) Where a person experienced assault by both a current and a previous partner they are counted once for total partner in this table. (b) Includes acquaintance or neighbour, counsellor or psychologist or psychiatrist, ex-boyfriend or girlfriend, doctor, teacher, minister or priest or clergy, prison ofﬁcer and other known person.

Table A (above) shows that Australian women were more likely to be physically assaulted during the last 12 months by family or friends (prevalence rate 1.2 per cent) than by current or previous partners (1.0 per cent), strangers (0.7 per cent) or other known persons (0.6 per cent).

Looking at Table 1 (below), among female vicms of assault, the category of perpetrator most likely to have inﬂicted the assault is male current or previous partners (31%).

In other words, women are more likely to be assaulted by men they know, parcularly male partners or ex-partners, than by any other category of perpetrator.

This is correct. However the data cited above by Dr Flood, which refers only to women who have experienced physical assault (not to all women) is not the best PSS data to demonstrate this point. The data that can be used to reach this conclusion is as follows (ABS 2006: 30, ABS 2011a: 2, ABS 2011b: 1):

The prevalence rate of women experiencing physical assault by known male perpetrators in the last 12 months was 2.2 per cent or 165,700 women, which is a higher rate than by known female perpetrators (0.6 per cent or 46,900 women), male strangers (0.5 per cent or 35,500 women) or female strangers (0.3 per cent or 21,900 women).

In contrast, among men, less than 5% were assaulted by a female partner or ex-partner,

1 Prevalence rates are easily calculated by dividing raw numbers by the total population then expressing the result as a percentage. E.g. 52,900 women experienced physical assault by strangers in the last 12 months, divided by 7,693,100 entire population of Australian women = a prevalence rate of 0.7%. Page 6 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

Among men who experienced physical assault in the last 12 months (not among [all] men), 4.4 per cent were physically assaulted by a female partner or ex-partner (ABS 2006: 30). and men are most likely to be assaulted by male strangers.

This is correct. However the data cited above by Dr Flood, which refers only to men who have experienced physical assault (not to all men) is not the best PSS data to demonstrate this point. The data that can be used to reach this conclusion is as follows (ABS 2006: 30, ABS 2011a: 2, ABS 2011b: 1):

The prevalence rate of men experiencing physical assault by male strangers in the last 12 months was 4.2 per cent or 316,700 men, which is a higher rate than by known male perpetrators (1.9 per cent or 141,000 men), known female perpetrators (0.9 per cent or 66,500 men) or female strangers (0.2 per cent or 13,000 men - estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution).

To summarise, the points made above by Dr Flood show that women were indeed more likely than men to be physically assaulted by persons known to them than by strangers during the last 12 months. They also show that men were more likely than women to be physically assaulted by strangers than by persons known to them during the last 12 months. However, it is also true that men and women were equally likely to be physically assaulted by persons known to them during the last 12 months.

Keep in mind that these ABS ﬁgures give us only a paral idea of paerns of violence in Australia. While the ﬁgures above tell us how many women and men experienced at least one physically aggressive act in the last year, and who perpetrated this, they do not tell us about the history, context, meaning, or impact of these acts. In other words, this data provides only a limited basis on which to compare men’s and women’s experiences of violence.

Absolutely - we agree completely on this point.

Men’s Health Australia would be on safer ground if they noted that among all men and women in Australia, roughly similar numbers experienced physical assault in the last year by someone known to them. In the most recent incident of physical assault, a total of 168,700 males and 146,100 females experienced assault by someone known to them (ABS 2006: 30). Perhaps this is what Men’s Health Australia meant in stang that ‘men and women are equally likely to be physically assaulted by persons known to them’.

This paragraph is heading in the right direction but is still contains errors - please refer to our above critique.

However, for male vicms of assault, ‘persons known to them’ largely comprise men they know and male family members or friends. Men’s Health Australia fails to acknowledge that when men are assaulted by someone they know, this is most likely to be a male acquaintance.

This is correct, however a signiﬁcant minority of known perpetrators (one third) are women. We did not acknowledge this, because the gender of the perpetrator is irrelevant. We have never claimed that ‘persons known to them’ largely comprise women. We are not sure what point Dr Flood is making here. Is he arguing that because male victims of assault are more likely to be assaulted by men they know than by women they know, that the impact of the assault is somehow less, or that they are somehow less deserving of services and support, or anti- violence campaigns?

As Table 2 documents, among men assaulted by someone they know who was other than a partner or ex-partner, in 142,100 of the most recent incidents this involved a male acquaintance Page 7 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

(summing the ﬁgures for male family members or friends and male other known persons), while in 45,300 of the most recent incidents it involved a female acquaintance2.

The data from the PSS also show clearly that both men and women are most at risk of physical violence from men. Among male vicms of physical assault in the last 12 months, ﬁve mes as many were assaulted by males as by females, and 20 mes as many were assaulted by non- partner males or females than by female partners and ex-partners (ABS 2006: 30). Among the males who were physically assaulted in the last 12 months and suﬀered physical injury (about half of them), 86 per cent were injured by male perpetrators 3.

2 To generate these figures, sum the figures for family members or friends and other known persons. For male vicms, the figures for male acquaintances are 48,400 plus 93,700 and the figures for female acquaintances are 36,000 plus 9,300.

3 This is calculated from Table 15, p. 30. This table does not provide detail regarding whether perpetrators were strangers, family members, partners, etc Page 8 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

Once again, we are not sure what point Dr Flood is making here. Men’s Health Australia has never claimed that either men or women are most at risk of violence from women.

The point we were making was simply this: by claiming that “in contrast to men’s experience of violence, male violence against women generally takes place within family and other relationships,” the White Ribbon Campaign potentially misled its Ambassadors into incorrectly believing that men are less likely than women to experience violence within family and other relationships. Whether this violence is perpetrated by males or by females is irrelevant.

“There has yet to be any work done on the impact of violence on men’s overall health, i.e. its contribuon to the burden of disease. We, therefore, don’t yet know the impact of men’s violence against men from a public health point of view.”

The contribution of violence to the burden of disease in both men and women has been studied for many years. The most recent data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that homicide and violence contributed 6,535 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in male victims, and 2,686 DALYs in female victims (Begg et al 2007: 222).

That lile is known about the contribuon of violence to men’s overall health.

This is correct. VicHealth’s study of the burden of disease among Victorian women imposed by inmate partner violence remains one of the most signiﬁcant Australian studies on the burden of disease generated by violence. We know less about the contribuon of violence to men’s overall health.

We probably know less about the contribution of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) to men’s health than we do about the contribution of IPV to women’s health, because historically almost no attention has been paid to this issue by governments, researchers and NGOs (despite the fact that at least one in three victims of family violence and abuse are male). However, we do know a great deal about the contribution of [all] violence to men’s overall health. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has been studying the burden of disease and injury in Australia since 1999, including the impacts of violence upon the health and wellbeing of both men and women. The World Health Organisation has been doing similar work on an international level.

Men’s Health Australia notes that one study suggests that the contribuon of violence to the burden of disease in men is over two mes as high as that in women.

The study we cited is just one of many. Every single study of the burden of disease, whether by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare or the World Health Organisation consistently ﬁnds that the contribution of violence to the burden of disease in men is many times higher than that in women (see for example World Health Organisation 2008).

Yes, violence imposes a very serious cost to men’s health and wellbeing, as a visit to any hospital emergency ward on a Friday night will aest.

The burden of disease among men generated by violence is generated above all by violence by other men.

We have never argued otherwise. If the rationale behind the many violence against women campaigns and policies by government and NGOs is to try to reduce violence against women because of the disastrous impacts on their health and wellbeing; why then are there no violence against men campaigns or policies if the contribution of violence to the burden of disease in men is many times higher than it is in women. We don’t stop caring about violence in Aboriginal communities “because the burden of disease among Aboriginals generated by violence is generated above all by violence by other Aboriginals.” We don’t stop caring about IPV in lesbian

Page 9 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia relationships “because the burden of disease among lesbians generated by IPV is generated above all by violence by other lesbians.” Who cares whether the violence is perpetrated by men or by women: the health impacts are what counts.

Men’s Health Australia conspicuously ignores the ways in which men’s health is impacted upon by other men’s violence.

To the extent that Men’s Health Australia’s own website addresses the issue of violence against men, it shows a persistent focus on violence against men by women. This is remarkable given the fact that men are overwhelmingly at risk of violence from other men.

Men’s Health Australia also neglects domesc violence against men by male partners, that is, in gay male relaonships, and the sexual abuse of boys, again a form of violence perpetrated largely by adult men rather than women.)

The above three paragraphs form an irrelevant and inaccurate ad hominem attack – not an argument – and as such there is no need to respond to them. However, to set the record straight, we have argued and lobbied for many years for the introduction of campaigns and policies to reduce violence against men (by all perpetrators - male and female) – most recently at the Australian Institute of Criminology’s Meeting the Needs of Victims of Crime conference.

The reason why the Men’s Health Australia website maintains a focus on violence against men by women is that the mainstream press regularly reports on violence against men by men, and violence against women by men, but conspicuously ignores violence against men by women. It also regularly erroneously conﬂates “domestic violence” with “violence against women” (much violence against women is not domestic violence and much domestic violence is not violence against women). We offer this focus to redress the imbalance in the media, not to downplay or diminish violence against men by other men in any way whatsoever. As you will see from our website, one of our key aims is to critique, analyse and, when appropriate, challenge mass media statements and commentary and other forms of institutional, academic and government literature and media that:

• depict men or boys or masculinity in an unfair, negative or disparaging way • are misleading, inaccurate, or prejudicial towards men and boys • detract from a general positive afﬁrmation of men, boys, and masculinity • undermine the endeavour to approach men and boy’s health and issues in an intelligent, respectful, positive, equitable and constructive way.

We have always spoken of the need for services to support gay male victims of domestic violence – again, recently at the Meeting the Needs of Victims of Crime conference. Likewise our website contains many articles on the sexual abuse of boys (the site has recently been overhauled, so visitors would be best to use the search box to ﬁnd articles, rather than the Topics and Issues listing which is as yet incomplete).

“[violence against women] is internaonally recognised as a signiﬁcant social problem worldwide and in Australia – with one in three women experiencing violence in her lifeme.”

Violence is internationally recognised as a signiﬁcant social problem worldwide and in Australia – with two in ﬁve women, and one in two men experiencing violence in their lifetimes (ABS 2006: 17).

Violence against women is internaonally recognised as a signiﬁcant social problem.

Page 10 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

Men’s Health Australia responds that violence against women and men is recognised as a serious social problem. Yes, both forms of violence are serious and widespread, and both deserve urgent acon. The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on violence against women, while acknowledging that men too are the vicms of violence and that somemes women are the perpetrators of violence.

We agree on this point. Likewise, Men’s Health Australia focuses on violence against men, while acknowledging that women too are the victims of violence and that both men and women are the perpetrators of violence. [Dr Flood has neglected here to acknowledge that the lifetime estimates cited for women were incorrect].

However, Men’s Health Australia seems to reject any focus on violence against women, as if this somehow takes away from eﬀorts to address violence against men, and presumably against children. This is misguided. Eﬀorts to end violence against women are movated by the fundamental belief that no one, female or male, should have to live with violence.

Once again, this is an irrelevant and inaccurate ad hominem attack – not an argument – nevertheless, to set the record straight, we have never rejected any focus on violence against women. We have always taken great care to state that violence against women programs are desperately needed (and in many cases are sorely lacking). We are however extremely concerned that there are no violence against men programs in Australia, and few around the world, when men are the group most impacted upon by violence.

“Canadian research tells us that women are three mes more likely to be injured, ﬁve more mes likely to be hospitalised and ﬁve mes more likely to report fearing for their lives as a result of [inmate partner] violence”

These statistics are taken from an out-of-date Canadian survey (Statistics Canada 2003). The latest edition of this survey, “Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Proﬁle” (Statistics Canada 2009: 26), found that “major assault was more common among male victims of spousal violence than among female victims, with 23% and 13%, respectively... One possible reason for this difference may be that male victims of spousal violence were more likely to have had a weapon used against them (15% of male victims versus 5% of female victims).”

Dr Flood has not addressed this critique, yet the White Ribbon Ambassadors – and presumably the rural and regional populations they have visited – remain potentially misled by it some 2 1/2 years since it’s circulation.

“What makes Violence against Women diﬀerent?… Violence against women is most oen sustained, based on maintaining power and control and contextualised by psychological and emoonal abuse.”

The recent Australian Intimate Partner Abuse of Men study found that all these characteristics applied equally to male victims (Tilbrook et al 2010).

Violence against women involves eﬀorts to maintain power and control and is characterised by not only physical but also psychological and emoonal abuse.

Men’s Health Australia responds that inmate partner violence against men involves the same characteriscs. There is no doubt that some men experience the classic situaon of domesc violence, what researchers increasingly call ‘inmate terrorism’ or ‘coercive control’. In such situaons, the vicm is subjected to a variety of violent and controlling behaviours by an abusive partner. In these situaons, the violence tends to be more severe, one-sided, to escalate over Page 11 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

me, and injuries are more likely. Men may be subjected to such violence from female or male partners (Flood 2006).

We couldn’t agree more. However, the statement sent to the White Ribbon Ambassadors asked “What makes Violence against Women different?” [our emphasis] implying that men don’t experience ‘intimate terrorism’ or ‘coercive control.’ Also, the White Ribbon statement didn’t explain that it was talking [only] about ‘intimate terrorism’ or ‘coercive control,’ or even [only] about domestic violence – it appeared to be talking about the entire spectrum of violence.

At the same me, it is also clear that women are far more likely than men to live with inmate terrorism from an other-sex partner. When women are subjected to domesc violence by a male partner, they are more likely than men subjected to violence by a female partner to live in fear, to be injured, and to suﬀer negave psychological consequences (Flood 2006).

Australian and internaonal research ﬁnds that when men are subject to domesc violence by women, the violence is not as prolonged and nor is it as extreme, they are far less likely to be injured, and they are less likely to fear for their own safety than when women are subject to domesc violence by men. In addion, men subjected to domesc violence by women rarely experience post-separaon violence and have more ﬁnancial and social independence.

Rather than address these points here, I would refer to One in Three Campaign Fact Sheets No. 1 to 5 (attached to this paper as an Appendix) which address these issues in detail.

Whether female or male, and whether subjected to violence by men or women, vicms of inmate partner violence deserve sympathy, support, and services. This should go without saying.

We agree completely with this point.

At the same me, we simply do not have to assume that men are a substanal proporon of vicms of inmate partner violence in order to recognise and respond to male vicmisaon.

True, we don’t. However, the facts are that men do make up a substantial proportion of victims of family and domestic violence and abuse. And until now, there have been hardly any efforts by governments to recognise and respond to male victimisation, based entirely on the premise that “in the overwhelming majority of cases [domestic violence] is perpetrated by men against women and children.”

Again: we simply do not have to downplay or diminish male victims of violence in order to highlight the tragedy of female victims of violence. The horriﬁc statistics about violence against women speak for themselves. The Australian Government has a responsibility to care for both male and female victims of violence - caring for one gender should not mean neglecting the other.

“Inmate Partner Violence is the leading contributor to death and disability among women aged 15 to 44.”

Intimate partner violence is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in Victorian women aged 15–44. The omission of the word illness here is critical. The source study found that deaths from intimate partner violence (femicide and suicide) made up 2.3% and 12.9% of the disease burden respectively; physical injuries just 0.7%; substance abuse (tobacco, alcohol and drug use) 10.2%; sexually transmitted infections and cervical cancer 2.2%; and poor mental health (depression, anxiety and eating disorders) 71.8%

Page 12 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

(Vos et al 2006, page 742). i.e. The vast majority of the contribution to the burden of disease in young Victorian women from intimate partner violence is from illness.

“There is no evidence that male vicms are more likely to under-report [domesc violence] than female vicms”

The large-scale South Australian Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Survey found that “females (22.0%) were more likely to report the [domestic violence] incident(s) to the police than males (7.5%)” (Dal Grande et al 2001: 10). Likewise “The 2004 [Canadian] General Social Survey (GSS) on victimisation found that fewer than 3 in 10 (28%) victims of spousal violence reported the abuse to the police (36% of female victims and 17% of male victims)” (Statistics Canada 2009: 24). Also, the 2008-09 Scottish Crime and Justice Survey: Partner Abuse found that “Men were significantly more likely not to have told anyone about the abuse they suffered in the last 12 months (40% compared with 21% of women)” and “Around one in five (21%) who experienced partner abuse in the last 12 months said the police did come to know about the most recent / only incident. Again, this figure was significantly higher among women (35% compared with eight per cent of men)” (Macleod et al 2009: 29-30).

That there is no evidence that male vicms are more likely to under-report the domesc violence they experience than female vicms.

The White Ribbon Campaign’s informaon sheet for White Ribbon Ambassadors notes that both women and men are likely to under-report their subjecon to domesc violence, because of social sgma and other factors. The informaon sheet goes on to state that “there is no evidence that male vicms are more likely to under-report than female vicms”. This could be worded to state that there is debate regarding whether male vicms are more likely than female vicms to under-report their violence.

Men’s Health Australia list several studies in which lower proporons of men than women who had experienced physical aggression by a partner reported this to police. The ﬁgures in these studies do support the claim that male vicms are more likely to under-report than female vicms. However, other studies suggest that men tend to over-esmate their partner’s violence and under-esmate their own, while women do the reverse (Kimmel 2002).

The controversial point (see One in Three Fact Sheet No. 4 for evidence countering it) that men tend to over‐estimate their partner’s violence and under‐estimate their own, while women do the reverse is a completely different issue entirely. The White Ribbon information sheet for their Ambassadors talks about men’s and women’s reluctance to report their victimisation for a number of reasons. It is not talking about men’s and women’s estimation of their own and their partner’s violence levels when responding to research questions.

Thus, there is debate regarding this issue, rather than a deﬁnive posion either way.

Dr Flood hasn’t provided any evidence of such ‘debate’ (see analysis below). As such we continue to argue that the evidence shows male victims are much more likely than female victims to under‐report their victimisation to the police and other authorities.

Page 13 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

A fundamental limitaon here is that there has been lile research which examines women’s and men’s reporng of domesc violence to police as part of a substanal examinaon of this violence itself. We know lile about whether the factors shaping under-reporng are similar or diﬀerent for women and men, and how reporng behaviour may be shaped by characteriscs of the violence itself, such as its severity and the levels of fear and injury it produces.

This is quite true (as far as we are aware). More research is deﬁnitely needed.

In the studies cited by Men’s Health Australia, lower proporons of men than women report to police the physical aggression they have experienced. It is possible that men in these studies were less likely than women to report these incidents because they did not see them as serious or threatening.

Yes, it is possible, however this is complete conjecture as there is no evidence that we are aware of to support this claim from within the studies themselves. In fact, in the South Australian study (Dal Grande et al 2001), respondents who did not leave their partner as the result of the violence were asked their reasons for staying in the abusive relationship. 28 per cent of males and 20.8 per cent of females answered “violence not serious enough” – slightly higher for males but not signiﬁcantly so (page 144). Respondents who had left or stayed apart because of the violence and abuse were asked their reasons for leaving. 50 per cent of males and 64.1 per cent of females answered “continuation of violence/abuse” – once again slightly higher for females but not signiﬁcantly so (page 140).

In the Scottish survey (Macleod et al 2009), respondents were asked their reasons for not informing the police about the violence. Unfortunately there is no gender breakdown of these ﬁgures, but 26 per cent said it was a private, personal or family matter; 25 per cent said they did not report it because they dealt with the matter themselves; 23 per cent felt it was too trivial / not worth reporting; and fewer than one in ten mentioned a range of other reasons including the police not being interested (9 per cent), it being too much trouble (7 per cent), being frightened of making matters worse and because the police could have done nothing about it (both 5 per cent).

If we are going to hypothesise without direct evidence, it is also possible that the men in these studies were less likely than women to report these incidents because of well-documented factors (for example, Tilbrook et al 2010) such as:

• Not knowing where to seek help • Not knowing how to seek help • Feeling there is nowhere to escape to • Feeling that they will not be believed or understood if they report, or that their experiences will be minimised • Feeling that they will be blamed for the abuse • Feeling that services would be unable to offer appropriate male-friendly help • Feeling they might be falsely arrest because of their gender (and their children would be left unprotected from the perpetrator) • Feeling ashamed or embarrassed to be a male victim of domestic violence • The social stigma of being a male victim of domestic violence • Feeling less of a man because they have been unable to protect themselves • Feeling less of a man because of the loss of independence involved in seeking help

Page 14 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

• Fearing being laughed at or ridiculed • Feeling ‘weak’ or ‘wimpy’ • Being in disbelief, or denial that they are a victim of domestic violence, or making excuses for it. There is also evidence that male and female victims of domestic violence in Australia are likely to suffer similar injuries, providing evidence that men might indeed see attacks on them as serious or threatening. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (People, 2005) found that between 1997 and 2004, 28.9 per cent (almost one in three) victims of domestic assault in NSW were male. Men and women suffered similar percentages of injuries and similar injury types as illustrated below.

For example, in a Brish study among heterosexual couples, the researchers ﬁrst used the Conﬂict Taccs Scale (a popular, although controversial, measure of violent ‘acts’ in relaonships) to measure men’s and women’s experiences of domesc violence. This found, as most CTS

Page 15 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia studies do, that similar proporons of men and women had experienced at least some physical aggression by a partner in the last year. However, the researchers went on to interview the men and women about their experiences. In doing this, they found powerful contrasts between men’s and women’s experiences. The women subjected to violence by their male partners felt frightened, helpless, and trapped. On the other hand, the men subjected to violence by their female partners were ‘not bothered’, saw it as insigniﬁcant or ludicrous or even admirable, and saw its impact as largely inconsequenal (Dobash and Dobash 2004).

This claim is outrageous. The Dobash and Dobash sample was of convicted male perpetrators and their female victims (p. 334). This in no way can be used to draw conclusions such as these about the general population. It is like comparing male members of Mensa (the high IQ society) with women from the supermarket and saying it proves men are more intelligent! It also cannot be used as evidence of problems with the use of the CTS in general populations.

Other studies idenfy similar paerns (Belknap and Melton 2005).

We have read the Belknap and Melton paper but could not ﬁnd any evidence of studies where CTS data was gender equal, but where interviews revealed stark gender differences between men and women’s experiences.

Thus, if men are more likely than women to not go to the police when they have experienced violence by a partner, it may be because this violence is less severe, less threatening, and even minor or trivial.

We have addressed this point above. And in any case, this point doesn’t challenge the fact that men are more likely than women to not go to the police when they have experienced violence by a partner: it just gives some possible reasons for it.

Of course, all violence in relaonships is unacceptable, regardless of who perpetrates it. Women and men have the right to live free of violence in their relaonships and families.

We agree wholeheartedly with this point. Regretfully rights have yet to translate into services in Australia. Just this week we received the following email from a male survivor of domestic violence:

“I have just managed to take out a domestic violence order against my ex-girlfriend. It has been a horriﬁc experience. I was told at the courthouse in Beenleigh QLD that they would not help me ﬁll out the application because I am a man and they are only funded to help woman. The blatant discrimination is atrocious.”

“This type of violence [violence against women] has its roots in the inequalies of power and control related to our gender roles”

We are concerned that the above claim is unreferenced. The document suggests that “all statistics are drawn from the ABS Personal Safety Survey 2005, unless noted otherwise,” but this claim does not appear to be contained in the Survey.

See below for Dr Flood’s response.

“The common cause of men’s violence against both men and women is in the way we currently express masculinity – rigid masculine norms promote and excuse aggression and this has the potenal to damage and limit both young men and women.”

Page 16 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

That men’s violence against women is based in gender inequalies and rigid gender norms.

This is correct. The statement by Men’s Health Australia complains that this and similar statements are unreferenced. The White Ribbon document is an informaon sheet for White Ribbon Ambassadors, not an academic publicaon for a scholarly audience. Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that men’s violence against women indeed is based in gender inequalies and rigid gender norms.

Contemporary scholarship on men’s violence against women takes as given that this violence is shaped by a variety of factors which operate at personal, situaonal, instuonal, and social levels.

Why weren’t these ‘variety of factors’ cited in the White Ribbon document? Why only cite gender inequalities and gender norms while omitting all other factors? Why misinform the White Ribbon Ambassadors by omission? It cannot be expected that White Ribbon Ambassadors – high proﬁle men from the community at large – are versed in contemporary scholarship on men’s violence against women.

At the same me, it is well documented that gender inequalies and gender norms are inﬂuenal determinants of violence against women. This is true at the level of relaonships and families, in local contexts and communies, and in sociees as a whole (Heise 1998).

We have never argued that gender inequalities and gender norms are not inﬂuential determinants of violence. We would, however, argue that they should always be cited alongside all other signiﬁcant determinants so as not to mislead the uninformed reader. We would refer once again to One in Three Campaign Fact Sheet No.4 where referenced evidence is provided that:

• Dominance by either partner is a risk factor for IPV (both minor & severe). It is the injustices and power struggles that are associated with inequality in relationships that give rise to violence, not just the inequality of male dominance • Empirical research on American couples has found that the vast majority of relationships involve equal power between partners. Relationships in which one partner is dominant are in the minority, and are just as likely to be female-dominant as male-dominant • Egalitarian couples are the least violent, while both male and female dominance are associated with increased IPV • Both husbands and wives who are controlling are more likely to produce injury and engage in repeated violence • Coercion (control and domination) is a frequently cited reason by women for their own use of IPV, and by male victims for their partner’s use of IPV • Even in research samples selected for high rates of male aggression (such as shelter samples), women sometimes report using comparative frequencies of controlling behaviour.

This insight also is endorsed by inﬂuenal policy documents and prevenon frameworks in Australia including:

• VicHealth’s prevenon framework Prevenng Violence Before It Occurs (2007);

Page 17 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

• Time For Acon: The Naonal Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2009–2021 (2009); • A Right to Respect: Victoria’s Plan to Prevent Violence against Women 2010– 2020 (2009);

This insight also is endorsed by key internaonal documents such as:

• World Health Organizaon. (2004). Prevenng Violence: A guide to implemenng the recommendaons of the World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organizaon. • World Health Organizaon. (2009). Violence Prevenon: The evidence. Geneva: World Health Organizaon (Seven brieﬁngs).

For example, in a recent review of the evidence regarding violence prevenon, the WHO notes that “Promong gender equality is a crical part of violence prevenon… gender inequalies increase the risk of violence by men against women and inhibit the ability of those aﬀected to seek protecon.”

Once again, Men’s Health Australia has never argued that gender inequalities and gender norms are not inﬂuential determinants of violence. We would, however, argue that they should always be cited alongside all other signiﬁcant determinants so as not to mislead the uninformed reader. For example, page 4 of Preventing Violence: A guide to implementing the recommendations of the World report on violence and health (cited above by Dr Flood) provides a wonderful ecological model showing shared risk factors for sub-types of interpersonal violence, of which gender inequality and cultural norms that support violence are just two factors:

Page 18 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

“Because this violence [violence in the home] is part of a paern of abuse, it can leave some women and girls vulnerable to re-vicmisaon.”

Dr Flood has not addressed this critique, yet the White Ribbon Ambassadors – and presumably the rural and regional populations they have visited – potentially remain misled by it some 2 1/2 years since it’s circulation.

Other cricisms

Men’s Health Australia asserts that “This is not the ﬁrst me the White Ribbon Foundaon has been caught using incorrect and misleading stascs.” This is an absurd and hosle exaggeraon of a minor error in an earlier report which was quickly corrected.

We apologise if the inclusion of this error was interpreted as hostile. We merely wished to point out that errors and omissions (however innocent and unintended) appear to be regularly made by Dr Flood and the White Ribbon Foundation when it comes to facts and statistics about violence – as this document once again demonstrates.

The White Ribbon Foundaon’s report An Assault on Our Future (2008) contained a small error regarding one aspect of young people’s atudes towards violence. At one point, the report stated that 31% of young men agreed that ‘when a guy hits a girl it’s not really a big deal’, but here ‘guy’ and ‘girl’ had been transposed (Naonal Crime Prevenon 2001: 65). Unfortunately, this mistaken stasc was highlighted in a media release (not wrien by the reports’ authors) and thus compounded in media coverage. The error was corrected as soon as it was known and the report was re-released.

The media release was however written and issued by the White Ribbon Foundation even if the authors differed from those of the report, so our criticism still stands. Although the error was corrected as soon as it was known and the report was re‐released, the misleading media headlines such as the following three examples can’t be ‘taken back’ from the public consciousness and in most cases have not been corrected on the web:

• “‘It's OK to Hit Girls and Rape Flirts’ - Survey Findings” • “Boys Thinking It's OK to Hit Girls Demands Ongoing Community Education” • “One in every three boys believes it is acceptable to hit girls.”

This minor error did not take away from the main message of the report: that young people are exposed to violence in their families and relaonships at disturbingly high levels, that this violence has profound and long-lasng eﬀects, that violence is sustained in part by some young people’s violence-supporve atudes, that young males have more violence-supporve atudes than young females, and that prevenon eﬀorts can stop this violence from occurring and connuing (Flood and Fergus 2008). The full report is available here: hp:// www.whiteribbon.org.au/uploads/media/AssaultonourFutureFinal.pdf.

The main message of the report was not about ‘young people being exposed to violence in their families and relationships at disturbingly high levels’: it was about young women being so exposed. Young men and boys’ victimisation levels are conspicuously absent from the report (see our critique below).

Page 19 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

Individuals associated with Men’s Health Australia and the ‘One in Three’ website spent considerable energies in 2008-09 highlighng one mistaken stasc in the original report. They were silent regarding the other, very considerable evidence in the report regarding the fact that young males have more violence-supporve atudes than young females. For example;

• One in three boys (33%) believe that ‘most physical violence occurs in dang because a partner provoked it’, compared to 25% of girls (NCP 2001: 65).

This statement does not talk about the acceptability or otherwise of violence, only the perceived causes of it.

• 15 per cent of males (but only 4% of females) agree that ‘It is okay to put pressure on a girl to have sex but not to physically force her’ (NCP 2001: 65). • Over one in eight boys (12%) believe that ‘it is okay for a boy to make a girl have sex, if she’s ﬂirted with him, or led him’, compared to only 3% of girls (NCP 2001: 65)4. • 7% of males (but only 2% of females) agree that ‘it’s alright for a guy to hit his girlfriend if she makes him look stupid in front of his mates’ (NCP 2001: 65).

Because these questions weren’t asked in the reverse (e.g. ‘do you believe that it is okay for a girl to make a boy have sex, if he’s ﬂirted with her, or led her’), we don’t know what young people’s tolerance is of speciﬁc types of female-to-male violence (only of violence in general – see below).

Indeed, in highlighng the mistaken stasc above, Men’s Health Australia do not acknowledge that in fact there is greater tolerance for females’ violence against males among young men than young women. Close to one-third (31%) of boys and young men agreed that ‘when a girl hits a guy it’s not really a big deal’, compared to 19% of females (Naonal Crime Prevenon 2001: 65). This may reﬂect a more general tolerance for violence espoused by young males.

We have never argued that young males do not have more violence‐supportive attitudes than young females (which is not surprising in a culture where men are raised to carry out all of the pro-social violent roles such as front line military, police, security ofﬁcers, etc, in order to protect women, children, other men and property). However we ﬁnd such evidence far less important than crucial evidence from the original Young People and Domestic Violence study (National Crime Prevention 2001) such as the dot points listed below, which was completely ignored by both Dr Flood’s report and the subsequent White Ribbon Foundation media release (and therefore the published news stories in the media):

• Considering physical violence only, nearly a third (31.2 per cent) of young people had witnessed one of the following: a male carer being violent towards his female partner; a female carer being violent to her male partner; or both carers being violent. • While 23 per cent of young people were aware of domestic violence against their mothers or step-mothers by their fathers or step-fathers, an almost identical proportion (22 per cent) of young people were aware of domestic violence against their fathers or step-fathers by their mothers or step-mothers

4 The table on p. 65 produces a ﬁgure of 12% for boys, but the summary text on p. 64 reports this as 14%. Page 20 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

• 14.4 per cent of young people reported that this violence was perpetrated both by the male against the female and the female against the male. 9.0 per cent reported that violence was perpetrated against their mother by her male partner but that she was not violent towards him. 7.8 per cent reported that violence was perpetrated against their father by his female partner but that he was not violent towards her.

• Most reported parental violence seemed to be minor, in that no effects were reported by the majority of child witnesses. Where outcomes were reported, the most likely outcome was the separation of the parents. The most severe disruptions on all indicators occurred in those households where both male to female and female to male violence was reported (i.e. two-way couple violence). The 2nd most severe disruptions were caused by male to female violence, and the 3rd most severe by female to male violence (the effects of male to female violence were twice as severe as female to male violence measured by: the rate of relationship break

Page 21 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

up; hospitalisation; children missing school; children receiving counselling; and the rate at which the young person/witness has told another about the incident). • Where young people had, or were experiencing parental domestic violence, a third of them had not told anyone about it. This rate was higher amongst boys than girls and higher amongst the 12 and 13 year olds than the mid or older teens. • Witnessing parental domestic violence had a signiﬁcant effect on young people’s attitudes and experiences. Witnessing was also the strongest predictor of subsequent perpetration by young people. The best predictor of perpetration was witnessing certain types of female to male violence, whilst the best predictor of victimisation in personal relationships was having witnessed male to female violence.

The last dot point above is crucial: if we want to break the ‘cycle of violence’ we must work to prevent female to male family and domestic violence in order that young people don’t grow up to perpetrate violence themselves in their adult relationships. We must also, of course, keep working to prevent male to female family and domestic violence.

• When the study examined the incidence of conflict/violence within young people’s own relationships, it found that many forms of conflict/violence - including many at the severe end of the spectrum - were experienced at similar rates by males and females (e.g. ‘threw something at you’, ‘kicked, bit or hit you’, ‘hit, or tried to hit you with something’, ‘beat you up’, ‘threatened you with a knife or gun’, ‘used a knife or fired a gun’, and ‘physically forced you to have sex’).

Page 22 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

• Overall, an almost identical proportion of young females (16 per cent) and young males (15 per cent) answered “yes” to the statement “I’ve experienced domestic violence”. • Young people were more likely to say a woman is right to, or has good reason to, respond to a situation by hitting (68 per cent), than a man in the same situation (49 per cent). • While males hitting females was seen, by virtually all young people surveyed, to be unacceptable, it appeared to be quite acceptable for a girl to hit a boy. • Female to male violence was not only viewed light-heartedly, it was also seen as (virtually) acceptable.

Greg Andresen Researcher and Media Liaison Men’s Health Australia 30th March 2012

References cited by Men’s Health Australia:

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011a). Customised report. Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data from Personal Safety Survey, Australia, 2005 (cat.no. 4906.0). Retrieved March 23, 2012 from http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/storage/ﬁles/PSS_Charts_v3.0.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011b). Customised report. Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey, Australia, 2005 (cat.no. 4906.0). Retrieved March 30, 2012 from http:// www.menshealthaustralia.net/storage/ﬁles/PSS_2011.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Personal Safety Survey Australia: 2005 Reissue 4906.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (Original work published August 10, 2006) Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/4906.02005 (Reissue)?OpenDocument

Begg, S., Vos, T., Barker, B., Stevenson, C., Stanley, L., & Lopez, A. D. (2007). The burden of disease and injury in Australia 2003. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10317

Dal Grande, E., Woollacott, T., Taylor, A., Starr, G., Anastassiadis, K., Ben-Tovim, D., et al. (2001). Interpersonal violence and abuse survey, september 1999 . Adelaide: Epidemiology Branch, Dept. of Human Services. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.health.sa.gov.au/ pros/portals/0/interpersonal-violencesurvey.pdf

MacLeod, P., Kinver, A., Page, L., & Iliasov, A. (2009, December). 2008-09 Scottish Crime and Justice Survey: Partner Abuse. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/296149/0092065.pdf

National Crime Prevention (2001). Young people and domestic violence : National research on young people's attitudes to and experiences of domestic violence. Barton: Attorney-General's Dept. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/ ncphome.nsf/Page/Publications

People, J. (2005). Trends and patterns in domestic violence assaults. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 89. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb89

Statistics Canada (2003). Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Proﬁle 2003. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Ministry of Industry. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2003000-eng.pdf

Page 23 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

Statistics Canada (2009, October). Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Proﬁle 2009. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Ministry of Industry. Retrieved August 29, 2010, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2009000-eng.pdf

Tilbrook, E., Allan, A., & Dear, G. (2010, May 26). Intimate partner abuse of men. East Perth: Men's Advisory Network. Retrieved May 26, 2010, from http://www.man.org.au/Portals/0/docs/ Intimate%20Partner%20Abuse%20of%20Men%20Report.pdf

Vos, T., Astbury, J., Piers, L. S., Magnus, A., Heenan, M., Stanley, L., et al. (2006). Measuring the impact of intimate partner violence on the health of women in Victoria, Australia. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(9), 739-44. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http:// www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/9/06-030411ab/en/index.html

World Health Organisation (2008, October). The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. Geneva: World Health Organisation. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.who.int/ evidence/bod

References cited by Dr Flood:

ABS (2006) Personal Safety Survey Australia. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics (Cat. 4906.0).

Belknap, J., and H. Melton. (2005). Are Heterosexual Men Also Victims of Intimate Partner Abuse? VAWnet National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women, Applied Research Forum, March. http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/ﬁles/Belknap,%20Are%20heterosexual %20men%20also.pdf

Dobash, R. P., and R. E. Dobash. (2004). Women’s Violence to Men in Intimate Relationships: Working on a Puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, May, Vol. 44 Iss. 3, pp. 324‐349. http:// www.xyonline.net/sites/default/ﬁles/Dobash,%20Women%27s%20vi olence.pdf

Flood, M. (2006). Violence Against Women and Men in Australia: What the Personal Safety Survey can and can’t tell us about domestic violence. Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre Newsletter, Summer: 3‐10. http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/ﬁles/Flood,%20Violence %20against %20women%20PSS.pdf

Flood, M., and L. Fergus. (2008). An Assault on Our Future: The impact of violence on young people and their relationships. Sydney: White Ribbon Foundation. http:// www.whiteribbonday.org.au/media/documents/AssaultonourFutureFinal.pdf

Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence Against Women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), June, pp. 262‐283.

Kimmel, M. S. (2002). ‘Gender Symmetry’ in Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review. Violence Against Women, 8(11), November, pp. 132‐163. http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/ﬁles/Kimmel,%20Gender%20symmet ry%20in %20dom.pdf

National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. (2009). Time For Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2009–2021. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/ violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/default.aspx

National Crime Prevention. (2001). Young People & Domestic Violence: National research on young people’s attitudes and experiences of domestic violence. Canberra: Crime Prevention Branch, Commonwealth Attorney‐General’s Department. http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/ agd/WWW/ncphome.nsf/Page/Publications

Page 24 of 25 What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia

Ofﬁce of Women’s Policy (2009). A Right to Respect: Victoria’s Plan to Prevent Violence against Women 2010–2020. Melbourne: Ofﬁce of Women’s Policy, Department of Planning and Community Development. http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/women/womens‐safety/prevention‐plan

VicHealth. (2007) Preventing Violence Before It Occurs: A framework and background paper to guide the primary prevention of violence against women in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth). http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/Programs‐and‐Projects/ Freedom‐fromviolence/Preventing‐violence‐before‐it‐occurs.aspx

World Health Organization. (2004). Preventing Violence: A guide to implementing the recommendations of the World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241592079.pdf

World Health Organization. (2009). Violence Prevention: The evidence. Geneva: World Health Organization (Seven brieﬁngs). http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/ 4th_milestones_meeting/publications/en/index.html

Page 25 of 25 Fact Sheet No.1 fathers or step-fathers, an almost identical proportion (22%) of young people were aware of domestic violence Overview of recent family violence against their fathers or step-fathers by their mothers or research findings step-mothers

Contrary to common beliefs, up to One in Three victims of “I thought of my options. Lock her out of the sexual assault and at least One in Three victims of family house as she did to me? The cops would come violence is male (perhaps as many as one in two). When and take me away. Complain of domestic reading the following quantitative statistics it should be remembered that violence? She was too pretty and dainty for that family violence is extremely complex and doesn't just boil down to ‘who to work. Leave? I could not abandon my kids. I does what to whom and how badly’. The context of the violence and would rather have died, and thought of it. Fight abuse is extremely important. Abuse can occur without the use or threat back? Somehow I couldn't see myself doing it. I of physical violence. Please refer to oneinthree.com.au/faqs for a more detailed and nuanced analysis of family violence and abuse. don't know if it was cowardice, chivalry or intellect saying ‘lay a finger on her even once The Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey and all hell will break loose’.” 1 (2006) is the largest and most recent survey of violence in Alan9 Australia. It found that: erview of recent family violence research findings • 29.8% (almost one in three) victims of current partner • an almost identical proportion of young females (16%) and

Ov violence since the age of 15 were male

young males (15%) answered “yes” to the statement “I’ve • 24.4% (almost one in four) victims of previous partner experienced domestic violence” violence since the age of 15 were male • an almost identical proportion of young females (6%) and young males (5%) answered “yes” to the statement “my “She would kick me in the genital area, boyfriend/girlfriend physically forced me to have sex”. she'd bite me on the shoulders and scratch my The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (2005)11 face and neck. She'd threaten to kill herself if I found that 28.9% (almost one in three) victims of domestic didn't give her the gambling money. Then she’d assault were male. threaten to kill our son. In the middle of her Fact Sheet No.1: screaming fits she would tell me and my son The Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission (2005) 2 found that 32.6% (almost one in three) victims of family that I wasn't his father, even though we both violence reported to police were male. knew he was. She also threatened to have someone bash me up.” The Australian Institute of Criminology (2008)4 found that 9 48.7% (almost one in two) adult victims of family homicide Raymond and 35.4% (over one in three) victims of intimate partner homicide in 2006-07 were male. • 29.4% (almost one in three) victims of sexual assault during the last 12 months were male “The next thing I knew there were two police • 26.1% (more than one in four) victims of sexual abuse officers at the door. They saw the lump on my before the age of 15 were male head, the black eye, and the bleeding and I told The SA Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Survey (1999)3 them what had happened. They said my wife found that: had made a complaint that I had assaulted her, so they handcuffed me and put me in a • 32.3% (almost one in three) victims of reported domestic violence by a current or ex-partner (including both paddywagon. At the station the police said there physical and emotional violence and abuse) were male was ‘a high degree of probability’ that I would assault my wife again!” • 19.3% (almost one in ﬁve) victims of attempted or actual 9 forced sexual activity since they turned 18 years of age Michael were male (excluding activity from partners or ex- partners). The Victorian Victims Support Agency (2008)16 found that Both this survey and the Personal Safety Survey excluded the 31% (almost one in three) persons admitted to Victorian male prison population where over one quarter of young Public Hospitals for family violence injuries were male. 7 inmates experience sexual assault . The Australian Institute of Family Studies (1999)17 observed The Crime Prevention Survey (2001)10 surveyed young that, post-separation, fairly similar proportions of men (55 people aged 12 to 20 and found that: per cent) and women (62 per cent) reported experiencing • while 23% of young people were aware of domestic physical violence including threats by their former spouse. violence against their mothers or step-mothers by their Emotional abuse was reported by 84 per cent of women and oneinthree.com.au 75 per cent of men. A University of Melbourne / La Trobe University study (1999)6 found that men were just as likely to report being “Up until dad left, she held the reins in the physically assaulted by their partners as women. Further, house. It was unbearable; her pedantic women and men were about equally likely to admit being scrutinies were like police interrogations. He violent themselves. Men and women also reported practically made the bloody money, he would experiencing about the same levels of pain and need for give her the lot and than beg for pocket money. medical attention resulting from domestic violence. Everyone knew of her moods, and dad played An extensive study of dominance and symmetry in partner always by ear and we managed to get by with little disruption on her part. But there were violence by male and female university students in 32 nations times when it didn't work. Then... poor dad. I by Murray Straus (2008)14 found that, in Australia, 14 per had seen him walking naked in the back yard at cent of physical violence between dating partners during the night all upset and embarrassed; and I had seen previous 12 months was perpetrated by males only, 21 per him crawling under the bed to escape her cent by females only and 64.9 per cent was mutual violence vicious attacks, and I have seen him nursing his (where both partners used violence against each other). fresh wounds in the toilet, and he would say no Fergusson & Mullen (1999)5, in Childhood sexual abuse: an word against her... When he left mom, I was very evidence based perspective, found that one in three victims sad because I knew that I would miss him, but I of childhood sexual abuse were male. felt also happy, because I knew that he was a decent man and that he deserved better.” erview of recent family violence research findings The Queensland Government Department of Communities (Son talking about his parents)13 (2009)12 reported that 40% of domestic and family violence Ov protection orders issued by the Magistrate Court were issued

to protect males. These 14 authoritative sources agree that up to one in three A study of risk factors for recent domestic physical assault in victims of sexual assault and at least one in three victims of patients presenting to the emergency department of family violence is male (perhaps as many as one in two). Yet Adelaide hospitals (2004)15 found that 7% of male patients the current government appears unable to acknowledge or and 10% of female patients had experienced domestic offer any services for these victims. This conscious neglect is physical assault. This ﬁnding shows that over one in three in itself a form of social violence – the Australian victims were male (39.7%). Government’s human rights obligations require it to cater equitably for the needs of all, regardless of gender. One in The Australian Institute of Family Studies’ evaluation of the three is enough to reject the politics of ideology. It is time to Fact Sheet No.1: 8 2006 family law reforms (2009) found that 39% (more than care for all those in need, whether male or female. one in three) victims of physical hurt before separation were male; and 48% (almost one in two) victims of emotional To send a message to the Australian Government that all abuse before or during separation were male. victims of violence deserve services and support, go to oneinthree.com.au/action.

REFERENCES 1 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Personal safety survey australia: 2005 reissue 4906.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (Original work published August 10, 2006) Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/4906.02005 (Reissue)?OpenDocument. Significant problems with this survey include, (a) only female interviewers were used, (b) a much smaller sample of male informants was used compared to female informants, and (c) no data was published on types of violence or injuries or threats received by male victims. 2 Crime and Misconduct Commission (2005, March). Policing domestic violence in queensland: Meeting the challenges. Brisbane: Crime and Misconduct Commission. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/73653001131400781353.pdf 3 Dal Grande, E., Woollacott, T., Taylor, A., Starr, G., Anastassiadis, K., Ben-Tovim, D., et al. (2001). Interpersonal violence and abuse survey, september 1999 . Adelaide: Epidemiology Branch, Dept. of Human Services. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.health.sa.gov.au/pros/portals/0/interpersonal-violence-survey.pdf 4 Dearden, J., & Jones, W. (2008). Homicide in australia: 2006-07 national homicide monitoring program annual report. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/mr/1-20/01.aspx 5 Fergusson, D. M., & Mullen, P. E. (1999). Childhood sexual abuse: An evidence based perspective. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. 6 Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in australia: Are women and men equally violent?. Australian Monitor, 2(3). Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13y.htm 7 Heilpern, D. (2005). Sexual assault of prisoners: Reflections. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 28(1), 286-292. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from http:// austlii.law.uts.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/2005/17.html 8 Kaspiew, R., Gray, M., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Hand, K., & Qu, L. (2009, December). Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved July 5, 2010, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fle/evaluationreport.pdf 9 Lewis, A. (2000). An enquiry into the adult male experience of heterosexual abuse. Unpublished M.A. thesis submitted to the University of Western Sydney, NSW. 10 National Crime Prevention (2001). Young people and domestic violence : National research on young people's attitudes to and experiences of domestic violence. Barton: Attorney-General's Dept. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/ncphome.nsf/Page/Publications 11 People, J. (2005). Trends and patterns in domestic violence assaults. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 89. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http:// www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb89 12 Queensland Government Department of Communities (2009, October 9). Domestic and family violence orders: Number and type of order by gender, queensland, 2004-05 to 2008-09. [Letter]. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/files/Magistrates_Court_data_on_QLD_DVOs.pdf 13 Sarantakos, S. (1998). Husband abuse as self-defence. [Paper]Montreal: International Congress of Sociology 14 Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41-PR41-Dominance-symmetry-In-Press-07.pdf 15 Stuart, P. (2004). Risk factors for recent domestic physical assault in patients presenting to the emergency department. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 16(3), 216-224. 16 Victims Support Agency (2008). Victorian family violence database (volume 3): Seven year trend analysis report. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Justice. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJ+Internet/Home/Crime/Research+and+Statistics/JUSTICE+-+Victorian +Family+Violence+Database+-+Seven+Year+Report+-+PDF 17 Wolcott, I., & Hughes, J. (1999). Towards understanding the reasons for divorce. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Working Paper, 20. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/wolcott6.html oneinthree.com.au Fact Sheet No.2 • Reducing women’s use of violence will reduce women’s rates of injury from violence because a woman’s Is men’s intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration of IPV is the strongest predictor of her being more severe, and more likely to inflict a victim7 11 12 severe injury? • Children witnessing IPV by either their fathers or their Fact Sheet No.2: Severity mothers are more likely to grow up to use violence International studies show that, on average themselves7. • Overall, women are injured more than men, but men are injured too, and often seriously2 Is focusing on the severity of physical • The overall physical and psychological effects of IPV are injuries the best approach to reducing similar for men and women1 2 5 violence? • If men are injured less than women, is this a reason to “The authors concluded that their findings deny them protection? argued against theories of greater female • Don’t all victims of IPV deserve protection, not just those vulnerability to pathological outcomes.”8 who are physically injured? “we also observe evidence that contradicts the • Does only addressing the outcome of violence (physical idea that violence by male partners tends to be injury) distract from addressing the process of violence more serious”4 which can include verbal, emotional, psychological, ﬁnancial, and other forms of control and abuse? • Does a focus upon injury ignore the fact that people who • Women and men who use IPV hurt their partners in use IPV do so to control their partner, not necessarily to similar ways (kicking, biting, punching, choking, stabbing, injure them? In fact, control of one’s partner is often burning, etc), however men are as likely or signiﬁcantly achieved without the use of violence. more likely than women to experience assaults using a weapon2 5 6 “Concentrating on ‘severe’ violence only • Male perpetrators are more likely to produce minor ignores the fact that the primary intent of injuries, but less likely to produce severe injuries2 fighting spouses is not to injure their partner... • Male victims are more likely to suffer serious injuries, while but to hurt... Their focus is on getting their way... 1 2 female victims are more likely to suffer minor injuries and making the partner comply with their • Women are slightly more likely than men to seek medical demands rather than on causing physical treatment for their injuries2 injury.”9 • Men and women bear similar intentions when using IPV, leading to similar results when their average differences in physical strength are taken into account (such as when • Does a focus upon injury ignore the fact that victims of weapons are used)3 7 IPV are often hurt more by the violation of the bond of trust and love between them and their partner, than by the • Men, having greater strength on average, are more likely physical injury itself ? to use direct physical violence, while women are more likely to use a weapon to compensate for their lack of • Does a focus upon injury in effect give a ‘hitting license’ to strength2 weaker partners, who may eventually be severely injured, should their stronger partner retaliate (regardless of the • Women are more likely than men to retaliate to IPV10 gender of the partners)?

Fact Sheet No.3: Self-defence Although it cannot be denied that there are cases in which injurious to women) does not appear to be only comprised women and men abuse their partner in self-defence, of self-defensive acts of violence2 3 13 international studies have found that • Men and women initiate IPV (both minor and severe) at • Self-defence is cited by women as the reason for their use around the same rates and women are equally likely or of IPV (including severe violence such as homicide) in a more likely to perpetrate violence against a non-violent small minority of cases (from 5 to 20 per cent)1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 12 partner2 3 11 • Women are more likely than men to hit back in response 2 “Studies... found that a relatively low to provocation percentage of women endorsed self-defence as • Women are more likely than men to kill their partner in a primary motive for violence.”13 self-defence, however overall, only 10 to 20 per cent of women’s partner homicides are carried out in self-defence “Women report using violence against male or in response to prior abuse4 11 partners repeatedly, using it against non-violent male partners, and using it for reasons other than self-defence.”3 “Important is the finding that women’s allegations of DV were proven to be false. In most cases, the initial allegations of DV were • In a study where self-defence was given as a reason for modified considerably by them during the women’s use of IPV in a large number of cases (42%), it course of the study, particularly when they were was cited as a reason for men’s IPV more often (56%)12 faced with the accounts of their children and • Rather than self-defence, reasons commonly given by both mothers, admitting in the end that they were women and men for their use of IPV include neither victims of violence nor acting in self- 10 ✦ coercion (dominance and control) defence.” ✦ anger ✦ punishing a partner’s misbehaviour ✦ jealousy • Women’s use of IPV, rather than being reactive to male ✦ confusion violence, is predictable by kindergarten age, and certainly ✦ “to get through” (to one’s partner) by the teenage years. Aggressive girls grow up to be ✦ to retaliate aggressive adults. High incidence rates of personality ✦ frustration6 7 8 9 12 disorders are found in both male and female court- mandated samples of IPV perpetrators. Women who kill • Rather than self-defence, reasons commonly given by their husbands are just as likely to have criminal records as women for their use of IPV include women who kill in other circumstances.2 4 11 12 ✦ disbelief that their male victims would be injured or retaliate

REFERENCES 1 Carrado, M., George, M. J., Loxam, E., Jones, L., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression in british heterosexual relationships: A descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22(6). 2 Dutton, D. G. (2010). The gender paradigm and the architecture of antiscience. Partner Abuse, 1(1), 5-25. 3 Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—the conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680-714. 4 Felson, R. B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence?. Contexts, 5(2), 21-25. 5 Follingstad, D., Wright, S., Lloyd, S., & Sebastian, J. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40, 51-57. 6 Hines, D. A., & Malley-Morrison, K. (2001). Psychological effects of partner abuse against men: A neglected research area. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2(2), 75-85. 7 Hines, D. A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 63-72. 8 Medeiros, R. A., & Straus, M. A. (2006). Risk factors for physical violence between dating partners: Implications for gender-inclusive prevention and treatment of family violence. In J. Hamel, & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family approaches to domestic violence: A practioners guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment. (pp. 59-85). Springer. 9 Sarantakos, S. (1998). Husband abuse as self-defence. [Paper]Montreal: International Congress of Sociology. 10 Sarantakos, S. (2004). Deconstructing self-defense in wife-to-husband violence. The Journal of Men's Studies, 12(3), 277-296. 11 Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence. (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park: Sage. 12 Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275. 13 Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. Am J Public Health, 97(5), 941-7. oneinthree.com.au Fact Sheet No.4 • Even in research samples selected for high rates of male aggression (such as shelter samples), women sometimes Is men’s violence towards women report using comparative frequencies of controlling most often an attempt to control, behaviour7 9 coerce, humiliate or dominate by generating fear and intimidation, while women’s intimate partner violence “Partner violence is more a gender-inclusive systemic problem than it is a problem of a (IPV) is more often an expression of patriarchal social system which enforces male frustration in response to their dominance by violence.”13 dependence or stress, or their refusal to accept a less powerful position? • Risk factors for IPV for both women and men include International studies show that, dominance, but also include youthfulness, self-defence, angry and antisocial personalities; alcohol and illicit drug • Dominance by either partner is a risk factor for IPV (both use; conﬂict with partner; communication problems; minor & severe). It is the injustices and power struggles that criminal history; jealousy; negative attributions about the Fact Sheet No.4: Dominance & Underreporting are associated with inequality in relationships that give rise partner; partner abuse, sexual abuse and neglect histories; 1 2 9 13 to violence, not just the inequality of male dominance relationship satisfaction; stressful conditions; depression; traditional sex-role ideology and violence approval2 9 11. “The results of this study suggest important • Factors associated with the use of controlling behaviours conclusions about two widely held beliefs: that include socioeconomic status, ethnicity, education level, 5 partner violence is an almost uniquely male age and length of marriage (but not gender) crime and that when men hit their partners, it is • Female IPV is not a response to male aggression but, like primarily to dominate women, whereas partner male IPV, follows developmental trajectories including violence by women is an act of self-defence or crystallising into personality disorders. Aggressive girls 1 an act of desperation in response to male grow up to be aggressive adults (as do aggressive boys) dominance and brutality. These beliefs were not • After analysing for verbal aggression, fear, violence and supported by the results of this study.”9 control by each gender, husbands are found to be no more controlling than wives1 2 7 9 13. Men and women may differ in their methods of control, but not their motivation to • Empirical research on American couples has found that control5. Men are more likely to prevent their partner from the vast majority of relationships involve equal power knowing about or having access to family income even between partners. Relationships in which one partner is when they ask; and prevent their partner from working dominant are in the minority, and are just as likely to be outside the home. Women are more likely to insist on female-dominant as male-dominant9. knowing who their partner is with at all times; insist on changing residences even when their partner doesn’t want • Egalitarian couples are the least violent, while both male 13 or need to; and try to limit their partner’s contact with and female dominance are associated with increased IPV family and friends. Relatively few men or women engage • Both husbands and wives who are controlling are more in any of these controlling behaviours4. likely to produce injury and engage in repeated violence5 • Coercion (control and domination) is a frequently cited reason by women for their own use of IPV, and by male victims for their partner’s use of IPV9 “The... hypothesis that dominance by either partner, not just the male partner, is a risk factor for violence was also supported. In fact, this study found that dominance by the female partner is even more closely related to violence “Abuse was not just a sum of violent acts, by women than is male-dominance. The results but in almost all cases it constituted a system on dominance as a risk factor for violence, like that was imposed upon the abused spouse, that the results on symmetry and asymmetry in dominated his whole life. The study reported perpetration, apply to both minor violence and that abusive women assumed total control of severe violence. This contradicts the belief that the relationship, e.g. by getting hold of power when women hit, the motives are different, and producing resources, imposing themselves that male-dominance is the root cause of upon the husband by enforcing authority over partner violence. Thus, the results in this paper him or indirectly making serious threats to call into question another basic assumption of frighten him into submission.” 10 most prevention and treatment programs.”13 oneinthree.com.au Do men who are violent in intimate “The same distortion of the scientific relationships typically underreport evidence by selective citation applies to discussion of dominance and control. Only their violence? studies showing male use of violence to coerce, dominate, and control are cited despite a International studies show that, number of studies showing that this also • Both sexes tend to over-report minor acts of violence they applies to violence by female partners.”3 commit, under-report serious acts they commit, and over- report serious acts they suffer2 • The same results are obtained regarding the relative • Controlling behaviours exhibited by abusive women frequency of men’s and women’s violence regardless of include whether men or women are the ones being questioned2. ✦ the use of threats and coercion (threatening to kill themselves or their husbands, threatening to call the police and have the husband falsely arrested, threatening “The rate of minor assaults by wives was 78 to leave the husband)

Fact Sheet No.4: Dominance & Underreporting per 1,000 couples, and the rate of minor ✦ emotional abuse (making the victim feel bad about assaults by husbands was 72 per 1,000. The himself, calling him names, making him think he is Severe assault rate was 46 per 1,000 couples crazy, playing mind games, humiliating him, making him for assaults by wives and 50 per 1,000 for feel guilty) assaults by husbands. Neither difference is statistically significant. As these rates are ✦ intimidation (making him feel afraid by smashing things, destroying his property, abusing pets, displaying based exclusively on information provided by weapons) women respondents, the near equality in assault rates cannot be attributed to a gender ✦ blaming the men for their own abuse or minimising the bias in reporting.”12 abuse

✦ using the court system to gain sole custody of the children or falsely obtain a restraining order against the victim

✦ isolating the victim by keeping him away from his family and friends, using jealousy to justify these actions

✦ controlling all of the money and not allowing the victim to see or use the chequebook or credit cards8 • In a large recent Canadian study, victimisation by repeated, severe, fear-inducing, instrumental violence (often called intimate terrorism) was reported by 2.6% of men and 4.2% of women in the last ﬁve years. Equivalent injuries, use of medical services, and fear of the abuser were also discovered, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator and the victim1.

REFERENCES 1 Dutton, D. G. (2010). The gender paradigm and the architecture of antiscience. Partner Abuse, 1(1), 5-25. 2 Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—the conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680-714. 3 Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—the conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680-714. Cited in Medeiros & Straus (2006). 4 Felson, R. B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence?. Contexts, 5(2), 21-25. 5 Felson, R. B., & Outlaw, M. C. (2007). The control motive and marital violence. Violence Vict, 22(4), 387-407. 6 Felson, R. B., & Outlaw, M. C. (2007). The control motive and marital violence. Violence Vict, 22(4), 387-407. Cited in Dutton (2010). 7 Graham-Kevan N (2007). Power and control in relationship aggression. In Hamel J and Nicholls TL (eds.): Family Interventions in Domestic Violence. New York: Springer Publishing Co. 8 Hines, D. A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 63-72. 9 Medeiros, R. A., & Straus, M. A. (2006). Risk factors for physical violence between dating partners: Implications for gender-inclusive prevention and treatment of family violence. In J. Hamel, & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family approaches to domestic violence: A practioners guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment. (pp. 59-85). Springer 10 Sarantakos, S., & Lewis, A. (2001). Domestic violence and the male victim. Nuance, 3, 1-15. 11 Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65-98. 12 Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence. (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park: Sage. 13 Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275. oneinthree.com.au Fact Sheet No.5 • Men have rarely had their fear of female violence assessed. One of the few studies to do this found that a substantial Are male victims of intimate partner minority of male victims of IPV feared their partner’s violence (IPV) far less likely to be afraid violence and were stalked. Over half the men were fearful or intimidated than female victims? that their partners would cause them serious injury if they found out that he had called the domestic violence helpline2 3. International studies demonstrate that • Males are taught by sex-role conditioning not to admit fear, making it appear that women are more fearful simply “The feminist view is that all male violence is because they report fear more freely than men1 2 designed to generate fear to enable coercion. Fact Sheet No.5: Fear & Intimidation The data suggest a motivational profile for use of violence by either gender is far more “In most cases, the wife's intent to control complex. The question for feminists remains and dominate the husband entailed efforts to given that research indicates high levels of induce fear in him relating to his personal safety female violence, much of it against non-violent as well as the fate of the children and property males and hence not in self-defence; how is in general. She would often threaten to burn the that violence any different from male violence? house down, hurt the children or animals, or kill How can male violence still be depicted as herself, him or the children: she would often being in pursuit of power and control when drive dangerously to frighten him, and make female violence is also frequent and, according him realise how serious and dangerous she to the women themselves, not defensive?”2 could be. This generated intimidation, insecurity, and fear in the husbands and the family members in general.”5 • Another such study of male victims of IPV found that “perpetual fear and being ‘on guard’ were experienced by most participants”5 It is important to note that men’s fear • Women and men have different perceptions of danger and is often internalised and thus invisible to the outside use fear-scales quite differently. Women are twice as likely observer. as men to fear death from a partner, when the actual • There is little evidence to support the assertion that all probability of being killed is the same. Women may over- 1 2 male violence is designed to generate fear in women to react to objective threat, while men probably under-react . enable coercion. In fact the data shows that both men and women have much more complex motives behind their use of IPV2. “Men reported also symptoms such as tightness in the stomach, muscular pain, racing pulse, thought distortion, and panic attacks. Perpetual fear and being 'on guard' were “Analog studies of fear induction in experienced by most participants. Other response to intimate conflicts found that commonly expressed reactions were, feelings women would report more fear even when of lack of control and inadequacy and constant exposure to the stimulus (a videotaped conflict denigration of the man, which often caused him between others) could not possibly be to accept his partner's view of him, and to lose threatening or endangering... Men use fear self esteem.”5 scales differently and are less likely to report fear as opposed to other emotions. Creating police responses based on who is most afraid • Women’s greater fear of male violence, where it exists, means perpetrators can be arrested based on could also simply stem from the greater average size and reported internal reactions that cannot be strength of men, rather than from any difference in corroborated.”1 motives between men and women who use IPV4.