Die in unseren Medien unsichtbaren Opfer

Barbara Kay widmet sich in der kanadischen "National Post" der Frage, warum für die Medien eine bestimmte Gruppe von Opfern unsichtbar bleiben:

Heterosexual men can't catch a break from the media. When they're aggressors, they're condemned. When they're victims, they're ignored. Conversely, when women -- gay or straight -- and gay men are victims, they're pitied. And when they're aggressors, they're? hmm? also pitied.

A new study by Statistics Canada confirms what researchers in the field of domestic violence proved years ago: that partner violence amongst same-sex Canadians is significantly higher than amongst heterosexual couples. According to StatsCan, gays and lesbians experience twice the partner abuse of straight couples.

This is unwelcome news in general, of course. The media tends to promote an image of gays and lesbians as men and women who have fought for the right to love like straight people, not hate like them.

But it is particularly disconcerting to those Canadians -- most Canadians -- who have bought the myth that unprovoked domestic violence is virtually always a man-on-woman phenomenon. (…)

The invisibility of heterosexual male victims I speak of shows up in the article's first comment on domestic violence: In asserting that "Canadians know full well that domestic violence is a major problem," Anderssen cites examples of a woman beaten by her boyfriend, and three children murdered by their father. To this journalist (and to be fair, to most others too), men hurting women and men killing children are what Canadians "know" about domestic violence.

What Canadians would know if the article was better researched is that men are almost equally likely to be assaulted by their female partners, and that children are statistically more likely to be abused or killed by their mothers than fathers. (…)

These stories reinforce credible research proving that intimate-partner violence has no gender, but is rooted in individual pathology.

Anderssen first concedes, then disowns this ideologically unpalatable truth. She says, "In many ways, whatever you make of the numbers, the pattern of abuse is the same, gay or straight …" But if she'd left it at that, we'd have to admit that women are also capable of unprovoked violence.

We'd have to feel sorry for battered straight men as well as for gay men.

That would never do. So cue some -- any -- plausible excuses for gay violence: Gays drink more because they feel isolated; having HIV makes breaking up more difficult; maintaining secrecy about gayness is tough; their dads may have mocked them, so they can't form healthy relationships.

In other words, although entirely empirical conjectures, the reader is meant to understand these as "reasons" for gay-on-gay violence, while reasons other than innate control issues are never adduced for man-on-woman violence. Hadn't any straight abusive men "a rough childhood" or mocking dads? You're not likely to find out from our mainstream media.

Anderssen erroneously concludes, "there are still no shelters in Canada specifically for gay men." The truth is that there are quite a number of funded services for abused gays, including shelters and numerous counselling services, but almost none of either for abused straight men. (…)

All women and gay men represent about 60% of our population, but where domestic violence is concerned, together attract 99% of the media's sympathy and funded outreach. How long will the mainstream media's unethical double standard in reportage of domestic violence persist?

Hier findet man den vollständigen Artikel.