Domestic Violence - Far from gender neutral

I don't think we will be getting an apology from youpuffins... Sadly

Christ on a bike... that poor woman, I hope she pulls through, I read she was in a critical condition. It's come to something when a 20 yr old man allegedly thinks that the way to get rid of a baby he's not interested in, is to beat the shit out the mother.

And if it turns out that this is wholly incorrect, I'll come back and apologise.

A 20 yr old man has been arrested, I live v v close and its being said that the purpose of the attack was to kill the baby.

By that I mean, were they related... sorry

That incident made me feel sick Xxed. Do they know if the perps had anything to do with the foetus?

A young woman in Peckham who was 32 weeks pregnant was violently attacked. Two assailants stamped on her bump. The baby didn't survive, pregnancy is often a trigger for dv or already existing dv intensifies. If bothers me immensely that people make false equivalencies between male dv and female dv.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/17/woman-critical-condition-losing-unborn-child-stamping-attack

eevonia the reason why state statement is surprising is that it has long been perceived that men are far more likely to be the victim of violent crime. (All violent crime). And if you removed DV from the equation that would be true.

Outside of the home men are statistically in far greater danger of violence than women. Inside the home the opposite is true.

Yy Dream!

It said nearly half of all violent crime is committed against women. Not nearly half of all domestic violence. Violent crime includes, but is not limited to, gang shootings, pub scuffles, assassinations, stabbing of teenagers for being black at the wrong bus stop, and beating of passing tradesmen over the head with police batons (on the rare occasions the last two are acknowledged to be a crime).

Debunking post is debunked. Violence does not only take place in the home. I'm sorry if this comes as a shock to you.

DV is a gendered issue because it relies on the exploitation of an imbalance of power (not usually/only physical power). In society as it is currently structured that imbalance generally benefits men at the expense of women, hence why the perpetrators are more often male and the survivors and victims more often female.

If it is portrayed incorrectly as a gender neutral issue that hides the underlying societal cause of DV and what it is that keeps the victims of DV from escaping.

Making it about funding, addresses the symptom not the cause.

It is the underlying imbalance within domestic relationships and the roles that are pushed on to both genders but particularly women that need to be addressed.

"And who are the perpetrators of those crimes"

That's not the point of the article. The article is talking about the gender of victims, and while it keeps trying to make out women are the majority of victims it makes a mistake by revealing just over half of victims are male.

Article is debunked. Victims of domestic violence are more-or-less equally men and women.

And look at the way the author tries to trivialise and down-play violence against men. What a feminist.

And also a cheap propaganda tactic to use a stock image posed by actors of a man with a clenched fist standing over a woman on the floor.

And as men are half the population, what's your shock factor, exactly?

And who are the perpetrators of those crimes, EE?

The article contradicts itself. Did anyone spot this:

"and that nearly half of all violent crime is committed against women"

That means men are the victims of over half of all violent crime.

"A second measurement issue pertains to the scope of violence measures. The 3 questions included in the Add Health study do not capture all forms of violence that occur between relationship partners, including many of the more severe forms of partner violence on the Conflict Tactics Scale (e.g., used a knife or gun, choked, or burned). Questions about emotional, verbal, psychological, or sexual aggression were also not included. Similarly, only a single item assessed injury to victims and it focused on injury frequency and excluded injury severity and whether medical attention was needed or sought. Thus, it is unclear whether the data presented here would be similar had the violence and injury assessment been more thorough or if different forms of violence had been measured and analyzed separately. Perhaps more important than the limited measures of violence and injury is the fact that no data were collected about the causes or function of violence. Such data are needed to understand why relationships with reciprocal violence are more violent and more likely to result in injury. We speculated that retaliation may lead to escalating violence and injury, but data are needed to examine this hypothesis. Future studies should focus on the causes and context of reciprocal and nonreciprocal IPV.

It is interesting that in that report you linked the reciprocation is as reported by the partner.

"In analyses of reports of violence frequency and injury occurrence, 2 clear findings emerged. First, perpetrators who were men were more likely to inflict an injury on a partner than were those who were women, regardless of reciprocity "

Do you have stats that perpetrators are 50:50 male:female?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

Stats are all over the place depending on the report, which is why I just looked at homicides. That particular report I linked says (short version) that violence is 50% reciprocal but for the remainder 50% women are more likely to initiate violence than men. Another report says 50% reciprocal but women initiate in only one third of the remaining 50%. Probably varies according to where the data is collected more than anything. In parts of the US violence enacted by women has increased two and a half fold per capita since the 1980's but the majority of female violence is enacted on other women, not men.

"In the english speaking western world who strikes the first blow is gender neutral "

This article is about victims, not perpetrators. We do not know the sex of the perpetrators. Do you have stats that perpetrators are 50:50 male:female?

Mide, the people killed by their partners will very frequently have suffered previous DV from them. So yes, the frequency of death is a proxy for the frequency of serious abuse.

That’s roughly what I think yonic. The ratio of deaths at the hands of an intimate partner vary nation to nation. In some parts of the world its a horror story for women, as you can imagine. In the english speaking western world who strikes the first blow is gender neutral but who ultimately sends their partner to the grave is still heavily weighted against women. Based off what I can locate if you reduce it to the level of deaths (which is very grim but since domestic violence is very much a hidden crime you could argue it will often take a corpse to reveal it) men make up no more than 25% of intimate partner homicides. Feminism focuses on domestic violence framed in terms of intimate partner violence subjected on women. Domestic violence resulting in death in terms of wider family relationships ends up with a 40:60 male-female split because male on male violence moves it there. The article this thread is based around favours working out statistics on a per incident basis, so for the articles sake if Mz X were the victim of 100 incidents it would equal 10 men being the victim of 10 incidents. But if people want to spin domestic violence statistics that way it would probably overwhelm even the ratio of male intimate partner homicides, since you can only die once. Overall if I apportioned $, based off what I can find, I think a 40:60 split in funding is too generous to men but 20:80 inadequate.

Also, probably much like dancingbear, I think the overall social attitude of violence on men at the hands of women is in need of an an update. if a wife posts online about feeling sorry she hit her spouse she gets manifest different responses than if a husband posts the same regret about hitting his in male forums. I have seen victim blamers, minimisers and perpetrator apologists emerge openly to comfort the abusive wife like it was still the 1950s. The equivalent does not happen in male social forums, the abusive guy is, at best, welcomed in terms of coming forward and counselled to seek therapy for anger management. Male on female violence is a social tragedy, female on male violence seems only somewhat further along than social entertainment. Men in particular need to give up the 'I/he should never feel abused/threatened by a woman because its unmanly'.

I think the fact it was a woman highlights why we need more women on top positions. who originally capped the number of attacks at 5 and why? Was it a convenient admin decision?

In the book 'why women don't ask' they give an example that women were kept out of science studies on some kind of drug, as the scientists knew, including them skewed the results. When a female scientist was in charge, she looked at why the women tests had skewed results, and realised for years women had been treated with a drug that didn't suit them

Yes so there is 70% more violence against women than previously thought. And that is taken only from police recorded figures.
Well I went to the police recently about violence against me by my H, and one of the first things they said to me was a women generally experiences 35 incidents before she even phones the police. So add that into the total and multiply it up to see how bad it is.

Also, I was interested to read it was a woman who uncovered the findings.

It's always makes me think of the studies that concluded that when in a mixed conversation if women talk more than 25% of the time they are seen as dominating the discussion.

I've never heard a woman suggest that men shouldn't have male only discussions about men's issues. As was mentioned earlier, women are happy to support Movember for example, and are generally positive about the idea that it encourages men to bring health issues to the fore so they're not ignored/something that can't be talked about. I don't think anyone has said they even want to exclude men from this discussion, they just don't want to have to change the conversation to one on someone else's terms.