Domestic homicide – joining up some fascinating dots, and puncturing a feminist myth

One of the most-used – and most abused – ‘statistics’ in the feminist’s battery, intended to water-board us into believing their woman-as-victim narrative, is the one that goes:

‘Two women every week are killed, by a partner or former partner.’

The child-woman, Laura Bates, uses this phrase verbatim in her talk given at TEDx CoventGardenWomen, a London feminist group, on 7th December 2013, even adding the word ‘over’ at the beginning of her claim, just to make her point even more strongly – ‘Over two women a week are killed by their partner or former partner’, she says. Take a look at this 2 1/2 minute clip to get the full picture.

When Ms Bates so simperingly complains that ‘Over two women a week are being killed by their male partners’ etc., she is lying: nakedly, baldly, and culpably. And she is wildly wrong about this being an issue of sexism: that self-righteous crusade against which she, Jeanne D’Arc-like, is embarked.

Carried to its logical outcome, Laura Bates’s proposition leads us to the crazy conclusion that because men kill more women in the home, that is somehow a form of discrimination. Presumably, in her book, it wouldn’t be a problem if as many men as women were the victims of domestic homicide?

Domestic homicide is an issue in which feminist propagandists revel, of course. They repeatedly churn out the ‘two-women-a-week’ claim in their endless quest to show how women are being victimised by men: right, left and centre in society today. As I said, they are not only wrong, they are lying.

And they are on the wrong side of history, because society is waking up to the endless wingeing, wild imaginings, and droning lies of feminists like Bates, who, young as they are, are stuck in a groove – like an old cracked record. One day, I firmly believe historians will look back upon this era with bemused bewilderment, that women could be so stupid as to stand on stages and write on websites such lies, and spout such uninformed drivel.

In this piece I want to cut through the feminist fluff and bring some rigorous thinking to the matter of domestic homicide. I want to engage in an inquiring appreciation, both of its incidence and of its causation. To borrow Ms Bates’s phrase, I want to really interrogate the proposition.

Before doing that, however, I want to say this: Because homicide is perhaps the ultimate peace-time crime, the figures about it are precisely recorded, and they are meticulously analysed by governments and those who, responsibly, seek to bring out the truth about its incidence. There is no room, therefore, for interpretation or statistical chicanery, and anyone who seeks to twist the data is easily exposed.

What is not so easily exposed, is what is really going on behind the statistics. That takes an honest, diligent, open-minded approach. Something that is simply unavailable to feminists.

So, where do we start? Perhaps the best place is the United Kingdom Office for National Statistics (ONS) who released a paper on 13th February 2014, entitled Chapter 2 – Homicide – ONS1You can download it here.. It is a treasure-chest of useful data, and packed with information for those of us who are interested in the truth about domestic violence in general, and domestic homicide in particular.

Within this document we can find a section entitled Focus on Partner/Ex-Partner Homicides. It starts on page 10, where we can read the following:

  • In 2012/13, just over half (53%) of female victims,’ [of domestic homicide, aged 16 or over] ‘were killed by their partner/ex partner (76 offences)’. Note: 76 offences. Already, this disproves the ‘two-women-a-week’ factoid that bounces around the feminist echo-chamber.2For the reader’s information, the other 47% of women were killed by someone with whom they were acquainted such as a son or daughter, a parent, a friend or acquaintance, or another member of their family.
  • [Of the 76 homicides,] ‘… all but one of the female partner/ex ­partner homicide victims was killed by a male suspect’. There is no doubt, therefore, that men killed these women. In only one instance, does the homicide appear to have been committed by, say, a lesbian partner
  • The definition of 76 women’s assailants is given more precisely as their [male] spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, ex-spouse or ex-cohabiting partner, ex boyfriend.’  Again, no doubt that this was the man in their life who, as it were, took their life
  • The ONS data also tell us that ‘female victims of partner/ex­ partner homicides were younger than other female homicide victims (41 compared with 51 years)’.  So, it seems, by the time women who are in relationships with a man reach age 41, there is a pronounced increase in the incidence of them being the victim of domestic homicide
  • Furthermore, the ONS tells us that ‘… just over a half (52%, or 284 offences),’ [of all homicide cases in 2012/13] ‘resulted from a quarrel, a revenge attack or a loss of temper.

So far, so good. These are all facts upon which we can totally rely.

Let me now join up some dots using other official statistics from the ONS, bearing in mind that these are not statistical correlations, only informally inferred ones, and neither is there any proof of causation: the one fact deriving from, or driving, the other. These caveats notwithstanding, I believe what follows will be seen to be a valid exercise – and a revealing one.

There is another data source that helps us:  the ONS official statistics on divorce. In those, we find that:

  • Women in the UK typically marry for the first time at age 293See here. The 2009 figures are chosen to reflect the dates of the other data being relied upon in this article. In fact, at the time of writing, provisional figures for 2011 suggest the mean age for women to marry has risen to 33,8 years. See here.
  • The median length of marriages ending in 2013 was 11.5 years.4Statistical Bulletin ONS: Divorces in England and Wales. 2011  – 2011 is the latest year for which we currently have data.5This is the median measure of central tendency, as used by the ONS, not the mean or average, which is likely to be higher due to the small number of marriages that last for life.
  • 45% of all marriages end in divorce6ibid.

Interpolating this back to 2002 (from 2013, the latest figures we have for domestic homicide), we find that 270,000 or so women married in that year7We have no statistics on how many people simply chose to live together, so we shall just have to use the marriage figures, which will err on the safe side and, of course, we know that 76 women were killed by their husbands, partners etc. (11 years later in 2013.)

For what it is worth, this is 0.00028%, or 1 in 3,553. The issue of domestic homicide even based on just the marriage rates, let alone the rates for couples who co-habit, is not exactly a wildfire that is out of control. Factor in cohabiting couples and the rate will be massively less.

Now, let us look at another official data source that helps us in our inquiry. The ONS Statistical Bulletin. Divorces in England and Wales, 2011, issued on 20th December 2012 tells us that women have been (and still are) initiating divorces between 2 and 3 times more frequently than men.

From these data, we find that women are not petitioning for all these divorces on the grounds of adultery, desertion or unreasonable conduct on the part of their male spouses, the principal ground cited is ‘irreconcilable differences’. Women are just bailing out of their marriages wholesale. It is as simple as that.8By way of contrast, men are being granted divorces on the grounds of their wives’ unreasonable conduct in ever increasing numbers. Divorces granted to men on these grounds are up 574 per cent in the last 40 years. Clearly, men are increasingly reaching the point where the behaviour of their wives is unbearable, and they are divorcing them – although remember, men’s petitions are only a third of women’s.

Now, the question is: is this high incidence of women bailing out of their marriages happening when they reach their early forties, after about a decade of marriage: a time in which they are most vulnerable to being killed by their male spouse/partner etc.?

The answer is, yes. In Table 6 of the statistical digest entitled Divorces: number of divorces age at divorce and marital status before marriage, we find that in 2011 (the latest data available) the age at which women divorce their husbands does peak in the age group 40-44 years, with two ‘shoulders’ of similar incidences in the adjacent age groups (35-40, and 45-50).

So, to summarise:

  • Women typically divorce their husbands two times more frequently than the men divorce women
  • They are not doing this because of their husband’s adultery, abandonment etc., they just seem to want out
  • They are doing this after about 11 years of marriage, having married typically at age 29
  • They are more likely to be the victims of domestic homicide at age 41

Frankly it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out what is going on here. Female domestic homicide is clearly correlated with women’s arbitrary bailing out of their marriages9And by reasonably inference, long-term cohabitation arrangements – what used to be called ‘common-law marriages’. in their early forties, after short marriages. It is inevitable that this is going to cause tension and upset in their spouses and partners. This is the scenario in which female domestic homicide is happening.

However there is another twist in the plot – let us look at men who suffer domestic homicide.

The average number of men killed by their spouse, partner or ex. etc in the three years 2010-13, was 19. That is a quarter the number of women killed in the same circumstances. However, the ONS tells us that the figure about these male domestic homicides ‘includes homicides committed by the victim’s lover’s spouse or emotional rival10The term ‘emotional rival’ is defined by the ONS as ‘those instances where two persons come to know or meet each other through their association or knowledge of a third person, and where their emotional or sexual interest in this third person brings them into direct conflict with each other.11A typical scenario, therefore, would be where a man meets a woman through his relationship with her husband, partner, boyfriend etc – say, through friendship, work colleague etc. – and he forms a sexual relationship with that woman. This man then becomes an emotional rival to the woman’s husband/partner, and the husband gets jealous. This causes so much upset in the wronged man that he kills her lover.12However, one mustn’t forget that there might also be an equivalent scenario between homosexual men. In fairness, this could also apply to homosexual relationships as well as heterosexual ones, so we need to bear this in mind in interpreting the figures.… and this was the case in the majority (14 out of 19) of these instances‘.13Chapter 2 – Homicide – ONS Op cit. Page 11 Furthermore, of those 19 men, 14 of them were killed in the context of an ‘adulterous relationship’.

Therefore, three quarters (74%) of men who are the victims of male domestic homicide, meet their death at the hands of the spouse or emotional rival of their lover, in the circumstances of a love triangle. The point is, even allowing for the real possibility that a proportion of these might be male homosexual incidents, where women are involved but are not the victims, they are undoubtedly players in MALE domestic homicide.

We cannot separate male domestic homicide from female domestic homicide, therefore. They are, if you like, two sides of the same coin. It is wrong to see this as a gender issue: as if men were the aggressors and women the victims. Such a view is far too narrow, and too full of error, to withstand anything more that cursory scrutiny.

What the official data, from multiple sources, are telling us is loud and clear. Domestic homicide is essentially a crime of passion: almost certainly carried out under extreme provocation, and, even if women are not the victims, their behaviour and involvement is central to the entire syndrome.

Jealousy is a powerful emotion, and men can kill under the effects of that emotion. Women can do that too under the same emotion. The British have no concept in law – as the French do, for example – of the crime passionnel: the sudden, strong impulse, born of sudden rage in the face of extreme provocation, rather than a premeditated crime, but that is what the official data are telling us about domestic homicide.

I have said it before, and I shall say it again, women are not passive players in society. They are not the eternal victims, either of men or anything else. They possess the moral attribute of agency – that is, they are responsible for their actions, and the outcome of those actions.

Of course, all this is common sense, isn’t it? But not, it seems, in the feminist fora: where women are deaf and blind to the truth: where their lies provide comfort to their victim mentality, and where they are so deeply conditioned by their self-supporting dogma, that the truth actually doesn’t matter anymore.

Domestic homicide is emphatically not about sexism or discrimination against women. Neither does it have a regular frequency – which is what ‘two-women-a-week’ implies. The official data lend no support to these claims, and to make them is irresponsible – or mendacious. Probably both.

It is not right for feminists and the feminist lobby to wave around either false factoids (and the ‘two-women-a-week’ murdered by their partners or ex-partners is an egregiously false factoid), or even the right statistics, without proper insight, and thought, about what the data are really telling us; which is that female domestic homicide at the hands of jealous men is not a widespread phenomenon, and neither is it across the board. In fact, it is very narrowly age-defined, and it happens in clearly defined scenarios, particularly the final stages of a marriage that may be prematurely ending, where sexual jealousy and rivalry are recurring elements.

I want to make it clear, lest their be any doubt, I am in no way seeking to justify, or exonerate a man who kills a woman, any more than I am saying that a woman is a helpless victim of male power. What I am saying is that the reason why a man would commit such a serious act as homicide against his wife or woman partner, is explainable – and that explanation is supportable from the official data. It illustrates the complexity of a society in an age where women are encouraged by feminists not to be dependent on a man, and to assert that independence.

And it illustrates the serious cost to women of the breakdown of marriage, as much as the cost to society of that breakdown – all at the hands of the very marriage-destroying ideology, feminism, which they espouse. In a small number of cases, that cost to women is their life, the highest price anybody can pay for their beliefs.

Of course, we know that feminists are notoriously as statistically-challenged, as they are logically-challenged. Ms Bates is one of the prime examples of this. I suspect she doesn’t have the intellect even to understand what she is saying (although I have no doubt she is culpably promulgating the standard feminist agenda that seeks to blacken men). I mean, is anyone going to tell me that if two women were being killed every week in the home, the press wouldn’t be all over it? Are these women so stupid that they don’t see that?

Or is Bates just another feminist factoid-freak, who religiously repeats mantras gleaned from the feminist echo-chamber that, as Christina Hoff Sommers has said, ‘Are harder to kill than a vampire’.

Women who endlessly propagate these lies are bigots. Of that there is no doubt. And, they are bigots who are prepared to use ‘statistics’ as just another weapon in their armoury of bigotry. The evidence of this is that they never respond when they are challenged to prove what they are saying. They can’t respond, of course, because they don’t know what they are talking about.

So, I challenge Laura Bates, and her like, with this: Get real, young woman. You are lying about female domestic homicide, and promulgating a false narrative. You are old enough to face up to your responsibilities, and you need to either put up, or shut up about this most serious matter.

   [ + ]

1. You can download it here.
2. For the reader’s information, the other 47% of women were killed by someone with whom they were acquainted such as a son or daughter, a parent, a friend or acquaintance, or another member of their family.
3. See here. The 2009 figures are chosen to reflect the dates of the other data being relied upon in this article. In fact, at the time of writing, provisional figures for 2011 suggest the mean age for women to marry has risen to 33,8 years. See here.
4. Statistical Bulletin ONS: Divorces in England and Wales. 2011  – 2011 is the latest year for which we currently have data.
5. This is the median measure of central tendency, as used by the ONS, not the mean or average, which is likely to be higher due to the small number of marriages that last for life.
6. ibid.
7. We have no statistics on how many people simply chose to live together, so we shall just have to use the marriage figures, which will err on the safe side
8. By way of contrast, men are being granted divorces on the grounds of their wives’ unreasonable conduct in ever increasing numbers. Divorces granted to men on these grounds are up 574 per cent in the last 40 years. Clearly, men are increasingly reaching the point where the behaviour of their wives is unbearable, and they are divorcing them – although remember, men’s petitions are only a third of women’s.
9. And by reasonably inference, long-term cohabitation arrangements – what used to be called ‘common-law marriages’.
10. The term ‘emotional rival’ is defined by the ONS as ‘those instances where two persons come to know or meet each other through their association or knowledge of a third person, and where their emotional or sexual interest in this third person brings them into direct conflict with each other.
11. A typical scenario, therefore, would be where a man meets a woman through his relationship with her husband, partner, boyfriend etc – say, through friendship, work colleague etc. – and he forms a sexual relationship with that woman. This man then becomes an emotional rival to the woman’s husband/partner, and the husband gets jealous. This causes so much upset in the wronged man that he kills her lover.
12. However, one mustn’t forget that there might also be an equivalent scenario between homosexual men. In fairness, this could also apply to homosexual relationships as well as heterosexual ones, so we need to bear this in mind in interpreting the figures.
13. Chapter 2 – Homicide – ONS Op cit. Page 11

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

  • Mike Gibbs

    Women are lone parents in 84% of cases not because men abandon their children, but because… the fathers have been constructively banished, with the collusion of the state, which encourages women to abuse the grotesque power we have conferred on them. Fifty-eight percent of men delayed their divorce because of concerns about their children. Far fewer women had this worry. … ‘Not believing in divorce’ was the next most important reason men cited. …
    The idea of an older man leaving his wife for a younger woman is ingrained in the American psyche — and that has created a misconception about divorce and is a lie. Women are more than willing to chart a new life for themselves if they’re in an unfulfilling marriage, often by their own doing.

  • Similar claims are made in NZ – what I notice is that the agencies tend to lump in the child deaths in the home along with the claims: failing to acknowledge the child murders that happen in other circumstances (killed by mother, killed by mothers new partner etc) this was in an eMail I received the other day. “Earlier this week, I wrote to you and told you that at Shine, our experienced
    professionals are working directly with the victims and perpetrators of domestic
    abuse. The reality of this overwhelming problem is that one NZ woman is killed
    every 3 weeks, and one child is killed every 5 weeks – by a member of their own
    family. It’s our goal to combat this overwhelming problem. But we can’t
    do it without your help.” This statistical dishonesty is fairly universal in the Western World it would seem!