Note to all married men: you are *not* paying your wife for sex. And therefore you will continue paying after the sex stops. This has been a public service announcement. Thank you for your attention. [/B]
What, i am married and nobody said this to me before ?
Doing a bit of research, this is a very interesting topic (domestic violence, not custody).
trumptman:
.5% and 3% are both very small.
1 out of every 200 men report abuse.
3 out of every 100 women report abuse.
There is a difference, yes, but both are very small.
I never said women were non-violent and men were profoundly violent. You just made that up on the spot, straw-man argument.
What is true is that women are more often physically abused than men and far more likely to end up injured because of that abuse. If you want to ignore that that's fine, but you should read your own stats before you post them.
I underestimated violence initiated against men, but not necessarily the effects of that violence.
That's funny that you demand concession from me, considering how blindly your plow through all the proof of your being wrong. But that's ok, I can admit my mistakes.
Well... the Department of Justice doesn't use "nagging" numbers in their study of "violent domestic abuse".
Between 1993 and 2001, according to the DOJ, intimate violence against women has decreased 49%, against men decreased 43%.
In 1976 1,357 men were killed by an intimate. In 2000, 440 were killed by an intimate (women killed by an intimate fell from 1,600 to 1,247 in the same period).
You have no facts on this. Please source.
WAHOO! That sounds like a blast! A woman's shelter!
Saddle up, girls, time to call the cops, put the hubby in the tank for the night and party down at the woman's shelter!
I have no idea whether or not that is true (is that from Straus/Gelles?), but considering they are 7-10 times more likely to be injured I'd say it's reasonable even if true.
That's not what I'm discussing, which is why I have given NO reasons for any of that.
You know maybe on planet Groverat, this statement would not be considered labeling men profoundly violent, but on planet Earth it is.
Quote:
Men cheat. Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
When you suggest a 20,000% difference in behaviors, I call that profound. You can call it whatever you want.
As for your link. It is garbage. It is an estimate, created from a survey that doesn't ask about domestic violence. Talk about shifting the issue!
Quote:
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics for the purposes of building a crime index. The survey consists of questions regarding the user's experiences with criminal activity. The NCVS began in 1972 and was developed from work done by the National Opinion Research Center and the President's COmmission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. One notable result of the survey was that it became apparent that many crimes were not reported. Currently, ~50,000+ households are surveyed twice each year. The survey focuses on gathering information on the following crimes: assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft, rape, and robbery. Critics argue that the NCVS is unreliable, as there is no way to verify much of the information gathered.
Note that this survey does not sample any data from ANY local law enforcement agencies. I don't mean local to you, me or even Washington D.C. They don't get a single statistic from a single police agency.
Secondly they simply don't ask about domestic violence. I have never heard rape called domestic violence. I call rape what it is, rape. To even suggest that a man slapping a woman is similar to rape is offensive in my opinion. The two are not even in the same league.
Thirdly, look at how it plays with the numbers. Ewww....men are so powerful and empowered because all this intimate violence happens to women. Well no actually more happens to men according to their own numbers, all that mentions is the relationship. It says that 20% of all those forms of violence happen to women from an intimate, and 3% from men.
Well that is fine but if you take the TOTALS for those crimes that occur to men and women you get this.
Women = 2,942,450 crime committed against them.
Men = 3,406,260 cromes committed against them.
Pretty empowered huh? Men are not "victims," they are the "empowered" when 500,000 crimes are committed against them each year.
As for men and underreporting, I already did source.
Quote:
Cal State Long Beach professor Martin Fiebert has compiled and summarized 117 different studies with over 72,000 respondents that found that most domestic violence is mutual and, in the cases where there was only one abusive partner, that partner was as likely to be female as male.
Studies by researchers R.I. McNeeley and Coramae Richey Mann show that women are much more likely than men to use weapons and the element of surprise. These weapons often include guns, knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers and baseball bats.
Neither male nor female domestic violence can generally be dismissed as self-defense. According to Straus, for example, roughly 10 percent of women and 15 percent of men perpetuate partner abuse in self-defense. Dr. David Fontes, the director of Stop Abuse for Everyone (SAFE), has also found that only a small percentage of female abusers are acting in self-defense.
Crime statistics do indicate that women are more likely to suffer serious injury in domestic violence than men are. But such statistics are misleading because surveys show that an abused woman is nine times as likely to report abuse as an abused man. Many men hesitate to call the police because they assume, often correctly, that the police will automatically treat them as if they are the perpetrator.
As for partying on down at the women's shelter, are you saying women don't need shelters and they don't serve a purpose? They may not be great bu they help get the women away from their abusive partner. Men have no equivelent. Likewise good shelters often have legal help and can help women file court actions like divorce, restraining orders, governmental aid, etc. Again men have no equivelent. Sorry if you don't find the action of going to a shelter to escape a violent partner something positive. However no matter what it beats where men get to go, which is no where.
You know maybe on planet Groverat, this statement would not be considered labeling men profoundly violent, but on planet Earth it is.
What statement? You quoted my entire damned post!
Quote:
When you suggest a 20,000% difference in behaviors, I call that profound. You can call it whatever you want.
We're going to hang on that, eh, even though I acknowledged the mistake?
Quote:
As for your link. It is garbage. It is an estimate, created from a survey that doesn't ask about domestic violence. Talk about shifting the issue!
The Department of Justice's own studies on domestic violence are garbage? Fascinating.
usdoj.gov != now.org
Quote:
Note that this survey does not sample any data from ANY local law enforcement agencies. I don't mean local to you, me or even Washington D.C. They don't get a single statistic from a single police agency.
Why does that matter?
Quote:
Secondly they simply don't ask about domestic violence. I have never heard rape called domestic violence. I call rape what it is, rape. To even suggest that a man slapping a woman is similar to rape is offensive in my opinion. The two are not even in the same league.
Oh so now you're interested in scale, are you?
And past that, it breaks the domestic violence cases down by incident if you bother even looking at the damned pdf. Or you can just read the first paragraph and freak out because it blows your sexist theories all to hell.
They are both domestic violence, rape and slapping, but it has a nice breakdown of incidents into the following:
Rape/Sexual Assault:
Female victims: 41,740 Male victims: 0
Robbery:
Female victims: 44,060 Male victims: 16,570
Aggravated Assault:
Female victims: 81,140 Male victims: 36,350
Simple Assault:
Female victims: 421,550 Male victims: 50,310
Quote:
Well no actually more happens to men according to their own numbers, all that mentions is the relationship. It says that 20% of all those forms of violence happen to women from an intimate, and 3% from men.
Eh, no.
That breakdown up there, "intimate partner violence".
You can't spin this away, buddy, you might as well just stop responding.
...there were 691,710 nonfatal violent victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends,or girlfriends of the victims during 2001...
Guess what that breakdown above is a subset of! That's right! The 691,719 total acts committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends!
Quote:
Well that is fine but if you take the TOTALS for those crimes that occur to men and women you get this.
Women = 2,942,450 crime committed against them.
Men = 3,406,260 cromes committed against them.
Where in blue hell do you get these numbers?
You pull them out of your ass and say it comes from the DOJ when it obviously doesn't?
Quote:
As for men and underreporting, I already did source.
To the police, genius, the 3%/.5% has NOTHING to do with the NCVS. Nothing at all.
My God you're getting desperate.
Quote:
As for partying on down at the women's shelter, are you saying women don't need shelters and they don't serve a purpose?
You listed it as an advantage. It's not an advantage, it's a refuge.
Quote:
Men have no equivelent.
Newsflash, buddy, battered men can go to these shelters. I've seen it myself.
We're going to hang on that, eh, even though I acknowledged the mistake?
The Department of Justice's own studies on domestic violence are garbage? Fascinating.
usdoj.gov != now.org
Why does that matter?
Oh so now you're interested in scale, are you?
And past that, it breaks the domestic violence cases down by incident if you bother even looking at the damned pdf. Or you can just read the first paragraph and freak out because it blows your sexist theories all to hell.
They are both domestic violence, rape and slapping, but it has a nice breakdown of incidents into the following:
Rape/Sexual Assault:
Female victims: 41,740 Male victims: 0
Robbery:
Female victims: 44,060 Male victims: 16,570
Aggravated Assault:
Female victims: 81,140 Male victims: 36,350
Simple Assault:
Female victims: 421,550 Male victims: 50,310
Eh, no.
That breakdown up there, "intimate partner violence".
You can't spin this away, buddy, you might as well just stop responding.
...there were 691,710 nonfatal violent victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends,or girlfriends of the victims during 2001...
Guess what that breakdown above is a subset of! That's right! The 691,719 total acts committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends!
Where in blue hell do you get these numbers?
You pull them out of your ass and say it comes from the DOJ when it obviously doesn't?
To the police, genius, the 3%/.5% has NOTHING to do with the NCVS. Nothing at all.
My God you're getting desperate.
You listed it as an advantage. It's not an advantage, it's a refuge.
Newsflash, buddy, battered men can go to these shelters. I've seen it myself.
I read the PDF, I read past the PDF. I researched the nature of the survey and read the final numbers of which this PDF is a subset. In otherwords the survey reports on all those incidences total and your pdf reports on the incidences that involve intimate partners. Those "where the hell did I get those numbers," are from the total number of the related incidences that happen to each gender. The survey does show that criminal actions are more likely to occur to a woman from someone they know, versus a stranger. However it also shows that men were victims of crime more often, they were just victims by strangers. Remember, your PDF is a report on intimate violence. The survey is about violence as a whole and shows that men suffer from more violence as a whole.
Now on the why I treat the survey the way I do. Given a choice between looking at the actual data. (via studies or police reports) or a survey sent to people who may or may not return it, I choose the actual data. Your PDF was worse than even a just a survey. It was estimates based off of surveys. That paper could come to my house and I could claim to be a puerto rican woman with 8 kids who has been raped 20 times. There would be nothing to question nor substanciate what I claim. It's like saying web polls are valid.
Now, most galling and desperate on your own part, you ask why it would matter to actually get statistics from the police regarding crimes. I don't know.. maybe because the police deal with, track and record information about crimes? Likewise information from hospitals might help lower the margin of error as well with regard to non-reporting.
I have quoted the studies on this thread and they show equal amounts of domestic violence started by both genders. With regard to battering to the point of medical attention, we have an actual 2.5% difference(.5% versus 3%). That's not based off a survey, that is hard data.
You are the one who cannot get past your own sexist views. You can see women only as weak and helpless victims. I consider empowered, intelligent and just as capable as men. This applies to good as well as bad attributes of course.
In otherwords the survey reports on all those incidences total and your pdf reports on the incidences that involve intimate partners.
Yeah, because that's the topic. Crazy me.
Quote:
Those "where the hell did I get those numbers," are from the total number of the related incidences that happen to each gender. The survey does show that criminal actions are more likely to occur to a woman from someone they know, versus a stranger. However it also shows that men were victims of crime more often, they were just victims by strangers.
Because we are talking about intimate violence, not society-wide crime stats.
Quote:
The survey is about violence as a whole and shows that men suffer from more violence as a whole.
First: could you link to these numbers, please? I try to provide sources, could you do the same?
Second: how many more men than women commit violent crime?
Quote:
Now on the why I treat the survey the way I do. Given a choice between looking at the actual data. (via studies or police reports) or a survey sent to people who may or may not return it, I choose the actual data. Your PDF was worse than even a just a survey. It was estimates based off of surveys. That paper could come to my house and I could claim to be a puerto rican woman with 8 kids who has been raped 20 times. There would be nothing to question nor substanciate what I claim. It's like saying web polls are valid.
And this "actual data" is something you say is underreported and even thrown out of whack my evil women manipulating the system.
And past that, if you read about the NVCS you'd see it's a bit more accurate than a web poll. It's been used since 1973 by the Department of Justice, but I'm sure you know more about crime than the Department of Justice.
And you still don't link to any "actual data".
Quote:
maybe because the police deal with, track and record information about crimes? Likewise information from hospitals might help lower the margin of error as well with regard to non-reporting.
And do you provide sources for ANY of this? No.
Quote:
With regard to battering to the point of medical attention, we have an actual 2.5% difference(.5% versus 3%). That's not based off a survey, that is hard data.
That is from Straus/Gelles, which was a SURVEY.
And guess what survey Straus/Gelles used in their own? That's right, sparky, the NCVS.
Also, you like to keep ignoring it or conveniently forgetting. Underreporting is .5% men, 3% women. Women are 7-10x more likely to be injured by abuse. Straus/Gelles.
Quote:
You are the one who cannot get past your own sexist views.
If my views are sexist, at least I can source mine to the DOJ and the studies you brought up.
Quote:
You can see women only as weak and helpless victims. I consider empowered, intelligent and just as capable as men.
Saying they are physically abused more and on a larger scale means I think they are weak? Interesting logic.
Because we are talking about intimate violence, not society-wide crime stats.
First: could you link to these numbers, please? I try to provide sources, could you do the same?
Second: how many more men than women commit violent crime?
And this "actual data" is something you say is underreported and even thrown out of whack my evil women manipulating the system.
And past that, if you read about the NVCS you'd see it's a bit more accurate than a web poll. It's been used since 1973 by the Department of Justice, but I'm sure you know more about crime than the Department of Justice.
And you still don't link to any "actual data".
And do you provide sources for ANY of this? No.
That is from Straus/Gelles, which was a SURVEY.
And guess what survey Straus/Gelles used in their own? That's right, sparky, the NCVS.
Also, you like to keep ignoring it or conveniently forgetting. Underreporting is .5% men, 3% women. Women are 7-10x more likely to be injured by abuse. Straus/Gelles.
If my views are sexist, at least I can source mine to the DOJ and the studies you brought up.
Saying they are physically abused more and on a larger scale means I think they are weak? Interesting logic.
Actually, that isn't the topic. What I have brought up is the fact that default custody should be 50-50 both for physical and legal custody. You have sidetracked the issue with domestic violence for reasons you won't state above "men can't be victims." How you relate the two, you've yet to explain nor will you. Men getting to see their children is a society wide issue just like rape, domestic abuse and other issues mentioned.
I didn't link to the numbers, but I did to the study. You are welcome to look up the study yourself. You didn't link to any hard numbers, just estimates. If you want to link to the actual hard data for the survey so we can see how many of the 50,000 surveys were returned, from where, etc. Then I would consider those hard data/numbers.
Likewise I never said this data was out of whack by "evil women." I simply said there is no way to substanciate it. I used myself as an example so if anyone would be committing fraud from that post, it would be a man.
BTW, just to be clear .5 to 3% is 600%, not 7-10 times, 6 times. Even you acknowledged that it is misleading. It sounds dramatic because so few men seek medical help, not because so many women are seeking medical help.
Lastly,
Quote:
Cal State Long Beach professor Martin Fiebert has compiled and summarized 117 different studies with over 72,000 respondents that found that most domestic violence is mutual and, in the cases where there was only one abusive partner, that partner was as likely to be female as male.
Studies by researchers R.I. McNeeley and Coramae Richey Mann show that women are much more likely than men to use weapons and the element of surprise. These weapons often include guns, knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers and baseball bats.
Neither male nor female domestic violence can generally be dismissed as self-defense. According to Straus, for example, roughly 10 percent of women and 15 percent of men perpetuate partner abuse in self-defense. Dr. David Fontes, the director of Stop Abuse for Everyone (SAFE), has also found that only a small percentage of female abusers are acting in self-defense.
Crime statistics do indicate that women are more likely to suffer serious injury in domestic violence than men are. But such statistics are misleading because surveys show that an abused woman is nine times as likely to report abuse as an abused man. Many men hesitate to call the police because they assume, often correctly, that the police will automatically treat them as if they are the perpetrator.
There are two studies there in addition to Straus/Gelles. While Staus/Gelles was a survey it also had multiple trials, peer review and the information was gathered through interviewers. (I don't think I could get away with telling them I was a puerto rican woman, do you?)
Likewise here is a question from the survey that shows that it was more than just black and white assault, yes or no, for example.
Question 35: No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree, get annoyed with the other person, or just have spats or fights because they're in a bad mood or tired or for some other reason. They also use many different ways of trying to settle their differences. I'm going to read some things that you and your spouse might do when you have an argument. I would like you to tell me how many times in the last 12 months you:
a. Discussed the issue calmly
b. Got information to back up your side of things
c. Brought in or tried to bring in someone to help settle things
d. Insulted or swore at the other one
e. Sulked and/or refused to talk about it
f. Stormed out of the room or house (or yard)
g. Cried
h. Did or said something to spite the other one
i. Threatened to hit or throw something at the other one
j. Threw or smashed or hit or kicked something
k. Threw something at the other one
l. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved the other one
m. Slapped the other one
n. Kicked, but, or hit with a fist
o. Hit or tried to hit with something
p. Beat up the other one
q. Threatened with a knife or gun
r. Used a knife or gun
Lastly which is more likely to be accurate, a survey that measures general crime which them attempts to give estimates for domestic violence, or a study on domestic violence?
Lastly I offer this thoughtful analyis I found which compares the two.
Quote:
The data from the US National Crime Survey (NVCS) states that 84% of the victims of "intimate" violence were female. ("Highlights from 20 years of Surveying Crime Victims", NVCJ-144525.) It also puts the occurrence of this violent crime (from "intimates only") at 5.4 female victims per 1000 women per year - this is all crimes, some of which did not involve injury.
For comparison, the rate for "Accidental injury, all circumstances" is given as 220 per 1000 adults per year - a figure 40 times higher.
If one accepts data such as that from the NVCS, one must (at least if one is consistent and intellectually honest) admit that such violence is rare. The picture changes, though, when different techniques of investigation (methodologies) are used, such as those by Straus and Gelles. This data shows that domestic violence is MUCH more common. In fact, some degree of violence (NOT injury, however) occurs at a rate of 113 incidents per 1000 couples per year (husband. on wife) and 121 incidents per 1000 couples per year (wife on husband)! This is 20x the rate that the NCS reports.
You saying women are abused on a larger scale does mean you think them weak. You contend that women are incapable of acting as men do. I said they are as capable in both good and bad actions. You don't believe them capable of certain actions.
You have sidetracked the issue with domestic violence for reasons you won't state above "men can't be victims."
1) I wasn't talking about the topic of the thread, but what we are discussing. Conversations evolve.
2) Never once have I said "men can't be victims" or anything of the sort. Straw-man. I say women are victims in relationships more often than men, that is truth.
Quote:
How you relate the two, you've yet to explain nor will you. Men getting to see their children is a society wide issue just like rape, domestic abuse and other issues mentioned.
I wouldn't equate lack of time with the child with rape, but whatever butters your biscuit. You're still going off-topic because you can't back up what you say.
Quote:
I didn't link to the numbers, but I did to the study. You are welcome to look up the study yourself. You didn't link to any hard numbers, just estimates.
You linked to what study?
Quote:
BTW, just to be clear .5 to 3% is 600%, not 7-10 times, 6 times. Even you acknowledged that it is misleading. It sounds dramatic because so few men seek medical help, not because so many women are seeking medical help.
If .5% is "few" then so is 3%.
Quote:
Likewise here is a question from the survey that shows that it was more than just black and white assault, yes or no, for example.
And the plethora of options makes it a strong study. And its wide use by the DOJ and the other studies you quote shows it is a strong and well-respected study.
You are attacking the credentials of a study used by the Straus/Gelles study. That is weak and desperate.
Quote:
Lastly which is more likely to be accurate, a survey that measures general crime which them attempts to give estimates for domestic violence, or a study on domestic violence?
The NCVS gives specific numbers for domestic abuse. Like it or not.
Quote:
You saying women are abused on a larger scale does mean you think them weak. You contend that women are incapable of acting as men do. I said they are as capable in both good and bad actions. You don't believe them capable of certain actions.
Women are abused more, at the very least, because they are physically weaker than men and all the psychological differences and relationship dynamics that come with that. They are physically weaker than men, any idiot can see that, but as far as being "weak" in the way you used it, I never said such a thing.
Again: could you please source your bullshit numbers?
On a general level I wonder, trumptman, what your explanation is for the social association of domestic abuse victims being women if you truly believe that the levels are equal.
Do you attribute this to the women's liberation movement? To NOW?
I'm not presenting the social view as evidence (I have plenty of evidence and authority-backing to prove your side of the argument inane and foolish), but I'm interested to know your thoughts on the subject.
Or an even more interesting question: Do you really believe it or are you just running on inertia now?
Enough with the random musings and on to the meat?
The Department of Justice's page on domestic violence. ? click
The DOJ's Research and Statistiacl(sp) Publications page ? click
A link again to the pertinent portion of the NCVS.
Helpful for you, the skeptic, about the NCVS. click. You'll be interested to see there that this survey is not conducted by mail, but that an interviewer asks these questions. Unless you pull a Mrs. Doubtfire and buy some lifelike and lifesize children dolls I doubt you'll be able to fool a human being into thinking you're a Puerto Rican housewife with 8 children, you not-so-clever man.
Unfortunately for you, the NCVS is rock-solid as far as this sort of thing goes and it overwhelmingly shows that women are the main victims of domestic abuse, by a wide margin.
But when you get to Straus/Gelles you see the definition of "violence" expanded a great deal and in that diluted. This is, of course, where you seek to stick the discussion, because on these grounds you can say they are "equally" violent without having to address the staggering difference in more heinous acts of abuse: murders, rape and injurious physical assault. You want to avoid those because you have an agenda (the fact that Gelles himself wrote a rebuttal to your silly argument should tell you something).
So you're left with the following conclusion:
For the sake of argument let's say that men and women hit each other in relationships at the exact same rate. Does that mean there is no difference?
Have you ever been hit by a woman who was hitting you to hurt you?
Have you ever been hit by a man who was hitting you to hurt you?
Anyone with the smallest amount of intellectual honesty will admit that a man hitting a spouse is a much higher severity (7-10 times more severe according to Gelles).
1) I wasn't talking about the topic of the thread, but what we are discussing. Conversations evolve.
2) Never once have I said "men can't be victims" or anything of the sort. Straw-man. I say women are victims in relationships more often than men, that is truth.
I wouldn't equate lack of time with the child with rape, but whatever butters your biscuit. You're still going off-topic because you can't back up what you say.
You linked to what study?
If .5% is "few" then so is 3%.
And the plethora of options makes it a strong study. And its wide use by the DOJ and the other studies you quote shows it is a strong and well-respected study.
You are attacking the credentials of a study used by the Straus/Gelles study. That is weak and desperate.
The NCVS gives specific numbers for domestic abuse. Like it or not.
Women are abused more, at the very least, because they are physically weaker than men and all the psychological differences and relationship dynamics that come with that. They are physically weaker than men, any idiot can see that, but as far as being "weak" in the way you used it, I never said such a thing.
Again: could you please source your bullshit numbers?
Pardon me, I didn't link to the study results, I quoted them. My bad on the typo.
Let me put something straight. You claim I am somehow attacking Straus/Gelles when I attack the NVCS. You somehow relate the two and I don't. I seriously do not understand why you consider it "desperate" when I consider one more valid than the other. Straus/Gelles is not a meta-analysis that includes the results of the NVCS nor do they employ the same methodology. They developed their own methodology which they have termed The Conflict Tactic Scales.
You claim the NCVS gives specific numbers, they don't. They give specific estimates.
Women may be physically weaker than men as a general rule. However tactics can overcome physical strength. It is shows they are more willing to apply these tactics.
On a general level I wonder, trumptman, what your explanation is for the social association of domestic abuse victims being women if you truly believe that the levels are equal.
Do you attribute this to the women's liberation movement? To NOW?
I'm not presenting the social view as evidence (I have plenty of evidence and authority-backing to prove your side of the argument inane and foolish), but I'm interested to know your thoughts on the subject.
Or an even more interesting question: Do you really believe it or are you just running on inertia now?
Enough with the random musings and on to the meat?
The Department of Justice's page on domestic violence. ? click
The DOJ's Research and Statistiacl(sp) Publications page ? click
A link again to the pertinent portion of the NCVS.
Helpful for you, the skeptic, about the NCVS. click. You'll be interested to see there that this survey is not conducted by mail, but that an interviewer asks these questions. Unless you pull a Mrs. Doubtfire and buy some lifelike and lifesize children dolls I doubt you'll be able to fool a human being into thinking you're a Puerto Rican housewife with 8 children, you not-so-clever man.
Unfortunately for you, the NCVS is rock-solid as far as this sort of thing goes and it overwhelmingly shows that women are the main victims of domestic abuse, by a wide margin.
But when you get to Straus/Gelles you see the definition of "violence" expanded a great deal and in that diluted. This is, of course, where you seek to stick the discussion, because on these grounds you can say they are "equally" violent without having to address the staggering difference in more heinous acts of abuse: murders, rape and injurious physical assault. You want to avoid those because you have an agenda (the fact that Gelles himself wrote a rebuttal to your silly argument should tell you something).
So you're left with the following conclusion:
For the sake of argument let's say that men and women hit each other in relationships at the exact same rate. Does that mean there is no difference?
Have you ever been hit by a woman who was hitting you to hurt you?
Have you ever been hit by a man who was hitting you to hurt you?
Anyone with the smallest amount of intellectual honesty will admit that a man hitting a spouse is a much higher severity (7-10 times more severe according to Gelles).
Does that matter? Absolutely.
Do you want to acknowledge that? Absolutely not.
What is my association for domestic abuse victims being women? Simple feminists have realize that the more they can criminalize men, the less they have to deal with them or broker power with them. Domestic violence, sexual harassment, date rape, child custody, etc. are all issues that criminalize normal interactions.
A husband and a wife have a fight and she pushes him and he pushes her back. In most instances he can go to jail now. Sexual harassment has moved from boss seeking sex for favors to man telling dirty joke at work. Date rape is basically buyers remorse. A man can get consent that night and have it removed after the fact the next morning, or even be thrown in jail if she removes it during the actual act and he is seen as lagging in his ending. Child custody, well that is what we were supposed to have been discussing here.
As for Straus/Gelles and their methodology, I consider having more options to report and assigning scales to different violent actions to be much more accurate. Yelling being a 1 for example and murder being at the far end of that scale is not dilution, it is accuracy.
I looked at all your links. They show the government providing assistance, etc. for female domestic violence. I also looked at your link to the Gelles factiod. I don't really get what you are trying to put across with it.
Here is what I found.
Quote:
This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.
This quote does not say anything about men dramatically initiating violence against women more often than men. It does say they are injured more often. (Again the .5 vs. 3% which we have been over about a dozen times.)
Here is a link to an article by Gelles that shows why the DOJ and other agencies are not accurate regarding Domestic Violence and men.
Up until now I have focused only on our own research. However, it is important to point out that our findings have been corroborated numerous times, by many different researchers, using many different methodological approaches. My colleague Murray Straus has found that every study among more than 30 describing some type of sample that is not self-selective (an example of self-selected samples are samples of women in battered woman shelters or women responding to advertisements recruiting research subjects; non-select selective samples are community samples, samples of college students, or representative samples) has found a rate of assault by women on male partners that is about the same as the rate by men on female partners. The only exception to this is the U.S. Justice Department?s Uniform Crime Statistics, the National Survey of Crime Victims, and the U.S. Department of Justice National Survey of Violence against Women. The Uniform Crime Statistics report the rate of fatal partner violence. While the rate and number for male and female victims was about the same 25 years ago, today female victims of partner homicide outnumber (and the rate is higher) than male victims. The National Crime Victims Survey and National Survey of Violence against Women both assess partner violence in the context of a crime survey. It is reasonable to suppose both men and women underreport female-to-male partner violence in a crime survey, as they do not conceptualize such behavior as a crime.
Amazingly enough your study is the ONLY one that shows that discrepancy.
Quote:
The ?horror? of intimate violence toward men is somewhat different. There are, of course, hundreds of men killed each year by their partners. At a minimum, one-fourth of the men killed have not used violence towards their homicidal partners. Men have been shot, stabbed, beaten with objects, and been subjected to verbal assaults and humiliations. Nonetheless, I do not believe these are the ?horrors? of violence toward men. The real horror is the continued status of battered men as the ?missing persons? of the domestic violence problem. Male victims do not count and are not counted. The Federal Violence against Women Act identified domestic violence as a gender crime. None of the nearly billion dollars of funding from this act is directed towards male victims. Some ?Requests for Proposals? from the U.S. Justice Department specifically state that research on male victims or programs for male victims will not even be reviewed, let alone funded. Federal funds typically pass to a state coalition against domestic violence or to a branch of a state agency designated to deal with violence against women.
Battered men face a tragic apathy. Their one option is to call the police and hope that a jurisdiction will abide by a mandatory or presumptive arrest statute. However, when the police do carry out an arrest when a male has been beaten, they tend to engage in the practice of ?dual arrest? and arrest both parties.
Battered men who flee their attackers find that the act of fleeing results in the men losing physical and even legal custody of their children. Those men who stay are thought to be ?wimps,? at best and ?perps? at worst, since if they stay, it is believed they are the true abusers in the home.
Thirty years ago battered women had no place to go and no place to turn for help and assistance. Today, there are places to go?more than 1,800 shelters, and many agencies to which to turn. For men, there still is not place to go and no one to whom to turn. On occasion a shelter for battered men is created, but it rarely lasts?first because it lacks on-going funding, and second because the shelter probably does not meet the needs of male victims. Men, who retain their children in order to try to protect them from abusive mothers, often find themselves arrested for ?child kidnapping.?
So are we clear now? Federal law considered domestic violence to be a gender crime of men to women. No research, programs or assistance will be provided for males. Think that line of thinking could be the reason why your study is the ONLY study that shows that huge discrepancy?
As for your hypothetical. The last man that attempted to hit me ended up in a full nelson with me repeatedly putting his forehead to the floor. I cannot recall the last time a woman attempted to hit me because the only time I encountered violence in a relationship with a woman, it was with a weapon, and I pretty much left that relationship the next day. She threw a large metal cup at me.
Pardon me, I didn't link to the study results, I quoted them. My bad on the typo.
Link it. Source the numbers.
Quote:
Women may be physically weaker than men as a general rule. However tactics can overcome physical strength. It is shows they are more willing to apply these tactics.
"It is shows" by what? You provide almost zero backing or sourcing, how the hell do I know if anything you are saying is backed by anyone who actually knows what they are talking about?
Quote:
As for Straus/Gelles and their methodology, I consider having more options to report and assigning scales to different violent actions to be much more accurate. Yelling being a 1 for example and murder being at the far end of that scale is not dilution, it is accuracy.
Did you even read about the NCVS or are you just going to try and ignore it now?
Quote:
I looked at all your links. They show the government providing assistance, etc. for female domestic violence.
They also show quite a large amount of evidence that women are abused by intimate partners far more than men.
I'll go ahead and post again and hope you see the numbers this time:
Violent crime between intimates:
Female victims: 588,490
Male victims: 103,220
Quote:
This quote does not say anything about men dramatically initiating violence against women more often than men. It does say they are injured more often. (Again the .5 vs. 3% which we have been over about a dozen times.)
What does initiating "violence" matter if one knows it will do no harm (or is not likely to do harm)?
Quote:
Here is a link to an article by Gelles that shows why the DOJ and other agencies are not accurate regarding Domestic Violence and men.
Not once did he question the accuracy of the NCVS, just that the NCVS covers violent crime, not his expanded version of "violence".
To me it's more accurate to point out the actual physical harm done, not just count up the instances when a small woman slapped a big man who probably didn't even feel it.
You want to rely on bullshit platitudes like "just as violent" without being more specific because that way you get to ignore how top-heavy it is against men in the realm of most of the real damaging effects of abuse; rape, injurious physical assault and murder, which are HIGHLY dominated by men. But if you can convolute that into some bullshit where rape is weighed the same as "yelling" you're more than happy to.
There are battered men and they do deserve recognition, and the problem deserves recognition but there is no need to get stupid about pushing it as if the problem is as big as man-on-woman intimate violence.
But then again, who ever accused zealots of being smart?
Quote:
No research, programs or assistance will be provided for males. Think that line of thinking could be the reason why your study is the ONLY study that shows that huge discrepancy?
So the numbers are wrong because there is no male-focused abuse legislation? heh, brilliant!
Does Straus/Gelles say ANYTHING about violent crime rates or just that men and women "initiate" at the same rate? Please answer this question.
Quote:
The last man that attempted to hit me ended up in a full nelson with me repeatedly putting his forehead to the floor. I cannot recall the last time a woman attempted to hit me because the only time I encountered violence in a relationship with a woman, it was with a weapon, and I pretty much left that relationship the next day.
"It is shows" by what? You provide almost zero backing or sourcing, how the hell do I know if anything you are saying is backed by anyone who actually knows what they are talking about?
Did you even read about the NCVS or are you just going to try and ignore it now?
They also show quite a large amount of evidence that women are abused by intimate partners far more than men.
I'll go ahead and post again and hope you see the numbers this time:
Violent crime between intimates:
Female victims: 588,490
Male victims: 103,220
What does initiating "violence" matter if one knows it will do no harm (or is not likely to do harm)?
Not once did he question the accuracy of the NCVS, just that the NCVS covers violent crime, not his expanded version of "violence".
To me it's more accurate to point out the actual physical harm done, not just count up the instances when a small woman slapped a big man who probably didn't even feel it.
You want to rely on bullshit platitudes like "just as violent" without being more specific because that way you get to ignore how top-heavy it is against men in the realm of most of the real damaging effects of abuse; rape, injurious physical assault and murder, which are HIGHLY dominated by men. But if you can convolute that into some bullshit where rape is weighed the same as "yelling" you're more than happy to.
There are battered men and they do deserve recognition, and the problem deserves recognition but there is no need to get stupid about pushing it as if the problem is as big as man-on-woman intimate violence.
But then again, who ever accused zealots of being smart?
So the numbers are wrong because there is no male-focused abuse legislation? heh, brilliant!
Does Straus/Gelles say ANYTHING about violent crime rates or just that men and women "initiate" at the same rate? Please answer this question.
Well aren't you Johnny Bad-ass.
Way to avoid the question, sparky.
Pathetic.
It's pretty obvious why you chose not to be a mod anymore. You prefer to be a troll instead.
I sourced the studies and their conclusions. There were some pages that showed the actual violence indexes and also numerous mentions of numbers in my citations. You choose to ignore them because wasn't an actual table with estimates passing as real numbers.
I read the NVCS, I cited why it is wrong, you ignore it and keep repeating yourself. Feel welcome to do so until you are blue in the face. Yo uclaim those estimates are numbers. How many men were interviewed, how many women were interviewed? Do we know? Oh we must because you posted "numbers." How mahy interviews were in person, how many were by phone? How many opted to participate versus opting out?
Oh, gee we don't know those real "numbers," but we got some nice estimates that we know nothing about the data that generated them.
Likewise as I fully explained. The NVCS is a CRIME survey. That means the people filling out the survey must believe a crime has occured. If your fiance punched you in the eye, and this survey were given to you would you report it as a crime?
Likewise when asking the Department of Justice if it was a crime would they tell it was a crime? The answer is no because as I posted the Department of Justice considers domestic violence to be a gender crime that men commit against women. A crime survey is not going to report accurately that which it does not consider to be a crime. Thus it will not properly report violence from women against men.
The fact that you keep claiming I wish to stay on "violence" because I wish to ignore top heavy crimes like rape (which the NVCS showed zero for men. I guess (actually I know) they don't survey inmates who are male), murder and physical assault. You obviously have not read Straus/Gelles nor do you undestand their methodology. The assign values to different actions so they DO NOT consider a slap to be the same as rape. They likely consider throwing a frying pan to be the same as throwing a fist. Their conclusions were that women were just as violent as men, and initiated violence as much as men. Violent to the same degree. The only variable that was different was seeking medical attention.
As for your hypothetical question, I thought I answered it. If anything I showed my own bias because while I put the forehead to the floor of my male roommate, with my girlfriend, I just left and broke off the relationship. I didn't fear her more by leaving. I was more protective of her even when she was attempting to assault me. My roomate was given no such protection. However based on what I did to my roomate, I obviously didn't fear him either.
It's pretty obvious why you chose not to be a mod anymore. You prefer to be a troll instead.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Quote:
I sourced the studies and their conclusions. There were some pages that showed the actual violence indexes and also numerous mentions of numbers in my citations. You choose to ignore them because wasn't an actual table with estimates passing as real numbers.
Where did you source? I don't see them.
Quote:
How many men were interviewed, how many women were interviewed? Do we know? Oh we must because you posted "numbers." How mahy interviews were in person, how many were by phone? How many opted to participate versus opting out?
Every source you have caveats the "just as violent" observation with the obvious fact that men are more dangerous. You keep clinging to "just as violent" and ignoring the actual damage, that's fine because you have an agenda and you're self-pitying, it's well established.
If we're talking hits that don't do any injury or even hurt, then sure, I'll buy right off the bat that
Does that equate men and women on the level of domestic violence? Absolutely not.
I may work harder than Brett Favre when practicing and playing, but does that make me a better football player than him.
Quote:
Oh, gee we don't know those real "numbers," but we got some nice estimates that we know nothing about the data that generated them.
We know a lot about the data, including the explanation of the NCVS that you obviously failed to read.
Here's the whole damned manual on how to administer the NCVS, 2.2MB pdf. click
A tad bit more thorough and involved than a random phonecall.
Again, the DOJ knows a little bit about this stuff in their 30+ years of covering it.
Quote:
Likewise as I fully explained. The NVCS is a CRIME survey. That means the people filling out the survey must believe a crime has occured. If your fiance punched you in the eye, and this survey were given to you would you report it as a crime?
They don't ask "Did someone commit a crime?". If you would make the least bit effort to inform yourself you would have seen the exact questions they ask, which I linked to repeatedly.
I'll go ahead and inline it this time since clicking and reading is apparently a Herculean task:
41a:
Other than any incidents already mentioned,) has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of these ways (Exclude telephone threats) ?
(a) With any weapon, for instance, a gun or
knife ?
(b) With anything like a baseball bat, frying pan,
scissors, or stick ?
(c) By something thrown, such as a rock or
bottle ?
(d) Include any grabbing, punching, or choking,
(e) Any rape, attempted rape or other type of
sexual attack ?
(f) Any face to face threats ?
OR
(g) Any attack or threat or use of force by anyone
at all?
Please mention it even if you are not
certain it was a crime.
Again: Please mention it even if you are not certain it was a crime..
Quote:
You obviously have not read Straus/Gelles nor do you undestand their methodology. The assign values to different actions so they DO NOT consider a slap to be the same as rape.
Please add some substance then, trumpt. All I get from you is "women are just as violent" with ZERO backing figures or comparisons. PLEASE I BEG YOU quote Straus/Gelles with these figures. Pretty please with sugar on top.
Quote:
I didn't fear her more by leaving.
Who would you say more often fears their partner when leaving; men or women?
On the other hand, self-described battered husbands, men?s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data.
To even off the debate playing field it seems one piece of statistical evidence (that women and men hit one another in roughly equal numbers) is hauled out from my 1985 research - and distorted - to ?prove? the position on violence against men. However, the critical rate of injury and homicide statistics provided in that same research are often eliminated altogether, or reduced to a parenthetical statement saying that ?men typically do more damage.? The statement that men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers is true, however, it cannot be made in a vacuum without the qualifiers that a) women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men and b) that women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men.
...
We know that there are two to four million women battered in the United States each year. At least half these women fight back and defend themselves, and about 700 times last year, women killed their husbands or partners.
In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked. A smaller number of women, having been beaten and brutalized for months or years, seek vengeance against a brutal partner. Despite Lorena Bobbit?s much publicized act least year, the majority of violence women do not inflict significant injury on their partners: women are typically smaller than their husbands and less skilled in using weapons.
...
The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.
...
My estimate is that there are about 100,000 battered men in the United States each year - a much smaller number than the two to four million battered women - but hardly trivial.
...
Despite the fact that indeed, there are battered men too, it is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers. The media, policy makers, and the public cannot simply ignore - or reduce to a parenthetical status the outcomes of violence, which leave more than 1,400 women dead each year and millions physically and/or psychologically scarred for life.
Written by Richard Gelles in direct reaction to his study being perverted by those with an agenda... like you.
In conclusion, trumpt, your own sources call your argument misogynistic.
I look forward to your next thread about the poor, oppressed white man.
I'm at work so I won't be able to get to the full meat of this tonight, however I can tell you right off that you are not on target with this. I have not attempted to claim that there is a battered men's syndrome or things of that nature which justifies male violence on women. That is what that quote relates to. You and I have both agreed that women are injured more often from violence.
Hope to get back to this at about 9 pm tonight. It requires a real response and I will attempt to find the time to give it one. However make no mistake, I have not inferred a battered men's syndrome of things of that nature. That is what his quotes, and your assertions address. To justify male violence based of female battering would be misogynistic. I have not maintained that nor even asserted it in any regard.
Here?s the first post (by me) that started the domestic violence tangent:
Men cheat. Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
Richard Gelles: My estimate is that there are about 100,000 battered men in the United States each year - a much smaller number than the two to four million battered women - but hardly trivial
---
So I?m wrong! It?s not hundreds of women for every man; it?s 20-40 women for every man.
A recent meta-analysis of thousands of people across multiple domestic violence studies found women just as inclined to violence as men. Women simply express it differently.
Richard Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
---
This is not to take select quotes that suit me out of the past and use them selectively, but to pinpoint the source of the conflict, especially necessary with all of the twisting and turning you have been doing trying to keep afloat. You even started from the first post, trying to maneuver what I had said to set up your misogynistic argument (Gelles? words, not mine).
It is obvious now, using your own authority, that you were wrong from the outset. Women are not as inclined to violence (as used in all of these studies, not including nagging, unfortunately).
---
Continuing your argument in the next post, you say:
Quote:
You assertion, which I proved easily wrong, was not that women cause more damage when engaging in violence. It was that women initiate violence on a scale comparable with men. Women are more prone to attack when the subject is off guard, plan their attacks and also use weapons.
Richard Gelles: Despite Lorena Bobbit?s much publicized act least year, the majority of violence women do not inflict significant injury on their partners: women are typically smaller than their husbands and less skilled in using weapons.
---
Again, women do not initiate violence on a scale comparable with men. And the NCVS shows without question that women are not more likely to use weapons, and Gelles speaks for himself.
---
So you see, trumptman, you?re just wrong. In no way is domestic abuse comparable between men and women. Not on an initiate level, not on a lasting effects level, not on an injury level. In no way are they comparable, at all. The fact that hitting might level out because women defend themselves is purely incidental. And focusing on such an incidental makes it more obvious how off-base you are in your entire argument.
Of course you acknowledged from the outset that men cause more damage, the sooner you acknowledge it the sooner you can set to work sweeping it under the rug and trying to put the focus on the vague ?just as violent?, and in your dogged determination and steadfast ignorance you managed a reasonable degree of success in dominating the subject on that ridiculous auspice.
The simple fact remains: Men are, by a very large margin, the most responsible for domestic abuse.
Thanks for being so obstinate and foolish so I could research and learn a bit more about the subject, it is very interesting!
Sorry I haven't had proper time to devote to this, please feel free to bump it up or whatever until real life gets the hell out of the way again.
I do think you are a bit misguided with that Gelles quote though. Do a bit more research and you will see what I mean. Have you ever heard of battered woman's syndrome? It is basically an argument that women will begin acting violently toward those men who abuse them and will began building up pressure and strike back, usually in a manner that causes death to the man. It has become popular as a defense in female murder trials.
There are some, very misguided men's groups contending that there is a equal number of men suffering from a "battered man's syndrome" and that many men are driven to violence by the actions/"nagging" /violence of the women they are living with. Gelles apparently believes that women and men can be driven to extreme violent action by an abuser that repeatedly abuses and batters them. He believes, and I believe rightly so, that there are many more battered women than men.
However, and I would hope this isn't why we have carried on this thread for multiple pages/small books worth of typing. I don't think you addressed battered men or women. You said domestic violence which constitutes a range of actions. Are men more likely to harm women during a domestic dispute? Yes, and we both agreed on that long ago. Are there likely a larger subset of repeated chronic and profoundly damaging abusers that are an extreme and the worst of the whole lot? Yes of course as in any action there are extremes. (in this case the extremes cause death) Are men the majority of this extreme? Sure, I'll gladly concede that as well.
However our friends, Gelles and company, found that in your day to day disputes that involving anything pretty much short of death or repeated, frequent, lifelong batterings, men and women are pretty much equal. (One study found men more inclined, one study found females more inclined) To say your future wife just as inclined to throw a glass or object at you as you are to push/shove her, shake her, or perhaps even hit her is, I believe intellectually honest, and also what the study claimed. I focus on the broad trend, you focus on the extreme subset.
I am glad you hauled out our earliest posts about this...tangent. Because if anything it shows I have been consistant. You accuse me of twisting and turning, yet here it is, me still contending that women initiate violence on the same scale as men. When you consider that we were discussing.... child custody, it is obvious I would not consider the extreme subset because my premise was assuming no abuse, men should get equal custody of the child.
Grove, I don't really quite understand where you are coming from sometimes. I mean that in an honest an sincere way. I asked numberous times for you to address the thread content so I could even understand the angle a bit better with regard to the domestic abuse issue. In some ways we likely have been arguing past each other.
So just to be clear, I fully concede that men batter more than women. I fully concede that women are hurt more than men from domestic abuse and likewise that they are killed twice as often. With regard to initiated violence and on all scales short of death and battering, men and women are absolutely equal. I do not wish to have men or women penalized for these facts. Rather I would like default custody of children for men and women to be joint with regard to both legal and physical custody.
I do think you are a bit misguided with that Gelles quote though. Do a bit more research and you will see what I mean. Have you ever heard of battered woman's syndrome? It is basically an argument that women will begin acting violently toward those men who abuse them and will began building up pressure and strike back, usually in a manner that causes death to the man. It has become popular as a defense in female murder trials.
Why don't you link me to some research material or statistics? At least provide a source if there's no online resource available?
Because your guy says you're wrong.
Quote:
However our friends, Gelles and company, found that in your day to day disputes that involving anything pretty much short of death or repeated, frequent, lifelong batterings, men and women are pretty much equal.
So if we ignore murders, rape, chronic physical abuse and injurious domestic violence men and women are "pretty much equal"?
First of all you can't just say "aside from those" because the are a part of the equation, and even if you could they still aren't equal because men initiate the violence more often than women.
Quote:
(One study found men more inclined, one study found females more inclined)
Which studies, link me up. Source them. Are you talking about the Kentucky extract from the Straus/Gelles that Gelles himself says is the one selectively pulled out of his study to be used just as you are now?
Quote:
To say your future wife just as inclined to throw a glass or object at you as you are to push/shove her, shake her, or perhaps even hit her is, I believe intellectually honest, and also what the study claimed. I focus on the broad trend, you focus on the extreme subset.
"The study" claimed no such thing. The guy who did the study disagrees with you. You must know more than Gelles about his own work!
Quote:
You accuse me of twisting and turning, yet here it is, me still contending that women initiate violence on the same scale as men.
... after Gelles says they don't.
Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
So "most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence" is, in your mind, "women initiate violence just as often as men."?
Quote:
With regard to initiated violence and on all scales short of death and battering, men and women are absolutely equal.
Prove it. Where are the studies?
Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
NCVS (wisely you dropped your argument against this):
Violent crime between intimates:
Female victims: 588,490
Male victims: 103,220
And more specific to your point of not-hardcore abuse:
Simple Assault:
Female victims: 421,550
Male victims: 50,310
So who tells you this, trumpt, when the only two authorities presented here say you're wrong?
As far as custody, that's not what I'm discussing. You wanted to disagree with me at first that men are dramatically more responsible for domestic abuse (on a scale and initiate level both) and you're wrong. Admit it or stop posting.
I think it's important that people reading these threads know that your argument is a load of garbage and every authoritative sources prove it to be such.
Why don't you link me to some research material or statistics? At least provide a source if there's no online resource available?
Because your guy says you're wrong.
So if we ignore murders, rape, chronic physical abuse and injurious domestic violence men and women are "pretty much equal"?
First of all you can't just say "aside from those" because the are a part of the equation, and even if you could they still aren't equal because men initiate the violence more often than women.
Which studies, link me up. Source them. Are you talking about the Kentucky extract from the Straus/Gelles that Gelles himself says is the one selectively pulled out of his study to be used just as you are now?
"The study" claimed no such thing. The guy who did the study disagrees with you. You must know more than Gelles about his own work!
... after Gelles says they don't.
Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
So "most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence" is, in your mind, "women initiate violence just as often as men."?
Prove it. Where are the studies?
Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
NCVS (wisely you dropped your argument against this):
Violent crime between intimates:
Female victims: 588,490
Male victims: 103,220
And more specific to your point of not-hardcore abuse:
Simple Assault:
Female victims: 421,550
Male victims: 50,310
So who tells you this, trumpt, when the only two authorities presented here say you're wrong?
As far as custody, that's not what I'm discussing. You wanted to disagree with me at first that men are dramatically more responsible for domestic abuse (on a scale and initiate level both) and you're wrong. Admit it or stop posting.
I think it's important that people reading these threads know that your argument is a load of garbage and every authoritative sources prove it to be such.
To put it quite politely, Gelles is responding to battering, which is a defense for killing someone who has been repeatedly abusing you. You generalize his comments and apply them to domestic abuse as a whole. If you cannot understand the difference, so be it.
Here I found enough numbers to crap them out your ears now that I have a little time. (Actually I don't, but oh well)
Now you keep mentioning that Gelles has somehow disproven what I contend, or that I have distored what he contends. Let's see what you choose NOT to quote. Let's look at it in context.
[QUOTE]That women are perpetrators of intimate violence there can be no doubt. There is consistent and reliable empirical evidence that women use violence toward their male partners. The question of whether there are ?battered? men and the prevalence of the problem of the battering of men is more complex.
We know that there are two to four million women battered in the United States each year. At least half these women fight back and defend themselves, and about 700 times last year, women killed their husbands or partners.
In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked. A smaller number of women, having been beaten and brutalized for months or years, seek vengeance against a brutal partner. Despite Lorena Bobbit?s much publicized act least year, the majority of violence women do not inflict significant injury on their partners: women are typically smaller than their husbands and less skilled in using weapons.
Thus, when we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of ?battered? men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men. Movie portrayals of the vengeful, violent women notwithstanding (for example, in ?Fatal Attraction? or ?Basic Instinct?), there are very few women who stalk male partners or kill them and then their children in a cataclysmic act of familicide. The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.
Indeed, men are hit by their wives, they are injured, and some are killed. But, are all men hit by women ?battered?? No. Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men. A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her./QUOTE]
It is clear he is delineating the difference between battering and just plain violence. Battering is repeated, long term and about control. It is about much more than just violence.
Look Grove, I don't want to spend another 4 pages hung up on definitions of words. I already said, mentioned studies and linked to numbers that show what I think is violence. I would call these things domestic violence. Perhaps others just call them simple assault or one time acts. Some definitions call them domestic violence but also seem to call battering domestic violence. I've also linked to some definitions of battering. Battering in the definitions is obviously more profoundly worse than one time violent incidents. It is a profoundly more. I agree with this definition from womanspace, Battering is a pattern of repeated physical, sexual, emotional and/or economic abuse by intimate partners or ex-partners. It is a process of deliberate intimidation intended to coerce the victim to do the will of the victimizer. To me, that is much more than violence.
However it seems like a lot of the websites I have visited intermingle the two and leave their definitions mixed up. Just to make it clear I consider battering much worse than just plain violence. I fully conceded that men do more battering and women suffer more from battering. If you disagree with what I am saying or or my definitions, please link to something that makes your definition more clear or tell me what is unclear.
This has been an interesting conversation. Even though we are disagreeing (or possibly agreeing depending upon the words and definitions) it is informative and enjoyable. I won't say you have changed my views on custody. However I can understand why you respond so strongly to posts that I put up here. If I thought you were advocating battering or even that men were battered as often as women, I would likely respond the same.
Comments
[i]
Note to all married men: you are *not* paying your wife for sex. And therefore you will continue paying after the sex stops. This has been a public service announcement. Thank you for your attention. [/B]
What, i am married and nobody said this to me before ?
1) do not reproduct yourself.
2) go to a prostitute. you don't have to pay later for her not to exist in your life. you pay only when you get.
-- well this isn't the hint to ALL of you, *cough*
Originally posted by BR
It's simple. Old prejudicial stereotypes.
So have the courts always decided in this fashion, or is it a 'learned' trait? Something that's been introduced in the last few decades?
Originally posted by groverat
Doing a bit of research, this is a very interesting topic (domestic violence, not custody).
trumptman:
.5% and 3% are both very small.
1 out of every 200 men report abuse.
3 out of every 100 women report abuse.
There is a difference, yes, but both are very small.
I never said women were non-violent and men were profoundly violent. You just made that up on the spot, straw-man argument.
What is true is that women are more often physically abused than men and far more likely to end up injured because of that abuse. If you want to ignore that that's fine, but you should read your own stats before you post them.
I underestimated violence initiated against men, but not necessarily the effects of that violence.
That's funny that you demand concession from me, considering how blindly your plow through all the proof of your being wrong. But that's ok, I can admit my mistakes.
Really?
I'll post a few excerpts for your edification:
691,710 non-fatal "violent victimizations"
Female victims - 588,490 (85% of total)
Male victims - 103,220 (15% of total)
Well... the Department of Justice doesn't use "nagging" numbers in their study of "violent domestic abuse".
Between 1993 and 2001, according to the DOJ, intimate violence against women has decreased 49%, against men decreased 43%.
In 1976 1,357 men were killed by an intimate. In 2000, 440 were killed by an intimate (women killed by an intimate fell from 1,600 to 1,247 in the same period).
You have no facts on this. Please source.
WAHOO! That sounds like a blast! A woman's shelter!
Saddle up, girls, time to call the cops, put the hubby in the tank for the night and party down at the woman's shelter!
I have no idea whether or not that is true (is that from Straus/Gelles?), but considering they are 7-10 times more likely to be injured I'd say it's reasonable even if true.
That's not what I'm discussing, which is why I have given NO reasons for any of that.
You know maybe on planet Groverat, this statement would not be considered labeling men profoundly violent, but on planet Earth it is.
Men cheat. Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
When you suggest a 20,000% difference in behaviors, I call that profound. You can call it whatever you want.
As for your link. It is garbage. It is an estimate, created from a survey that doesn't ask about domestic violence. Talk about shifting the issue!
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics for the purposes of building a crime index. The survey consists of questions regarding the user's experiences with criminal activity. The NCVS began in 1972 and was developed from work done by the National Opinion Research Center and the President's COmmission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. One notable result of the survey was that it became apparent that many crimes were not reported. Currently, ~50,000+ households are surveyed twice each year. The survey focuses on gathering information on the following crimes: assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft, rape, and robbery. Critics argue that the NCVS is unreliable, as there is no way to verify much of the information gathered.
Note that this survey does not sample any data from ANY local law enforcement agencies. I don't mean local to you, me or even Washington D.C. They don't get a single statistic from a single police agency.
Secondly they simply don't ask about domestic violence. I have never heard rape called domestic violence. I call rape what it is, rape. To even suggest that a man slapping a woman is similar to rape is offensive in my opinion. The two are not even in the same league.
Thirdly, look at how it plays with the numbers. Ewww....men are so powerful and empowered because all this intimate violence happens to women. Well no actually more happens to men according to their own numbers, all that mentions is the relationship. It says that 20% of all those forms of violence happen to women from an intimate, and 3% from men.
Well that is fine but if you take the TOTALS for those crimes that occur to men and women you get this.
Women = 2,942,450 crime committed against them.
Men = 3,406,260 cromes committed against them.
Pretty empowered huh? Men are not "victims," they are the "empowered" when 500,000 crimes are committed against them each year.
As for men and underreporting, I already did source.
Cal State Long Beach professor Martin Fiebert has compiled and summarized 117 different studies with over 72,000 respondents that found that most domestic violence is mutual and, in the cases where there was only one abusive partner, that partner was as likely to be female as male.
Studies by researchers R.I. McNeeley and Coramae Richey Mann show that women are much more likely than men to use weapons and the element of surprise. These weapons often include guns, knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers and baseball bats.
Neither male nor female domestic violence can generally be dismissed as self-defense. According to Straus, for example, roughly 10 percent of women and 15 percent of men perpetuate partner abuse in self-defense. Dr. David Fontes, the director of Stop Abuse for Everyone (SAFE), has also found that only a small percentage of female abusers are acting in self-defense.
Crime statistics do indicate that women are more likely to suffer serious injury in domestic violence than men are. But such statistics are misleading because surveys show that an abused woman is nine times as likely to report abuse as an abused man. Many men hesitate to call the police because they assume, often correctly, that the police will automatically treat them as if they are the perpetrator.
As for partying on down at the women's shelter, are you saying women don't need shelters and they don't serve a purpose? They may not be great bu they help get the women away from their abusive partner. Men have no equivelent. Likewise good shelters often have legal help and can help women file court actions like divorce, restraining orders, governmental aid, etc. Again men have no equivelent. Sorry if you don't find the action of going to a shelter to escape a violent partner something positive. However no matter what it beats where men get to go, which is no where.
Nick
You know maybe on planet Groverat, this statement would not be considered labeling men profoundly violent, but on planet Earth it is.
What statement? You quoted my entire damned post!
When you suggest a 20,000% difference in behaviors, I call that profound. You can call it whatever you want.
We're going to hang on that, eh, even though I acknowledged the mistake?
As for your link. It is garbage. It is an estimate, created from a survey that doesn't ask about domestic violence. Talk about shifting the issue!
The Department of Justice's own studies on domestic violence are garbage? Fascinating.
usdoj.gov != now.org
Note that this survey does not sample any data from ANY local law enforcement agencies. I don't mean local to you, me or even Washington D.C. They don't get a single statistic from a single police agency.
Why does that matter?
Secondly they simply don't ask about domestic violence. I have never heard rape called domestic violence. I call rape what it is, rape. To even suggest that a man slapping a woman is similar to rape is offensive in my opinion. The two are not even in the same league.
Oh so now you're interested in scale, are you?
And past that, it breaks the domestic violence cases down by incident if you bother even looking at the damned pdf. Or you can just read the first paragraph and freak out because it blows your sexist theories all to hell.
They are both domestic violence, rape and slapping, but it has a nice breakdown of incidents into the following:
Rape/Sexual Assault:
Female victims: 41,740 Male victims: 0
Robbery:
Female victims: 44,060 Male victims: 16,570
Aggravated Assault:
Female victims: 81,140 Male victims: 36,350
Simple Assault:
Female victims: 421,550 Male victims: 50,310
Well no actually more happens to men according to their own numbers, all that mentions is the relationship. It says that 20% of all those forms of violence happen to women from an intimate, and 3% from men.
Eh, no.
That breakdown up there, "intimate partner violence".
You can't spin this away, buddy, you might as well just stop responding.
...there were 691,710 nonfatal violent victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends,or girlfriends of the victims during 2001...
Guess what that breakdown above is a subset of! That's right! The 691,719 total acts committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends!
Well that is fine but if you take the TOTALS for those crimes that occur to men and women you get this.
Women = 2,942,450 crime committed against them.
Men = 3,406,260 cromes committed against them.
Where in blue hell do you get these numbers?
You pull them out of your ass and say it comes from the DOJ when it obviously doesn't?
As for men and underreporting, I already did source.
To the police, genius, the 3%/.5% has NOTHING to do with the NCVS. Nothing at all.
My God you're getting desperate.
As for partying on down at the women's shelter, are you saying women don't need shelters and they don't serve a purpose?
You listed it as an advantage. It's not an advantage, it's a refuge.
Men have no equivelent.
Newsflash, buddy, battered men can go to these shelters. I've seen it myself.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
What statement? You quoted my entire damned post!
We're going to hang on that, eh, even though I acknowledged the mistake?
The Department of Justice's own studies on domestic violence are garbage? Fascinating.
usdoj.gov != now.org
Why does that matter?
Oh so now you're interested in scale, are you?
And past that, it breaks the domestic violence cases down by incident if you bother even looking at the damned pdf. Or you can just read the first paragraph and freak out because it blows your sexist theories all to hell.
They are both domestic violence, rape and slapping, but it has a nice breakdown of incidents into the following:
Rape/Sexual Assault:
Female victims: 41,740 Male victims: 0
Robbery:
Female victims: 44,060 Male victims: 16,570
Aggravated Assault:
Female victims: 81,140 Male victims: 36,350
Simple Assault:
Female victims: 421,550 Male victims: 50,310
Eh, no.
That breakdown up there, "intimate partner violence".
You can't spin this away, buddy, you might as well just stop responding.
...there were 691,710 nonfatal violent victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends,or girlfriends of the victims during 2001...
Guess what that breakdown above is a subset of! That's right! The 691,719 total acts committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends!
Where in blue hell do you get these numbers?
You pull them out of your ass and say it comes from the DOJ when it obviously doesn't?
To the police, genius, the 3%/.5% has NOTHING to do with the NCVS. Nothing at all.
My God you're getting desperate.
You listed it as an advantage. It's not an advantage, it's a refuge.
Newsflash, buddy, battered men can go to these shelters. I've seen it myself.
I read the PDF, I read past the PDF. I researched the nature of the survey and read the final numbers of which this PDF is a subset. In otherwords the survey reports on all those incidences total and your pdf reports on the incidences that involve intimate partners. Those "where the hell did I get those numbers," are from the total number of the related incidences that happen to each gender. The survey does show that criminal actions are more likely to occur to a woman from someone they know, versus a stranger. However it also shows that men were victims of crime more often, they were just victims by strangers. Remember, your PDF is a report on intimate violence. The survey is about violence as a whole and shows that men suffer from more violence as a whole.
Now on the why I treat the survey the way I do. Given a choice between looking at the actual data. (via studies or police reports) or a survey sent to people who may or may not return it, I choose the actual data. Your PDF was worse than even a just a survey. It was estimates based off of surveys. That paper could come to my house and I could claim to be a puerto rican woman with 8 kids who has been raped 20 times. There would be nothing to question nor substanciate what I claim. It's like saying web polls are valid.
Now, most galling and desperate on your own part, you ask why it would matter to actually get statistics from the police regarding crimes. I don't know.. maybe because the police deal with, track and record information about crimes? Likewise information from hospitals might help lower the margin of error as well with regard to non-reporting.
I have quoted the studies on this thread and they show equal amounts of domestic violence started by both genders. With regard to battering to the point of medical attention, we have an actual 2.5% difference(.5% versus 3%). That's not based off a survey, that is hard data.
You are the one who cannot get past your own sexist views. You can see women only as weak and helpless victims. I consider empowered, intelligent and just as capable as men. This applies to good as well as bad attributes of course.
Nick
In otherwords the survey reports on all those incidences total and your pdf reports on the incidences that involve intimate partners.
Yeah, because that's the topic. Crazy me.
Those "where the hell did I get those numbers," are from the total number of the related incidences that happen to each gender. The survey does show that criminal actions are more likely to occur to a woman from someone they know, versus a stranger. However it also shows that men were victims of crime more often, they were just victims by strangers.
Because we are talking about intimate violence, not society-wide crime stats.
The survey is about violence as a whole and shows that men suffer from more violence as a whole.
First: could you link to these numbers, please? I try to provide sources, could you do the same?
Second: how many more men than women commit violent crime?
Now on the why I treat the survey the way I do. Given a choice between looking at the actual data. (via studies or police reports) or a survey sent to people who may or may not return it, I choose the actual data. Your PDF was worse than even a just a survey. It was estimates based off of surveys. That paper could come to my house and I could claim to be a puerto rican woman with 8 kids who has been raped 20 times. There would be nothing to question nor substanciate what I claim. It's like saying web polls are valid.
And this "actual data" is something you say is underreported and even thrown out of whack my evil women manipulating the system.
And past that, if you read about the NVCS you'd see it's a bit more accurate than a web poll. It's been used since 1973 by the Department of Justice, but I'm sure you know more about crime than the Department of Justice.
And you still don't link to any "actual data".
maybe because the police deal with, track and record information about crimes? Likewise information from hospitals might help lower the margin of error as well with regard to non-reporting.
And do you provide sources for ANY of this? No.
With regard to battering to the point of medical attention, we have an actual 2.5% difference(.5% versus 3%). That's not based off a survey, that is hard data.
That is from Straus/Gelles, which was a SURVEY.
And guess what survey Straus/Gelles used in their own? That's right, sparky, the NCVS.
Also, you like to keep ignoring it or conveniently forgetting. Underreporting is .5% men, 3% women. Women are 7-10x more likely to be injured by abuse. Straus/Gelles.
You are the one who cannot get past your own sexist views.
If my views are sexist, at least I can source mine to the DOJ and the studies you brought up.
You can see women only as weak and helpless victims. I consider empowered, intelligent and just as capable as men.
Saying they are physically abused more and on a larger scale means I think they are weak? Interesting logic.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
Yeah, because that's the topic. Crazy me.
Because we are talking about intimate violence, not society-wide crime stats.
First: could you link to these numbers, please? I try to provide sources, could you do the same?
Second: how many more men than women commit violent crime?
And this "actual data" is something you say is underreported and even thrown out of whack my evil women manipulating the system.
And past that, if you read about the NVCS you'd see it's a bit more accurate than a web poll. It's been used since 1973 by the Department of Justice, but I'm sure you know more about crime than the Department of Justice.
And you still don't link to any "actual data".
And do you provide sources for ANY of this? No.
That is from Straus/Gelles, which was a SURVEY.
And guess what survey Straus/Gelles used in their own? That's right, sparky, the NCVS.
Also, you like to keep ignoring it or conveniently forgetting. Underreporting is .5% men, 3% women. Women are 7-10x more likely to be injured by abuse. Straus/Gelles.
If my views are sexist, at least I can source mine to the DOJ and the studies you brought up.
Saying they are physically abused more and on a larger scale means I think they are weak? Interesting logic.
Actually, that isn't the topic.
I didn't link to the numbers, but I did to the study. You are welcome to look up the study yourself. You didn't link to any hard numbers, just estimates. If you want to link to the actual hard data for the survey so we can see how many of the 50,000 surveys were returned, from where, etc. Then I would consider those hard data/numbers.
Likewise I never said this data was out of whack by "evil women." I simply said there is no way to substanciate it. I used myself as an example so if anyone would be committing fraud from that post, it would be a man.
BTW, just to be clear .5 to 3% is 600%, not 7-10 times, 6 times. Even you acknowledged that it is misleading. It sounds dramatic because so few men seek medical help, not because so many women are seeking medical help.
Lastly,
Cal State Long Beach professor Martin Fiebert has compiled and summarized 117 different studies with over 72,000 respondents that found that most domestic violence is mutual and, in the cases where there was only one abusive partner, that partner was as likely to be female as male.
Studies by researchers R.I. McNeeley and Coramae Richey Mann show that women are much more likely than men to use weapons and the element of surprise. These weapons often include guns, knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers and baseball bats.
Neither male nor female domestic violence can generally be dismissed as self-defense. According to Straus, for example, roughly 10 percent of women and 15 percent of men perpetuate partner abuse in self-defense. Dr. David Fontes, the director of Stop Abuse for Everyone (SAFE), has also found that only a small percentage of female abusers are acting in self-defense.
Crime statistics do indicate that women are more likely to suffer serious injury in domestic violence than men are. But such statistics are misleading because surveys show that an abused woman is nine times as likely to report abuse as an abused man. Many men hesitate to call the police because they assume, often correctly, that the police will automatically treat them as if they are the perpetrator.
There are two studies there in addition to Straus/Gelles. While Staus/Gelles was a survey it also had multiple trials, peer review and the information was gathered through interviewers. (I don't think I could get away with telling them I was a puerto rican woman, do you?)
Likewise here is a question from the survey that shows that it was more than just black and white assault, yes or no, for example.
Question 35: No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree, get annoyed with the other person, or just have spats or fights because they're in a bad mood or tired or for some other reason. They also use many different ways of trying to settle their differences. I'm going to read some things that you and your spouse might do when you have an argument. I would like you to tell me how many times in the last 12 months you:
a. Discussed the issue calmly
b. Got information to back up your side of things
c. Brought in or tried to bring in someone to help settle things
d. Insulted or swore at the other one
e. Sulked and/or refused to talk about it
f. Stormed out of the room or house (or yard)
g. Cried
h. Did or said something to spite the other one
i. Threatened to hit or throw something at the other one
j. Threw or smashed or hit or kicked something
k. Threw something at the other one
l. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved the other one
m. Slapped the other one
n. Kicked, but, or hit with a fist
o. Hit or tried to hit with something
p. Beat up the other one
q. Threatened with a knife or gun
r. Used a knife or gun
Lastly which is more likely to be accurate, a survey that measures general crime which them attempts to give estimates for domestic violence, or a study on domestic violence?
Lastly I offer this thoughtful analyis I found which compares the two.
The data from the US National Crime Survey (NVCS) states that 84% of the victims of "intimate" violence were female. ("Highlights from 20 years of Surveying Crime Victims", NVCJ-144525.) It also puts the occurrence of this violent crime (from "intimates only") at 5.4 female victims per 1000 women per year - this is all crimes, some of which did not involve injury.
For comparison, the rate for "Accidental injury, all circumstances" is given as 220 per 1000 adults per year - a figure 40 times higher.
If one accepts data such as that from the NVCS, one must (at least if one is consistent and intellectually honest) admit that such violence is rare. The picture changes, though, when different techniques of investigation (methodologies) are used, such as those by Straus and Gelles. This data shows that domestic violence is MUCH more common. In fact, some degree of violence (NOT injury, however) occurs at a rate of 113 incidents per 1000 couples per year (husband. on wife) and 121 incidents per 1000 couples per year (wife on husband)! This is 20x the rate that the NCS reports.
You saying women are abused on a larger scale does mean you think them weak. You contend that women are incapable of acting as men do. I said they are as capable in both good and bad actions. You don't believe them capable of certain actions.
Nick
You have sidetracked the issue with domestic violence for reasons you won't state above "men can't be victims."
1) I wasn't talking about the topic of the thread, but what we are discussing. Conversations evolve.
2) Never once have I said "men can't be victims" or anything of the sort. Straw-man. I say women are victims in relationships more often than men, that is truth.
How you relate the two, you've yet to explain nor will you. Men getting to see their children is a society wide issue just like rape, domestic abuse and other issues mentioned.
I wouldn't equate lack of time with the child with rape, but whatever butters your biscuit. You're still going off-topic because you can't back up what you say.
I didn't link to the numbers, but I did to the study. You are welcome to look up the study yourself. You didn't link to any hard numbers, just estimates.
You linked to what study?
BTW, just to be clear .5 to 3% is 600%, not 7-10 times, 6 times. Even you acknowledged that it is misleading. It sounds dramatic because so few men seek medical help, not because so many women are seeking medical help.
If .5% is "few" then so is 3%.
Likewise here is a question from the survey that shows that it was more than just black and white assault, yes or no, for example.
And the plethora of options makes it a strong study. And its wide use by the DOJ and the other studies you quote shows it is a strong and well-respected study.
You are attacking the credentials of a study used by the Straus/Gelles study. That is weak and desperate.
Lastly which is more likely to be accurate, a survey that measures general crime which them attempts to give estimates for domestic violence, or a study on domestic violence?
The NCVS gives specific numbers for domestic abuse. Like it or not.
You saying women are abused on a larger scale does mean you think them weak. You contend that women are incapable of acting as men do. I said they are as capable in both good and bad actions. You don't believe them capable of certain actions.
Women are abused more, at the very least, because they are physically weaker than men and all the psychological differences and relationship dynamics that come with that. They are physically weaker than men, any idiot can see that, but as far as being "weak" in the way you used it, I never said such a thing.
Again: could you please source your bullshit numbers?
Do you attribute this to the women's liberation movement? To NOW?
I'm not presenting the social view as evidence (I have plenty of evidence and authority-backing to prove your side of the argument inane and foolish), but I'm interested to know your thoughts on the subject.
Or an even more interesting question: Do you really believe it or are you just running on inertia now?
Enough with the random musings and on to the meat?
The Department of Justice's page on domestic violence. ? click
The DOJ's Research and Statistiacl(sp) Publications page ? click
A link again to the pertinent portion of the NCVS.
Helpful for you, the skeptic, about the NCVS. click. You'll be interested to see there that this survey is not conducted by mail, but that an interviewer asks these questions. Unless you pull a Mrs. Doubtfire and buy some lifelike and lifesize children dolls I doubt you'll be able to fool a human being into thinking you're a Puerto Rican housewife with 8 children, you not-so-clever man.
Unfortunately for you, the NCVS is rock-solid as far as this sort of thing goes and it overwhelmingly shows that women are the main victims of domestic abuse, by a wide margin.
But when you get to Straus/Gelles you see the definition of "violence" expanded a great deal and in that diluted. This is, of course, where you seek to stick the discussion, because on these grounds you can say they are "equally" violent without having to address the staggering difference in more heinous acts of abuse: murders, rape and injurious physical assault. You want to avoid those because you have an agenda (the fact that Gelles himself wrote a rebuttal to your silly argument should tell you something).
So you're left with the following conclusion:
For the sake of argument let's say that men and women hit each other in relationships at the exact same rate. Does that mean there is no difference?
Have you ever been hit by a woman who was hitting you to hurt you?
Have you ever been hit by a man who was hitting you to hurt you?
Anyone with the smallest amount of intellectual honesty will admit that a man hitting a spouse is a much higher severity (7-10 times more severe according to Gelles).
Does that matter? Absolutely.
Do you want to acknowledge that? Absolutely not.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
1) I wasn't talking about the topic of the thread, but what we are discussing. Conversations evolve.
2) Never once have I said "men can't be victims" or anything of the sort. Straw-man. I say women are victims in relationships more often than men, that is truth.
I wouldn't equate lack of time with the child with rape, but whatever butters your biscuit. You're still going off-topic because you can't back up what you say.
You linked to what study?
If .5% is "few" then so is 3%.
And the plethora of options makes it a strong study. And its wide use by the DOJ and the other studies you quote shows it is a strong and well-respected study.
You are attacking the credentials of a study used by the Straus/Gelles study. That is weak and desperate.
The NCVS gives specific numbers for domestic abuse. Like it or not.
Women are abused more, at the very least, because they are physically weaker than men and all the psychological differences and relationship dynamics that come with that. They are physically weaker than men, any idiot can see that, but as far as being "weak" in the way you used it, I never said such a thing.
Again: could you please source your bullshit numbers?
Pardon me, I didn't link to the study results, I quoted them. My bad on the typo.
Let me put something straight. You claim I am somehow attacking Straus/Gelles when I attack the NVCS. You somehow relate the two and I don't. I seriously do not understand why you consider it "desperate" when I consider one more valid than the other. Straus/Gelles is not a meta-analysis that includes the results of the NVCS nor do they employ the same methodology. They developed their own methodology which they have termed The Conflict Tactic Scales.
You claim the NCVS gives specific numbers, they don't. They give specific estimates.
Women may be physically weaker than men as a general rule. However tactics can overcome physical strength. It is shows they are more willing to apply these tactics.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
On a general level I wonder, trumptman, what your explanation is for the social association of domestic abuse victims being women if you truly believe that the levels are equal.
Do you attribute this to the women's liberation movement? To NOW?
I'm not presenting the social view as evidence (I have plenty of evidence and authority-backing to prove your side of the argument inane and foolish), but I'm interested to know your thoughts on the subject.
Or an even more interesting question: Do you really believe it or are you just running on inertia now?
Enough with the random musings and on to the meat?
The Department of Justice's page on domestic violence. ? click
The DOJ's Research and Statistiacl(sp) Publications page ? click
A link again to the pertinent portion of the NCVS.
Helpful for you, the skeptic, about the NCVS. click. You'll be interested to see there that this survey is not conducted by mail, but that an interviewer asks these questions. Unless you pull a Mrs. Doubtfire and buy some lifelike and lifesize children dolls I doubt you'll be able to fool a human being into thinking you're a Puerto Rican housewife with 8 children, you not-so-clever man.
Unfortunately for you, the NCVS is rock-solid as far as this sort of thing goes and it overwhelmingly shows that women are the main victims of domestic abuse, by a wide margin.
But when you get to Straus/Gelles you see the definition of "violence" expanded a great deal and in that diluted. This is, of course, where you seek to stick the discussion, because on these grounds you can say they are "equally" violent without having to address the staggering difference in more heinous acts of abuse: murders, rape and injurious physical assault. You want to avoid those because you have an agenda (the fact that Gelles himself wrote a rebuttal to your silly argument should tell you something).
So you're left with the following conclusion:
For the sake of argument let's say that men and women hit each other in relationships at the exact same rate. Does that mean there is no difference?
Have you ever been hit by a woman who was hitting you to hurt you?
Have you ever been hit by a man who was hitting you to hurt you?
Anyone with the smallest amount of intellectual honesty will admit that a man hitting a spouse is a much higher severity (7-10 times more severe according to Gelles).
Does that matter? Absolutely.
Do you want to acknowledge that? Absolutely not.
What is my association for domestic abuse victims being women? Simple feminists have realize that the more they can criminalize men, the less they have to deal with them or broker power with them. Domestic violence, sexual harassment, date rape, child custody, etc. are all issues that criminalize normal interactions.
A husband and a wife have a fight and she pushes him and he pushes her back. In most instances he can go to jail now. Sexual harassment has moved from boss seeking sex for favors to man telling dirty joke at work. Date rape is basically buyers remorse. A man can get consent that night and have it removed after the fact the next morning, or even be thrown in jail if she removes it during the actual act and he is seen as lagging in his ending. Child custody, well that is what we were supposed to have been discussing here.
As for Straus/Gelles and their methodology, I consider having more options to report and assigning scales to different violent actions to be much more accurate. Yelling being a 1 for example and murder being at the far end of that scale is not dilution, it is accuracy.
I looked at all your links. They show the government providing assistance, etc. for female domestic violence. I also looked at your link to the Gelles factiod. I don't really get what you are trying to put across with it.
Here is what I found.
This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.
This quote does not say anything about men dramatically initiating violence against women more often than men. It does say they are injured more often. (Again the .5 vs. 3% which we have been over about a dozen times.)
Here is a link to an article by Gelles that shows why the DOJ and other agencies are not accurate regarding Domestic Violence and men.
Gelles article
Some quotes...
Up until now I have focused only on our own research. However, it is important to point out that our findings have been corroborated numerous times, by many different researchers, using many different methodological approaches. My colleague Murray Straus has found that every study among more than 30 describing some type of sample that is not self-selective (an example of self-selected samples are samples of women in battered woman shelters or women responding to advertisements recruiting research subjects; non-select selective samples are community samples, samples of college students, or representative samples) has found a rate of assault by women on male partners that is about the same as the rate by men on female partners. The only exception to this is the U.S. Justice Department?s Uniform Crime Statistics, the National Survey of Crime Victims, and the U.S. Department of Justice National Survey of Violence against Women. The Uniform Crime Statistics report the rate of fatal partner violence. While the rate and number for male and female victims was about the same 25 years ago, today female victims of partner homicide outnumber (and the rate is higher) than male victims. The National Crime Victims Survey and National Survey of Violence against Women both assess partner violence in the context of a crime survey. It is reasonable to suppose both men and women underreport female-to-male partner violence in a crime survey, as they do not conceptualize such behavior as a crime.
Amazingly enough your study is the ONLY one that shows that discrepancy.
The ?horror? of intimate violence toward men is somewhat different. There are, of course, hundreds of men killed each year by their partners. At a minimum, one-fourth of the men killed have not used violence towards their homicidal partners. Men have been shot, stabbed, beaten with objects, and been subjected to verbal assaults and humiliations. Nonetheless, I do not believe these are the ?horrors? of violence toward men. The real horror is the continued status of battered men as the ?missing persons? of the domestic violence problem. Male victims do not count and are not counted. The Federal Violence against Women Act identified domestic violence as a gender crime. None of the nearly billion dollars of funding from this act is directed towards male victims. Some ?Requests for Proposals? from the U.S. Justice Department specifically state that research on male victims or programs for male victims will not even be reviewed, let alone funded. Federal funds typically pass to a state coalition against domestic violence or to a branch of a state agency designated to deal with violence against women.
Battered men face a tragic apathy. Their one option is to call the police and hope that a jurisdiction will abide by a mandatory or presumptive arrest statute. However, when the police do carry out an arrest when a male has been beaten, they tend to engage in the practice of ?dual arrest? and arrest both parties.
Battered men who flee their attackers find that the act of fleeing results in the men losing physical and even legal custody of their children. Those men who stay are thought to be ?wimps,? at best and ?perps? at worst, since if they stay, it is believed they are the true abusers in the home.
Thirty years ago battered women had no place to go and no place to turn for help and assistance. Today, there are places to go?more than 1,800 shelters, and many agencies to which to turn. For men, there still is not place to go and no one to whom to turn. On occasion a shelter for battered men is created, but it rarely lasts?first because it lacks on-going funding, and second because the shelter probably does not meet the needs of male victims. Men, who retain their children in order to try to protect them from abusive mothers, often find themselves arrested for ?child kidnapping.?
So are we clear now? Federal law considered domestic violence to be a gender crime of men to women. No research, programs or assistance will be provided for males. Think that line of thinking could be the reason why your study is the ONLY study that shows that huge discrepancy?
As for your hypothetical. The last man that attempted to hit me ended up in a full nelson with me repeatedly putting his forehead to the floor. I cannot recall the last time a woman attempted to hit me because the only time I encountered violence in a relationship with a woman, it was with a weapon, and I pretty much left that relationship the next day. She threw a large metal cup at me.
I believe the ball is in your court.
Nick
Pardon me, I didn't link to the study results, I quoted them. My bad on the typo.
Link it. Source the numbers.
Women may be physically weaker than men as a general rule. However tactics can overcome physical strength. It is shows they are more willing to apply these tactics.
"It is shows" by what? You provide almost zero backing or sourcing, how the hell do I know if anything you are saying is backed by anyone who actually knows what they are talking about?
As for Straus/Gelles and their methodology, I consider having more options to report and assigning scales to different violent actions to be much more accurate. Yelling being a 1 for example and murder being at the far end of that scale is not dilution, it is accuracy.
Did you even read about the NCVS or are you just going to try and ignore it now?
I looked at all your links. They show the government providing assistance, etc. for female domestic violence.
They also show quite a large amount of evidence that women are abused by intimate partners far more than men.
I'll go ahead and post again and hope you see the numbers this time:
Violent crime between intimates:
Female victims: 588,490
Male victims: 103,220
This quote does not say anything about men dramatically initiating violence against women more often than men. It does say they are injured more often. (Again the .5 vs. 3% which we have been over about a dozen times.)
What does initiating "violence" matter if one knows it will do no harm (or is not likely to do harm)?
Here is a link to an article by Gelles that shows why the DOJ and other agencies are not accurate regarding Domestic Violence and men.
Not once did he question the accuracy of the NCVS, just that the NCVS covers violent crime, not his expanded version of "violence".
To me it's more accurate to point out the actual physical harm done, not just count up the instances when a small woman slapped a big man who probably didn't even feel it.
You want to rely on bullshit platitudes like "just as violent" without being more specific because that way you get to ignore how top-heavy it is against men in the realm of most of the real damaging effects of abuse; rape, injurious physical assault and murder, which are HIGHLY dominated by men. But if you can convolute that into some bullshit where rape is weighed the same as "yelling" you're more than happy to.
There are battered men and they do deserve recognition, and the problem deserves recognition but there is no need to get stupid about pushing it as if the problem is as big as man-on-woman intimate violence.
But then again, who ever accused zealots of being smart?
No research, programs or assistance will be provided for males. Think that line of thinking could be the reason why your study is the ONLY study that shows that huge discrepancy?
So the numbers are wrong because there is no male-focused abuse legislation? heh, brilliant!
Does Straus/Gelles say ANYTHING about violent crime rates or just that men and women "initiate" at the same rate? Please answer this question.
The last man that attempted to hit me ended up in a full nelson with me repeatedly putting his forehead to the floor. I cannot recall the last time a woman attempted to hit me because the only time I encountered violence in a relationship with a woman, it was with a weapon, and I pretty much left that relationship the next day.
Well aren't you Johnny Bad-ass.
Way to avoid the question, sparky.
Pathetic.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
Link it. Source the numbers.
"It is shows" by what? You provide almost zero backing or sourcing, how the hell do I know if anything you are saying is backed by anyone who actually knows what they are talking about?
Did you even read about the NCVS or are you just going to try and ignore it now?
They also show quite a large amount of evidence that women are abused by intimate partners far more than men.
I'll go ahead and post again and hope you see the numbers this time:
Violent crime between intimates:
Female victims: 588,490
Male victims: 103,220
What does initiating "violence" matter if one knows it will do no harm (or is not likely to do harm)?
Not once did he question the accuracy of the NCVS, just that the NCVS covers violent crime, not his expanded version of "violence".
To me it's more accurate to point out the actual physical harm done, not just count up the instances when a small woman slapped a big man who probably didn't even feel it.
You want to rely on bullshit platitudes like "just as violent" without being more specific because that way you get to ignore how top-heavy it is against men in the realm of most of the real damaging effects of abuse; rape, injurious physical assault and murder, which are HIGHLY dominated by men. But if you can convolute that into some bullshit where rape is weighed the same as "yelling" you're more than happy to.
There are battered men and they do deserve recognition, and the problem deserves recognition but there is no need to get stupid about pushing it as if the problem is as big as man-on-woman intimate violence.
But then again, who ever accused zealots of being smart?
So the numbers are wrong because there is no male-focused abuse legislation? heh, brilliant!
Does Straus/Gelles say ANYTHING about violent crime rates or just that men and women "initiate" at the same rate? Please answer this question.
Well aren't you Johnny Bad-ass.
Way to avoid the question, sparky.
Pathetic.
It's pretty obvious why you chose not to be a mod anymore. You prefer to be a troll instead.
I sourced the studies and their conclusions. There were some pages that showed the actual violence indexes and also numerous mentions of numbers in my citations. You choose to ignore them because wasn't an actual table with estimates passing as real numbers.
I read the NVCS, I cited why it is wrong, you ignore it and keep repeating yourself. Feel welcome to do so until you are blue in the face. Yo uclaim those estimates are numbers. How many men were interviewed, how many women were interviewed? Do we know? Oh we must because you posted "numbers." How mahy interviews were in person, how many were by phone? How many opted to participate versus opting out?
Oh, gee we don't know those real "numbers," but we got some nice estimates that we know nothing about the data that generated them.
Likewise as I fully explained. The NVCS is a CRIME survey. That means the people filling out the survey must believe a crime has occured. If your fiance punched you in the eye, and this survey were given to you would you report it as a crime?
Likewise when asking the Department of Justice if it was a crime would they tell it was a crime? The answer is no because as I posted the Department of Justice considers domestic violence to be a gender crime that men commit against women. A crime survey is not going to report accurately that which it does not consider to be a crime. Thus it will not properly report violence from women against men.
The fact that you keep claiming I wish to stay on "violence" because I wish to ignore top heavy crimes like rape (which the NVCS showed zero for men. I guess (actually I know) they don't survey inmates who are male), murder and physical assault. You obviously have not read Straus/Gelles nor do you undestand their methodology. The assign values to different actions so they DO NOT consider a slap to be the same as rape. They likely consider throwing a frying pan to be the same as throwing a fist. Their conclusions were that women were just as violent as men, and initiated violence as much as men. Violent to the same degree. The only variable that was different was seeking medical attention.
As for your hypothetical question, I thought I answered it. If anything I showed my own bias because while I put the forehead to the floor of my male roommate, with my girlfriend, I just left and broke off the relationship. I didn't fear her more by leaving. I was more protective of her even when she was attempting to assault me. My roomate was given no such protection. However based on what I did to my roomate, I obviously didn't fear him either.
Nick
trumptman:
It's pretty obvious why you chose not to be a mod anymore. You prefer to be a troll instead.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I sourced the studies and their conclusions. There were some pages that showed the actual violence indexes and also numerous mentions of numbers in my citations. You choose to ignore them because wasn't an actual table with estimates passing as real numbers.
Where did you source? I don't see them.
How many men were interviewed, how many women were interviewed? Do we know? Oh we must because you posted "numbers." How mahy interviews were in person, how many were by phone? How many opted to participate versus opting out?
Every source you have caveats the "just as violent" observation with the obvious fact that men are more dangerous. You keep clinging to "just as violent" and ignoring the actual damage, that's fine because you have an agenda and you're self-pitying, it's well established.
If we're talking hits that don't do any injury or even hurt, then sure, I'll buy right off the bat that
Does that equate men and women on the level of domestic violence? Absolutely not.
I may work harder than Brett Favre when practicing and playing, but does that make me a better football player than him.
Oh, gee we don't know those real "numbers," but we got some nice estimates that we know nothing about the data that generated them.
We know a lot about the data, including the explanation of the NCVS that you obviously failed to read.
Here's the whole damned manual on how to administer the NCVS, 2.2MB pdf. click
A tad bit more thorough and involved than a random phonecall.
Again, the DOJ knows a little bit about this stuff in their 30+ years of covering it.
Likewise as I fully explained. The NVCS is a CRIME survey. That means the people filling out the survey must believe a crime has occured. If your fiance punched you in the eye, and this survey were given to you would you report it as a crime?
They don't ask "Did someone commit a crime?". If you would make the least bit effort to inform yourself you would have seen the exact questions they ask, which I linked to repeatedly.
I'll go ahead and inline it this time since clicking and reading is apparently a Herculean task:
41a:
Other than any incidents already mentioned,) has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of these ways (Exclude telephone threats) ?
(a) With any weapon, for instance, a gun or
knife ?
(b) With anything like a baseball bat, frying pan,
scissors, or stick ?
(c) By something thrown, such as a rock or
bottle ?
(d) Include any grabbing, punching, or choking,
(e) Any rape, attempted rape or other type of
sexual attack ?
(f) Any face to face threats ?
OR
(g) Any attack or threat or use of force by anyone
at all?
Please mention it even if you are not
certain it was a crime.
Again: Please mention it even if you are not certain it was a crime..
You obviously have not read Straus/Gelles nor do you undestand their methodology. The assign values to different actions so they DO NOT consider a slap to be the same as rape.
Please add some substance then, trumpt. All I get from you is "women are just as violent" with ZERO backing figures or comparisons. PLEASE I BEG YOU quote Straus/Gelles with these figures. Pretty please with sugar on top.
I didn't fear her more by leaving.
Who would you say more often fears their partner when leaving; men or women?
Who would Straus/Gelles say are more at risk?
Here's a fun read from Gelles.
On the other hand, self-described battered husbands, men?s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data.
To even off the debate playing field it seems one piece of statistical evidence (that women and men hit one another in roughly equal numbers) is hauled out from my 1985 research - and distorted - to ?prove? the position on violence against men. However, the critical rate of injury and homicide statistics provided in that same research are often eliminated altogether, or reduced to a parenthetical statement saying that ?men typically do more damage.? The statement that men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers is true, however, it cannot be made in a vacuum without the qualifiers that a) women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men and b) that women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men.
...
We know that there are two to four million women battered in the United States each year. At least half these women fight back and defend themselves, and about 700 times last year, women killed their husbands or partners.
In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked. A smaller number of women, having been beaten and brutalized for months or years, seek vengeance against a brutal partner. Despite Lorena Bobbit?s much publicized act least year, the majority of violence women do not inflict significant injury on their partners: women are typically smaller than their husbands and less skilled in using weapons.
...
The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.
...
My estimate is that there are about 100,000 battered men in the United States each year - a much smaller number than the two to four million battered women - but hardly trivial.
...
Despite the fact that indeed, there are battered men too, it is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers. The media, policy makers, and the public cannot simply ignore - or reduce to a parenthetical status the outcomes of violence, which leave more than 1,400 women dead each year and millions physically and/or psychologically scarred for life.
Written by Richard Gelles in direct reaction to his study being perverted by those with an agenda... like you.
In conclusion, trumpt, your own sources call your argument misogynistic.
I look forward to your next thread about the poor, oppressed white man.
Hope to get back to this at about 9 pm tonight. It requires a real response and I will attempt to find the time to give it one. However make no mistake, I have not inferred a battered men's syndrome of things of that nature. That is what his quotes, and your assertions address. To justify male violence based of female battering would be misogynistic. I have not maintained that nor even asserted it in any regard.
Nick
Here?s the first post (by me) that started the domestic violence tangent:
Men cheat. Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
Richard Gelles: My estimate is that there are about 100,000 battered men in the United States each year - a much smaller number than the two to four million battered women - but hardly trivial
---
So I?m wrong! It?s not hundreds of women for every man; it?s 20-40 women for every man.
Susan, Jane, Molly, Kathy, Sarah, Beth, Suzy, Jennifer, Jenny, Allison, Vikki, Michelle, Catherine, Carol, Kyra, Amanda, Carrie, Jessica, Martha, Jamie, Erica, Kristy, Samantha, Grace, Kelly, Donna, Anne, Linda, Nancy & Mary.
versus
Steve
----
To which you responded:
A recent meta-analysis of thousands of people across multiple domestic violence studies found women just as inclined to violence as men. Women simply express it differently.
Richard Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
---
This is not to take select quotes that suit me out of the past and use them selectively, but to pinpoint the source of the conflict, especially necessary with all of the twisting and turning you have been doing trying to keep afloat. You even started from the first post, trying to maneuver what I had said to set up your misogynistic argument (Gelles? words, not mine).
It is obvious now, using your own authority, that you were wrong from the outset. Women are not as inclined to violence (as used in all of these studies, not including nagging, unfortunately).
---
Continuing your argument in the next post, you say:
You assertion, which I proved easily wrong, was not that women cause more damage when engaging in violence. It was that women initiate violence on a scale comparable with men. Women are more prone to attack when the subject is off guard, plan their attacks and also use weapons.
Richard Gelles: Despite Lorena Bobbit?s much publicized act least year, the majority of violence women do not inflict significant injury on their partners: women are typically smaller than their husbands and less skilled in using weapons.
---
Again, women do not initiate violence on a scale comparable with men. And the NCVS shows without question that women are not more likely to use weapons, and Gelles speaks for himself.
---
So you see, trumptman, you?re just wrong. In no way is domestic abuse comparable between men and women. Not on an initiate level, not on a lasting effects level, not on an injury level. In no way are they comparable, at all. The fact that hitting might level out because women defend themselves is purely incidental. And focusing on such an incidental makes it more obvious how off-base you are in your entire argument.
Of course you acknowledged from the outset that men cause more damage, the sooner you acknowledge it the sooner you can set to work sweeping it under the rug and trying to put the focus on the vague ?just as violent?, and in your dogged determination and steadfast ignorance you managed a reasonable degree of success in dominating the subject on that ridiculous auspice.
The simple fact remains: Men are, by a very large margin, the most responsible for domestic abuse.
Thanks for being so obstinate and foolish so I could research and learn a bit more about the subject, it is very interesting!
I do think you are a bit misguided with that Gelles quote though. Do a bit more research and you will see what I mean. Have you ever heard of battered woman's syndrome? It is basically an argument that women will begin acting violently toward those men who abuse them and will began building up pressure and strike back, usually in a manner that causes death to the man. It has become popular as a defense in female murder trials.
There are some, very misguided men's groups contending that there is a equal number of men suffering from a "battered man's syndrome" and that many men are driven to violence by the actions/"nagging"
However, and I would hope this isn't why we have carried on this thread for multiple pages/small books worth of typing. I don't think you addressed battered men or women. You said domestic violence which constitutes a range of actions. Are men more likely to harm women during a domestic dispute? Yes, and we both agreed on that long ago. Are there likely a larger subset of repeated chronic and profoundly damaging abusers that are an extreme and the worst of the whole lot? Yes of course as in any action there are extremes. (in this case the extremes cause death) Are men the majority of this extreme? Sure, I'll gladly concede that as well.
However our friends, Gelles and company,
I am glad you hauled out our earliest posts about this...tangent.
Grove, I don't really quite understand where you are coming from sometimes. I mean that in an honest an sincere way. I asked numberous times for you to address the thread content so I could even understand the angle a bit better with regard to the domestic abuse issue. In some ways we likely have been arguing past each other.
So just to be clear, I fully concede that men batter more than women. I fully concede that women are hurt more than men from domestic abuse and likewise that they are killed twice as often. With regard to initiated violence and on all scales short of death and battering, men and women are absolutely equal. I do not wish to have men or women penalized for these facts. Rather I would like default custody of children for men and women to be joint with regard to both legal and physical custody.
Nick
I do think you are a bit misguided with that Gelles quote though. Do a bit more research and you will see what I mean. Have you ever heard of battered woman's syndrome? It is basically an argument that women will begin acting violently toward those men who abuse them and will began building up pressure and strike back, usually in a manner that causes death to the man. It has become popular as a defense in female murder trials.
Why don't you link me to some research material or statistics? At least provide a source if there's no online resource available?
Because your guy says you're wrong.
However our friends, Gelles and company,
So if we ignore murders, rape, chronic physical abuse and injurious domestic violence men and women are "pretty much equal"?
First of all you can't just say "aside from those" because the are a part of the equation, and even if you could they still aren't equal because men initiate the violence more often than women.
(One study found men more inclined, one study found females more inclined)
Which studies, link me up. Source them. Are you talking about the Kentucky extract from the Straus/Gelles that Gelles himself says is the one selectively pulled out of his study to be used just as you are now?
To say your future wife just as inclined to throw a glass or object at you as you are to push/shove her, shake her, or perhaps even hit her is, I believe intellectually honest, and also what the study claimed. I focus on the broad trend, you focus on the extreme subset.
"The study" claimed no such thing. The guy who did the study disagrees with you. You must know more than Gelles about his own work!
You accuse me of twisting and turning, yet here it is, me still contending that women initiate violence on the same scale as men.
... after Gelles says they don't.
Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
So "most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence" is, in your mind, "women initiate violence just as often as men."?
With regard to initiated violence and on all scales short of death and battering, men and women are absolutely equal.
Prove it. Where are the studies?
Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
NCVS (wisely you dropped your argument against this):
Violent crime between intimates:
Female victims: 588,490
Male victims: 103,220
And more specific to your point of not-hardcore abuse:
Simple Assault:
Female victims: 421,550
Male victims: 50,310
So who tells you this, trumpt, when the only two authorities presented here say you're wrong?
As far as custody, that's not what I'm discussing. You wanted to disagree with me at first that men are dramatically more responsible for domestic abuse (on a scale and initiate level both) and you're wrong. Admit it or stop posting.
I think it's important that people reading these threads know that your argument is a load of garbage and every authoritative sources prove it to be such.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
Why don't you link me to some research material or statistics? At least provide a source if there's no online resource available?
Because your guy says you're wrong.
So if we ignore murders, rape, chronic physical abuse and injurious domestic violence men and women are "pretty much equal"?
First of all you can't just say "aside from those" because the are a part of the equation, and even if you could they still aren't equal because men initiate the violence more often than women.
Which studies, link me up. Source them. Are you talking about the Kentucky extract from the Straus/Gelles that Gelles himself says is the one selectively pulled out of his study to be used just as you are now?
"The study" claimed no such thing. The guy who did the study disagrees with you. You must know more than Gelles about his own work!
... after Gelles says they don't.
Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
So "most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence" is, in your mind, "women initiate violence just as often as men."?
Prove it. Where are the studies?
Gelles: In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
NCVS (wisely you dropped your argument against this):
Violent crime between intimates:
Female victims: 588,490
Male victims: 103,220
And more specific to your point of not-hardcore abuse:
Simple Assault:
Female victims: 421,550
Male victims: 50,310
So who tells you this, trumpt, when the only two authorities presented here say you're wrong?
As far as custody, that's not what I'm discussing. You wanted to disagree with me at first that men are dramatically more responsible for domestic abuse (on a scale and initiate level both) and you're wrong. Admit it or stop posting.
I think it's important that people reading these threads know that your argument is a load of garbage and every authoritative sources prove it to be such.
To put it quite politely, Gelles is responding to battering, which is a defense for killing someone who has been repeatedly abusing you. You generalize his comments and apply them to domestic abuse as a whole. If you cannot understand the difference, so be it.
Here I found enough numbers to crap them out your ears now that I have a little time. (Actually I don't, but oh well)
Gelles studies
This link is to another study of which says the same thing..
More numbers, Grove's friends...
Now you keep mentioning that Gelles has somehow disproven what I contend, or that I have distored what he contends. Let's see what you choose NOT to quote. Let's look at it in context.
[QUOTE]That women are perpetrators of intimate violence there can be no doubt. There is consistent and reliable empirical evidence that women use violence toward their male partners. The question of whether there are ?battered? men and the prevalence of the problem of the battering of men is more complex.
We know that there are two to four million women battered in the United States each year. At least half these women fight back and defend themselves, and about 700 times last year, women killed their husbands or partners.
In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked. A smaller number of women, having been beaten and brutalized for months or years, seek vengeance against a brutal partner. Despite Lorena Bobbit?s much publicized act least year, the majority of violence women do not inflict significant injury on their partners: women are typically smaller than their husbands and less skilled in using weapons.
Thus, when we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of ?battered? men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men. Movie portrayals of the vengeful, violent women notwithstanding (for example, in ?Fatal Attraction? or ?Basic Instinct?), there are very few women who stalk male partners or kill them and then their children in a cataclysmic act of familicide. The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.
Indeed, men are hit by their wives, they are injured, and some are killed. But, are all men hit by women ?battered?? No. Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men. A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her./QUOTE]
It is clear he is delineating the difference between battering and just plain violence. Battering is repeated, long term and about control. It is about much more than just violence.
Here's a helpful definition of battering.
battering
Here is a link that may show why we are arguing about words that is some instances mean the same thing and different things.
enddomesticviolence
Look Grove, I don't want to spend another 4 pages hung up on definitions of words. I already said, mentioned studies and linked to numbers that show what I think is violence. I would call these things domestic violence. Perhaps others just call them simple assault or one time acts. Some definitions call them domestic violence but also seem to call battering domestic violence. I've also linked to some definitions of battering. Battering in the definitions is obviously more profoundly worse than one time violent incidents. It is a profoundly more. I agree with this definition from womanspace, Battering is a pattern of repeated physical, sexual, emotional and/or economic abuse by intimate partners or ex-partners. It is a process of deliberate intimidation intended to coerce the victim to do the will of the victimizer. To me, that is much more than violence.
However it seems like a lot of the websites I have visited intermingle the two and leave their definitions mixed up. Just to make it clear I consider battering much worse than just plain violence. I fully conceded that men do more battering and women suffer more from battering. If you disagree with what I am saying or or my definitions, please link to something that makes your definition more clear or tell me what is unclear.
This has been an interesting conversation. Even though we are disagreeing (or possibly agreeing depending upon the words and definitions) it is informative and enjoyable. I won't say you have changed my views on custody. However I can understand why you respond so strongly to posts that I put up here. If I thought you were advocating battering or even that men were battered as often as women, I would likely respond the same.
Nick