Hi everyone! I wrote an article for Christianity magazine recently, about how ‘health and fitness’ has become a ‘trend’ on Instagram. Check it out here! There are are reasons to be concerned about it, though social media can inspire us, too. It made me reflect on how lucky I was to grow up in an age when image and media influence was more limited.
I was asked to review a recently published book about domestic abuse by a feminist campaigner, Natalie Collins: “Out of control: couples, conflict and the capacity for change”. I was troubled by my impression of this book, because this is such an important issue, and the book does have some good and useful aspects. However its adoption of radical feminist ideology and the information it uses to argue for a this stance are questionable, in my opinion. I’ve gone into more detail on the Premier Christianity blog.
There is a lot of statistics and research cited in the book, though often from newspaper articles and reports rather than academic research. So I started to check the citations and investigate to find out how well the information has been represented.
To fact-check a whole book would require three books to do so. And no book, nor article, is perfect. However I give a few examples here because they were used to argue for quite an extreme position. I do not believe that the ideology promoted in the book is justified by the research and statistics used. I believe that a more even-handed look at the relevant data and research would be cautious about using an ideological model such as radical feminism to explain the causes of abuse or identify solutions.
Fact-checking selected stats in ‘Out of Control’:
- The book states: “Research has found that far from being small, shrivelled up, old and ugly [does anyone really believe this?], it is well-educated and highly paid women who are much more likely to be subjected to abuse than lower paid women, particularly if they earn significantly more than their partner.” I don’t think this is a good representation of what the newspaper article cited says, and the research itself isn’t cited.
In any case, there’s plenty of information to bring it into question. A 2015 Office for National Statistics report that is used elsewhere in the book also contradicts this claim. It states: “Women with a degree or diploma were less likely than women with other qualifications or no qualifications to be a victim of any domestic abuse in the last year,” and “women living in the lowest income households (less than £10,000) were much more likely than those within higher household income brackets to have experienced any domestic abuse in the last year.”
- In a chapter that gives horrifying details of sadistic abuse, Natalie says: “You may think the abusive behaviour listed here is extreme. Something that few women are subjected to. Sadly, that is not the case.” She cites 2014 Office for National Statistics numbers that “30% of women have been subjected to this kind of abuse.” She doesn’t mention the figures for men.
In fact, the previously mentioned ONS report says: “27.1% of women and 13.2% of men had experienced any domestic abuse since the age of 16, equivalent to an estimated 4.5 million female victims and 2.2 million male victims.”
However – this definition of domestic abuse includes abuse from other family members, as well as partners. If the report gives the lifelong figures for partners only, I can’t find them.
For abuse from partners only in one year, the ONS says: “6.5% of women and 2.8% of men… reported having experienced any type of partner abuse in the last year, equivalent to an estimated 1.1 million female victims and 500,000 male victims.”
Of these: “Female partner abuse victims were more likely to experience non-physical abuse (emotional, financial) (63%) than to experience physical abuse such as force (29%), or threats (45%). Male partner abuse victims were also more likely to experience non-physical abuse (56%) than force (37%), or threats (31%).”
So 319,000 women and 185,000 men said they had had experienced physical abuse from a partner during that year – in other words, just over one in three of the people who reported physical abuse from a partner in this survey were male. The book says that the “one in three” statistic is incorrect.
- The book uses the shocking data that of girls aged 13-17, 72% said they had experienced emotional violence. However, the NSPCC report cited says 51% of boys reported the same.
This definition of ‘emotional violence’ included ‘made fun of you’ and ‘shouted at you’. Other forms were rarer: 11% of girls and 4% of boys said a partner had threatened them with violence to do something they didn’t want to do; 1% or less of both sexes said they’d experienced this regularly. 30% of girls and 13% of boys had been told who they could see and where they could go by a partner: 7% of girls and 3% of boys said this had happened regularly.
- Clearly the above statistics show a gender difference in victims of domestic abuse. But is it enough to justify the author’s decision to exclude men from the statistics she uses the book, which she says is a “pragmatic decision based on the vast majority of situations where someone chooses to perpetuate domestic abuse”?
She cites ONS statistics to suggest a bigger gender gap: for example, that 44% of female homicide victims compared with 6% of male victims are killed by their partner or ex-partner.
The use of homicide statistics to discuss the incidence of domestic violence is questionable, but this is also a misleading representation of the numbers, because overall in any one year, more men are killed than women: elsewhere in the recent ONS 2015 report it records that just under two-thirds of homicide victims were male.
In fact, the ONS says 81 female victims aged 16 or over were killed by their partner/ex-partner; 19 men were killed by partners or ex-partners, in the year ending March 2015. So, one in five people killed by their partners were male.
Natalie cites a campaigner who claims that women who kill male partners are “nearly always” victims of his violence or abuse. There is no evidence given to support this claim.
- There are a range of ‘treatments’ that have been designed for perpetrators of domestic abuse. But only one is mentioned favourably in the book, an approach that uses gender-based, feminist principles to re-educate men and according to Natalie, “challenge their beliefs of ownership and entitlement”. She describes this method as “proven to be effective.”
She cites a blog, but these statistics are from a report with claims of startling improvements: 30% of the women said that before the training, their partner had made them do something sexual they didn’t want to do; afterwards, none experienced it. Before the programme, 87% of the women reported that they’d been slapped, pushed or had something thrown at them; after the programme only 7% reported this.
Sounds dramatic, but upon investigation, again, sadly these statistics do not “prove” anything.
The study compares what a group of women say about their partners, before and after this feminist re-education. But in the “before” group, the statistics included between 94 and 97 women; the ‘after’ group had between 61 and 62 women.
In other words, it’s possible that the third of women who had been forced to do something sexual had all dropped out. There’s no way of knowing from what’s said in the report, which is why another academic described these particular statistics as “useless”. Research that has been published in a reputable academic journal would carefully apply statistical tests to try to discern the significance of the results. This is not present in this report.
Sadly, other analyses of treatment programmes for male perpetrators, that is more thorough in comparing ‘like with like,’ found that feminist programmes such as these, as well as other kinds of ‘treatment’ such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), show only a small effect in reducing violence against women.
- For traumatised victims of abuse, the book claims that CBT, talking therapy, and prescriptions drugs “doesn’t work”, whereas EMDR and the ‘rewind technique’ does. She cites Dutch psychiatrist Bessel Van der Kolk’s interesting book for these opinions. He has an unusual perspective about trauma, and promotes yoga as a treatment.
For the sake of those who need help – therapists trained in CBT or ‘talking therapies’ can be trained in the “rewind technique” or EMDR, and people vary in what they find helpful. So please don’t be put off. Therapists may have a range of techniques that you could find benefit from.
But I am confused as to how Natalie comes to her conclusions on the basis of the book she has cited to justify them.
To use Van der Kolk’s own words:
“finding words to describe what has happened to you can be transformative, but it does not always abolish flashbacks or improve concentration, stimulate vital involvement in your life or reduce hypersensitivity to disappointments and perceived injuries.”
He also notes:
“There is no one “treatment of choice” for trauma, and any therapist who believes that his or her particular method is the only answer to your problems is suspect of being an ideologue rather than someone who is interested in making sure that you get well.”
Such issues are a tiny snapshot of all of the research and studies published on the subject of domestic abuse, or trauma for that matter. There is plenty more information that could be used to argue for various positions on the causes and solutions. Such is the case for any kind of research into social issues: I believe that caution is the best policy.
As I say in the main blog for Premier Christianity: I believe there is much to learn from what Natalie says about what churches should do practically in situations of abuse. However, I hope this aspect of what she is saying can and will be disentangled from her ideological positions.
I wrote a blog for Christianity magazine on the tenth anniversary of the ‘atheist bus’ campaign. This milestone made me think about how much has changed since then. While ‘new atheism’ seemed to be a threat to many Christians at the time, it’s since died down. But ‘woke’ atheism, or identity politics, that I’ve written about a few times recently, has surged in that time – and I think this is a trend that the church really needs to address.
The bitterness and rage that has followed the US mid-terms should make all Christians pause and reflect. Particularly if we are feeling those emotions towards the other political ‘side’. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the particular political issues, Jesus did not call us to be political prophets, righting the wrongs of the world. He called us to love, and he prayed for his church to be united. I wrote a blog for Christianity magazine to expand on these ideas.
I really apologise for not updating this blog more regularly. I have been writing now and then for Christian publications, but not noting so here…
The most in-depth piece I’ve written in recent months was about identity politics for Christianity magazine. Take a look here.
The aim was two-fold: one try to describe the phenomenon for those who are bemused by it all. Secondly was to ponder on whether Christians should be involved. Huge subjects for a short magazine piece, but really important ones… let me know what you think.
Politics has certainly got interesting recently… but there’s an underlying trend that is alarming me. And that is, we are putting a lot of hope in it that I think should be put in god, and we’re putting a lot of responsibility on it that should be put on ourselves. Here’s a blog I wrote for Christianity magazine on this, but I think there will be more to come.
I wrote this shortly after a weekend news story (from experience, read ‘speculative) about Stephen Fry being investigated for blasphemy in Ireland. I’m for free speech, and more importantly, free dialogue with people who have these views. They’re often not presented in the mainstream press with the alternative point of view.
Apologies for the long delay since my last post. I actually spent several months researching this article on politics – it felt a very important subject and I wanted to make sure I was doing it justice. It’s been on my mind a lot following Brexit and Trump. Many Christians, especially those in the ‘elite’ of the church in this country (eg media, heads of denominations etc), passionately think that Christians should get involved in politics, and are often quite left-wing. The reverse is the case in the US, obviously. But is this what Jesus wants? The article explores this question. It helped me to make up my mind on the subject, but I hope I am being fair to all sides. Let me know your thoughts!
I had an interesting commission from Lapido Media, to explore the background to recent protests by young Sikhs in the UK.
Sikhism is an interesting religion, and it appears that many young Sikhs are identifying with in in a stronger way than ever before. Some further background about the history, and the reasons why this is happening, is in this article.
Mother Theresa has been in the news as she has been made a saint by the Catholic church. Hence why I looked out some inspiring quotes from her for Christian Today. Interesting how much emphasis she put on loving those closest to us, which is often the hardest to do. It’s easy to feel compassion for the suffering who are far away, and donate a bit to charity – but loving those in our own community and especially in our own house is more difficult.
I wrote an article for Christian Today, looking at some countries that aren’t so well known for Christian persecution, but where it’s a significant problem. They include the Maldives, Jordan and Laos …
I haven’t read much of King’s work in the past few years, but as today is the anniversary of his murder, I was asked to find ten inspiring quotes from the great man for the Christian Today website.
Wow I’d forgotten how inspiring the guy is. He really was in tune with Jesus’ teachings to love his enemies, probably because he so clearly had to live them out in his campaign of non-violent resistance against racism and segregation in the USA.
Here’s the piece, ‘Ten inspiring quotes from Martin Luther King’. But I’d encourage you to read more! This is an extract from his famous ‘I have a dream’ speech:
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed – we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
It’s bizarre, for anyone over 30, to see people such as Peter Tatchell, Stephen Fry and Germaine Greer being ostracised by the movements that they helped to create. Why are students ‘no platforming’ these people? In the latest case, with Tatchell, it was purely because he supported the principle of free speech. I offer some reasons why this trend might be happening, in a piece for Christian Today.
I’m a Christian, and so naturally, Richard Dawkins sometimes gets right up my nose. However, there is a lot that I really like and respect about him, even though I consider his arguments against Christianity to be false.
I also think that in many ways, he has been good for the church. So I wrote for Christianity magazine, on “10 reasons for Christians to thank Richard Dawkins”. Hope you enjoy it!
It’s a talking point, after the Pope questioned it. But what is a Christian? I wrote this piece for the Indy online trying to answer these questions.
I wrote a piece for Christian Today that challenges the idea that ‘religion’ as a category can be blamed for war, oppression and other ills of the world.
I’m not arguing that different religions can’t influence for positive or negative in the world. But that’s one of the problems – religions are so diverse, it’s impossible to group them all together and judge as one.
I wrote an article “Tyson Fury’s a working class Christian man and we should celebrate him” for Christianity magazine’s blog that’s basically supporting him, though I don’t agree with everything he says. It’s provoked a lot of comment, which I expected, and I’m finding very interesting. You can see the comments underneath.
In essence I’m pointing out that the people who are criticising him often express hatred, prejudice and judgement – so why are people not calling them out on it?
Jesus came to save sinners, not those who think they are righteous. He taught against self-righteousness and hypocrisy so clearly. Though, it’s often hard to see in yourself. But Tyson is a classic example of the great Northern value of “what you see is what you get”.
The guy really needs prayer, because one of the hardest teachings of Jesus was to love your enemies. He has a lot of them at the moment, and needs all the help he can get. The BBC Sports Personality of the Year competition is on Sunday, so it’s all gonna get heated up again.
I really hope to respect y’all in your opinions and beliefs, but just to try to explain why it would be important for me for my child to go to a Christian school – still taught with tolerance towards people of other beliefs, but ultimately coming from the worldview that Jesus and God are real, alive and central to life.
I grew up in a culture that provided lots of barriers to believing in God (though am grateful to have been taught the Lord’s prayer and a few hymns at primary school, which not all children get nowadays). It was only when I sought and explored the subject in depth that I found faith – and I was obstinate enough to pursue this despite all the cultural pressure against Christianity. And I’m so incredibly glad that I did.
Raising children is such an awesome responsibility. We’d all, I’m sure, share the value that it’s vital that our children know the love of their parents and family. But for me also, one of the most precious things I could give a child is the knowledge and experience of God’s very real and present love for them – and confidence that it is real. If they choose to reject that I would absolutely want to respect their decision and love them regardless. But I wouldn’t want to give them the barriers that I had to overcome in my own faith journey.
However, while I think that would be my responsibility as a parent, I would definitely want to respect other people’s choices and how they choose to exercise their own responsibility. So, I think there should be a range of schools to choose from – faith schools and secular ones. I do not want to disrespect anyone – just explain why this would be so important to me, and why I am passionate that we should give schools the freedom to be ‘faith schools’ if there are people in the area who want this.
Nowadays, many people believe that religion shouldn’t be taught in school, or only as a distant, impassionate observer of different faiths. I disagree. I grew up in a secular home that held a similar viewpoint, coming to faith in my late 20s. I don’t think it is possible to create a neutral space where you really let kids choose for themselves. I think that we all teach, and raise children, from within a particular worldview, and there is no ‘neutral’ position. Personally, I wish I had grown up with a more Christian worldview.
And for those who consider religion to be negative, which is why they want it out of schools… I ask that they would be tolerant and respect my beliefs and opinions on how I would want to raise a child. I would hope to do that to them. The idea that we should force other people to have their children raised in a different worldview from their own does not seem fair to me. I think that atheists should be able to send their children to schools that teach this, if they so wish. I might disagree with their decision, but I wouldn’t want to force them to accept my views. I am concerned that increasingly a section of the population want to inflict theirs on me. As I’m a taxpayer, there should be no reason why I can’t get the kind of school I want, but atheists get their kind of school. And vice versa.
We live in a culture in which it is acceptable to make absolute statements such as “faith schools are harmful”. But if I expressed my beliefs in such an absolute fashion, almost certainly I would be called a bigot. In some ways that’s good for me because it causes me to question myself. But it seems to me unfair – and is one of the reasons why I think the idea of this ‘neutral’ space is a myth and not possible.
Some would point to faith schools that take a more extreme position. I consider extremism within religion to be a separate matter, and a very complex one at that, in our multicultural society. I don’t have the answers. I just don’t think a version of secular totalitarianism is the answer.
In summary, I would want a Christian school for my kids, because I think the ‘secular neutral space’ idea is a myth. You have to teach from within one particular worldview, imo. As I would want your choices to be available, I would hope others would respect my choices. We should do what we think is best – an naturally that will be different for different people, and different faiths. Though, those who want a Christian school aren’t always Christians – I know Muslims who would prefer it to a more secular school – and some people of faith would prefer a secular space. And lots of Christians would prefer something more neutral. But I don’t think one group’s preferences should be imposed on others.
I had a debate with someone about pacifism the other day, online. Did Jesus teach pacifism? To me it is fairly clear that He did, with words such as ‘love your enemies’, ‘pray for those who persecute you’, ‘those who live by the sword die by the sword’ etc.
It’s not easy being a pacifist, especially if faced with violence personally, or when there are murderous expansionist fascistic regimes who hope to kill or rape all those who don’t agree with them. I honestly wouldn’t want to judge anyone who committed violence, and there are many situations where it would be an automatic reaction for me. Sometimes it is done with good intentions – those going in to rescue people from slavery, for example.
I just can’t see that violence is God’s will, based on the New Testament. Yes it was ‘allowed’ in the OT, though there are many passages that show this would not be God’s ultimate will for the world. But post-Jesus, things change, it seems to me.
One of the strongest arguments that this is what Jesus taught, I believe, is that the early church was unanimously pacifistic. I’d highly recommend a book called ‘Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs’ compiled by David Bercot. It’s a quick way of examining what was taught in the pre-Nicene church (the first couple of centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection). Here’s a very quick summary:
Many church fathers taught that it was not right for a Christian to go to war, or be in the army. Explicitly condemning war and violence (rather than the idolatry of the army etc, which some say is the reason early Christians were not allowed in the military) were: Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Arnobius.
Also saying that they personally would not go to war, or making less explicit condemnations of war, or commenting that Christians do not commit violence or go to war: Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus.
There are a small number of mentions of Christians being in the army. But they had this restriction, which is a pretty extraordinary one, when you think about it:
By the close of the second century, if someone who was already a soldier came to faith, they were allowed to stay in the army after baptism, but only if they didn’t use the sword, take oaths, or engage in idolatrous practices. This was confirmed in the writing of Hippolytus, who wrote: “A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism.”
The earliest Christians had the heritage of the early church, led by people who spent 3 years in Jesus’ company. Wouldn’t they have a pretty good idea of what His views were on this subject?
War may seem the easiest way. But Jesus doesn’t teach the easy way.