The Shotgun Blog
« Fair trade is a poor answer to global poverty | Main | MAD won't stop Iranian regime »
Friday, February 29, 2008
Leaping to conclusions
It's interesting how the coverage of yesterday's "gays twice as likely to be victims of violence" report from StatsCan automatically assumes that the perpetrators of that violence must be intolerant heterosexuals. This CanWest/Vancouver Sun story, for example, quotes a Queen's prof saying the report "helps erase the denial about how tolerant and equal Canadian society is."
But not only does the actual report not identify the perpetrators of the violence (gays attacking gays?), but it also contains a section noting that the incidence of domestic violence is twice as high among homosexuals as it is among heterosexuals. (See also this report for more on this subject.)
Moreover, the report does not say what part this high rate of domestic violence plays in the general violence rate. It certainly must account for a significant portion.
Additionally, one might wonder whether, just as homosexual couples are more violent than heterosexual couples, homosexuals in general are more violent towards one another in all their interactions--a scenario which, if true, could also account for even more of the extra violence that homosexuals report.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 29, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/26659028
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Leaping to conclusions:
Comments
Careful, boyzzzzzzz, you don't want to get another human rights complaint from a gay activist, do you?
Obviously there is a lot of "rough trade" (great Canadian band from the 80s that my sister always listened to; only later did I find out what Carol Pope meant!!!) in the gay scene, though we hope that is changing with the advent of gay marriage, where these guys dont have to go skulking around Stanley Park anymore!!!
Also, men are usually more violent than women (I know of zero lesbian couples with violence of any significance), so you double up on the male factor and of course you will have more violence among gays especially in risky situations, but also in domestic situations.
Hopefully this will evolve, but somehow I am sceptical.
Posted by: Karen Costa | 29-Feb-08 3:21:16 PM
Karen
"Also, men are usually more violent than women (I know of zero lesbian couples with violence of any significance)"
Wow. What a bigoted thing to say. I am no more violent than you. HRC complaint filed.
Now, if you meant to say that there are more violent men than women, ok, I'd buy that.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 29-Feb-08 3:38:58 PM
h2o273kk9,
Statisically, according to Chatelaine (article about 10 years ago) men and women are almost equal when it comes to the number of abusive incidents they dish out. The difference is that men can, and do, inflict more physical harm when they abuse, but are no more abusive. My own experience bears that out. The women in my life have been as or more agressive than the men (mother/sister/wife vs father/brother/uncles).
Posted by: TM | 29-Feb-08 3:46:34 PM
A couple of thoughts of this topic.
Gay Men ...
Perhaps the more even body size and weight of the participant lends to the idea that they are more evenly matched and it's a fair fight.
They cannot be accused of bullying since they are more likely, as stated above, evenly matched so they may be less reluctant to take a swing from time to time.
I think that sodomy is a pretty violent act in itself which leads to another thought. If you walked around with a really sore sphincter everyday, you might be irritable and prone to be short tempered and even violent upon occasion.
I am not sure what might provoke a lesbian to fighting other than, the ones I have met strike me as being a bit Klingon like in their appearance and might like battle for the sake of battle.
I probably don't have it right though since I cannot imagine what goes on in the minds of the same sex crowd. The concept is foreign to me. Don't file a complaint, I can't help it, "I was born that way."
In closing, I think gays and lesbians get far more press than they deserve. They are a tiny minority with very big mouths. Although, I will give them an 'A' for color coordination.
:0)
Posted by: John West | 29-Feb-08 3:48:16 PM
TM
"The difference is that men can, and do, inflict more physical harm when they abuse, but are no more abusive."
No. The difference is that when A MAN abuses, he can does inflict more physical harm.
As I don't abuse, I can do no more harm than the average woman. Hence, men (including me) are no more violent than women.
Some men are ... or... if you prefer... there are more violent males than females.
Stop including me. I am no more violent than the a woman.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 29-Feb-08 3:49:45 PM
Karen,
All the literature I've seen confirms that violence DOES take place within lesbian relationships.
See this report: http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v3n4/vickers.html, which includes this passage:
"There are indeed many widely held myths which serve to keep the problem of same sex domestic violence closeted. In summary, the more enduring myths which need to be dispelled are as follows:
Domestic violence primarily occurs among gay men and lesbians who hang out at bars, are poor or are people of colour.
Lesbians do not engage in violent abuse against their partners because women are not violent.
A batterer must be physically bigger than the party abused.
Women in relationships together have equal power.
Lesbian battering only occurs in S/M or butch/femme relationships.
Lesbian and gay domestic violence is about 'mutual combat', not power and control by one partner over the other. The violence is an 'equal fight'.
Violence is a normal part of how some same sex relationships work.
Men are never victims of domestic violence. It isn't violence when gay men fight, rather a case of 'boys being boys'.
Lesbian and gay domestic violence is 'sexual behaviour', a form of S/M which both parties enjoy.
Domestic violence victims deserve what they get because they provoke the violence.
These myths must be exposed and challenged in order to acknowledge and begin to address the problem of same sex domestic violence."
Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 29-Feb-08 3:53:59 PM
Terry,
Quite right.
"A batterer must be physically bigger than the party abused. "
Frying pans, guns, knives, beds on fire, etc.
Great advantages over brawn, any day.
And let's not forget one more. You've heard of
"suicide by cop"
how about
"domestic violence by cop" where the cops are called (mostly but not exclusively) by a woman falsely accusing her partner of domestic violence. Being arrested falsely is a form of domestic violence.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 29-Feb-08 3:59:17 PM
My observation is that men inflict more damage in an offensive attack, while women inflict much more damage in a defensive situation. When size and strength are not too far out of balance, the attacking male can end up pretty messed up. I don't think this applies to premeditated violence.
I don't know if this relates to the post or not.
I don't know any gay men personally (to my knowledge), but I suppose any group that gets pushed around long enough will eventually become more violent. Having to socialize in secret, or at least in less desirable parts of town, is bound to affect the statistics.
Posted by: dp | 29-Feb-08 4:05:53 PM
More attempts to win victim status for a small group whose members most often occupy some of the most influencial positions and with some of the highest incomes.
Posted by: Alain | 29-Feb-08 4:32:55 PM
dp,
"My observation is that men inflict more damage in an offensive attack, while women inflict much more damage in a defensive situation."
How the hell did you make those observations? This description just sounds tailor made with bias. Men are the perpertrators and women the victims.
"...but I suppose any group that gets pushed around long enough will eventually become more violent."
So this explains male on female violence.
Relax...just tweaking your nose here.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 29-Feb-08 4:50:33 PM
For this study to be more informative, it would need to present at least a little more detail. For instance, I believe that this particular identity group is more concentrated in urban areas than in suburban or rural areas. If my belief is accurate, then the rates need to be compared against the general statistics for urban areas rather than for the nation as a whole.
I suspect that there would still be a difference - for the reasons mentioned and perhaps others; yet, I think the difference would be significantly attenuated.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 29-Feb-08 4:56:30 PM
h2o273kk9,
I'm not sure what you meant in response to my comment. In my opinion, men and women are about equally violent. Men are capable of inflicting more damage simply because of their (our) strength. But they are NOT more prone to being abusive, in my opinion.
In my personal experience, women are MORE violent than men. However, my expeience is a small sampling so let's call it a draw.
Posted by: TM | 29-Feb-08 5:05:38 PM
TM,
I got your message and accept the premise. However, your semantics needs work.
"women are MORE violent than men"
There are more violent women than men.
Actually, I doubt this is true. When it comes to inflicting physical damage, more men inflict serious physical damage than women.
However, I do tend to believe that when it comes to low level violence, more women than men tend to do this. Face slaps, weak punches, frying pans, and kicks to the groin are violence and should not be tolerated.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 29-Feb-08 5:11:02 PM
h2o273kk9,
I think we mostly agree. However, my premise is 100% correct since I am saying in my experience women are more violent. I am not saying on average, women are more violent. I can imagine that women engage in more "low level" violence than men. Not that that is any better since many lives will be ruined as a result just the same.
My premise is my experience with the women in my life. My wife, mother, sister, aunt, have committed more acts of violence than my great grand father, grand father, father, uncles, and brother combined. Obviously this is not the same for everyone.
Posted by: TM | 29-Feb-08 5:20:28 PM
For more on the subject of domestic violence, and whether men are really more culpable, see Barbara Kay's recent column in the National Post: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=a41532d6-d4df-46a2-a784-f6499938f3b0&k=49786
Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 29-Feb-08 5:22:11 PM
TM,
Actually, the only family violence I ever witnessed (other than spanking which mom and dad both did) was my paternal aunt attacking my mother, physically pulling her to the ground where they wrestled for a minute before being pulled apart.
Things that make you go hmmm!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 29-Feb-08 5:30:53 PM
I should add that part of my cringing at the way things are worded is founded in something a few weeks ago.
The Ottawa police chief was speaking about domestic violence and said (I may not be exact)
"men have to change"
Note: not men and women. MEN!
Note: not SOME men. MEN!
As I haven't been abusing anyone, I felt it unreasonable to lump me in requiring change while letting women perpetrators off the hook.
It's sexist. If he had been speaking of violence in the black community and said
"Blacks need to change", he'd be looking for a new job.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 29-Feb-08 5:36:47 PM
O/T
Terry, you may have seen this earlier but I just came across this for the first time today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eygv8qEkiFE
Posted by: Brent Weston | 29-Feb-08 5:55:37 PM
None of you have mentioned psychological bullying and I believe that you will find women are more adept at that.
Posted by: DML | 29-Feb-08 11:20:36 PM
DML,
"None of you have mentioned psychological bullying and I believe that you will find women are more adept at that."
Well, more women to have a tendency at being catty, exclusion, etc. but more men are pretty adept at agressive, emotional abuse as well.
I don't really know who does what more often, how bad it is, etc.
I do believe, however, that neither sex is completely innocent. Any INDIVIDUAL who does it needs to stop.
I also believe this fairy tale about women being the victims and men being the perpetrators is actually harming many innocent people: men, women, and children.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 1-Mar-08 6:50:40 AM
"I also believe this fairy tale about women being the victims and men being the perpetrators is actually harming many innocent people: men, women, and children."
I should have added that this fairy tale is also a form of abuse of men. Yes, MEN as a whole since they are treated as all guilty by the MSM, some police chiefs, women's group, the courts, and gov't.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 1-Mar-08 6:53:17 AM
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/299599
Nurse avoids jail in killing
Feb 01, 2008 12:38 PM
Peter Small
Courts Bureau
A male nurse who made a citizen’s arrest by grabbing a cocaine-intoxicated robber by the neck, unintentionally causing his death has been given a suspended sentence.
Provincial court Justice William Wolski gave Norman English an 18-month suspended sentence Thursday after he pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm. The judge said it was ironic that someone who has dedicated much of his career to preserving life would be involved in taking one.
The court found that English used excessive force in a reckless manner.
The 47-year-old nurse, who works with a transplant team at a major Toronto teaching hospital, was originally charged with manslaughter in the death of Stephen MacEachern, but the court accepted his guilty plea to assault causing bodily harm.
Outside court, defence lawyer Frank Gabriel said his client was very happy with the sentence. The judge was “terrifically fair,” Gabriel said. English declined comment.
But MacEachern’s spouse, Debbie, who asked that her last name not be used, said the sentence is not fair, considering a life was lost.
In the early hours of Sept. 22, 2006, English met MacEachern, 45, at a downtown Toronto bar and the two went to his apartment near Yonge and Carlton Sts. After they arrived, MacEachern shoved English to the ground and stole his wallet, court heard.
English gave chase and caught MacEachern in the building’s stairwell. As they struggled, he used his arm to grip MacEachern by the neck, while shouting for police. When English got off the man, he noticed he wasn’t moving. Building security officers arrived and used CPR to try to revive MacEachern.
Unknown to English, the man was very high on cocaine and died on the scene. The cause of death was pressure exerted on the neck of a person with acute cocaine addiction.
The judge said English was reckless in the way he went about retrieving his wallet, but he did not know MacEachern was acutely intoxicated. “I am satisfied that Mr. English should be punished but I am also satisfied that he is a person unlikely to reoffend.”
English has expressed great remorse, the judge said.
During the 18 months, English must take counselling, do 35 hours of community service, and consume no alcohol or controlled drugs.
Although English he had assault and drunk driving convictions nearly two decades old, he is now “a contributing member of society,” Wolski said.
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 2-Mar-08 9:56:46 AM
Story below might offer an explanation as to why "gays twice as likely to be victims of violence"
==A strange tale of mutual harassment==
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070720.WBtheoffice20070720170909/WBStory/WBtheoffice
Craig Silverman, today at 5:09 PM EDT
Thanks to the Keeping Up With Jonas blog, we get word of a rather bizarre tale of workplace harassment. In this case, and it did go to court, the end result was that two workers each felt they had been harassed by the other.
Reports KUWJ:
Todd Bernier was uncomfortable with supposed come-ons from openly gay colleague, Christopher Davis, a mutual fund analyst. Bernier claimed that Davis would stare at him and stole an “overt, purposeful, and glaring look” at his member when both [men] stepped up to the urinals at the same time.
Instead of reporting the alleged harassment to his employer, Bernier sent an anonymous IM to Davis's computer that read, "Stop Staring! The Guys on the floor don't like it."
At that point, Davis complained that he was being harassed. It was soon revealed that Bernier was the one who had sent the IM. Yet Bernier also felt he was being harassed. One problem is that sending a supposedly anonymous IM is not the proper way to make a harassment claim. The other problem is that Davis wasn’t staring at him in the bathroom. Davis, it was revealed, has a lazy eye. He couldn’t control where it looked.
Bernier was let go due to his IM. In the ensuing court case, the judges ruled that Bernier’s claim of same-sex harassment wasn’t valid.
As KUWJ notes, “Had Bernier properly complained about the supposed harassment to a superior or HR, this case would have likely turned out differently. Of course, had Morningstar Inc. just spent a few dollars and installed dividers between the urinals… maybe none of this would have ever happened.”
And there you have it: urinal dividers are the secret to workplace happiness.
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 2-Mar-08 10:12:56 AM
Post a comment