Study questions whether judgements of partner abuse are ‘rose-tinted’ towards women

So even an article on violence against pregnant women has to include men.

That's not inclusive; that's spiteful.

Warning: this report is shocking as it is about domestic abuse of pregnant women. It refers to them clearly as 'women' so that's .. not 'good', how could anything associated with violence towards a pregnant woman be good, but you know what I mean, terminology-wise.
379 domestic abuse victims treated at maternity hospitals over three years

The help lines provided at the end of the article include 'AnyMan' - I googled it as I thought it might be a support service to help men challenge their own violence towards women, which would be useful, but it turns out that it is part of Men's Aid, for male victims of DV.
So even an article on violence against pregnant women has to include men.

This may be outing, but I actually work in Research Funding: albeit with more scientific work which has unambiguous outcomes and which involves having a fairly solid grasp of human biology at the vesy least...

I wonder if one of the difficulties here is the scale of IPV that involves alcohol and/or drugs. In those cases, it might be more difficult for some observers to adjudicate levels of responsibility.

It's profoundly irritating that there's no discussion of the funding. I'm surprised by this. I was a least expecting an acknowledgement of research council or institutional support. It's isn't enough to declare there are no conflicts of interest. I usually have to fill out a detailed COI/DOI form just to review something, never mind submit it to a journal.

Yes. This challenge needs to be repeated in simple words every single time someone tries to prove that domestic violence is not a sex-differentiated issue.

All the fancy words and revised methodolgies purporting to show male violence against women and girls is less of an issue than commonly believed are easily demonstratable to be false as long as this stark horrible fact exists.

That research is of such poor quality that I would expect an agenda. And if I was a woman in that department, after looking at the papers of the researcher, I would feel wary of being treated with respect.

I really do have a problem with studies like this - not because I think that non-physical abuse is not a serious issue, but because I expect things like logic, clarity, rigor, consistency in academic work.

So a clear, well-researched study of bullying, psychological abuse, coercive control, etc. would be welcome.
But mixing up two distinct things - the psychological and the physical - in one study as if they were the same thing calls into question any 'additional insights' it might claim to provide.

Heterosexual men have had what, 50 years now? in which to emulate women and set up grass-roots movements to campaign for protection and shelters and safe exit routes for men who are suffering domestic abuse from their wives.

And yet they have not. It's quite the mystery isn't it?

I don't really have a problem with studies like this.

None of it means that all violence is the same, or equally dangerous, or whatever you want to say about that. And it's also the case that plenty of feminist have worked to have things like coercive control, psychological violence, etc, taken more seriously. So - if it's taken more seriously it's going to open up new ways of thinking about violence.

But I just don't see how it isn't reasonable and valid to collect all this other information as well, and understand its implications. People study a lot less significant things just for curiosity - these things are actually important to the people experiencing or involved with them and have a social impact as well.

And for anyone really focused on physical violence against women by men, I think looking at a wider set of questions has potential to give additional insights. Which is a good thing.

It's an assault on the English language. In fact, it's been one of their most successful tactics so far; gas-light the public about what commonly-understood words mean, and just keep doing it.

There's a similar attempt at de-gendering rape and sexual assault going on in Ireland - 'men are rape victims too', rape crisis centres are open to men - not trans men-who-ID-as-women, just men full stop, and of course the use of the term 'gender-based violence' instead of violence against women.

But if you look at who actually turns up at Sexual Assault Treatment Units,
91% are women. Not much gender equality there...
2023 annual report from the National Sexual Assault Treatment Unit

I can't access the MAPS paper, but note this:

'The term ‘minor attracted person’ (MAP) has been used to reduce any stigma that may be caused by conflating pedophilia and child molestation (Freimond, Citation2013).'

God forbid anyone stigmatise paedophiles.

Incredibly weak research IMO. Starts with a conclusion and finds conclusion. Quelle surprise. Use of sweeping claims based on two studies. Emotional framing ‘rose tinted’, which is an odd choice of language when discussing domestic abuse however you define it.

Ahhhh now there is a clearer picture.

One author also wrote about 'MAPS', I note.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10538712.2019.1663970

Yes.

I remember a hospital A+E consultant discussing this. The sheer scale of the physical violence perpetrated by male abuse perpetrators was simply catastrophic compared to the violence perpetrated by female perpetrators. Multiple broken bones, choking, stabbing. There is no comparison between male violence and female violence. Women simply do not have the physical power to overwhelm men in the way that men can overwhelm women. Look at the amount of women murdered by intimate partners vs males.

This is more misogyny dressed up as progressive.

Oh god. Another bloody shift to ‘they’re as bad as each other’ that will infiltrate policy and judicial decisions. It’s gone so well for women in divorce so should be fine. Not.

It's been a while since you were in uni!

That study can fuck off.

It's funny when 'gendered views' are important, and when they're not, isn't it?

I honestly can't be doing with this. Two-to-three women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. When two-to-three men a week are being killed by their female partner or ex, then come back to me.

TempestTost makes a good point about generally toxic relationships vs. abusive ones.

And Ereshkigalangcleg also pointing out that sexual violence isn't included - to which I'll add that last time I looked at violence stats, they also excluded women over a certain age (I think it was 70) and capped the number of incidents counted.

There was also some research into domestic violence in Scotland that discovered that men lied - in their first interviews they'd report incidences, then, in later interviews they freely admitted that they had exaggerated and lied to make their partners look bad. I'll see if I can find it again - it was a fair few years ago now.

Makes me think of those defences (are they still a thing?) to murder that “I just lost my mind, I was so angry, I wasn’t responsible for my actions” etc

Yes legally it's called "loss of control". It used to be called "provocation" and it is frequently used as a partial defence to murder, converting it to manslaughter. And yes frequently by men who have murdered their wives or girlfriends when they are angry with them. It's supposed to completely exclude sexual infidelity as a "trigger" however in practice this only applies if it is considered to be the only one.

The loss of control defence is a partial defencee^ to the crime of murderr^ in the jurisdiction of England and Waless^. It was created by section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 20099^.[1] The definition of "loss of control" in the Act is defined in a way that requires multiple requirements to be met, and with a number of listed exceptions that can render the defence inapplicable.
In particular, for a defendant to rely on the defence, there must either be "fear of serious violence", or the combination of "circumstances of an extremely grave character" and a "justifiable sense of being seriously wronged". Revenge for sexual infidelity is specifically ruled out as a qualifying trigger, although R v Clintonn^ has interpreted this exception as applying only to cases where sexual infidelity is the singlecause of loss of control.[2]
The loss of control defence does not exonerate the person who loses control; instead it downgrades the charge for that person from murder to manslaughterr^, and does not change the nature of the offence for other perpetrators who may have been involved.[1]
The partial defence of loss of control was introduced to replace the partial defence of provocationn^, which was abolished by the same legislation.[3][4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossoffcontroldefence

Do these researchers take that into account?

They grudgingly concede it at one point.