This study is really interesting (link it to a PDF), if by interesting you mean deeply tragic and horridly upsetting. According to the Times UK, 1 in 7 people find it is sometimes justified to hit women.
One in seven people believe it is acceptable in some circumstances for a man to hit his wife or girlfriend if she is dressed in "sexy or revealing clothes in public", according to the findings of a survey released today.A similar number believed that it was all right for a man to slap his wife or girlfriend if she is "nagging or constantly moaning at him".
The findings of the poll, conducted for the Home Office, also disclosed about a quarter of people believe that wearing sexy or revealing clothing should lead to a woman being held partly responsible for being raped or sexually assaulted.
If that is not upsetting enough, Jess at the F-Word breaks the studies down even further. and concludes,
These figures appear to actually show the situation is worse than we thought from that pivotal 2005 poll by Amnesty. For example, Amnesty found about 1/3 of people think women who've been flirting are responsible if they get raped, whereas the Home Office poll puts the figure at a shocking 43%. About 50% believe that women in prostitution bear some or all of the responsibility if they're raped.
The article also suggested that older populations (over 65) and what they call "lower social groups" had a higher percentage of supporting that violence against women is sometimes justified. I actually have no idea what they mean by "lower social groups," and find that language really problematic, especially if they are talking about working class communities and communities of color. I looked through the study and found no delineation by age or background.
Despite those perhaps journalistic assumptions made, this data is appalling.
Thanks to Meg for the link and community post.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Violence Against Women In Great Britain.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12409
They mean Muslims and immigrants.
Abuse was one of the vocab/spelling words in my class (I take them from a list) and I got a lecture from ninth grade girls on how Rihanna made Chris Brown beat her. It's a sick world.
As a UK resident, I'd interpret the 'lower social groups' comment as referring to white working class people, NOT Muslims and immigrants. Contrary to popular belief not everything in this country gets blamed on those of different races, although that's not to say there isn't rampant xenophobia and racism. However, in this case I interpret this to be referring to what are impolitely called 'chavs' - or, in the USA would probably be called 'trailer trash'. Poorly educated white people living on council estates who have high rates of obesity, alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse, tend to be unemployed or claiming benefits, and (very broadly speaking) aren't exactly renowned for promoting healthy gender relationships. These are - again broadly speaking - people most likely to read The Sun newspaper (where you can see a different topless woman on page 3 every day), refer to women as 'birds' and not really understand even the most basic concepts of sexism. And I mean both men and women there.
Indeed it's sad but it doesn't surprise me in any way. Look at the pitiful conviction rate for reported rapes (5-6% at the time of writing) in this country, and you can see how our culture of victim-blaming has seeped into the way the law is carried out, or rather, fails to be carried out. I think, unfortunately, many women make excuses for rapists and wife-beaters because they don't want to believe the same thing could happen to them. They want to believe that if they just 'did x differently', these women wouldn't have been victims, and therefore we can feel superior and safe that it will never happen to us. There are also seem to be a lot of women in this country still afraid of aligning themselves with any 'female' cause in case it appears unattractive and strident and puts men off. SIGH. As for the men who make excuses for rapists and wife beaters? I dread to think. At best, I think it's down to ignorance and inarticulacy - at worst, complete misogyny. Scary and terrifying, but like I said, nothing new to me.
Ah. I only went to school in England, I'll certainly defer to a resident's interpretation.
I concur with Chas, having been brought up in a council estate, they are talking about working class.
Yeah, by working class they definitely don't mean people of different ethnicities; I may be being naive here, but although we obviously have racism in the UK, there doesn't seem to be a massive race poverty divide in the same way that I perceive there to be in the US. Obviously there are poverty-struck immigrant communities, and if I'm wrong feel free to tell me so, it's just an impression I get that the situation is worse in America despite the greater cultural diversity. Sorry if I'm being totally ignorant here :S
"These are - again broadly speaking - people most likely to read The Sun newspaper (where you can see a different topless woman on page 3 every day), refer to women as 'birds' and not really understand even the most basic concepts of sexism. And I mean both men and women there."
This is a good analysis (and I know Chas was trying to explain the perception of lower-classes as opposed to blaming them, so I'm not disagreeing) but personally I consider it highly unfair for the newspapers to blame lower social groups, because of all the institutional sexism that goes on in businesses and in the board-room, which are seen as higher-class professional environments. All sexism can lead to a culture where "putting women in their place" is seen as more acceptable.
I absolutely agree with you about the chav culture and the working class mindset in general. I'm sure if we compared attitudes to Amercians of the same socioeconomic status you would find the same results regardless of ethnicity.
The UK is notoriously soft on violent crime of all kinds. It is terrible.
I was just reading this on Digg. I'm not sure which makes me angrier..the comments there or the article itself.
I'm really proud of my dad for his reaction to this. He's normally very socially conservative, the type who believes in equality but doesn't really see the need for feminism per se. Anyway, he reacted immediately with disgust when I emailed him this. He's a member of the generation that believes it's NEVER okay to hit a woman (not something I completely believe in - defense of your life, for example) and he really stuck to this position.
There is no generation that believes it's never OK to hit a woman. People across the spectrum believe there ARE circumstances - we're not talking self-defense here - where violence against women is justified.
Surprisingly, according to this poll, people consider dressing sexy in public a more deserving transgression than cheating. What a fucked up, disturbing survey.
People's responses re: sexual assault were horrifying.
So sad, but not terribly surprising. Most people claim they are against domestic violence or that they aren't sexist (or racist or any other type of bigotry). But when you start phrasing questions a little differently or using hypotheticals as these sorts of surveys do, people's true colors come out. We've got a long way to go.
I interpret lower social groups in the same way as Chas.
What was the ratio of people who feel it is ok to hit men under certain circumstances?
How about hitting children?
Animals?
Not to be provocative just for the sake of being provocative but I would love to know how this figure stands in relation to a tested groups predisposition to violence in general.
Well, the circumstance is the important thing, isn't it? And here the specific circumstance being discussed is that the woman is wearing "sexy or revealing clothes in public." It doesn't really apply to men, children, or animals (though for the record if my boyfriend, child, or dog were out in public in a low-cut shirt and hotpants, I still wouldn't think it's acceptable to hit them).
Yeah, because it's clear that there is no way to phrase questions about hitting anything other than women. All questions or incidents involving violence involve sexy clothing or flirting with men (actually the latter should work as-is w/o much modification).
Seriously, are you stating that how a culture views interpersonal violence in general has no bearing on how it views specific forms of violence?
Nope, I actually agree with you; that sort of information is very relevant. I have to apologize because I was lazy when I read your post and misinterpreted is asking, "well, what about attitudes towards women who hit men/children/animals?" Long day, sorry!
I'm sorry, I snarked in my response.
Not to be provocative just for the sake of being provocative but I would love to know how this figure stands in relation to a tested groups predisposition to violence in general.
I agree. The study could have asked a few more questions to establish this.
I'm certainly not saying that violent attitudes towards women are okay if you're just a violent SOB in general but it's to be expected. I would like to know if they are just as willing to hit men/children/parents/siblings/animals as they are their female partners.
Am I the only one who thought 1 in 7 was a bit low? Maybe I spend too much time online (where the a$$holes roam) but I would have thought that atleast half the people would argue that hitting your parner was okay in certain situations.
I'll never forget the way the Welsh detective botched my rape case by suggesting I not press charges and that the bastard wasn't at fault b/c I never audibly said the word "no"...among other coercive tactics used in the unrecorded questioning segment of my Britsh police station experience.
That's horrible. My friend went through the same thing with the Islington Sapphire Unit where the cop ( who was a woman) flat out told my friend that she did not believe her and was not going to do anything about it. It's so fucking frustrating. And the doctor who preformed her rape kit said " Why are you crying?" and when we were late to get treatment for any sexually transmitted diseases the office closed at noon and the women there were judgmental and horrid. I'm so glad I don't live in the UK anymore but, I'm sure the American system isn't any better.
That's like believing that the woman who wears a lot of expensive jewellery bears some or all of the responsibility if they're robbed.
Such a poll would actually be very useful, considering that it could easily be comparable to a poll of men in the same situation; how many believe that men who wear a lot of bling bling bears some or all of the responsibility if they're robbed? Anyone who would make such a poll would do a huge favor to the women of the world.
The "lower social groups" thing sounds like journalistic fudging of the language used in the report. I don't know much about it but I imagine the report would have broken the results down into socio-economic groups, and found violent attitudes to be more prevalent in poorer communities.
What's fucked up is I bet more people would be offended by animals getting hit then women.
You're right, they probably would. People see children and animals as being totally innocent and incapable of defending themselves. It's sad that they don't see that a woman being abused is usually completely innocent and incapable of defending themselves too. It's sad, but as the study shows, people think if a woman gets hit, that's not a black and white issue like animal or child abuse is, because it might be 'her fault' or partly 'her fault'. That's just how messed up the world is I'm afraid.
That's so, so sad. But not that surprising. There have been reports like this before. It is really crazy that 90% said it's never OK to hit a woman because she cheated but only 79% said it's never OK if she dressed in sexy or revealing clothes in public. What kind of logic is that?
One thing I found quite worrying is that over a quarter of men said that if their friend was being abused they would speak to the abuser and tell them to stop. Almost a third of them would do that if it was a family member. Which is quite dangerous because the abuser is likely to take that out on the victim.
Anyway, it's a sad, sad world.
Thanks for posting this :) Although like most other people here I'm not surprised by the findings, I am certainly deeply outraged. Like Chas, one of the reasons I can't be surprised is because of the sexism I see every day in Britain that many people don't seem to even notice.
This study reminds us of how much we need to work to overcome the incorrect perceptions that somehow, at sometime, a woman deserves to be hit or abused. Rhonda Copelon wrote an article in On The Issues Magazine calling for domestic abuse to be classified as torture. If hitting your wife or girlfriend could get you arrested or thrown in jail on torture charges, maybe those doing the hitting would think twice before striking.
http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2009winter/2009winter_7.php
Chalk it up to bad parenting I guess. No offense to those who argue that changing the perception is the correct approach in this case. Action has to come before preceptions change. Personally I think we need a neighborhood watch for domestic violence. Just my opinion.