Labour leader David Cunliffe. Photo / Rebecca Quilliam
Opinion
When Labour leader David Cunliffe went to a Women's Refuge forum and apologised for being a man, he was trying to make an important point. Domestic violence, as he went on to say, is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men against women and children. That does not mean, as those who applauded
Mr Cunliffe seem to think, that men in general are prone to violence against women or that all of their gender are somehow responsible for it. The point he wanted to make was quite the opposite: that no self-respecting man would ever, under any circumstances, hit a woman, and that any man who does so is deeply and despicably unmanly.
Most men receive this message as young boys. Long before a boy reaches school age, he ought to have realised that he must never hit a girl. Is this message still being given, or is it unfashionable now to make a distinction between the gender of those who may be hurt?
When the Labour leader made his declaration of shame last Friday, a social scientist claimed he was wrong to say family violence was perpetrated overwhelmingly by men against women. 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."
It is hard to imagine a more irresponsible message to give to the sort of men who resort to violence against women.
The idea that the woman may be equally to blame, even if she is also violent and even the initiator of the violence, is simply not acceptable. It is an excuse often heard from the unmanly and it should never be given a respectful hearing. Men have the physical advantage. It may be unfashionable to say so but it should not need to be said.
