|
Irish DV fantasy. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2002/0205/899247937DIFEB5.html "Four out of 10 Irish women who
have had sexual relations have experienced domestic violence," Irish Times Tue, Feb 05, 2002 An Irishman's Diary "Four out of 10 Irish women who
have had sexual relations have experienced domestic violence," this newspaper
declared last week. Apparently, the situation could be far worse, for some
70 per cent of women reported controlling behaviour by their partners,
which is adjudged to be a precursor to violence: all appalling, if true,
writes Kevin Myers Is it true? The figures were compiled by
the Department of General Practice and Community Health in Trinity College.
But how did they find these women, only 60 per cent of whom were free from
violence, and worse, only 30 per cent free from its potential? Did they
get them at random? No. The women surveyed were all attending general
practitioners' surgeries. Excuse me, Department of General Practice
and Community Health, Trinity College Dublin, but is this
statistically not rather like putting a finger on the scales? Surely women attending
their GPs are more likely than the rest of the population to be
experiencing physical and health problems; while the majority who are not might
well be dwelling on the sunlit uplands of domestic harmony - no? So what we learn from those who attend
surgeries applies only to those who attend surgeries; just as we may make no
extrapolations about how the entire male population passes Saturday
afternoons from what happens in hospital casualty wards on Saturday evenings in
the hour or so after rugby matches have ended. It's not that figures have
no use, merely that their use is empirically limited. What is violence? For the purposes of this survey, what is
violence? Actual physical contact? Or is it emotionally intimidating,
coercive behaviour, which by implication threatens violence? Well, as it turns
out, the TCD survey includes a number of things as violence against women. One
of them is for their partner to have punched walls or furniture. Ah. So now the act of sublimation of
rage against the inanimate is to be interpreted as its genuine enactment
against the animate. Is there a single human being who has not kicked a stone
or a car tyre or a wall in rage? Or one who has not slammed his - or, dare I
say it, girls, her hand - on the table in rage, or slammed a fist against
a chair-arm in frustration? Such is no more than the socialisation of
potentially dangerous emotions, a passing spasm which releases anger. For this to be represented as the same
as actual, personal violence is the kind of ideological claptrap that is
possible only within the unreal confines of academe. So a political
perception which makes a woman a victim every time a wall is punched or a table
slapped not surprisingly helps create the largest single category of
"violence against women" in the entire survey - some 26 per cent. Another
category of violence against women is for the partner to have shouted at or
threatened her (their) children; that comes to nearly 20 per cent. Terrible fates Ah well, in that case, my father
unquestionably was violent towards my mother, because not merely did he shout
at all six of his children as we brawled during the car journey to our
summer holidays, but actually threatened us with the most terrible
fates unless we behaved ourselves. And he was violent towards my mother on
another occasion when he caught me pummelling my younger brother into
oblivion, and he gave me a hearty swipe for my trouble. On reflection, I think my father should
have (a) evicted us all from the car and made us walk the rest of the way, as
he threatened; and (b) walloped me even harder for bullying my baby
brother. All of which would have enabled my mother to have reported that she was
victim twice over of violence. There are other categories in the survey
which are not so easy to understand as bruised walls and wailing furniture,
such as "forced you to do something"; it doesn't mean sex,
because that is covered in another category. What does "force"
mean in this case, and what is this "something"? And what does the category,
"demanded sex", mean? We know that it is not the same thing as "forced to have
sex", which is covered elsewhere. So if an emphatic statement of sexual desire is
rejected by the woman, are we nonetheless to conclude that there has
been an act of violence by the woman's partner? Is that it: a kicked
chair and a rejected overture are placed in the same broad category of
violence as a battered woman, or a raped one? And is violent oppression to be
perceived in any male conduct which differs from the politically correct standards
in TCD's leafy purlieus? Moreover, we are told, violence is incipient for some
70 per cent of all women, because of evidence of "controlling
behaviour" by their partners. Why? And what is controlling behaviour, anyway? Well,
inter alia, we are told that it is limiting a woman's social life, checking
on her movements, being personally critical, or keeping her short of money. Feminist point Ah me, how the head buzzes. So if a
woman tries to restrict her husband's excessive social life, if she wants to
know what her husband been up to because he's away from home so much, if
she criticises his domestic laziness, or if she tries to limit his
expenditure on alcohol, are these examples of controlling behaviour? Of
course not. For these surveys have a feminist point to make, and they
unfailingly make them. And now, I suppose, I should put myself
on the side of the angels by adding the usual male disclaimer, querulously
deploring violence against women, etc., etc. Sorry. Nothing doing. The Irish Times |
|
x |
|
x |