Can we talk about female violence? I need to get my response straight

My problem is that I don't think that anyone denies that men are stronger and that the violence that they commit is generally more catastrophic.
The vast majority of domestic violence and abuse is imo carried out by men and the majority of serious abuse is carried out by men.

I do have some issue with the down playing or negation of violence and domestic abuse that is perpetrated by women. I see the patriarchal spheres of influence but there is a side of domestic abuse that is more particular to women ime. There is often a more sustained level of verbal abuse, controlling, bullying and paranoid behaviours are apparent and isolating patterns are also all too visible.
Some of these women will have experienced this in previous relationships or as children. Some will have serious issues with anger, control, self esteem.
I find that the lack of help for these women is astonishing. I often feel that agencies that should or could offer help and support feel that acknowledging the issue will somehow take away from or muddy the waters of the abuse perpetrated by men.

I think that if we need to try to end domestic abuse that we must offer support to men and women. We can empathise but must get them to own their behaviour. I constantly find myself making excuses for female violence and domestic abuse because I personally do not want to face or accept it. I do not make the same excuses for men and would not allow it in my presence.
This sits poorly with me

This is kickass' example:

It's not just me that thinks that. The law can take into account the potential threat of violence from one partner to another. So, my friend whose ex-H leans over her, shouting in her face and screaming abuse can get a restraining order against him, even though he hasn't actually hit her. When she has physically pushed him out of her house and shut the door in his face, he hasn't got a legal right to get a restraining order against her, because there is no credible threat of violence there. In fact, it could be argued that this is an example of unidirectional female to male violence as she pushed him out the door, and all he did was shout. Was she being abusive? I would say she's acting in self defense. Was he being abusive? I would say he is deliberately intending to intimidate and scare her.

In this case, a shove out the door would indeed not be meaningful. If, however, the relationship were to continue and the woman were to repeatedly shove the man around...

Switch the sexes, and the same analysis holds.

So when it's a woman shoving a man, followed by no further episodes of violence, then it's not necessarily "meaningful", unlike the other way round where the whole relationship dynamic can change?

The example was of a shove by the woman.

Lots of men can control the women they live with using very little physical violence. The unspoken background threat of it is sufficient to ensure compliance.

Yup, it's usually how it starts.

"One shove wouldn't be very meaningful, especially if there were no further violent episodes."

Hmm.

One shove, or even the very real threat of a shove/ punch/ push, can instil caution into someone smaller and lighter and ensure that they never challenge too hard again, just in case that threat becomes real or that shove is repeated harder.

Lots of men can control the women they live with using very little physical violence. The unspoken background threat of it is sufficient to ensure compliance.

1. Provide some sources if you wish, BillandTed.

1. It shouldn't be difficult to see the meaning: inter-episode, rather than intra-episode.

1. This has to do with the chronicity of violence. From the second study,

"There was no signi?cant
difference between males and females in the
chronicity of physical aggression overall".

One shove wouldn't be very meaningful, especially if there were no further violent episodes.

"So, my friend whose ex-H leans over her, shouting in her face and screaming abuse can get a restraining order against him, even though he hasn't actually hit her. When she has physically pushed him out of her house and shut the door in his face, he hasn't got a legal right to get a restraining order against her, because there is no credible threat of violence there. "

Care to comment on this nuance of kickass's post?

the rates of severe
assault are almost identical for men and women", though "when severe assaults were considered separately, men hit their partner more
than twice as frequently as women", indicating that men are only over-represented in the most severe and chronic violence

I'm not following your interpretation here. So when men perpetrate a severe assault on a woman, they strike six blows rather than three, say - is that what this means?

Nice copy and paste!

How many men are killed by their partners or ex partners each week, mont?

Just to get it out of the way: It's disingenuous to analogize men and women to adults and children, as the disparity is much wider in the latter case. For that reason, it's also rather demeaning, and carries terrible implications: if women were indeed so vulnerable a subgroup of the population, as vulnerable as young children, then suddenly the patriarchy would be substantially justified, not just historically but in immediately reverting to circumscribed female rights across the board, male-relative conservatorship over "the weaker sex", and so on...

The second study study I cited shows that "the rates of severe
assault are almost identical for men and women", though "when severe assaults were considered separately, men hit their partner more
than twice as frequently as women", indicating that men are only over-represented in the most severe and chronic violence. I mentioned in my first post that gendered results (i.e. injuries) should not obscure the fact that aggression, violence, and manipulative behavior are just as commonly resorted-to by women as by men. Note moreover that bidirectional aggression increases the likelihood of one or more parties sustaining an injury. Clearly, a gender-specific approach to domestic violence/abuse must go much deeper than simply targeting or relying upon gender stereotypes.

To sum up, when discussing inter-partner violence we must avoid infantilizing women and must recognize that if men are responsible for the worst violence, it does not diminish the fact that women are significantly-responsible for 'lesser' violence. Approaches to ameliorating the impact and prevalence of such violence in society can not marginalize or emphasize the experiences of one sex relative to another if they hope to have a maximal effect.

mont - I'm at work so don't have time to read all the way through both papers, but thanks for linking.

I did just look at the results section which has this to say: " the men in the sample were more likely to use
severe violence, less likely to be injured, and they were less fearful of their spouses. "

You suggested that the empirical effects, ie damage, done to a person should be taken into account. This paper suggests that even where there is bidirectional violence then the women sustain more damage both physically and emotionally.

I would argue strongly that how much physical strength a person has does influence the impact, not just physically, of violence. I would never use physical violence against my daughter as she has so little strength against me. It's a situation of unequal reciprocity and to use it to my advantage would be wrong. If she tries to hit me then it doesn't cause me any fear or disturbance at all, even if she managed to physically hurt me (My aunt once had her nose broken by her 3 month old daughter, for example). So, the two different levels of strength are really important to the outcome - not just the physical hurt inflicted, but the emotional impact.

It's not just me that thinks that. The law can take into account the potential threat of violence from one partner to another. So, my friend whose ex-H leans over her, shouting in her face and screaming abuse can get a restraining order against him, even though he hasn't actually hit her. When she has physically pushed him out of her house and shut the door in his face, he hasn't got a legal right to get a restraining order against her, because there is no credible threat of violence there. In fact, it could be argued that this is an example of unidirectional female to male violence as she pushed him out the door, and all he did was shout. Was she being abusive? I would say she's acting in self defense. Was he being abusive? I would say he is deliberately intending to intimidate and scare her.

And again, other aspects have to be considered. My friend who pushed her ex out the house did so after years of not being allowed to go out, have friends, work and even being sulked at for having a dog. Now the ex is withholding funds, damaging her property and threatening their son. But he hasn't actually hit her. If she lost her temper and hit him, would that be her abusing him, or just desperate to make him see her as a human being, not some object?

Sources:

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Jennifer, et al. "Rates of Bidirectional Versus Unidirectional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review." Partner Abuse 3.2 (2012): 199-230. ProQuest. Web. 19 May 2014.

Straus, M. A. and Ramirez, I. L. (2007), Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Aggr. Behav., 33: 281–290. doi: 10.1002/ab.20199

The uploaded image pertains to the first, while this uploaded .pdf pertains to the second.

As for suggestions that female-to-male violence in bidrectionally-violent relationships is in self-defence, or is less severe than male-to-female violence in the same, well, this possibility has been accounted for and ruled out. At any rate, such an explanation does not account for the relatively-high proportion of violence that is unidirectionally female-to-male.

what findings do you have of mutual abuse?

I've just finished an MA course about domestic violence, and the message was very clear: men physically abuse/attack women far more than other types of intimate partner abuse (f/m, m/m or f/f).

this is true whether you use police stats based on reports and evidence of physical harm (your definition) OR self-reporting collected by national crime rate data collection.

Depending which year/method of collecting data used, the figures are unequivocal. Around 85 - 90 % of victims are female.

Some stats www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats

there is also a huge amount of evidence that where there is 'mutual' abuse, it is in fact a man who is controlling a woman and she is fighting back out of desperation. Also, many male abusers often report themselves as being a victim before their partner goes to the police, but on investigation the woman has injuries which reflect being attacked, but the man has injuries that reflect a person defending themselves. (e.g. she has bruises from being throttled, he has scratch marks on his face as she tries to fight him off). In addition, the mis-reporting of abuse by women is actually very low. Most crimes have a rate of around 4% (higher for insurance related crimes), but women falsely accusing men is lower than average. Again, the stats vary according to which reporting methods are used, but possibly as low as 0.5% of abuse/rape reports are false.

"Finally, what do we make of findings that domestic violence is in the majority of cases mutual?"

Which findings are these, and is there mutuality in the level of physical harm, which you cited as your measure in the previous paragraph?

In my view, whether or not one party is bodily "stronger" is irrelevant in itself, the matter of importance for criminal liability being infliction of physical harm, or residue of past harm, as measurable by medical triage at the time of or shortly after reporting.

Aside from the issue of criminal liability, no one should have to put up with an abusive relationship, regardless of gender. Sheer offensive or defensive capacity should never pressure anyone into believing that they must "take it" or "put up with it".

Surely it's that straightforward. If not, why not?

Finally, what do we make of findings that domestic violence is in the majority of cases mutual? In such cases, gendered results should not obscure the fact of a broad cultural template, a faulty and unhealthy one, for the resolution of "private" or "personal" conflicts.

On that page, I wouldn't be surprised if adults who spank their children were largely the same adults who believe in the old "one-two" for getting their way in other relationships.

Oh, and there's a difference between someone who 'loses it' and gets angry in individual situations and someone with mental health problems. e.g. a person who gets angry and hits their partner, however often, isn't mentally ill if they can hold it together at work/out with friends/out in public. A person who is mentally ill could lose it at a quite random moment as they can't control their behaviour, whereas an abusive person is very much in control and only displays that behaviour when they have something to gain from it.

When talking about criminology, then Mh would be assessed by a team of health care experts. My SIL does assessments and gets called in if someone is arrested for a violent crime, then gives a report. there would also be people who had a medical history so there's background. It can get very complex when someone does have a medical issue and displays controlling or violent behaviour. Alcohol or drugs cause similar issues. The current thinking is that anyone who is convicted of domestic violence has to get clean of drugs/alcohol and have any medical situations under control before they enroll in an abusers intervention program. I live near a center that runs one of the best programs in the country (US) and have visited. Obviously I can't speak about that as I signed a confidentiality clause. However, it is clear that men who clean up from drink/drugs etc or who get the right med. support for MH, can still then display some clearly abusive and violent tendencies. So although there can be factors which make behaviour more outrageous/violent etc. it doesn't cause the behaviour, it just gives an excuse. The center near me does have groups for women, but rarely has to run them as there are so few women who are convicted of domestic abuse (and let's just assume, although I could dig up stats. that incidents to conviction ratios are equal whether male or female perpetrator). When women are convicted it tends to be from a female/female relationship.

Don't know much about anthropological studies - from what I've read, many of them are done by 'embedding' and using qualitative data. So someone goes and lives there for a year or two and records information. That way they do have a pretty good idea of social mores. That would also be how they would find out about any no consensual sex.

That's interesting and useful Kickass though I'd love to know on what basis that assessment of those tribes or cultures is made. After all, a culture with no conception of consent WRT sex can report no rape, for example.

The mental health issue is interesting in that I'd regard any individual engaged in acts of violence (like DV or getting into pub brawls) or whatever, as pathological in their capacity to manage their own dissatisfactions. Is losing your temper and hitting someone itself a symptom of a kind of mental illness.

Buffy - don't know the answer to that. I just did a course on domestic violence and the instructor said that there isn't a clear cause and effect demonstrated yet, but there is this high level of correlation. Ofcourse, it could be that having too much fast food causes both violence and gender imbalance.

Oops - can't name specific tribes as the course was about US/European, and not meant to be anthropological. Mainly African and S American tribes. there are quite a few where there appears to be equal respect (although fairly fixed gender roles) and almost non-existent gender violence. So there ARE non-rape cultures out there. It was mentioned in the DeKeseredy & Schwartz book, and briefly by Lundy Bancroft.

Slightly different from the opening point - but if we can see greater equality (ie non-patriarchal) = less violence (not just male to female, but male to male) then we should be open to the argument that patriarchy is part of the cause, if not the sole reason, for a lot of violence.

wrt mental health, about 10% of domestic abuse or stranger attacks/rape etc is attributable to mental health problems. Most people with mental health problems are likely to be violent to themselves IF they are violent.

Ooo, thanks kinckassangel I see you do have some familiarity with those figures. Which societies are you naming when you talk about low incidence of gendered violence?

I've found this a really interesting discussion too thanks all. I remember first reading about consciousness raising groups of the seventies when I was an undergrad in the late 90s and really longing for that kind of thing; the FWR boards really feel like that to me.

I'd be interested to know whether or not child abuse of this kind was more perpetrated by women or men, I did a quick Google search but didn't find anything in the few minutes I had. There was a lot of discussion of 'parental violence' but couldn't help wondering if this was masking a form of gendered violence.

One thing I did find interesting was discussions of what used to be called 'Munchausen by Proxy' though that label apparently is contentious now. In 75ish per cent of cases it is perpetrated by the mother, in 6 per cent by the father, presumably the remaining cases are perpetrated by caregivers, though I couldn't find gender breakdowns of this. A couple of things I thought were interesting in this context were the possibility that this were a systemic form of female violence; I couldn't get incidence figures but don't know comparator figures in any case, but I'd bet it was relatively rare; it's interesting because it's both actual violence but operates symbolically in that its primary target is the status of the caregiver, the victim is collateral damage (though I wonder if you might say this about "straight forward" DV, yet there must be an element of directed damage insofar as the perpetrator wishes direct harm on the victim? Not sure about the relative psychology here); and also, what a convoluted and indirect way to perpetrate violence. Which is, probably not coincidentally, a brilliant way of describing historical forms of female agency and access to power in general; convoluted and indirect.

You would think that but there are plenty of stats to show that fathers are far more likely to commit violence to a child than a mother.

Think about the stereotype if 'wait until your father gets home'.

There are some societies where rape and violence against women are close to zero. These societies may have some strict gender expectations but they are also typified by equal respect throughout the community. In fact there is a very strong correlation between objectification of women and violence against them. There's also a lot of respect research and work looking at whether one causes the other. DeKeseredy and Schwartz with Make Peer Support Theory is a good place to start on this topic.