I am disgusted this morning with middle-England rag the Daily Mail for criticising Harriet Harman's new call for teaching about non-violent relationships to children. I barely wish to link to it but here it is.
Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader and Equalities Minister, is in charge while Gordon Brown in on holiday. Her every move this week is being torn apart as though some terrible pushing of the feminist agenda.
She called for children from age 5 to be taught about having healthy, non-violent relationships. This will mean, in part, teaching boys about not perpetrating domestic violence against women, because as we all know, statistically women are more at risk. However, in classic "what about the menz!" style, the Mail says "some critics" have attacked Ms. Harman because men "are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime". And the numbers of girls carrying out violence is rising. These "critics" include Tory MPs (shame on them) and the director of a right wing think tank.
Yes, men are victims of crime more often, but teaching healthy, non-violent relationships is nothing to so with street/gang crime etc. It's about the times when someone who you thought you could trust and love abuses that power. It would appear that Harman doesn't even mean just teaching boy about violence against women, because domestic violence can occur in any relationship perpetrated by woman or man, against woman or man. I'm sure she knows this and the initiative is meant to address all of that. But the Mail's headline mentions "wife-beating" and tries to frame the initiative as purely about helping women.
It's disgusting that they can criticise any initiative (a cross-party one at that) that is designed to help victims of violence. Disgusting that they consider it "a feminist initiative" like that's a bad thing, as though it's another step on the feminist road to female superiority and enslaving all men, or something. It's not just sexist but dangerous. Disgusting that they use the article as another platform for Conversatives to attack Labour for using too much money, overstretching public institutions, and sticking government's oar into "family maters". FYI, Mail and Tories, these things cost money, but not for the sake of it! For bringing safety to a future generation of adults...I didn't realise that was a bad thing!
Not to mention the article being incredibly hypocritical by BOTH criticising the initiative for spending too much money and just being about women, and also wanting any anti-violence measure to concentrate more on violence against men....can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
I can barely even get started on the comments below the article, except that there is a small number of dissenting voices that call the Mail out on its sexism and say that anti-violence initiatives are surely good. Yay! But boo at all the people who have given these comments a negative rating. Shame on them.
And good on Harriet Harman - it's a shame she only seems able to push her "feminist initiative" during the summer recess of Parliament. Other feminist agendas she's been involved in this week include measures to help increase rape conviction rates.
I want more feminist agenda in government!
All this comes at the same time that the UK government fails to meet the deadline for reporting back to the UN CEDAW committee on its improvements this year to ensuring women's rights ...and continued attempts by London based rape crisis projects to get London mayor Boris Johnson to keep his promise to fund rape crisis centres better. You would really think that all these initiatives would be a good thing wouldn't you? Unbelievable that anyone who claims to stand for morals, values and safety would be against them. And yet, not quite unbelievable, sadly.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Daily Mail calls school anti-DV lessons "a femininist initiative" (like it's a bad thing).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15326
really cause the last time I checked more women and girls are the target on domestic abuse as well as hate crimes and are far more likely to be rape victims. Somebody please correct me if
I am incorrrect in thinking this
I don't think that the proposal sounds appropriate. The goals are noble, decreasing domestic violence is a valuable pursuit. But the methods are usually pretty distorted from that goal.
Five year old boys don't need to be assaulted with all the ways that society has already concluded they're going to be wicked criminals on the sole count of their gender. If they need help it would be for those children who are victims of abusive households to get help. Not to view them all as future perps. Telling every male child that society is already suspicious of them only seeks to further marginalize boys in society.
This.
There's almost never any feminist qualms about telling boys they're already villains and abusers and rapists, based on nothing more than their gender.
If it was about reducing violence, it would be teaching everyone. It wouldn't be teaching boys not to beat women. That's already targeting, shaming, and blaming no one but them for all problems.
There's almost never any feminist qualms about telling boys they're already villains and abusers and rapists, based on nothing more than their gender.>>>
I understand that this is a common perception, but it is patently false. (At least re: prevention in the states.) While some militant feminists in the beginning of the movement may have presented this way, current thought is about universally targeted prevention utilizing the public health model. Most good PRIMARY prevention programs (stop it before it starts, vs intervention after an event) don't target anyone as a potential victim/perpetrator, but instead focus on violence as a community/friendship issue and discuss what we can ALL do to reduce it. Ideally, programs start with anti-bullying initiatives in elementary schools by teaching empathy, which reduces perpetration of various types of violence.
I have never heard of a violence prevention specialist going into a classroom and telling all the men/boys that they are "villians, abusers, and rapists," and I'm frankly sick of prevention (and feminism) being demonized this way.
I have never heard of a violence prevention specialist going into a classroom and telling all the men/boys that they are "villians, abusers, and rapists," and I'm frankly sick of prevention (and feminism) being demonized this way.
When my brother and I were growing up an ad campaign was launched directed at new mothers did precisely that (late 80s/early 90s) informing them that if they weren't careful their son would be an abuser or rapist.
It did not frame the issue as a small group, of people. It framed the issue as something inherent in male children which had to be forced out of them. Throughout my school career it was heavily reinforced that girls were viewed as more moral, more trustworthy, more liked by teachers, where as boys were almost exclusively troublemakers. While many peoples experience may vary I find it hard to belief that my experience was completely unique in the US. Further my experience leads me to distrust any school administration of such a program to be anything close to gender neutral.
More recently there was an ad campaign run in Texas featuring a young boy and the caption "One day I will grow up and beat my wife"
Alternatively the Ad Council's campaign was very clear about its intention to target boys, and only boys, because boys will beat their wives if they aren't told not to.
"The PSAs give men a clear role in preventing domestic violence by asking them to teach boys early that relationship violence is unacceptable."
Unfortunately I have to link to the Way Back Machine in this case
I do not think any public program that accused all men of being rapists or violent. And I do pay attention. This is just a generic straw man argument on your part.
No, it's not. Look around, even here. You have things like "Men can stop rape", "Men can stop DV", people say things such as "If you want to stop rape, tell men to stop raping", "Tell men to stop DV".
There is constant, usually overt, sometimes subtle, attempts at painting all men (and no women) as rapists, abusers, or potential ones.
What about that feminist group that made a poster at a college, using pictures of all the male students, and title the poster "Rapists"? Or was it potential rapists? I don't recall, but to claim I'm making a straw man, or saying things that aren't done is intellectually dishonest of you.
The difference is no one here is saying "All Men Rape." If they were, then you would have a point. But they are not.
The reason people say things like "Men can stop rape" is because all these programs targeted at preventing rape always put the onus on the woman to protect herself or not put herself in dangerous situations. We need to also tell men that violence and rape is not okay (and NO I'm not saying that all men rape so you can calm down). We need to tell men the help police rape and rape jokes and all that kind of stuff and take the responsibility soley off of womens' shoulders.
The reason people say things like "Men can stop rape" is because all these programs targeted at preventing rape always put the onus on the woman to protect herself or not put herself in dangerous situations.>>
This.
A lot of the men's programs focus on "well-meaning men;" the entire movement recognizes that most men don't abuse or rape, nor do they agree with men who perpetrate that type of behavior. This is where the man-hater argument falls apart. It's a very small percentage of men in the US who perpetrate VAW, and we know that. Others just don't seem to know that we know that.
The problem is that most men don't know what to do when they see things happen, or recognize that a situation is headed in a violent direction. The men's programs equip men and boys to become positive active bystanders by deconstructing cultural messages around masculinity and training them to intervene (safely) when they see/hear others doing/saying things they think are wrong. It's getting men involved in what was a "women's issue" and making it a community issue instead.
(This isn't to say that women always know what to do, but "safety tips" around sexual assault generally include taking care of your friends.)
Again let us assume there was a campaing to stop murdering men. And there was a special campaign targeted at women to stop murdering men. I suppose no feminist would have the idea to say
"Wait a moment, women are killed, too! What about female victims? By painting it that way it looks like only women can be murderers and only men can be victims"
There ARE campaigns to stop people from murdering men. They're targeted at men, because men are the majority of perpetrators of murder against other men. (That was a lot of the word "men" in two sentences. Sorry if that didn't make sense.)
And I will echo: no one is saying women are never perpetrators and men are never victims of intimate partner violence. But when people examine the context, intent, and effect of the violence, disparities emerge. If I throw a shoe across the room because I'm angry, that tells my partner, "I'm ANGRY!" If I've been isolating him from his family and friends, stalking him, playing mind games, threatening and insulting him, and THEN I throw that shoe during an argument, it means something different. Coercive control is different than a unhealthy behavior. Because let's face it, we've all done shitty things. We've yelled at loved ones, emotionally blackmailed (particularly teen girls), and maybe even hit (I know I hit my brothers a few times when I was little), but those unhealthy things are different than a pattern of behaviors used to control someone else.
I agree that we need to address all types of violence, including in the media. And I honestly believe in a universal approach to prevention, which is what most prevention programs today utilize. But I also don't believe, in the face of homicide, familicide, and sexual assault statistics, that women's violence against men has the same consequences as vice versa.
And I still think little ones should be taught not to hit, period, to get what you want. I actually don't think a violence prevention program that targets little boys' violence against little girls is going to be all that groundbreaking; we need to teach empathy and boundaries to all kids, and we'll see a decrease in perpetration of violence (bullying, sexual harassment, tdv, dv, and sa) across the board. But it has to be integrated into regular curricula, it has to be ongoing, and it has to both empower victims and hold perpetrators accountable.
When women kill the victims are more often men than women.
I agree with your all violence approach, but you have to get your data straight. Even when studies look for "severe violence" you will find a difference that is between 56-60% female victims. That means that out of ten victims of DV that suffer severe violence almost half (4 out of 10) are men. Don´t ignore those men. Same is btw true for DV in homosexual relationships. To brush DV as men hit women pushes other form of DV out of the picture.
Now if you continue to say, men are far more often perpetrators and women are far more often victims, this leads to stereotyping which is hurtful for the all violence approach, and this stops male victims from coming forward.
We also need to tell men and boys that they can be victims and we also need to tell women and girls that it is not okay to rape or use violence.
We need to fight VIOLENCE. Not just one kind of violence.
Because if we only concentrate fighting violence against women we perpetrate the stereotypes that only women can be victims and only men can be perpetrators.
Yes but you cannot ignore the FACT that DV and rape is mostly perpetrated by men against women. Yes, men can be victims too. Although hey guess what? Those crimes are usually still perpetrated by men! No one is saying men are never victims and that women are never perpetrators. Point that sentence out to me, please. I'd like to read it. Until you find that sentence in this post you can stop with this nonsense.
*Sigh*
Again half truths are at work here:
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 254 scholarly investigations: 199 empirical studies and 55 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 252,800. -> http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Your attitude is one reason that a lot of male victims have a problem to come forward. This is stereotyping and this is damaging and probably hard for male victims to read.
So to sum up: you can't point to any sentence that says men are never victims and women never perpetrators? Got it, thanks.
You actually said something akin to that.
-Yes but you cannot ignore the FACT that DV and rape is mostly perpetrated by men against women. Yes, men can be victims too. Although hey guess what? Those crimes are usually still perpetrated by men!
So let me sum up. Men can be victims, the perpetrators are usually men, too. Women can be perpetrators, too. In a tiny tiny tiny little tiny minority of cases. I actually showed you "some" evidence that this is not a tiny minority and that men are suffering as well (and not only by other men).
So to sum it up, can you say anything to validate your claims, especially the "men are victims when men are perpetrators" part? And remember we are talking about DV here.
Does your definition of "akin" mean: not at all similar and reaching really really far in order to tie my points together and make you look like a man-hater? Because that's what I got from your post.
I'm done with your silliness now.
You really don´t get it, do you?
I´ll give you an example. More than half of all crimes are commited by people of color. Assume I would start some campaigns. "Only people of color can stop crime" or "we have to protect white people". Then I start saying things like of course there are white criminals, though there are far more poc among criminals. Don´t play that fact down.
You would rightfully tell me that my stereotyping is hurtful. You would rightfully tell me that the high criminal rates have something to do with lack of privilege, with worse living conditions. You would rightfully tell me that I am a racist.
So what are you?
Even the FBI statistics will show that at LEAST 90% of all violence in this nation is committed by men. The rates get even higher with domestic abuse. So, the fact that many of these programs focus on men is not an agenda but based off of statistics. So give me a break with your argument. It is like a child getting whiny and argumentative when they're called out on something they've done wrong: "I didn't do it! No I didn't! SHE did it!"
And don't sit there and say that the statistics are wrong. They are not. They come from a reputable source. Argument squashed, plain and simple. Anyone who has a problem with it is obviously projecting some sort of guilty conscience onto it, and trying to deny it. It really makes me sick. As if there is something WRONG with women in abusive situations trying to get help. That is just plain sickening. We should just sit back and allow ourselves to be abused. And we're wrong if we try to do anything about it? You know for a fact that most domestic violence situations entail men hitting women. That is no secret. It is as much an observable fact as dogs howling at the moon.
The FBI does not collect domestic abuse statistics. Get your facts straights. There are hundreds of studys that show us the DV is an almost even playing ground and a lot of them also explain why so many male vicitms of DV are not in "official statistics".
Abotu crime statistics, yes men commit most of the crimes but are also victim of most of the violent crimes. But look closer, most of the perpetrators are not only men, but poor, or men of color...will you argue that non-whites are more violent because of that finding? It rather has something to do with privilege because violent criminals are rarely privileged persons.
We're not specifically about Domestic Violence here, so why are you throwing other crimes into the equation? And there is a link provided from the FBI web page below with statistics, so you;re saying that the FBI doesn't provide statistics has to be wrong.
Also most violence against men is committed by other men. And yes, females do abuse, but nowhere near as much as men do. And this is not a good argument against women trying to take preventative measures to end domestic violence in households. Anyone who would want to interfere with that has no conscience, and a sadistic agenda at best.
I meant to say we're specifically talking about domestic violence here.
"Even the FBI statistics will show that at LEAST 90% of all violence in this nation is committed by men."
No, they show that most of the arrests and convictions are of men. The stats also show that black men are arrested overwhelmingly often. Do you really think that black people are far more criminal than others, or are they just arrested more often and prosecuted more vigorously?
For example, a husband might call the police because his wife has attacked him. When they show up, they try to arrest *him* (standard procedure on a domestic disturbance call), but because the husband is bloody and bruised, and the child is saying "Mommy stabbed Daddy!", they figure they should let him off the hook. So they tell him she would benefit from therapy, and leave without arresting her. That doesn't mean a crime didn't happen.
"The rates get even higher with domestic abuse."
Women's abuse doesn't count. For examples, I invite you to look at the last thirty years of newspaper articles about women's crime: female child molesters, female murderers, and female domestic abusers are almost always let off with a slap on the wrist. The media almost never calls their actions domestic violence, but regularly blames their victims. The media and courts make excuses for the women like it's going out of style (post-partum depression, low self-esteem, etc). Whereas if a man was abused as a child or is dealing with poverty, it's characterized as a sign of his incorrigible wickedness.
Gah. Sorry about the rant. Suffice it to say, your claim that men overwhelmingly commit domestic violence is out of date with modern social science. Since around the late 1980s, researchers have found that men and women commit DV in approximately equal amounts.
And here's a link from the FBI web page with detailed statistics if you want to continue arguing:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/victims.htm
That is the Department of Justice not the FBI.
The DoJ statistics will tell you that 8 out of 10 murder victims are men. The DoJ will also tell you that women are more likely to be killed by their partner. Roughly 4 times. Intimate partner killings are luckily only 11% of all homicides.
Trick question. Would you rather be in the group that is 4 times more likely to be murdered or rather be in the group that is less likely to be murdered by an intimate partner.
Anyhow according to your 90% statistics you cited before. There is nothing near 90% on the page you cited.
There is something about DV though:
On average between 2001 and 2005, children were residents of the households experiencing intimate partner violence in —
38% of the incidents involving female victims.
21% of the incidents involving male victims.
21 to 38? There is different data of course I was just citing you.
Again, get your data streight....sheeesh
Again, the men murdered outside of intimate partner relationships were most likely murdered by other men. As far as murders committed by intimate partners, the difference between male and female victims is staggering. There was an argument on one of the other blog posts here about why so many yogurt/bowl-movement control commercials are targeted at women, and someone replied, because it is mainly women between certain ages that develop bladder problems. Well, I suppose that same argument would apply here, why are preventative programs for domestic violence mainly targeted towards men, well because it is mainly men who perpetuate the violence.
Again that is a myth:
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 254 scholarly investigations: 199 empirical studies and 55 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 252,800. -> http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Where is your proof?
As for proof, I admit, I may have gotten carried away with the 90% assumption (although I have seen that statistic somewhere before), if you look at the link I already provided, you will still see considerable differences and a definite imbalance on the amount of violence committed by men compared to women.
And what about the anecdotal evidence witnessed by so many? I grew up in the system and I can't tell you how many females I've met who had been abused by their partners.
*possible trigger warning*
Here are some lines I heard on a regular basis:
"My boyfriend held a knife to me," "my boyfriend tried to strangle me," "My ex has been stalking me," "He tried to kill me," etc. and the list just goes on and on. It is so common that they've made movies about it for goodness sakes. What about the new trend (although it's not so new) of shooting? How many of those shooters running into a building and opening fire have been male? What about those who shoot their partners and then kill themselves? Many of them, male.
This whole argument about women being just as aggressive as males is dishonest in the fact that the proportion of violence and amount of damage as a result of their aggression nowhere matches the damage resulting from male aggression. Sorry.
Lynne, there was a time when there were virtually no victims of DV. I´d say in the 1950 and 1960 this was not seen. This has been changed during the shelter movement. Now it is time to address male victims. I am sick and tired to live in a society where my wife can punch me in the face while I hold my 1 year old daughter and societies reaction is "he must have deserved it" and her reaction is "I am sorry because I could have hurt her".
I can tell you again there is a reason why male victims do not appear as often in statistics when they ask for "victims of Domestic violence". Men do not see themselves as victims even though they are and are less likely as women to call officials. Studies back this up:
Family violence in Canada (2003):
37% of female victims of DV called the police only 15% of men did
Canadian General Social Survey (1999):
17% of male victims of DV seeked helped with "formal social agencies" compared to 48% of female victims
National family Violence Survey (1985):
Female victims are 9-time as likely to call the police and 5-time as likely to talk to a relative or friend than male victims
British Crime Survey (1996):
8% of male victims called the police compared to 22% of female victims
Besides the fielbert list there was a very well made analysis about worldwide incidents of DV by a German researcher: Sebastian Schwithal - Weibliche Gewalt in Partnerschaften (Female violence in relationships) ISBN 3833431563
Some of his findings:
Quote:In an analysis of 42 studies that ask for minor violence he found out that 54.8% of the perpetruators in that studies were women while 50,7% of the victims were men.
In an analysis of 92 studies that ask for severe violence he found out that 53.0% of the perpetruators in that studies were women while 52.3% of the victims were men. In that analysis 23 studies gave information about the use of weapons. 57.5% of women admitted using weapons and 65.5% of men have been injured by weapons.
In an analysis of 70 studies that ask for injuries he found out that 57,4% of the perpetruators in that studies were men while 56,6% of the victims were also men.
In an analysis of more than 100 country specific studies he found out that 55,8% of the perpetruators in that studies were men while 58,7% of the victims were women.
In an analysis of more than 150 dating and domestic violence studies he found out that 51,8% of the perpetruators in that studies were men while 56,0% of the victims were women.
Attention the numbers above don´t add up. Schwithal used different columns for violence perpetrated and violence suffered depending on what the study asked for. (Example when I say "In an analysis of 42 studies that ask for minor violence he found out that 54.8% of the perpetruators in that studies were women while 50,7% of the victims were men." There was a perpetrator column for men (45.2%) and one perpetrator column for women (54.8%) as well as a victim column for men (50.7%) and again one for women (49,3%). I was just giving you the high number for the victim and perpetrator column)
Included in that studies are not only CTS studies but official studies as well. And no matter in what way he looked at the more than 300 studies he cites, the difference is almost always equal.
There are also anecdotual evidence of male victims. Often they suffer in silence though
This links might trigger:
http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/at-least-90-percent-of-domestic_09.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/article2411968.ece
Every human being deserves to be treated with dignity in a non-violent way. So let us work together to stop VIOLENCE. Not just one part of it.
I agree that we should stop violence as a whole and not just one part of it. I never said that men didn't suffer from domestic violence either. It's just that not as many men end up DYING, or suffering serious permanent physical damage as a result of it. This is the major difference. I do not condone the behavior of the women who slap, throw things, punch, or kick etc. I think it is extremely immature, hurtful, and that they ought to suffer consequences for their actions; however, the problem with men murdering, choking, and controlling their wives/partners with threats of violence is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
"I do not condone the behavior of the women who slap, throw things, punch, or kick etc. I think it is extremely immature, hurtful, and that they ought to suffer consequences for their actions;"
For women who abuse, as opposed to those who can be said to be acting in self defense, why don't you just call them abusers, and call for them to be treated as such? Why the nitpicking about the "level" of the behavior (as if the limit to abusive behavior were slapping or throwing things, or as if women did not cause real injury and death, particularly to children, who are too often left out of the violence discussion)? If the abuser is a man, would you minimize the damage done to a female (or child) victim with "only" words or controlling behavior, as opposed to a fist? Would you tell those victims (as you imply here) that comparing their abuse to that of women who are physically beaten that it is like apples to oranges, or that the damage to choked and beaten women is so much greater, and that the focus should be on physical violence committed against women?
"however, the problem with men murdering, choking, and controlling their wives/partners with threats of violence is a serious problem that needs to be addressed."
Nor is abusive behavior by men limited to those extremes. Why not address other forms of abuse and violence, which women are also more likely to use?
-It's just that not as many men end up DYING, or suffering serious permanent physical damage as a result of it.
First of all like I said before the difference in severe damage is not that huge as you think it is. (Roughly 4 out of 10 victims of DV that suffer from severe violence are men).
Now let us talk about the dying part. You are actually correct, but what you seem to not understand that it is still a tiny minority of people who kill their partner. A little table:
In the USA, each day...
....1 Person is struck by lightning
....1 men is killed by his intimate partner
....3 women are killed by her intimate partner
...11 women are killed
...17 women kill themselves
...18 people drown
...33 women die in car accidents
...34 men are killed
...45 persons are killed
...70 men kill themselves
...87 persons kill themselves
..112 women die because of breast cancer
..154 die because of influenza and pneumonia
..196 die because of alzheimer
..198 die because of diabetes
..333 die because of accidents
..375 die because of strokes
.1400 die because of cancer
.1787 die because of heard disease
.6647 people die
(data is rounded)
The rate of women killed by her intimate partner is 3 times the rate of people struck by lightning. 10 Times more women die by car accidents (the lifetime odds of a person being killed by a car accident is 1% probably lower for women as more men die in car accidents) and 107 times more people die because of accidents. Each day of all people dying 0.045% of them were women who have been killed by intimate partners.
Each day in the USA 104 men are killed or commit suicide compared to 28 women. So much for proportion.
Another interesting factoid is the development of intimate partner killings. In the 80s the rate was almost equal, now more women get killed, what happened?
There are some theories. This one is an interesting explanation -> http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/httpbattlinbogblogcitycomscattered_muzings_on_gender.htm
Checked out the link. The theory is that women hire or convince other people to kill their spouses because a significant number of murdered men have unknown killers? Considering that the single biggest predictor of female perpetrated intimate partner homicide is DV against the woman, a far more logical conclusion is that the availability of resources has given women escape routes they didn't have before. (Most abused women I've talked to, however, are much more suicidal than homicidal. According to some recent research, an estimated 25-30% of female suicides may be attributable to DV.)
-> "Considering that the single biggest predictor of female perpetrated intimate partner homicide is DV against the woman, a far more logical conclusion is that the availability of resources has given women escape routes they didn't have before."
I think that is correct and is in the article as well. Interestingly there is not a gender difference:
From the Canadian Homicide Survey (Data from 2000):
- In 67% of cases there has been violence in the relationships before
- 63% of women have been the victim of their male partner before
- 81% of men have been the victim of their female partner before
-> "Most abused women I've talked to, however, are much more suicidal than homicidal. According to some recent research, an estimated 25-30% of female suicides may be attributable to DV."
I believe the same is true for men as well. 60% of male suicide victims are divorced/separated men. In the USA it is difficult to see your child if you only have visiting rights and your partner does not want you to see it. Arround 2/3 of women admit punishing their ex partner by withholding his children.
The statistics which cite that 90% of the perpetrators of domestic violence do exist, however, comes primarily from studies conducted in women's shelters or women's hospitals, and predictably do not give any real insight into the extent of female on male abuse.
Studies based on victimization surveys which acknowledge male on female abuse show vastly more equal distributions in many areas of abuse. But are hampered by many men's desire to appear more stoic and less affected by the abuse.
This Statscan study, while hampered by this problem also has some interesting statistics.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2005000-eng.pdf
*bowel movement, sorry
Again that is a myth:
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 254 scholarly investigations: 199 empirical studies and 55 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 252,800. -> http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Where is your proof?
Again that is a myth:
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 254 scholarly investigations: 199 empirical studies and 55 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 252,800. -> http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Where is your proof?
From your link:
"(Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression indicate that women were more likely than men to “use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” In terms of injuries, women were somewhat more likely to be injured, and analyses reveal that 62% of those injured were women.) "
and:
"Analyzing responses to the Conflict Tactic Scale and using a data set somewhat different from the previous 2000 publication, the author reports that women are more likely than men to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners.)"
I'll repeat:
This whole argument about women being just as aggressive as males is dishonest in the fact that the proportion of violence and amount of damage as a result of female aggression nowhere matches the damage resulting from male aggression. Sorry.
That argument is poor. And that psychologist was obviously doing his research with an agenda and approaching it with bias. There is a huge difference between throwing something across the room, and strangling someone. Huge difference. And comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
And again, what about the shooting? And who is more violent when the partner tries to leave the relationship?
I´ll repeat tomorrow. Good night...
-This whole argument about women being just as aggressive as males is dishonest in the fact that the proportion of violence and amount of damage as a result of female aggression nowhere matches the damage resulting from male aggression. Sorry.
Again like I said before roughly 40% of victims of DV that are victims of severe violence are men. Sorry, will you still ignore almost half of all victims of severe violence? (btw women are also more likely to use knifes)
-That argument is poor. And that psychologist was obviously doing his research with an agenda and approaching it with bias.
His bias was to not listen to the stereotypes that men are always perpetrators and women are only victims. His bias was to not equate a penis with violence. In lesbian relationships, DV is as common.
- There is a huge difference between throwing something across the room, and strangling someone. Huge difference. And comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
As said before, women are also more often using knifes (or other objects). If we look at injuries there is not such a huge difference.
- And again, what about the shooting?
Rare happenings.
- And who is more violent when the partner tries to leave the relationship?
This depends on the individual, not the sex. A vagina doesn´t turn one into a saint, nor does a penis turn you into a violent raging bull. Abusive persons use more violence when their partner tries to leave.
"In lesbian relationships, DV is as common."
And rape.
Oddly, both topics are ignored here.
Here meaning Feministing, not this one thread.
I've read about violence within same sex relationships (male and female) and same sex violence. Victims and advocates feel the issue is ignored. It is ignored, even by women's advocates.
http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/lgbtq.html
Let's not hear the tired excuses of how "few" these incidents and victims are, or that violence by females is not as serious as violence by males, because that is nothing less than minimizing the experiences of these victims who also happen to be women.
It gets confusing when a group fights toth and nail against every stereotype, says it is for fighting each inequality, but suddenly get selective when it comes to certain stereotypes.
LALALALALALALA WE CAN´T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALA
"It gets confusing when a group fights toth and nail against every stereotype, says it is for fighting each inequality, but suddenly get selective when it comes to certain stereotypes."
You mean like the men are responsible for 90% of violence stereotype, which would have gone unchallenged but for a male voice? It's not "getting carried away," it's what people WANT others to believe, and do not want questioned.
That's how I feel when it comes to discussion (or lack of) about women who commit crimes of violence. The tone is completely different when the abuser is a woman, as she must have had a valid reason to do what she did, or the damage must not be the same as when men are responsible. It seems most want to avoid mention of (non sexual) abuse of children altogether, literally dismissing the issue (as last week) of female abusers with, women spend more time child rearing than men. And woman on woman violence or the level of violence within same sex relationships? No. What about the menz, indeed.
I am still waiting for proof on your 90% assumption.
The Daily Mail specialises in evidence free bigotted "commonsense" rants. It's not even worth trying to refute their stories - you might as well talk to a fundamentalist.
at five years old they might want to tell them to stop beating girls up in the playground too.
I think education programs in schools around healthy relationships are really important and the earlier the better. I work at a centre that runs healthy relationship programs with students in grades 10-12 and we find that ideas and values around gender roles, realtionship expectations etc. (positive or negative) are generally formed. I think focus on what you want out of a relationship (love, equality etc.) and how to go about getting that in non violent ways is something that needs to be taught.
I also think other areas of society (eg. magistrates) could do with some training around domestic violence too (see below story - tigger warning).
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,25885670-2,00.html
I think it's time for a more gender neutral look at addressing violence prevention in general. We could look toward solution-focused approaches and
positive deviance. These approaches don't look at the causes of the problems, but they address solutions that are already working for individuals and within populations.
On another note though, we won't get anywhere if folks in our culture refer to non-violence as "pussification" and other disparaging terms---and feminism can absolutely address this type of ideology.
I find it really depressing that once again, a comment thread about domestic violence has descended into a back-and-forth about how men are victims too.
On a feminist website, it is right to focus on the female victims of male violence, because the power structure of a patriarchal society creates and perpetuates this violence. DV is about the abuse of power in a relationship - sometimes the powerful person in a relationship is female, but more often they are male because society gives more power to men generally.
DV by men against women is the natural result of societal memes that say 'women are property', 'women are inferior', 'women should serve and please men', and so forth.
It is therefore understandable that a feminist site concentrate on this type (still the most common type) of domestic violence, and it is right for Harriet Harman as a feminist to highlight the issue. There are many more things that need to be done to address this other than DV lessons in schools, but it's a start. And note, the OP said "children from age 5", not "boys from age 5".
The point is that, with regards to domestic violence, you are simply wrong that males are the vast majority of perpetrators. women commit DV towards their male partners in slightly more than half of all DV cases, and its your insistence that this is not the case that is hurting a lot of men.
You will be hard pressed to find a man in western countries who still believes that women are property or inferior, yet you hold onto the idea that most of us are still patriarchal cave-men who can't wait to rape and beat our partners. And you support legislation that supports these ridiculously sexist and wrong claims and purport to do something about it.
Its not a problem that a feminist site focuses on female related problems. But when you dismiss male victims and female perpetrators the way you do, you are actively trying to keep men from the assistance they require, because you want the resources to go disproportionally towards women.
And that is a blatant injustice that rightly gets the criticism you see here.
We would be "hard pressed to find a man in western countries who still believes that women are property or inferior."
Really? What about anti-choice men who believe that women should not have control of their own bodies? What about the man who killed women in Pittsburgh because women had rejected him sexually, therefore challenging his idea that women are obligated to be with any man that wants them? What about the men who perpetrate the many rapes and assaults that happen each day in the US? Obviously, not all men feel or act this way, but we still very much live in a culture that allows (and promotes) the idea of women as property. No one is dismissing male victims, however, women are much more likely to be killed by a man in a domestic violence situation than a man by a woman. Every effort should be made to prevent this from happening, even if this sometimes means hurting peoples' feelings.
how how, since when does anti-choice equal pro-Domestic violence ?
Most people who are against abortion are so because of their religious background, and making it look as if they are not in favor of equal rights is dishonest.
So what do you have left, a psycho nutter who shoots up a gym and chose women as his target and well, all the men who do commit DV in reality.
You're not going to help someone that crazy with education. this guy belonged in a mental institute and this case doesn't have any bearing on the discussion at hand.
As for the group of men who do actually perpetrate domestic violence, its no bigger than the group of women who do exactly the same. And prevention in that regard should thus be gender-neutral.
DV by men against women is the natural result of societal memes that say 'women are property', 'women are inferior', 'women should serve and please men', and so forth.
Are we sure though? A poster here linked to some information about situational domestic violence (which oddly got 0 comments) and it really adds to the nuances of this conversation at least in my mind.
http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15001
The linked article discusses two types of domestic violence, one called "situational domestic violence" which data shows to be gender neutral in terms of perpetrator and victim. While it's true that classic battering tends to trend toward male aggressors, ideally we should be working at addressing both types of domestic violence.
Do you have a link that works, or searchable terms or title?
You can search the community for "domestic violence" and it should pop up about half way down the page.
The post is called:
Cultural Differences in Domestic Violence
The title for me seemed somewhat misleading because from what I've come to understand is that situational domestic violence is pretty common across cultures. But this particular data from the linked article in that post came from research done in Tahiti.
Thank you. That is interesting. Situational violence, which can explain the oddly high rate of violent acts by females in new relationships, vs. battering, which tends to be male on female. No comments to the post, or to the original article.
http://blog.smu.edu/smumagazine/2009/04/trotrouble_in_paradise_domesti.html
Margaret Allen quotes SMU cultural anthropologist Victoria Lockwood, “If we don’t acknowledge there are two different kinds of domestic violence, then we’ll never understand what the causes are,” Lockwood says. “The causes are very different, so if we wish to devise policies or social programs, we need to be doing two different things to address the issues.”
-> I find it really depressing that once again, a comment thread about domestic violence has descended into a back-and-forth about how men are victims too.
It is not only women on men and men on women but women on women and men on men, too. Stereotyping doesn´t help here. There is more than one side to DV. And talking about the violence women commit does help women, too.
- Violence breeds further violence. If you only adress one side of the violent behaviour you won´t solve the problem. A woman who attacks her partner is 100% more likely to get hit as well
- Many studies show us that violence is a learned behaviour and that is also true for women hitting men. What boys and girls learn from mummy hitting hubby is that this is a valid choice of argument in a relationship
- A number of studies also link DV with spanking children, and again it is more often women than men that spank their children.
Of course that should only be secondary reasons after "every humand deserves to be treated with dignity" but well if that just doesn´t fly with you.
-> On a feminist website, it is right to focus on the female victims of male violence, because the power structure of a patriarchal society creates and perpetuates this violence.
This is very ironic as feminism tries to always be the ally of the underdog and raises there voice for many different groups and fights many stereotypes:
- In that comercial the boy played with the lorry and the girl with the baking oven
- Of course that woman of color has this kind of hair
- They portrayed every drug dealer as a man of color
- Why did they gender this Coke Zero commercial? Women drink that, too.
- Oh my gosh women can be as nerdy as men, stupid stereotypes
And suddenly when it comes to DV it is far more often men so let us forget about DV in homosexual relationships and roughly half victims of heterosexual DV.
-> DV is about the abuse of power in a relationship - sometimes the powerful person in a relationship is female, but more often they are male because society gives more power to men generally.
This is also called the feminist theory of DV, because that is the only theory that exists in the feminist discourse and probably leads to the duluth model. A model of DV that strictly says men = perpetrators, women = victims.
The fact is, in more than 30 years a lot of theories about DV have been made and the "patriarchial" is just one of them. The problem with that theory is quite simply most persons who are the perpetrators of DV are not persons of power. Or to cite feminist and DV researcher Richard J. Gelles: "Domestic violence is more likely to occur in homes below the poverty line, in minority households (even controlling for income), and among men and women 18 to 30 years of age."
Do you really believe society gives power to 18 year old "men" living in minority households below the poverty line? Those are the ones without power.
-> [I]t is right for Harriet Harman as a feminist to highlight the issue [...] And note, the OP said "children from age 5", not "boys from age 5".
The Op said so, but not Harman. And she is speaking as a feminist but is in case the minister of equality. EEEEEKWALITY!!! She shouldn´t be acting as a women´s advocate.
"Yes, men are victims of crime more often, but teaching healthy, non-violent relationships is nothing to so with street/gang crime etc."
There is no 'but'. Men and boys are victims of crime more often than women and girls. Men and boys are also victims of domestic violence. There is simply no excuse to teach five-year-olds that it is wrong for boys to hit girls and not teach girls that it is wrong for them to hit boys. Adding that in no way harms anyone, nor does it undermines preventing violence. It simply works to prevent all violence instead of presenting one set of people as the only victims.
Likewise, one of the leading factors to a boy becoming abusive is being a victim of abuse. That does not mean that abused boys will be abusers, only that those who abuse were often victims first, usually of women (since women commit most child abuse). It would prudent then to address those issues and acknowledge female-on-male violence so as to prevent the cycle of abuse rather than playing politics.
Crumbs. I'm surprised there's been this debate about how these government proposals and other education initiatives seem to have said so loudly to so many commenters here that men are not victims. I absolutely did not mean for anything approaching that sort of statement to be read from my post. It was the Daily Mail's view that men as victims of violence needs to be addressed too, but they chose hateful language to express it in. I'm seeing similar here, written better but still... I don't see anything whatsoever in the government stuff or in my post that suggests that anti-DV teaching is JUST about helping women. If I came across differently that wasn't my intention. Clearly just avoiding violence against women in relationships would be failing to address the whole problem, as Toysoldier points out that many perpetrators of abuse experienced abuse themselves. I wished to point out the lows the Mail will stoop to, and how they missed the point about domestic violence by turning the focus onto street crime / stranger violence. Neither would I want to make a value judgement about whether domestiv violence is worse for the victim than street crime - having experiencing mild forms of both myself.
Hmm, definitely a little disheartening to write this.
"I'm surprised there's been this debate about how these government proposals and other education initiatives seem to have said so loudly to so many commenters here that men are not victims."
Here's one: how many shelters exist in the US for elder teen male and adult male victims of domestic abuse?
Then start a program. If you see a gap in services, fill it.
There are shelters for men in Germany. 2 to be precisely. The problem is funding. Unlike women shelters the ones for men receive no penny. Pretty sexist...
No, no, I believe it's an attempt at silencing, because she does not seriously believe that I would be successful in starting a men's shelter or creating a gender neutral anti-DV program to counter the Duluth model. And if I somehow were successful, people would be protesting how a "men's shelter" got started, or how "gender neutral" education takes attention from women. Similar to here.
But if people tell feminists to DIY as individuals, as opposed to having the public, lawmakers and public funds willingly get behind initiatives, they'd likely be called anti-feminist. I would not tell her to start her own Planned Parenthood clinic if services were not offered in her state, or to get funding for California DV shelters by herself.
In fact, the next time I see an article lamenting lack of resources or services, I should respond:
Opheelia wrote: "Then start a program. If you see a gap in services, fill it."
and see if anyone recognizes what is wrong with it.
Harriet Harman the "equality" minister is certainly a controversial figure. Following citations rub me the wrong way:
"As part of the crackdown on violence against women and girls, teachers will also be given new guidance on tackling "gender bullying."
"A document published by the Home Office today said: “Educating children about healthy non-violent relationships is a key route towards tackling and ending violence and abuse against women and girls.
“We intend ... that these subject areas should become part of the statutory National Curriculum.”"
The first studies that showed us that there are many male victims of DV is probably roughly 40 years old. After all that time with hundreds of studies comming to the same conclusion, DV is still framed as something mainly done to women. This does not sound like the equality approach one could expect from the ministry of equality.
I haven´t read the original piece and wasn´t able to google it, but was "wife-beating" a direct citation?
It is mainly done to women you dumb fuck!!! A quarter of U.S. women are killed, abducted, and raped by men! A quarter of men aren't killed, abducted, and raped by women!
Also, i was glad that anti-feminist reported that there WOULD be a focus on gender bullying. definitely could have used that.
"It is mainly done to women you dumb fuck!!! A quarter of U.S. women are killed, abducted, and raped by men!"
Cite please.
BTW, the one time I called someone a fuck on Feministing I was given a one time warning prior to banning.
[silence]
That's what I thought.
I reported on Friday...let us see where this one goes.
Those are the stats for everything combined, and i personally don't know where online they're cited. nor do i want to spend hours crunching numbers that you're just going to refuse to hear.
but for the feminists here who are unaware, here are some bureau of justice statistics:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs//homicide/intimates.htm
About one third of female murder victims were killed by an intimate.
more stats to come...
About 3% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate.
Intimate Homicides by Gender 1977 - 2005
Male Female
1976 1,304 1,587
1977 1,248 1,421
1978 1,159 1,473
1979 1,229 1,498
1980 1,169 1,543
1981 1,232 1,558
1982 1,093 1,477
1983 1,067 1,456
1984 947 1,432
1985 927 1,542
1986 946 1,581
1987 891 1,482
1988 816 1,568
1989 862 1,410
1990 820 1,485
1991 734 1,492
1992 662 1,436
1993 638 1,563
1994 654 1,401
1995 521 1,311
1996 476 1,299
1997 413 1,202
1998 460 1,302
1999 381 1,195
2000 382 1,232
2001 344 1,187
2002 339 1,182
2003 330 1,156
2004 344 1,155
2005 329 1,181
I already replied to that one (see above post):
First of all the rate of women killed is far away from the 1/4 you told us before.
The rate of women killed by her intimate partner is 3 times the rate of people struck by lightning. 10 Times more women die by car accidents (the lifetime odds of a person being killed by a car accident is 1%, probably lower for women as more men die in car accidents) and 107 times more people die because of accidents. Each day of all people dying in the USA 0.045% of them were women who have been killed by intimate partners.
Each day in the USA 104 men are killed or commit suicide compared to 28 women. So much for proportion.
Another interesting factoid is the development of intimate partner killings. In the 80s the rate was almost equal, now more women get killed, what happened?
There are some theories. This one is an interesting explanation -> http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/httpbattlinbogblogcitycomscattered_muzings_on_gender.htm
"About 3% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate."
I have read that before. Yes. Then you go on to paste a table which shows how in 1976, the ratio of men killed by intimates vs. women killed by intimates is 0.82:1 (divide number of men by number of women). The number of men killed by intimates declines much more rapidly than the number of women killed by intimates until in 2005, the ratio of men killed by intimates vs. women killed by intimates is 0.27:1, about one to four. Women are killed by intimates (is this assuming only men?) four times more frequently than men by intimates. Yes, my assumption would be something along those lines.
So is discussion of DV and DV prevention only about murder? Strange, when talking about women as victims of DV/IPV, we do not limit ourselves to murder. We include everything up to and including men putting women down and calling them names. (The Duluth Model)
So why try to limit discussion of harm to men by limiting oneself to murder? Because women are less likely than men to commit murder?
here's a link to more stats -
http://www.ncadv.org/files/NationalFacts.pdf
2 sets of stats from the u.s. department of justice on nonfatal domestic violence-
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/victims.htm#age
as you can see there were way more women victims than men in every age group.
Average annual nonfatal intimate partner victimization rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, by income and gender, 2001-2005
Less than $7,500 Females - 12.7 Males - 1.5
$7,500 to $24,999 Females - 6.2 Males -1.5
$25,000 to $49,999 Females 5.2 Males - .8
$50,000 or more Females - 2.0 Males -.6
I was linked up to all these stats on NOW's website, there are some more links here
http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html
Skip to the bottom.
So let us do some DV-Stats 101. There are 2 kind of ways to ask for victimization. In crime and official data direct questions are asked.
"Have you been a victim of crime"
"Have you been raped"
"Are you a victim of intimate partner violence"
The use of such buzz-words (victim, crime, rape) leads to less people giving answers about there experience. That is why if you look at the statistics of the DoJ you will notice that those numbers are far from your 1/4 claim. Besides that those statistics are interesting because they show us a trend.
In 2005 the rate of DV is half as hight than it was in 1993
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/table/totipv.htm
Same is true for the rape rates
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm
Official data show us a difference in victimization for men and women when it comes to DV. Several studys found out that men are less likely than women to report being a vicitm of DV.
Some examples of said studies:
Family violence in Canada (2003):
37% of female victims of DV called the police only 15% of men did
Canadian General Social Survey (1999):
17% of male victims of DV seeked helped with "formal social agencies" compared to 48% of female victims
National family Violence Survey (1985):
Female victims are 9-time as likely to call the police and 5-time as likely to talk to a relative or friend than male victims
British Crime Survey (1996):
8% of male victims called the police compared to 22% of female victims
In conclusion, what official data show us is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to numbers, official data is also the kind of data that show us a huge gender gap. So if you want to show us that far more women are victims you will cite those statistics but then you are far away from your 1/4 claim.
There is different Data of course. CTS-studies avoid the use of buzz-words and ask for behaviour.
"Has your partner hit, slapped, kicked etc. you before"
Those studies create much larger numbers and also those studies show us a more even playing field.
Feminists and shelters have been using both kind of statistics to paint us a picture of many abused women (CTS-Studies) with a huge gender gap (official data).
Please also note that a lot of the factoids cite CTS-studies and do not mention the abuse men endure.
A typical example and a study that was cited numerous times in your links is the "National Violence Against Women Survey" (NVWS) by Tjaden and Toenes (2000). This study is somehow special and although it is a CTS-Study researchers (like Strauss) do regard this study as official Data as well because of the use of buzz-words (mentioned before). Anyhow the results published show us an unequal playing ground (but not so unequal than other official data) and the results published did not mention the forms of violence men mainly endure. A reaximination of the 2000 data found equal rates again.
I think I´ll take a closer look at some books when I am back home and give some detailed information. It seems though that the NOW site was more or less DoJ and NVWS.
I will start with the NOW page
---------------
Murder
---------------
From the DoJ. Data is absolutely correct. Roughly 3 women are killed everyday by their intimate partner. Men killed by their intimate partner are 1/3 of it. There are more aspects to that number I also gave before (more men killed in cases where the killer is unknown, more men killed when there are more offenders at work). In proportion again, this number is a low number (see above posts)
---------------
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (Intimate Partner Violence or Battering)
---------------
- According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner-related physical assaults and rapes every year
That factoid confused me a bit as I know a Statement of DV researcher Gelles before:
"The Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz survey estimated that 2 million women were abused each year by their husbands. Straus and his colleagues speculated that if all the respondents told the truth and if ex-husbands and boyfriends were included, the number could be as high as 4 million. However, no study to date using a representative sample and measuring severe violence, has found more than 2 million abused women each year"
I checked the link and the factoid is actually from the NVWS. It is not the number of abused women, but the number of incidents. But let us look what the results of the NVWS was:
"Nearly 25 percent of surveyed women and 7.6 percent of surveyed men said they were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime; 1.5 percent of surveyed women and 0.9 percent of surveyed men said they were raped and/or physically assaulted by a partner in the previous 12 months. According to these estimates, approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States."
So 1/3 of all victims by that study are men. As I said before not all data was published in that study as it focuse on violence against women. So researchers looked at the study again:
Hoff, B. H. (1999). The risk of serious physical injury from assault by a woman intimate. A re-examination of National Violence against women survey data on type of assault by an intimate. (A re-examination of the data from the most recent National violence against women survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998) shows that "assaulted men are more likely than assaulted women to experience serious attacks by being hit with an object, beat up, threatened with a knife or being knifed.")
The results were without a surprise more equal again.
---------------
SEXUAL VIOLENCE
---------------
Cited from the DoJ. I really got nothing to add on that numbers. Speaking about gender ratios, I believe the more brutal the rape is, the higher the amount of female victims is. To add another perspective to it, I will cite from one site that specially looks at childhood abuse of boys. (Found via Toysoldiers brilliant blog)
Research suggests that 1 in 6 men have experienced unwanted or abusive sexual experiences before age 16. And this is probably a low estimate, since it doesn't include noncontact experiences, which can also have lasting negative effects.
What the best research tells us:
* A 2005 study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, on San Diego Kaiser Permanente HMO members, reported that 16% of males were sexually abused by the age of 18.
* A 2003 national study of U.S. adults reported that 14.2% of men were sexually abused before the age of 18.
* A 1998 study reviewing research on male childhood sexual abuse concluded that the problems is “common, under-reported, under-recognized, and under-treated.”
* A 1996 study of male university students in the Boston area reported that 18% of men were sexually abused before the age of 16.
* A 1990 national study of U.S. adults reported that 16% of men were sexually abused before the age of 18.
Why these statistics are probably underestimates:
* Males who have such experiences are less likely to disclose them than are females.
* Only 16% of men with documented histories of sexual abuse (by social service agencies, which means they were very serious) considered themselves to have been sexually abused.
Men who have had such experiences are at much greater risk for serious mental health problems than men who have not been abused, including:
* Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
* Alcoholism and drug abuse.
* Suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts.
* Problems in intimate relationships.
* Underachievement at school and at work.
http://www.1in6.org/About1in6/The1in6statistic/tabid/280/Default.aspx
It is not only women that are raped. One reason we should be against thinking in stereotypes (men - perpetratore, women - victims) can be read from this blog post called "The only one" written by TS.
TRIGGER WARNING - http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/the-only-one/ - TRIGGER WARNING
-----------------
Nothing more to add to the Now page that contributes to the "equality in DV argument"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we have the NCADV Domestic Violence Fact sheet.
And what can I tell you, those guys understand how to use the statistics. Let me recite myself:
"Feminists and shelters have been using both kind of statistics to paint us a picture of many abused women (CTS-Studies) with a huge gender gap (official data)."
Now look at that data:
One in every four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime.
An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year.
85% of domestic violence victims are women
The first one is from the NVWS. We talked extensively about before. The second one is surprisingly not from the NVWS which is surprising as the estimate would have been higher (1.5 Million). And the 3rd from is from official data to create the largest gap between man and woman.
So not much new data here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion looking at the data, we are arguing about rates between 33% of DV victims are male (NVWS (if we forget about the reaxamination) and DoJ homicide rates) or 40-50%. The difference between 3/10 or 4/10 or 5/10. Without a doubt a significant amount of DV victims are men, does a gap of 10-20% justify total ignorance of male victims?
"Those are the stats for everything combined,"
One in four women in the US is not raped, abducted or killed. See below. I will state, however, that I have heard the 1 in 4 women are/have been/will be raped, repeated as fact. I have even heard 1 in 4 women are/have been/will be raped, just while in college, on sites such as this one. The figures are not questioned, despite their incongruity.
I am not claiming that rape is not serious, but it harms the argument of feminists when their arguments appear flawed. If anti-feminists are able to point out that, even in anonymous, self reported survey of a random sampling of individuals (to catch unreported rapes) that in fact, one in four women are not rape victims, it opens other feminist arguments to question, the same as when feminists poke holes in and then dismiss out of hand their opponent's arguments.
"and i personally don't know where online they're cited. nor do i want to spend hours crunching numbers that you're just going to refuse to hear."
In other words, you have not independently investigated it, or questioned the data or methodology, nor is it worth your time and effort, because it is your chosen point of view. When I studied science at university and nursing at nursing school, we did spend hours and more testing the validity of arguments and hypotheses. You will however attack out of hand data or methodology on data and information regarding men, or data and information which can be perceived as anti-woman, and expect us to accept your claims as fact. That is not science. That is dogma.
Is RAINN, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network a sufficiently credible source for you? If so:
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
"1 out of every 6 American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape)."
"Lifetime rate of rape /attempted rape for women by race:1"
"All women: 17.6%"
from National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey. 1998.
We both know that rape is sexual assault, but every sexual assault is not rape. I was sexually assaulted by an older man, but not raped.
A combined 25% - 14.8% = 10.2% of ALL women in the US will be abducted or killed, and by men? That's over 15 MILLION women abducted or killed in the US in a lifetime. Is this what you are claiming?
Note: in 2007, there were 16,929 murders in the US, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The life expectancy for a woman born today in the US is about 80 years. If all murder victims were women killed by men, that would be 1.35 million during an average life expectancy.
You mean 15 million - 1.35 million = 13.65 MILLION women in the US will be abducted by men over a lifetime of about 80 years? Is that what you are claiming? The FBI National Crime Information Center reports 20,562 people in 2008 are "missing involuntarily." Note that is an active roster, not an actual annual count of incidents. Let's multiply by 80 anyway: 1.6 million, if they were all females abducted by males.
You're about 12 million victims short, even assuming all victims are separate females victimized only by males, and making generous assumptions. Not one in four women, even combining all those crime figures.
Why are you not interested in investigating or justifying your claim of 1 in 4 women yourself, by yourself in private? Do not make the excuse of, I will not listen. Who then, would you investigate data with, to confirm the figures and methodology are accurate and valid? In real life, how do you justify your views and figures when people ask? Or do you expect them to believe you without question, simply because your view is of course correct?
To be fair the NVWS gave an incident rate of 25% for DV. (I know it is not abduction, murder and rape but maybe confusion was at work here).
I forgot one difference of official and CTS data.
CTS data show us a whole picture of violence, but also most of the data are minor incidents. (Have you been slapped by your partner? - I mean who wasn´t I qualify as a victim, too). That is why we have to take numbers from CTS data with a grain of salt. They are interesting when we compare incidence and sex.
Official data usually show us more serious cases. But the dogma that men can´t be raped and that men can´t be victims of Domestic Violence skewer the gender rating.
In short:
CTS-Data
- whole picture with a lot of minor cases
- higher incidence numbers
- results close to gender equality
Official-Data:
- more serious cases
- gender ratio skewered because of dogma and buzz-words
- lower incidence numbers
Because of the minor cases I like to look at CTS studies that ask for injury. To look at the more serious cases filtered out of the whole picture. And as I said before the numbers usually are between 40-50% of victims of severe violence are men.
This picture shows us a good overview:
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/vol42/issue15/images/medium/joan_women_aggressors.gif
Also a nice summary of a current survey:
http://www.mediaradar.org/international_dating_violence_study_results.php?show_data=all&last_shown_data=severe&last_shown_sort_by=country&last_shown_ascending=true
And even if you want to go with some data here (which is outnumbered by studys that show us a more equal picture) that tell us men are "only" 33% of victims. You wouldn´t discriminate by color, why by gender? Fight violence and fight rape, but not just one kind.
Whew that whole discussion is so full of DV-Data I´ll maybe summarize all of this in a blog post.
"To be fair the NVWS gave an incident rate of 25% for DV."
I was responding to her claim of
"A quarter of U.S. women are killed, abducted, and raped by men!"
I'd like to see her back that up. There are too many claims made that people want accepted at face value, and it is taboo or un PC to question them or the methodology (unlike when data are presented regarding men as victims), but verifying the figures (or at least using data and sources more up to date than 20-30 years old, because they do exist) gives the argument more validity, don't you agree?
That is why I said:
(I know it is not abduction, murder and rape but maybe confusion was at work here)
Well we both know she was wrong...
I don't even want to call people with those kind of views wrong.
People here use the trendy term "critical thinking." We also use it in nursing. However, what I see is adopting a certain view like "1 in 4 women" (I forgot to mention I have even heard one in four girls are raped by the age of 18, and IIRC, even one in three girls) without questioning it. By "question," I do not mean doubt. I mean check it out and confirm it so you can justify the argument to anyone who asks.
In contrast, organizations such as RAINN will provide sources, *original* sources for their sexual assault and rape statistics, and those original sources allow access to the raw data. If RAINN says one in six women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, I can check it out. Using their original source material, I did, as a matter of fact. Their claims based on that raw data are accurate.
People could also investigate your cites and comment, but they do not. Not even to dismiss it as MRA, misogynist bulllshit. I have read some of those reports. Strauss, like numerous other male and female researchers, started out in the 70s with the accepted view that DV was primarily male on female, using the male dominance model. However, his continued decades of research and the work of others slowly changed his mind. He, like others, have encountered resistance to his research and his findings.
It does not take away from anti violence education to teach boys and girls to be non violent. It does not take away from victims to acknowledge that male and female abusive behavior and abusers (note the amount of self-acknowledged non-reciprocal and one way violence in research before making the self defense claim) are more alike than many would like to admit.
Providing resources for male victims of violence (regardless of source) would be "taking" from the limited pool, particularly in these days of talk of shutting womens shelters down, but that is not the fault of male victims.
I've read it elsewhere, but Strauss sums up the problem with data gathering and presentation in DV research quite well in his introduction.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emas2/ID41-PR41-Dominance-symmetry-In-Press-07.pdf
Articles asserting the male dominance theory of PV usually also assert that, when women are violent, it is primarily in self-defense, or in response to years of brutal violence and subjugation. This follows from the beliefs that it is men who perpetrate PV and that men, but not women, assault to achieve dominance and control. If neither of those beliefs is correct, perhaps the idea that women's violence is primarily an act of self-defense is also not correct. This is an important aspect of PV that needs to be clarified, and is also important for the bidirectionality data to be presented because it might explain predominance of bidirectional violence.
On this issue as well as the two core issues, there is a huge discrepancy between the assertions and the evidence. For example, the influential World Health Organization report on violence states that “Where violence by women occurs it is more likely to be in the form of self-defense (32, 37, 38)” (Krug et al., 2002). However, examination of references 32, 37, and 38 found that although all three asserted that women's violence was primarily in self-defense, #32 Saunders (Saunders, 1986) reported no data on self-defense, #37 DeKesseredy et al. (DeKeseredy, Saunders, Schwartz, & Shahid, 1997) does report data but their data shows that only 6.9% of the women acted in self-defense, and reference #38 Johnson & Ferraro (Michael P. Johnson & Ferraro, 2000) is a review article that cites references 32 and 37 and other references which also present no empirical data.
At least six other studies report data on self-defense. Like the DeKesseredy et al. study, five of the six found that only a small percentage of female violence was in self-defense (Carrado, George, Loxam, Jones, & Templar, 1996; Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Felson & Messner, 1998; Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 1991; Pearson, 1997; Sarantakos, 1998; Sommer, 1996). For the one study that found high rates of self-defense, the percentage in self defense was slightly greater for men (56%) than for women (42%) (Harned, 2001). Rather than self-defense, the most usual motivations for violence by women, like the motivations of men, are coercion, anger, and punishing misbehavior by their partner (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Fiebert & Gonzalez, 1997). For example, Pearson (1997) reports that 90% of the women she studied assaulted their partner because they were furious or jealous, or frustrated and not because they tried to defend themselves. These motives are parallel to the motivations of male perpetrators. Research on homicides by women shows similar results. For example, Jurik and Gregware (1989) studied 24 female perpetrated homicides and found that 60% had a pervious criminal record, 60% had initiated use of physical force, and only 21% of the homicides were in response to “prior abuse” or “threat of abuse/death”.
Good god, I don't think anyone here was saying boys should be taught not to hit and girls shouldn't...
"Good god, I don't think anyone here was saying boys should be taught not to hit and girls shouldn't..."
So why aren't more people saying girls should ALSO be taught not to hit. A slight, but meaningful difference. In another thread, one comment got multiple plusses for saying five year old boys should be taught not to beat up little girls. That's right. And the reverse?
Anti violence education can be gender neutral without taking away from female victims. However, focusing on partner violence in DV IS ignoring child abuse. Should anti-child abuse education focus on educating girls, with posters of girls (not boys) and the slogan "I will grow up to beat my children"? Should pamphlets of anti child abuse programs feature only photos of women? Should women be viewed as potential child abusers?
With all due respect, male victims of DV although they appear in statistics for more than 30 years in significant numbers, have been ignored all that time.
Now the "equality" minister talks about fighting violence against women and teaching DV in schools so that pupils learn about the evil of "wife beating" (It seems to me that wife beating was an original quote - see the article).
What will they be teaching? Now look at the link A male gives us - http://community.feministing.com/2009/07/dear-friends-dv-101.html
-I have just completed a 40 hour training course to become a Domestic Violence Counselor. And part of our 'homework' in this course was to share what we learn with our friends.
She just became a DV counselor. Can you believe this? her 4th factoid: 95% of batterers are men. She repeated some of the more pesky myths arround DV there are. AND SHE IS A COUNSELOR NOW. SHE WILL BE TEACHING THIS. IGNORING THE MAJORITY OF STUDIES THAT SHOW US A DIFFERENT PICTURE.
Unbelieveable.
Her protest when her error was pointed out
"Those were the numbers that they gave us at training!"
again, unquestioning acceptance, because it was a chosen point of view, vs. actual science or "critical thinking."
When I first heard the claim that women were responsible for a high percentage of one sided or nonreciprocal violence, my knee jerk reaction was "Bullshit!" Then I got online and read original research and was shocked. Likewise when I heard "1 in 4 women" applied to too many different situations. It is not possible for "1 in 4 women" to be raped in a lifetime, before/by 18, while in college, as part of DV.
Here is an example of a fact page I found within about three clicks that is about as fair as I can ask, with cites for every claim and figure:
Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault
http://www.ccasa.org/statistics.cfm
My only question is, is there no research newer than the 1980s or 1990s? Why wouldn't they have current police reported figures?
Despite what they report:
Approximately 1.5 million women and 834,700 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States. (National Violence Against Women Survey, "Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women," November 1998)
their education program is called End Violence Against Women. And what of the other 36% of victims, by their own reckoning? It's not, what about the men, it's why ignore 36% of victims they acknowledge, when they, unlike posters here, do not deconstruct the numbers to claim abuse is worse for women.
Here is another time talk of DV was derailed by men vs. women, and pointing out what should have been obvious errors in the approved line of argument during a 40 hour training course. It was not questioned.
http://community.feministing.com/2009/07/dear-friends-dv-101.html
Interestingly, when talking about violence against women in that thread, the attitude was "the numbers don't matter." "It doesn't make it any less horrifying or significant." "Deconstructing the figures does nothing but distract from the point that this person is making."
I agree, same as when it involves male victims, and certainly when it involves oneself and people they know. The issue of deliberately using inaccurate or only the most shocking numbers to support one's argument like I often see is another matter, however. As one person tried to say
"Don't you think it would work better to give the actual (still high) numbers than the incorrect numbers? If beckeck tried to educate someone who did not already know DV was a major problem, and they thought to google one or two of the more easily checked statistics, they might well dismiss all of the statistics as nonsense."
Additional teaching means additional lessons, highering qualified personel etc. . Feminism is great, unless it costs money.
I am not against specifically anti-DV or anti-rape education in schools, and hundreds of billions more should be spent on education (including maintaining crumbling infrastructure) anyway. Education is one of those budgets which should not be cut. It is scandalous how e.g., New York inner city schools go without chalk, for god's sake, one old computer in a "computer room," and at one time, one third of schools in urban areas had no principal. Ooh, the budget comes from taxes on the local community, and they're underprivileged - that's what state and federal funds are supposed to be for, to make public education more equal.
I'd like to state for the record that I am not against specifically anti-DV training in schools (ALL violence can be covered elsewhere), and from what little I know of the Duluth Model (I read through their website but do not know actual content), my only concern is their explicit unwillingness to be gender neutral.
http://www.theduluthmodel.org/wheelgallery.php
Wheel Gallery
The Power and Control Wheel was developed by battered women in Duluth who had been abused by their male partners and were attending women's education groups sponsored by the women's shelter. The Wheel is used in our curriculum for men who have used violence against their female partners. While we recognize that there are women who use violence against men, and that there are men and women in same-sex relationships who use violence, this wheel is meant specifically to illustrate men's abusive behaviors toward women.
We believe that illustrations of abusive behaviors are most valid when they arise directly from the experiences of those abused. Although some experiences of battered women may be similar to those of other groups, they aren't the same. Substituting gender-neutral language does not acknowledge the specific tactics used to control other groups of people, including men abused by women and people abused by their same sex-partner. For these reasons, gender-neutral language is not permitted on the Power and Control Wheel.
[end quote]
"Gender-neutral language is NOT PERMITTED."
The Power and Control wheel in its present form only works with male on female violence. OK. I can believe that under a feminist model. What is puzzling, however, is their unwillingness to adapt the wheel for other kinds of partner violence. Please take note that over the decades they have created Spanish language wheels, and gender neutral wheels for what appear to be Native Americans, and gender neutral wheels for abuse of children and nurturing children.
"We believe that illustrations of abusive behaviors are most valid when they arise directly from the experiences of those abused."
Evidently, this means they have researched abused children, Latinos, and Native Americans, but not men, or those who have experienced LGBTQQ violence.
Native Americans are about 1.5% of the population, yet they get their own original gender neutral "Creator" wheel. Children get their own original gender neutral wheels. Why not those instances of abuse which are not male abusers, or not female victims? LGBTQQ people represent more than 1.5% of the population, and they experience partner violence and rape by intimates at rates comparable (30% to 1 out of 3) as heterosexual women. Why are they ignored as well?
Nothing less than the National Violence Against Women Survey, "Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women," November 1998, reports that men are 36% of victims of ("approximately 1.5 million women and 834,700 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States"). A violence against WOMEN survey found 36% of victims are male, yet DV programs don't feel fit to include them in their language.
Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault
http://www.ccasa.org/statistics.cfm
Also, BTW from CCASA:
"1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually assaulted before age 18. (Finkelhor, 1992)"
(RAINN claims "1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men will be a victim of sexual assault in their lifetime," from National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey. 1998. Again, a disturbing discrepancy. How can the victimization rape of females and males go DOWN over a lifetime, between 92 and 98? Or was the Finkelhor research selected for being the most shocking?)
If the Finkelhor research is to be believed, one would need to cut the bullshit about how men can avoid rape by staying out of jail. I'm not the one telling women how not to be sexually assaulted. Most assaults on men apparently occur in childhood and teen years. Yes, mostly by male offenders.
I said that before it seems to be the same for the NCADV - Data. They use official data to make us believe there are far more female victims, yet use CTS data with the high numbers and let the more male victims of the CTS data fall under the table.
This behaviour is disgusting. And happened on the RAINN page as well. Look at the data on the 1/6 I posted before:
* A 2005 study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, on San Diego Kaiser Permanente HMO members, reported that 16% of males were sexually abused by the age of 18.
* A 2003 national study of U.S. adults reported that 14.2% of men were sexually abused before the age of 18.
* A 1998 study reviewing research on male childhood sexual abuse concluded that the problems is “common, under-reported, under-recognized, and under-treated.”
* A 1996 study of male university students in the Boston area reported that 18% of men were sexually abused before the age of 16.
* A 1990 national study of U.S. adults reported that 16% of men were sexually abused before the age of 18.
What is happening here is cherry picking. We take that factoid from that study and that from another study creating a warped and twisted picture of reality.