View Full Version : Number of UK women convicted of domestic abuse doubles
IAN 2411
06-06-2011, 02:07 AM
By Hayley Cavill and Rachel Fursman BBC Radio 5 live
The number of women convicted of domestic violence in England and Wales has more than doubled in the past five years, an investigation by BBC Radio 5 live Breakfast has found.
Figures obtained from the Crown Prosecution Service showed that almost 4,000 women were successfully prosecuted in the past year, compared with 1,500 women in 2005, a 169% increase.
Some experts say it is a worrying sign of the growing culture of violence among women, while others believe that men are now more likely to report that they have been beaten up by their wives and girlfriends than in previous years.
Chief Constable Carmel Napier, the Association of Chief Police Officers' lead on domestic abuse, says the figures show there is wider reporting of domestic abuse.
"We know about more cases now because of better responses from police, multi-agencies and the voluntary sector and a shift in the societal view of the crime," she says.
Start Quote
You know when you love someone so much and you just believe they can just change? I was hoping she would change”
End Quote Peter Victim of domestic violence
Peter says he was physically and emotionally abused by his wife for almost a year.
But after finally calling the police, he could not bring himself to press charges.
He had to sleep for months lying in the same position, on his back. If he turned his back his wife would punch and kick him.
Peter says the first incident of violence took him completely by surprise.
"I wasn't expecting the punch on the face. I wasn't expecting somebody hitting me so fast.
"You know when you love someone so much and you just believe they can just change? I was hoping she would change," he says.
Kieron was stabbed in the chest by his ex-wife. She is now serving a four-and-a-half year prison sentence.
He says the abuse started during her pregnancy.
The night he was stabbed, Kieron's wife came home from a friend's house demanding he cook her something to eat.
They got into an argument and she threatened to punch him, but when he pushed her away she went into the kitchen and grabbed a steak knife and plunged it into Kieron's chest.
"I could see the blood coming through the T-shirt.
"All the time I was on the phone to the ambulance I was in and out of consciousness.
"All I remember is that the ambulance people were there giving me oxygen and pain relief. The doctors gave me a 50-50 chance whether I was going to live or die," he says.
'Decades behind'
It is unclear why the conviction rates for women committing domestic violence are increasing, but organisations that offer help to male victims are sparse.
One charity that does is Mankind, which says there are just over 70 bed spaces in 20 refuges or safe houses for male victims in the UK, compared with 7,500 for women.
Mankind's chairman, Mark Brooks, believes that despite the number of women being convicted, some organisations still fail to recognise that men can be victims of domestic abuse too.
"There are a number of national and local helplines. There are some councils and police forces that do a great job in encouraging and supporting men when they come forward, but it's far too few," says Mark.
He believes that services are around three decades behind those available to female victims.
"Really in this day and age that is not acceptable," he says.
The Crown Prosecution Service says any form of domestic violence is a serious crime irrespective of whether the victim is male or female - and that there is no bias or lack of concern when dealing with cases of male victims.
Men, though, remain by far the main offenders, with the numbers convicted increasing from more than 28,000 in 2005 to just over 55,000 in 2010.
...........................................
Well we all knew it was there but now on the increase, just unbelievable.
Be well IAN 2411
Perfectly believable. There's a lot of hatred of men out there. I bet a dollar to a dime that there have been many men convicted of abusing wives when the wife was the abuser, simply because real men would not allow themselves to be abused by a girl
Perhaps, while liberated women are taking over society, they feel less inclined to cover up their own tyrannical behaviour or to put the blame on their victims.
What do you think of Germaine Greer's recent comment on BBC's Question Time that little girls grow up being made to flirt with their fathers, and are being sexualised when they are told to kiss Daddy goodnight?
Thorne
06-14-2011, 08:42 PM
What do you think of Germaine Greer's recent comment on BBC's Question Time that little girls grow up being made to flirt with their fathers, and are being sexualised when they are told to kiss Daddy goodnight?
I haven't seen the program, but what you've paraphrased is, IMO, horseshit. It takes a particularly inane personality to equate simple father/daughter love with sex. How about the little boys giving their mother a kiss goodnight? Is she sexualizing them? What about the little boys who give their dad's a kiss goodnight (mine did, for a while) or the little girls giving their moms a kiss? Are they being turned into homosexuals?
Some people seem to equate any kind of closeness with sex. They don't seem to understand that a father can give his child a hug and a kiss without even once thinking about his dick. I think those people need to look deeper into themselves and try to figure out where THEY are twisted, instead of trying to twist everyone else.
Snark
06-15-2011, 05:12 AM
It's easier for some people to rationalize a behavior as a learned trait that can be blamed on someone else rather than assigning personal responsibility. They see the world as existing within the filter of their choosing, ignoring the simpler fact that different individuals can experience similar things with different results. The classic image of a woman waiting with for her husband a rolling pin always assumed that he was a jerk who deserved it. Yet if he had slapped her after receiving a knot on the head, he was guilty of abuse. Men are no different than women in the refusal to believe that the person they married (or is living with) can be the abusive monster that they occasionally are. Abused women have support groups and agencies...as indeed they should. Men are laughed at for not being "man enough" to stop being abused. A steak knife, rolling pin or cast iron frying pan are all deadly weapons, whether in the hands of a man or a woman.
I haven't seen the program, but what you've paraphrased is, IMO, horseshit ...
The comment was made in response to a question whether little girls should be dressed in clothes that make them look older than they are. Her reply was to the effect that there has always been a culture of sexualising girls by encouraging them to flirt with their father - by giving him a goodnight kiss. A father of 3 girls in the audience said the suggestion was disgusting, but Greer was unrepentant.
I wish someone had challenged her about little boys kissing their mothers as you suggested, but unfortunately it did not happen. I think the audience was too astounded to react in time.
For general reaction see the posts on netmums - http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/general-coffeehouse-chat-514/news-current-affairs-topical-discussion-12/590247-germaine-greer-question-time-flirting-daddy.html
Now that feminism has made it unacceptable for males to interact with children they meet in public, they are turning on fathers to make it unacceptable to have any kind of relationship with their own children.
IAN 2411
06-17-2011, 03:43 AM
Well I looked at the previous posts, and thought about what this woman that I had only heard of vaguely had said. I have four daughters and they all kissed me goodnight throughout their life, and again when they went with their mother to their aunts without me. So not being one to be told I am a pervert by someone I looked her up.
Well she is a 75 year old self proclaimed feminist and writes for the Guardian news paper. I sit in my chair once more in relief as I have found the words that were spoken where from a complete nutter. I have always been of the opinion that anyone that writes for the Guardian news paper cannot be taken seriously. Because this is the same stupid woman that said I believe in the same program that British troops could turn into rapists while on duty in the Middle East.
Apparently the BBC tried to interview this 75 year old after the show, but she told them she was on a sexual high and had to be on the next plane to Afghanistan on a visit the troops mission. ROFLMFAO.
Be well IAN 2411
Thorne
06-17-2011, 05:38 AM
she told them she was on a sexual high and had to be on the next plane to Afghanistan on a visit the troops mission. ROFLMFAO.
Does that make her some sort of IED (Impulsively Erotic Dingbat)?
The sad part is that someone, somewhere, is giving this woman a platform to spew her madness to the public. Am I correct in assuming that the Guardian is something akin to the US's National Enquirer?
Hellcat
06-17-2011, 06:12 AM
How about the little boys giving their mother a kiss goodnight?
I believe Frued went there years ago.
By Hayley Cavill and Rachel Fursman BBC Radio 5 live
The number of women convicted of domestic violence in England and Wales has more than doubled in the past five years, an investigation by BBC Radio 5 live Breakfast has found.
Figures obtained from the Crown Prosecution Service showed that almost 4,000 women were successfully prosecuted in the past year, compared with 1,500 women in 2005, a 169% increase.
Some experts say it is a worrying sign of the growing culture of violence among women, while others believe that men are now more likely to report that they have been beaten up by their wives and girlfriends than in previous years.
I have posted on this once or twice once I got aware of it myself via a poster in my GP's room and looked for info on the net.
It looks like it is going the same way as with male domestic violence, once it did not exist, then it slowly - very slowly - became 'proper' to admit to, and finally to report to the police.
I agree it is bad that there aren't any shelters, and I hope that on the heels of this laws may be changed and attitudes too so also rape can be reported and dealt with.
Perfectly believable. There's a lot of hatred of men out there. I bet a dollar to a dime that there have been many men convicted of abusing wives when the wife was the abuser, simply because real men would not allow themselves to be abused by a girl
I do not quite see how that is possible. It the beaten one carries the marks.
[quote]
Perhaps, while liberated women are taking over society, they feel less inclined to cover up their own tyrannical behaviour or to put the blame on their victims.
Perhaps equality means no one has to be tyrannical? At least, that is the theory.
What do you think of Germaine Greer's recent comment on BBC's Question Time that little girls grow up being made to flirt with their fathers, and are being sexualised when they are told to kiss Daddy goodnight?
The woman has always been a raving fundamentalist. My guess is damaged in mind and soul, and full of hate.
Some people seem to equate any kind of closeness with sex. They don't seem to understand that a father can give his child a hug and a kiss without even once thinking about his dick. I think those people need to look deeper into themselves and try to figure out where THEY are twisted, instead of trying to twist everyone else.
I agree, and it is a truly terrible attitude, which has been promoted in the wake of all the pedophilia hysterics.
Many men and some women would not even dare help a child who had fallen and hurt her/him self. It has become so poisonous!
The comment was made in response to a question whether little girls should be dressed in clothes that make them look older than they are.
Which to me is a relevant question, and they shouldn't. Bras for 8 year olds is insane.
I wish someone had challenged her about little boys kissing their mothers as you suggested, but unfortunately it did not happen. I think the audience was too astounded to react in time.
To the fundamentalist feminists this side of things simply do not exist. I have tried to take it up in discussions and they do not even answer. I guess they do not have any.
Now that feminism has made it unacceptable for males to interact with children they meet in public, they are turning on fathers to make it unacceptable to have any kind of relationship with their own children.
I do not know of any (normal non-fundamentalist) feminists who are like that, but I think quite a few religious people are on this track.
Whoever, the thing is to not go along with all that nonsense and to speak up against it, lest it really infects people's lives. I know it has already had impact. I do not know who is fuelling the pedophilia witch hunts, but they have a lot to answer for.
Thorne
06-17-2011, 07:58 AM
Many men and some women would not even dare help a child who had fallen and hurt her/him self.
This actually happened to me. I happened to be in my kitchen, and saw a young boy riding his bicycle on the street in front of my house. The bike tipped and he fell onto the grass alongside the road. I immediately headed out the back door to make sure he was all right, but sadly my first thought was, "Should I take the chance of trying to help this kid?"
Fortunately, his father was there before I was, but it bothers me that I had to be concerned about the possible repercussions of helping a fallen child.
IAN 2411
06-17-2011, 09:24 AM
here I do not quite see how that is possible. It the beaten one carries the marks.
Under British law if she can proove that it has mentally effected her, then his goose is cooked. There are no scars in mental abuse and that is why the law is tilted in favour of the abused.
The woman has always been a raving fundamentalist. My guess is damaged in mind and soul, and full of hate.
I think you mean raving lunatic.
Be well IAN 2411
IAN 2411
06-17-2011, 09:28 AM
This actually happened to me. I happened to be in my kitchen, and saw a young boy riding his bicycle on the street in front of my house. The bike tipped and he fell onto the grass alongside the road. I immediately headed out the back door to make sure he was all right, but sadly my first thought was, "Should I take the chance of trying to help this kid?"
Fortunately, his father was there before I was, but it bothers me that I had to be concerned about the possible repercussions of helping a fallen child.
I have to agree with you on that issue as i think every person at some time have had those thoughts....we now live in a dont touch the child world unless they are your own.
Be well IAN 2411
Thorne
06-17-2011, 10:15 AM
Originally Posted by thir
The woman has always been a raving fundamentalist.
I think you mean raving lunatic.
Same difference.
This actually happened to me. I happened to be in my kitchen, and saw a young boy riding his bicycle on the street in front of my house. The bike tipped and he fell onto the grass alongside the road. I immediately headed out the back door to make sure he was all right, but sadly my first thought was, "Should I take the chance of trying to help this kid?"
Fortunately, his father was there before I was, but it bothers me that I had to be concerned about the possible repercussions of helping a fallen child.
I also saw a young lad tumble from his bike. I did not help him. I did ask if he was hurt, and he wasn't.
My wife said under the circumstances I did the right thing by doing nothing.
I think you mean raving lunatic.
Be well IAN 2411
No. I meant a raving fundamentalist. To me a fundamentalist has crossed a mental line and is no longer on the same planet as the rest of us.
I also saw a young lad tumble from his bike. I did not help him. I did ask if he was hurt, and he wasn't.
My wife said under the circumstances I did the right thing by doing nothing.
It's insane that it has come to this! What can be done?
denuseri
06-18-2011, 10:51 AM
IMHO: I think this is all another symptom that stems directly from the ill concieved feminist pendulum swinging too far yet again in one direction in great part with the help of a faceless unaccountable corperate media that doesnt care about anything but lining its own pockets by promoting violence and controversy becuase thats what gets the ratings.
I rather hijacked this thread when I brought Germaine Greer into the topic. Apologies, Ian: I do think the original topic should be properly aired, but first,
IMHO: I think this is all another symptom that stems directly from the ill conceived feminist pendulum swinging too far yet again in one direction in great part with the help of a faceless unaccountable corperate media that doesnt care about anything but lining its own pockets by promoting violence and controversy becuase thats what gets the ratings.
I agree with the first part, den. Feminism that adopts a positive approach to societal reform is to be encouraged, but militant feminism of the kind Greer espouses is no better than the male sexism it despises, and it should be shunned. You don't get equality by oppressing your oppressor, you simply turn the table.
However, the BBC gets its money whether it tops the ratings or no-one watches at all. It carries no advertising in the UK. It does like to get good ratings, of course, but the profit motive isn't there like it is for the other channels.
==================
According to another news item, one in six men in a relationship suffer abuse from their partner, whereas one in four women are abused. Clearly, women's need is greater than men's, and this must not be overlooked in this discussion. However, as the number of men and women in a relationship is roughly equal, it would seem that for every 12 partnerships, 3 women suffer abuse, and 2 men do so too. If my simple arithmetic is right, then the fact that nearly half of UK relationships are abusive is shocking, and the number of instances where the abuser is the woman is surprising (to me anyway). It also seems that, among the younger generation - those in their 20's - the level of abuse is more or less equal.
We know that women prefer to suffer in silence (or think they deserve it), and I suggest that men also prefer to keep the abuse to themselves. Not only might they think they deserve their treatment, but they are ashamed to admit it, because they would rather endure the misery than be seen to be weak.
I suggested above that female abuse might be less obvious to outsiders for this reason, or because the female abuser claims that she is the victim of her partner. Someone suggested this could not be, because the man could show the marks made on his body when he was attacked. While that is true, I am sure that such women are capable of marking themselves if they want to, but, more likely, the abuse takes a different form, a form women are far more able to inflict than physical violence, namely, mental abuse.
Mental torture can be more insidious, more degrading and more permanent in its effects than physical violence. Its marks are invisible, however.
denuseri
06-19-2011, 04:30 PM
As an FYI sidebar:
MMI: The BBC is one thing onto itself and alltough runs on a public fee system within Brittian it sells adveretising in all of its outside programing slots world wide. Additionally that would be applicable if the BBC was the only thing ever aired in the UK and your people never had access to anything mentioned below.
Things like:
Anything media related owned by:
GE’s media holding includes television networks NBC and Telemundo, 27 television stations in the United States and many cable TV networks, including the History Channel, and Sci Fi Channel. It also owns the popular web-based TV website Hulu.
and A&E which is co-owned by The Hearst Corporation and ABC, which in turn is owned by Disney.
Time Warner: is the world’s largest media and entertainment company – it owns major operations in film, TV, print, Internet, and telecommunications. Time Warner has an annual revenue of $50.5 billion (2008) – the equivalent of the entire GDP of Luxembourg.
Like cartoons? Time Warner’s got you covered with Cartoon Network and Adult Swim. Classic movies? Check (Turner Classic Movies). And who can forget CNN and Headline News? Both are Time Warner properties. (Note: CW is co-owned by Time Warner and CBS).
You may associate it with amusement parks, but The Walt Disney Company has grown to be one of the world’s largest media and entertainment corporation since its founding as an animation studio by brothers Walt and Roy Disney in 1923.
The Walt Disney Company owns the ABC television network, with more 200 affiliated stations reaching nearly 100% of all U.S. television market, as well as dozens of niche cable networks. True to its cartoon animation origin, Disney captures its viewers early – it counts millions of young children as its audience with kids channels like the Disney Channel.
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corperation: is a behemoth: it is the largest media company in the world by market capitalization ($38 billion). For most people, the conservative news channel Fox comes foremost to mind when asked what they think of Murdoch’s media empire – but the company’s holding is far larger: it includes Asia’s Star TV Network, the National Geographic Channel and even the iconic TV Guide network.
Don’t watch TV? Even if you prefer to browse the Internet, most likely you’ve visited News Corp’s property, which include Hulu (owned in partnership with GE through its subsidiary NBC Universal) and the social networking giant MySpace.
Columbia Broadcasting System is not sometimes called the Tiffany Network for nothing: the company is known for its high programming quality. It is currently the most watched television network in the United States, and reached more than 103 million homes in the country.
Both CBS and Viacom (see below) are owned by multi-billionaire Sumner "content is king" Redstone, through his holding company National Amusements.
"Video and Audio Communication" – or Viacom rounds out the big guys and true to that name, the company owns a large number of cable and satellite television networks (the company was split from CBS Corporation in 2005, though both have the same majority owner).
See what I mean by media influence?
The BBC altough technically owned by the people is still conserned for its own ratings all the same.
On the sidebar. The programme in question, which is relatively cheap to produce, was aimed at BBC's domestic audience: I doubt it is aired on World Service - why would foreigners be concerned about Britons arguing over home issues? Apart from ITV and Sky, BBC has little competition from other domestic providers BBC's 2 main channels attract almost a quarter of available viewers, and their other channels (BBC 3, 4, News, Alba, etc.) take a slice of the remaining audience. It does chase ratings to justify its programming policy, but it is not profit motivated in doing so.
But your main point in your previous post, about militant feminism going too far, is one I agree with absolutely.
denuseri
06-20-2011, 01:24 PM
Its the dual edged blade of social equality thats for sure!
IMHO: I think this is all another symptom that stems directly from the ill concieved feminist pendulum swinging too far yet again in one direction in great part with the help of a faceless unaccountable corperate media that doesnt care about anything but lining its own pockets by promoting violence and controversy becuase thats what gets the ratings.
I do not think it is helpful to blame all including the weather on feminists.
But I do agree that the media has a lot to answer for.
I agree with the first part, den. Feminism that adopts a positive approach to societal reform is to be encouraged, but militant feminism of the kind Greer espouses is no better than the male sexism it despises, and it should be shunned. You don't get equality by oppressing your oppressor, you simply turn the table.
Exactly
the number of instances where the abuser is the woman is surprising (to me anyway). It also seems that, among the younger generation - those in their 20's - the level of abuse is more or less equal.
[/qutoe]
I guess sex is no better than the other..
[quote]
because the female abuser claims that she is the victim of her partner.
Someone suggested this could not be, because the man could show the marks made on his body when he was attacked. While that is true, I am sure that such women are capable of marking themselves if they want to,
This seems quite farfetched to me - what do you base this idea on? I mean, mark themselves how? And that still does not mean that the man isn't marked.
but, more likely, the abuse takes a different form, a form women are far more able to inflict than physical violence, namely, mental abuse.
Why do you feel that women are more able to inflict mental abuse than men?
Mental torture can be more insidious, more degrading and more permanent in its effects than physical violence. Its marks are invisible, however.
Perhaps..I think they kind of go together.
Its the dual edged blade of social equality thats for sure!
I do not understand -??
Could you elaborate?
@ thir
I'm surprised you think my suggestion is far-fetched. Let us say you have been abusing your man, by beating him and burning him. He gets bruises and burns, true. But now you realise he's called the police, and you face a spell in gaol. You can easily cause bruises on yourself, and you can probably say he attacked you with a kettle of boiling water, but you fought back (hence the bruises on both of you) and the idiot spilt the kettle on himself. At least you have a chance of getting away with it. Depends on how meek and mild you can convince the policeman you are.
Far-fetched, as an example, maybe. But it could happen, so in reality, maybe not.
Also, I believe women will resort to mental abuse rather than physical because, (a) men are usually stronger, (b) women understand emotions better than men, and can manipulate feelings more easily, (c) women are more proficient verbally than men, and can always find a way to belittle them.
Finally, a doctor once told me that a mental injury takes up to 20 times longer to heal than a physical one. Assuming it does heal, I suppose.
denuseri
06-20-2011, 07:00 PM
Your assuming that when one is physically injured by another that a mental injury is not also included?
denuseri
06-20-2011, 07:08 PM
I do not understand -??
Could you elaborate?
Sure..its rather simple:
There are a number of things that have happened becuase of and since the advent of femminisim that have been somewhat benifical...and there are a number of things that have not been so benifical.
Your assuming that when one is physically injured by another that a mental injury is not also included?
That was my thought also. You may have a mental injury without a physical one, but I cannot see how it can be the other way around.
@ thir
I'm surprised you think my suggestion is far-fetched. Let us say you have been abusing your man, by beating him and burning him. He gets bruises and burns, true. But now you realise he's called the police, and you face a spell in gaol. You can easily cause bruises on yourself, and you can probably say he attacked you with a kettle of boiling water, but you fought back (hence the bruises on both of you) and the idiot spilt the kettle on himself. At least you have a chance of getting away with it. Depends on how meek and mild you can convince the policeman you are.
Far-fetched, as an example, maybe. But it could happen, so in reality, maybe not.
Very unlikely. I do not think it would be so easy to mark yourself, not convincingly. Also people who are this violent are probaly not so very well sppoken, or they would not have to resort to violence.
Also, I believe women will resort to mental abuse rather than physical because, (a) men are usually stronger, (b) women understand emotions better than men, and can manipulate feelings more easily, (c) women are more proficient verbally than men, and can always find a way to belittle them.
The question is whether b and c are myths or real, but in any way not a very nice picture of women in general. I admit I have more faith in people, men and women both.
Finally, a doctor once told me that a mental injury takes up to 20 times longer to heal than a physical one. Assuming it does heal, I suppose.
Meaning? As Denuseri brought up, physical unjuries also cause mental ones.
I'm not sure how convincing you have to be, bearing in mind that most people will want to believe that it was the man, not the woman, at fault - including the police and medical services.
I do believe women are more sensitive to emotional feelings than men are, and that they are better able to express themselves. Perhaps someone knows the facts for certain, or can do the research to answer the point precisely. But if a female abuser is intent on putting the blame on to her victim, she doesn't need to injure herself, she can claim mental torture ...
I also believe that, although physical injuries can also cause mental ones, they far more frequently don't. I have suffered many physical injuries, but I don't think any of them was accompanied by mental ones. Again, someone might like to dig up the facts and figures on this.
Thorne
06-24-2011, 06:28 PM
I do believe women are more sensitive to emotional feelings than men are, and that they are better able to express themselves. Perhaps someone knows the facts for certain, or can do the research to answer the point precisely.
It's my understanding that, in general, women tend to be better able to express emotions than men. But I don't have any data to back that up.
I also believe that, although physical injuries can also cause mental ones, they far more frequently don't. I have suffered many physical injuries, but I don't think any of them was accompanied by mental ones. Again, someone might like to dig up the facts and figures on this.
I don't think that it is JUST the physical injuries but the circumstances as well. Falling down and breaking your arm would not have nearly as much emotional impact as having that arm deliberately broken by a loved one. I can certainly understand how those emotional injuries could be very deep and long-lasting.
denuseri
06-26-2011, 03:38 PM
Precicely my point Thorne...I mean we are speaking about domestic abuse and viloent crime here right..not breaking a nail or getting a skinned knee.
IAN 2411
06-26-2011, 04:22 PM
I would like to point out that domestic abuse against the male is normally phychologicle [yes I have spelt that wrong] and not physical. I would think that a lot of male spouses don't realise it is taking place until it is too late. Why is this thread defending the little woman with the sharp tongue once more???....I could put my finger on two men that are living close to me that are mentaly abused, but I couldn't put my finger on one woman that is being phyically abused. What are the odds of that? I was originally told about them by a woman, [stamping out the, ITS A MANS THING].
Be well IAN 2411
Precicely my point Thorne...I mean we are speaking about domestic abuse and viloent crime here right..not breaking a nail or getting a skinned knee.
I think we are talking about abuse of men by women, generally, and at this point in particular, whether women use mental abuse in preference to physical abuse in contrast with men who would tend to abuse a woman physically.
The suggestion that mental injury always accompanies physical injury in cases of domestic abuse seems to be an attempt to lessen the seriousness of these crimes by women by elevating the crimes of men (ie, male abusers cause a double injury, female abusers only one).
We were also considering whether a female abuser would take advantage of her sex to avoid punishment by putting the blame on her victim.
denuseri
06-26-2011, 09:22 PM
Please take note that my commenets conserning physical/mental abuse were not gender specific.
Nor were they intended to lessen anything...just to point out that in cases like the ones we are speaking off...if physical abuse is inflicted it will surely have mental aguish induced becuase of it.
I think they were gender-specific, even if that was unintentional. It is self-evident that men will use physical abuse more than women will. Therefore, by your argument, they cannot help but inflict double the damage.
denuseri
07-02-2011, 08:24 PM
I think...that if I intended my statements to be gender specific...I would have made them clearly referenced as to dealing with only one gender or the other.
It's my understanding that, in general, women tend to be better able to express emotions than men. But I don't have any data to back that up.
I really do not think one can be so general - men do this, women do that. I think we are far more individual than that.
Of course it is a fact that women are allowed feelings much more than men are, but that, IMO, is something only the men can demand for themselves. IMO it would be a good idea to do so, doubless it would be a both better and longer life for men.
Also, if you are sat down as many girls are, you learn to express yourself with your words and use your head. More freedom here, for everybody, mind, would be a good thing.
I don't think that it is JUST the physical injuries but the circumstances as well. Falling down and breaking your arm would not have nearly as much emotional impact as having that arm deliberately broken by a loved one. I can certainly understand how those emotional injuries could be very deep and long-lasting.
yes, indeed, that goes without saying, whether it is a man or a woman doing the ugly deed.
I would like to point out that domestic abuse against the male is normally phychologicle [yes I have spelt that wrong] and not physical.
I do not know what you mean about 'normally' - as was said, there is one dead man per day from domestic violence, methinks that's a lot of people!
If you assume that mental violence is happening a lot more than that, then there is something wrong with relationships in general, I'd say. And maybe there is. If you have a power balance based on society backing men and men being stronger and women talking better, and you then take away the society backed power balance and the right to violence, then what is left?
Mutual respect and love seems to be out, according to this. Is that really true?
I would think that a lot of male spouses don't realise it is taking place until it is too late. Why is this thread defending the little woman with the sharp tongue once more???....I could put my finger on two men that are living close to me that are mentaly abused, but I couldn't put my finger on one woman that is being phyically abused. What are the odds of that? I was originally told about them by a woman, [stamping out the, ITS A MANS THING].
Be well IAN 2411
Did not this thread start with males being abused physically?
I also do not see this thread as a competition about who is worst to each other. Lots of women are being beaten in the home, that is a fact. A new fact (if it is new) has now come out, that men are also being beaten - to death. Is there a point in discussing who is the most dead?
As for the sharp tongue you may have a point. Historically that was what you had, as a women. And that is still what you are left with, if you are told to sit, and not run around or use your head for other than language. Please note that this is not an excuse for bad behaviour! There is no excuse for not respecting your mate.
I just happended to see a program about men who felt suppressed by women, in particular about their sharp tongues.
I totally agree that if a man feels his wife or partner does not respect him, he should leave. No good relationship can exist without mutual respect.
But I also feel that maybe men should take in some more virtues than what is traditionally considered masculine. Give yourselves some more space for other things, such as language, art, children, whatever. And you will catch up in the areas where you now feel behind.
I think we are talking about abuse of men by women, generally, and at this point in particular, whether women use mental abuse in preference to physical abuse in contrast with men who would tend to abuse a woman physically.
I still do not think so - one dead a day...
Of course it all depends on how you define mental abuse. Would you like to take a go at that? it might clarify things.
The suggestion that mental injury always accompanies physical injury in cases of domestic abuse seems to be an attempt to lessen the seriousness of these crimes by women by elevating the crimes of men (ie, male abusers cause a double injury, female abusers only one).
With all due respect, that sounds weird. You cannot deny that being hit by a partner or parent will not leave scars.
It is not a competition.
We were also considering whether a female abuser would take advantage of her sex to avoid punishment by putting the blame on her victim.
And that is a theory with so far nothing to back it up, unless you have personal or near-personal experience.
'women' are not like this, and 'men' are not like that. We are individuals.
I think...that if I intended my statements to be gender specific...I would have made them clearly referenced as to dealing with only one gender or the other.
Forgive me.
I don't believe you did intend your statement to be gender-specific: it just was. While males are supposed to be more violent than females, women are believed to be more emotionally manipulative. Thus to say physical violence is always accompanied by psychological harm, implies males do twice the damage than females who only inflict mental injury.
I still do not think so - one dead a day...
If one dead man a day, then three or four dead women a day. Men are more physically violent.
Of course it all depends on how you define mental abuse. Would you like to take a go at that? it might clarify things.
Why do I feel I'm being patronised? Ah! You're trying to put me in my place verbally.
But I'll have a go. Forgive me if I explain it badly. Abuse, whether physical or mental is about control. Women (who learn to express themselves verbally, and "use their head) can easily diminish a man by commenting on the size of his penis or refusing to argue with someone so ill-equipped to do so. I have witnessed such exchanges in different circumstances, and have seen males (deservedly) driven away pursued by hoots of derision by females; but if women use these methods to deter unwanted advances, then so, too, will a manipulative, controlling, woman who wants to keep her partner under her thumb.
She might deny him sex and jeer at him for his inability to satisfy her. Worse, she might take other lovers and flaunt her escapades in front of him. She might "show him up" by embarrasing him in front of his boss, or friends, family, or children ... anything she thinks will keep her in control.
You don't think a female abuser would try to avoid punishment by blaming her victim, knowing she is more likely to be believed than he is? I've no evidence, but I'm afraid I do.
With all due respect, that sounds weird. You cannot deny that being hit by a partner or parent will not leave scars.
It is not a competition..
You feel men are now competing to be the most victimised? No. Men are asking that they not be automatically blamed unless and until it is shown they are at fault. And this goes beyond the question of domestic abuse.
women' are not like this, and 'men' are not like that. We are individuals.
Not so. There are definite male tendencies and definite female tendencies. And not all female tendencies are nice ones.
Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
Of course it all depends on how you define mental abuse. Would you like to take a go at that? it might clarify things.
Why do I feel I'm being patronised? Ah! You're trying to put me in my place verbally.
Please tell me you are joking!
But I'll have a go. Forgive me if I explain it badly. Abuse, whether physical or mental is about control.
Hm. I am not so sure that it is neccesarily always so. I think some people simply really do loose their temper
or are simply just jerks. (M/K) I do not think it is always premeditated.
Women (who learn to express themselves verbally, and "use their head)
But what about all the males who live on their verbal skills, like sales persons, politicians and so on? Authors?
can easily diminish a man by commenting on the size of his penis or refusing to argue with someone so ill-equipped to do so.
And so do males often comment on women's looks...why do you think so many women feel that they can only be a succes if they look good?
I have witnessed such exchanges in different circumstances, and have seen males (deservedly) driven away pursued by hoots of derision by females;
Deservedly?..do you mean there was no other way to get rid of them? Because it can be like that. But otherwise I personally think a polite question deserves a polite answer.
but if women use these methods to deter unwanted advances, then so, too, will a manipulative, controlling, woman who wants to keep her partner under her thumb.
Ok maybe I am being slow on the uptake here, but would such behaviour not cause people to run screaming in the opposite direction?
She might deny him sex and jeer at him for his inability to satisfy her. Worse, she might take other lovers and flaunt her escapades in front of him. She might "show him up" by embarrasing him in front of his boss, or friends, family, or children ... anything she thinks will keep her in control.
Ok I admit I cannot see how that keeps that person in control. I would think people would get out of such a relationship as soon as can be - but I do see now what exactly you mean by abuse, thank you. And this is not meant patronizing in any way, I assure you.
You don't think a female abuser would try to avoid punishment by blaming her victim, knowing she is more likely to be believed than he is? I've no evidence, but I'm afraid I do.
Ok, I can only say I hope you are wrong!
Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
With all due respect, that sounds weird. You cannot deny that being hit by a partner or parent will not leave scars.
It is not a competition.
.
You feel men are now competing to be the most victimised?
No. Men are asking that they not be automatically blamed unless and until it is shown they are at fault. And this goes beyond the question of domestic abuse.
Is that not what we all ask?
Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
women' are not like this, and 'men' are not like that. We are individuals.
Not so. There are definite male tendencies and definite female tendencies. And not all female tendencies are nice ones.
I cannot see it as so simple, if only because the gender roles are so different from culture to culture.
But of course we are all both good and bad.
If one dead man a day, then three or four dead women a day. Men are more physically violent.
Why do I feel I'm being patronised? Ah! You're trying to put me in my place verbally.
But I'll have a go. Forgive me if I explain it badly. Abuse, whether physical or mental is about control. Women (who learn to express themselves verbally, and "use their head) can easily diminish a man by commenting on the size of his penis or refusing to argue with someone so ill-equipped to do so. I have witnessed such exchanges in different circumstances, and have seen males (deservedly) driven away pursued by hoots of derision by females; but if women use these methods to deter unwanted advances, then so, too, will a manipulative, controlling, woman who wants to keep her partner under her thumb.
She might deny him sex and jeer at him for his inability to satisfy her. Worse, she might take other lovers and flaunt her escapades in front of him. She might "show him up" by embarrasing him in front of his boss, or friends, family, or children ... anything she thinks will keep her in control.
You don't think a female abuser would try to avoid punishment by blaming her victim, knowing she is more likely to be believed than he is? I've no evidence, but I'm afraid I do.
.
You feel men are now competing to be the most victimised? No. Men are asking that they not be automatically blamed unless and until it is shown they are at fault. And this goes beyond the question of domestic abuse.
Not so. There are definite male tendencies and definite female tendencies. And not all female tendencies are nice ones.
Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
Of course it all depends on how you define mental abuse. Would you like to take a go at that? it might clarify things.
Why do I feel I'm being patronised? Ah! You're trying to put me in my place verbally.
Please tell me you are joking!
But I'll have a go. Forgive me if I explain it badly. Abuse, whether physical or mental is about control.
Hm. I am not so sure that it is neccesarily always so. I think some people simply really do loose their temper
or are simply just jerks. (M/K) I do not think it is always premeditated.
Women (who learn to express themselves verbally, and "use their head)
But what about all the males who live on their verbal skills, like sales persons, politicians and so on? Authors?
can easily diminish a man by commenting on the size of his penis or refusing to argue with someone so ill-equipped to do so.
And so do males often comment on women's looks...why do you think so many women feel that they can only be a succes if they look good?
I have witnessed such exchanges in different circumstances, and have seen males (deservedly) driven away pursued by hoots of derision by females;
Deservedly?..do you mean there was no other way to get rid of them? Because it can be like that. But otherwise I personally think a polite question deserves a polite answer.
but if women use these methods to deter unwanted advances, then so, too, will a manipulative, controlling, woman who wants to keep her partner under her thumb.
Ok maybe I am being slow on the uptake here, but would such behaviour not cause people to run screaming in the opposite direction?
She might deny him sex and jeer at him for his inability to satisfy her. Worse, she might take other lovers and flaunt her escapades in front of him. She might "show him up" by embarrasing him in front of his boss, or friends, family, or children ... anything she thinks will keep her in control.
Ok I admit I cannot see how that keeps that person in control. I would think people would get out of such a relationship as soon as can be - but I do see now what exactly you mean by abuse, thank you. And this is not meant patronizing in any way, I assure you.
You don't think a female abuser would try to avoid punishment by blaming her victim, knowing she is more likely to be believed than he is? I've no evidence, but I'm afraid I do.
Ok, I can only say I hope you are wrong!
Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
With all due respect, that sounds weird. You cannot deny that being hit by a partner or parent will not leave scars.
It is not a competition.
.
You feel men are now competing to be the most victimised?
No. Men are asking that they not be automatically blamed unless and until it is shown they are at fault. And this goes beyond the question of domestic abuse.
Is that not what we all ask?
Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
women' are not like this, and 'men' are not like that. We are individuals.
Not so. There are definite male tendencies and definite female tendencies. And not all female tendencies are nice ones.
I cannot see it as so simple, if only because the gender roles are so different from culture to culture.
But of course we are all both good and bad.
The first point to make here, I think, is that there is a significant body of opinion that domestic abuse is about control. Sure, the abuse only happens when the abuser loses his temper, but what causes him to do that? I suggest it happens when things aren't going the way he wants, and to regain the upper hand, he has to resort to violence. I suspect it is rarely premeditated, but it is very definitely predictable.
Next, with regard to men who live on their verbal skills, I would suggest they are exceptional because they have probably developed and nurtured those skills beyond normal levels. Let me say right now that both men and women are very skilled communicators, but they communicate in different ways: males primarily to impart factual or analytical information, while women's discussions would tend to deal with people's interaction and relationships. Few people depend on verbal skills for their livelihoods, but, rather they rely upon their other skills: their medical training, their manual dexterity, their analytical abilities, etc. depending upon what they do. Farmers, for example, or train drivers don't require verbal skills, but do require other abilities. Doctors, barristers are highly trained, but their medical or legal knowledge is what they are valued for, not their ability to express themselves (granted, a doctor with a good bed-side manner or a lawyer who can present the best case in court on the facts before him is likely to have an advantage, but the best is merely a sample of the whole). Politicians, who supposedly live on their verbal skills, need say only what they are told to say. In a society which is only 50 years away from the time when most males were the sole breadwinners in a family and most women were housewives, even occupations that did require verbal skill were male dominated for want of anyone else to do the job, but that is changing: there are more and more female doctors as a proportion of all doctors, and more and more women are entering, and succeeding in, the legal profession, necessarily at the expense of their male colleagues. Whereas at one time, the number of female students in tertiary education was barely 5%, it now comfortably exceeds 50%, and the proportion is still rising. In Britain, the most unemployable group of people is the young male, many of whom have left school unable to read, completely without qualifications, and almost all without hope. The reason no-one notices is that they have no advocates and cannot or will not argue for recognition and special treatment themselves. It is easier for them to sink into a life of crime and violence.
The success of feminism in changing society, on the other hand is due primarily to persuasion by eloquent argument and appeals to justice and people's sense of fair play. The protests where bras were burnt were dramatic and memorable, but the real success was due to well-presented appeals to reason.
I make this point not to blame women for men's shortcomings, but to explain that, although men can communicate, women do it better. Therefore, to return to the theme of the thread, women are better able - if they are so inclined - to use verbal (and therefore mental) forms of abuse than men are.
You ask me why I think women feel that they can only be a success if they look good. In reply I would answer,
(1) women have the monopoly on beauty. A man who is "beautiful" will be regarded as odd, to say the least. How often do you hear that all the good-looking men are gay? Remember, irony is just an unusual way of looking at the truth.
As George Orwell once outrageously said, Women can easily make a living based on their looks - even homely girls, if they want to. Not so easy for men;
(2) women dress for other women, not for men. They measure how good they look not so much by how men react to what they wear, but by whether other women approve of disapprove of their clothes/style.
(3) it is a myth perpetuated by militant feminists that men want all women to come to the office naked and to blow them without even asking. Only the straight guys do! OK - that's a joke, but men do not want to be distracted by women who are inappropriately dressed at work. They actually want to get on with their jobs. If women feel uncomfortable about that, the fault is not men's.
Now, the sad thing about abusive relationships is that the victim invariably blames himself. Perhaps he believes what he is told, that he is worthless, ineffectual, incompetent. Perhaps he believes he deserves to be blamed and punished. Perhaps he still values the relationship and will endure the abuse because he is afraid he will lose his partner if he does not. Rarely does he want to leave, and will only do so when there is no alternative. Research shows that female victims who leave their partners will have endured years of abuse and many attacks before they decide to leave. Frequently they only do so when the situation has reached a peak and their lives could be at risk. I am not aware of any comparable information relating to male victims, but the point is, victims rarely leave their abusers unless they have no alternative.
The first point to make here, I think, is that there is a significant body of opinion that domestic abuse is about control. Sure, the abuse only happens when the abuser loses his temper, but what causes him to do that? I suggest it happens when things aren't going the way he wants, and to regain the upper hand, he has to resort to violence. I suspect it is rarely premeditated, but it is very definitely predictable.
Next, with regard to men who live on their verbal skills, I would suggest they are exceptional because they have probably developed and nurtured those skills beyond normal levels. Let me say right now that both men and women are very skilled communicators, but they communicate in different ways: males primarily to impart factual or analytical information, while women's discussions would tend to deal with people's interaction and relationships. Few people depend on verbal skills for their livelihoods, but, rather they rely upon their other skills: their medical training, their manual dexterity, their analytical abilities, etc. depending upon what they do. Farmers, for example, or train drivers don't require verbal skills, but do require other abilities. Doctors, barristers are highly trained, but their medical or legal knowledge is what they are valued for, not their ability to express themselves (granted, a doctor with a good bed-side manner or a lawyer who can present the best case in court on the facts before him is likely to have an advantage, but the best is merely a sample of the whole). Politicians, who supposedly live on their verbal skills, need say only what they are told to say. In a society which is only 50 years away from the time when most males were the sole breadwinners in a family and most women were housewives, even occupations that did require verbal skill were male dominated for want of anyone else to do the job, but that is changing: there are more and more female doctors as a proportion of all doctors, and more and more women are entering, and succeeding in, the legal profession, necessarily at the expense of their male colleagues. Whereas at one time, the number of female students in tertiary education was barely 5%, it now comfortably exceeds 50%, and the proportion is still rising. In Britain, the most unemployable group of people is the young male, many of whom have left school unable to read, completely without qualifications, and almost all without hope. The reason no-one notices is that they have no advocates and cannot or will not argue for recognition and special treatment themselves. It is easier for them to sink into a life of crime and violence.
The success of feminism in changing society, on the other hand is due primarily to persuasion by eloquent argument and appeals to justice and people's sense of fair play. The protests where bras were burnt were dramatic and memorable, but the real success was due to well-presented appeals to reason.
I make this point not to blame women for men's shortcomings, but to explain that, although men can communicate, women do it better. Therefore, to return to the theme of the thread, women are better able - if they are so inclined - to use verbal (and therefore mental) forms of abuse than men are.
You ask me why I think women feel that they can only be a success if they look good. In reply I would answer,
(1) women have the monopoly on beauty. A man who is "beautiful" will be regarded as odd, to say the least. How often do you hear that all the good-looking men are gay? Remember, irony is just an unusual way of looking at the truth.
As George Orwell once outrageously said, Women can easily make a living based on their looks - even homely girls, if they want to. Not so easy for men;
(2) women dress for other women, not for men. They measure how good they look not so much by how men react to what they wear, but by whether other women approve of disapprove of their clothes/style.
(3) it is a myth perpetuated by militant feminists that men want all women to come to the office naked and to blow them without even asking. Only the straight guys do! OK - that's a joke, but men do not want to be distracted by women who are inappropriately dressed at work. They actually want to get on with their jobs. If women feel uncomfortable about that, the fault is not men's.
Now, the sad thing about abusive relationships is that the victim invariably blames himself. Perhaps he believes what he is told, that he is worthless, ineffectual, incompetent. Perhaps he believes he deserves to be blamed and punished. Perhaps he still values the relationship and will endure the abuse because he is afraid he will lose his partner if he does not. Rarely does he want to leave, and will only do so when there is no alternative. Research shows that female victims who leave their partners will have endured years of abuse and many attacks before they decide to leave. Frequently they only do so when the situation has reached a peak and their lives could be at risk. I am not aware of any comparable information relating to male victims, but the point is, victims rarely leave their abusers unless they have no alternative.
IAN 2411
07-08-2011, 04:12 AM
I do not know what you mean about 'normally' - as was said, there is one dead man per day from domestic violence, methinks that's a lot of people!
If you assume that mental violence is happening a lot more than that, then there is something wrong with relationships in general, I'd say. And maybe there is. If you have a power balance based on society backing men and men being stronger and women talking better, and you then take away the society backed power balance and the right to violence, then what is left?
Mutual respect and love seems to be out, according to this. Is that really true?
I had better explain what I am talking about. When men talk about these things with other workmates etc, they usually say things like: - my wife is getting on my back 24/7, my wife is always nagging me, my wife is always giving me headaches because of her constant nagging. In the end this verbal abuse that a woman [not meaning to be sexist] is so very damn good at, effects his work. The more he lets her get away with the abuse the more she thinks it is a sign of weakness. I know from experience with my first wife that this assault on a man’s mind is tiring and painful. The point is that very few men in this position fight back with physical violence even if the man knows he is far superior in strength. Yes, it is a mixture of values and it gives the mental abuser the wrong impression.
If a wife punches a man in an argument on the arm very little is said about it, because in most cases the male through work is built differently. Most shrug it off as part of the argument and nothing more is said about it. The same with a slap around the face, one slap and it will hurt, but on the second most men will catch the hand and again that is as far as it goes. Very few men will talk about these types of physical abuse because to them it is not.
The wife on the other hand if slightly punched on the arm by any man will in most cases inevitably bruise. Within ten minutes the neighbourhood knows and the man is now a wife beater, and even if he accidently bruises her while defending himself, the act is now domestic violence. Yes, the scales are tilted once more because the man very rarely admits that he is the one being physically abused. If he did and was a big strapping builder, what policeman is going to believe him, or for that matter what judge?
Be well IAN 2411
denuseri
07-08-2011, 08:34 AM
I dont think we should get hung up on the symatics trying to decide what constitutes abuse and how abuse doesnt have to be physical so much as address the elephant in the room as sugested by the op.
Are women really more violent than we used to be?
Or is it that men have become less violent?
If so why or why not?
IAN 2411
07-08-2011, 10:54 AM
Are women really more violent than we used to be?
Or is it that men have become less violent?
If so why or why not?
Good questions but in my opinion women’s nature has not changed, yes we see more of the violence both ways than we did, let’s say thirty years ago. With that comes a greater population so per ten thousand people I would think that the amount of violent women is about the same. But to the individual living thirty years ago would think without reading stats it is on the rise. No doubt when women received their so called independence, freedom to vote and equality there might have been a blip. I say so called because it was given to them by men and it was never a clear victory for the women they received only what they asked for.
Since the stone-age men have that violent streak in them because even priests go to war. Some of the oldest popes lead armies to war and they were not all on religious grounds. Violence is the last resort of all men if reasoning fails even the mildest of men kill.
Be well IAN 2411
Thorne
07-08-2011, 01:28 PM
Are women really more violent than we used to be?
Or is it that men have become less violent?
If so why or why not?
I don't think either is true. I think that one of the benefits of the Women's Lib movement has been to empower more of these battered and abused women to come out and file charges against their spouses/boyfriends. There may be more incidents per capita, possibly, because of higher population densities and the resulting stresses. But I wonder if at least some of that isn't counterbalanced by a possible decrease in men who abuse women, if for no other reason than that it's no longer considered 'private'.
On the other foot, though, I think more men who are abused, either physically or emotionally, are also coming out about it, seeing it less and less as a stigma. It's like many other things which were kept behind closed doors in the past. A new, more open, more connected society is kicking these aberrations out into public, and that's a good thing.
If we return to the original post, we see
Figures obtained from the [English] Crown Prosecution Service showed that almost 4,000 women were successfully prosecuted in the past year, compared with 1,500 women in 2005, a 169% increase.
Actually, I make it a 267% increase.
The post continues,
Some experts say it is a worrying sign of the growing culture of violence among women, while others believe that men are now more likely to report that they have been beaten up by their wives and girlfriends than in previous years.
Now I don't believe for one second that violence by women has increased all of a sudden by so much. It might have increased a bit, but I believe it has always been there, hidden, ignored, denied.
I notice that some people think there is a growing culture of violence among women, but I'm not persuaded. I don't think domestic abuse is part of any culture but I do believe attitudes have changed so that men can begin to admit they are victims, and people are more prepared now than they were to admit women can commit acts of abuse. As the Chief Constable says (same post), "We know about more cases now because of better responses from police, multi-agencies and the voluntary sector and a shift in the societal view of the crime,"
The next question is, what is society going to do about it?
IAN 2411
07-17-2011, 11:11 AM
Women May Get Right To Vet Internet Dates UK
Women could be allowed to find out if their partners have a history of violence under new proposals being considered by the Government.
A campaign for what has been dubbed Clare's Law will be launched on Monday with the support of police chiefs and the Government's Victims Commissioner, Louise Casey.
The proposal comes amid concerns that women are increasingly meeting men via the internet and have little or no knowledge of their pasts.
It is backed by the father of Clare Wood, who was murdered in 2009 by a man she met through Facebook.
She was unaware that her killer, George Appleton, had a record of domestic violence against previous partners.
Appleton killed Ms Wood and set her body on fire before hanging himself.
According to the Mail On Sunday, which disclosed the proposal, Home Secretary Theresa May has indicated in a letter that she is considering the idea.
Former Home Office minister Hazel Blears is leading the campaign for the law change and will be joined by Ms Wood's father, Michael Brown, and Brian Moore from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) for its launch.
Ms Blears said: "Clare's tragic death shows how vulnerable women aren't always protected under the current law."
And Louise Casey said the proposal had her "full support".
"This seems common sense to me. Our priority should not be protecting a perpetrator's privacy at the expense of costing a woman's life," she said.
However, Tory MP Robert Buckland, a member of the Commons Justice Committee, warned there would have to be "strict controls" on such a system.
He told Sky News: "My concern is that we don't end up with a system that could allow people carte blanche to turn up at the police station and go on some sort of fishing expedition to find out the background of a person they may or may not want to go out with."
.................................................. ..
Once again the cards are stacked the side of the female...the message this sends out is.... Women don’t kill, maim or abuse but men do.
Be well IAN 2411