Pots and Kettles

The Irresponsible Amongst Us

Every so often editorial writers get hopelessly confused.  Here is an example:  an editorial in the NZ Herald made this statement of fact:

Domestic violence . . .  is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men against women and children.

Then, a few paragraphs later, the writer states:

Professor David Fergusson, who has studied the lives of 1265 people born in Christchurch in 1977, said his research suggested the rates of domestic violence by men and women are similar and in many instances involved mutual violence between couples. "Women do suffer more in terms of fearfulness and related outcomes," he said, "but what we do find in our study is that violence is usually mutual and there isn't a predominant aggressor."

The writer then adopts the tone of a scold with respect to the Professor and his research:

It is hard to imagine a more irresponsible message to give to the sort of men who resort to violence against women.

What about women that resort to violence against men?  What are our responsibilities toward them. Ah, writes the editorialist, it's not that bad.

Men have the physical advantage. It may be unfashionable to say so but it should not need to be said.

Male violence against females is really bad.  Female violence against males . . . not so much.  Try telling that to a male whose skull has been cracked by a cast iron frying pan.  What the editorialist is implying is that the public campaign slogan, "It's Not OK", which is an attempt to combat the plague of family violence in New Zealand, needs a bit of refinement.  It needs to read, "Family Violence: If You are a Man, It's Not OK."

The research by Professor Fergusson shows that the rates of domestic violence by men and women are similar.  Mutual violence between men and women is extremely common.  The study shows that males are not the predominant aggressor.  The aggression is gender neutral.  The editorialist simply ignores these claims.  Are they true or not?  Don't care.  They are irrelevant.  Men are bigger and stronger.  Therefore, they need to bear the blame.  The focus needs to be upon the bigger and stronger perpetrator.

Actually, it matters a whole lot.  In most households there are children.  Both male and females--if aggressive--are both substantially bigger than children.  If you care about the most defenceless amongst us think of what an angry, drunk or drug-fuelled woman can do to children close at hand when she unleashes her vitriol upon them.  Think of the most profane, filthy, verbal abuse spewing forth from the mouth of an enraged woman as she mercilessly beats a defenceless child.  Not a problem.  It's men.  That's where the problem lies--at least according to the confused Herald editorialist. There are few more egregious examples of the fallacy of a false dichotomy.

If Professor Fergusson's research is accurate, the editorialist has missed the point and begged the question.  By responding in a superficial, almost hysterical manner, he or she has been gulled by the political rhetoric presently swirling around this issue.  If the editorialist had been a bit more thoughtful, the concluding paragraph which reads:

Perhaps the campaign [against family violence] could be restyled, "It's not manly". If boys are brought up to respect their masculinity, women should be safer.

would have been recast,

Perhaps the campaign [against family violence] could be restyled, "It's neither feminine, nor manly". If boys are brought up to respect their masculinity, and girls are brought up to respect their femininity, both men and women and children should be safer.

Scolding researchers and their research as giving an "irresponsible message" simply will not do.  To respond that way is the real irresponsibility.  Such confusion is not helpful in the least.