Domestic violence stats?

[Ringsender2]

Hi

I came across this item in the comments of a tweet about DV.
www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2020/0123/1110351-7-myths-about-domestic-violence/

It's by a PhD candidate in an Irish uni.

It doesn't ring true to me but maybe that's just my received knowledge being inaccurate.

Does anyone know of other studies that assess comparable things and what their conclusions are?

TIA

Try Irish version of ONS/ govt stats site etc.

They must have one

Horses mouth is always best IME

I believe DV stats are likely to be a massive underestimate anyway. The average victim is abused multiple times before reporting and presumably many never report at all.

The most common pattern of violence is bidirectional perpetration, meaning both men and women perpetrate equally in both frequency and severity of the violence

I struggle with this - is she really trying to say that women kill men just as often in domestic situations, as men kill women?!

I'm struggling with it too.

I've just found this: insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/4015/1/Bates_HowDarkPersonalities.pdf

It seems as though the conclusions are based on analysis of questionnaires voluntarily filled in by 204 women and 138 men. On what basis they participated in the study I'm not clear (self-selection, invitation, etc.)

It would be interesting to know how the results presented in each of the points in the RTE* article stack up against a much larger sample of DV/IPV victims/survivors

(*note that RTE is the national broadcaster in Ireland - like the BBC - which is why it's concerning that this study is presented as the only 'facts' on DV/IPV, and why I'm keen to find out whether it truly is representative of DV/IPV at large, or just within this small study of 342 people)

That is really badly structured, hard to read.

No summary of findings?

I searched the word severity, wasn't in there.

Dark personalities feels like a strange phrase to use in a scientific study!

The research the article is linking to rarely supports the claims the article is making. For instance in "Myth: Women aren’t as strong as men, so men don’t get injured" they link to research that questioned men admitted to an A&E then reported the rates of Intimate Partner Violence as though they were the cause of the injuries that sent the men to A&E. But if you read the research paper you see that the men were asked if they had suffered IPV in the last 12 months. There was no cataloguing of injury.

It also cherry picks it's studies to back up its claims, rather than looking at papers that collate research. So, for instance, the "The heterosexual pattern for perpetration is 50% bidirectional, 35% female unidirectional, and 15% male unidirectional." claim is backed up by one study. But other studies find different patterns as was indicated by another (misused) paper linked to earlier in the article.

And, of course the whole article is based on this idea of these "Myths", most of them stated as absolutes that, I don't think, most people think at all. And then it "busts" them, not by showing what the actual situation is, but by simply showing that they aren't absolutes afterall and so implies that the situation isn't worse for women.

What horseshit, sorry. When men kill women, a lot of the time (probably most of the time), they don’t have a clear intention to kill. Instead, they intend to beat them up severely but it goes further (which is still enough to convict for murder). So if women were just as violent (or more so, according to this), we’d also expect to see two men a week killed by current and former partners. If men experienced abuse at the same or higher rate as women, we’d have male-only shelters, men would be scared of women, women would be convicted of violence on a Freud t basis. We don’t. All the studies that show women as being ‘just as bad’ are self-reported and are not backed up by evidence of physical and psychological injury.

Honestly, this sort of stuff is so frustrating, especially when it’s being spread by women. You don’t see people jumping in and saying that children abusing their parents is just as prevalent as vice versa when the NSPCC launches a campaign.

I’d look to someone who has worked in this field for many years like Karen Ingala-Smith if you want a more accurate picture. But the one presented here is not accurate.

Frequent, not Freud!

I’d look to someone who has worked in this field for many years like Karen Ingala-Smith if you want a more accurate picture. But the one presented here is not accurate.

Karen Ingala-Smith interests are very...err...focused. I can't see how anyone could regards her as providing an accurate picture of domestic violence.

Dark personalities feels like a strange phrase to use in a scientific study!

At a glance of the paper, it seems the phrase is used as a short-hand for those with the 'dark triad' set of personalities.

@sawdustformypony

I’d look to someone who has worked in this field for many years like Karen Ingala-Smith if you want a more accurate picture. But the one presented here is not accurate.

Karen Ingala-Smith interests are very...err...focused. I can't see how anyone could regards her as providing an accurate picture of domestic violence.

What are her focused interests? Why would she be unable to provide an accurate picture do you think?

She's focused on male violence on female victims. She is well known for collating the names of women that have been killed by men (and possibly only by those men that were either in or had been in relationships and/or related to the women).

@sawdustformypony

She's focused on male violence on female victims. She is well known for collating the names of women that have been killed by men (and possibly only by those men that were either in or had been in relationships and/or related to the women).

That’s right. I mean if you have details of the men who are killed by female partners at a rate of over 100 a year, feel free to enlighten us. If these don’t exist, perhaps that’s a very clear sign that domestic abuse is predominantly a male problem and that most of the victims of serious violence are female. Perhaps you can tell us of the men fleeing the home with their children, terrified that their female partner will track them down. Where women do kill men, it tends to be in response to years of abuse at the man’s hands. See Sally Challen, Kiranjit Ahluwalia, Emma Humphrys etc. Men who pipe up with ‘women are just as bad’ have no clue of the horrors some women have to endure at the hands of men, or they do but want to play it down.

That's right

Yes, it is - If one were looking for unbiased accurate data on domestic violence, then it seems to me that, Karen Ingala-Smith won't be on your go-to list.

It is difficult to get precise statistics on DA but national crime surveys and stats on death and serious injury suggest that it is men who are the key perpetrators. Karen Ingala-Smith is not ‘biased’, as her work is backed up by these stats and studies. But as I said, do feel free to tell me about the men who get killed by women and the large numbers of men terrified for their life by women.

I should imagine that it is very difficult to get anything approaching reliable data for domestic violence.

It also seems abundantly clear to me that Karen Ingala-Smith is dripping with bias. She is very dismissive of violence against males and very keen to victim blame.

@NumberTheory the paper I linked to is just because i could find it, and some of the research results seemed to be related to the rte article. The paper extends to the Dark tetrads or whatever too.

It's not my field of research, so I was wondering if anyone else more familiar than me could contextualise it.

It seems from "common sense" and received knowledge that violent DV is not equal in direction, however I don't want to just assume that.

It concerns me that this is on the website of the national broadcaster with very little to back it up. If other studies/stats refute it I will be contacting them and asking them to either remove or provide more info on the study, and other contrasting sources of info

[quote Ringsender2]@NumberTheory the paper I linked to is just because i could find it, and some of the research results seemed to be related to the rte article. The paper extends to the Dark tetrads or whatever too.

It's not my field of research, so I was wondering if anyone else more familiar than me could contextualise it.

It seems from "common sense" and received knowledge that violent DV is not equal in direction, however I don't want to just assume that.

It concerns me that this is on the website of the national broadcaster with very little to back it up. If other studies/stats refute it I will be contacting them and asking them to either remove or provide more info on the study, and other contrasting sources of info[/quote]
Ringsender, I may be misunderstanding you here but wanted to be clear I wasn't referring to your links in my post but to the links the person who wrote the article was linking to in the article to back up their claims. I was saying the article attempts to appear evidence based but isn't.

I haven't looked at your links (sorry, not much time and plenty to get through with just the article!) but I share your concerns about an article like that on a mainstream website.

@sawdustformypony

I should imagine that it is very difficult to get anything approaching reliable data for domestic violence.

It also seems abundantly clear to me that Karen Ingala-Smith is dripping with bias. She is very dismissive of violence against males and very keen to victim blame.

See, this is the kind of fuckwittedness that really annoys me.

Let me take it bit by bit

Reliability for DV data - I fully agree. Accurate data is nigh on impossible to collect. But the data that is collated is pretty clear: men are the main perpetrators of all violent acts, no matter who the victim.

Karen Ingala-Smith is dripping with bias - do you mean that no woman is allowed to have a focus that excludes men? She reports on the number of women killed by partners. That is the data she picks out of the ONS data.

The data is freely available. Is natinally collected data. Where is the bias, other than the specific data she chooses to analyse?

ONS data includes males. Anyone who choose to count up the male victims of domestic violence are welcome to do so. But there is no expectation of anyone to include any gorup that they do not wish to focus on.

Dismissive of violence against males? Nope. She simply doesn't focus on male victims. Because she chooses not to! being a feminist that seems reasonable!

Victim blame? Oh, do show us any instance of that...

... waiting...

See my post on 12th Oct at 9:02. I was challenging PP proposition that Ingala-Smith was a good source to provide one with an accurate picture of domestic violence. I don't give hoot as to why she has the focus that she does, but given the point of the thread, it's just not an accurate picture of DV as a whole.

Sorry to read you were so annoyed.

...to be continued, work beckons.

So, basically, you made it up! Because, what, "Be Kind"?

I doubt anyone reading KISs stats thinks she is attempting to convey an accurate picture of the whole of DV in the UK.

To paraphrase myself, that is sheer unadulterated tosh!

Never mind. We can see it for what it was!

I doubt anyone reading KISs stats thinks she is attempting to convey an accurate picture of the whole of DV in the UK.

Exactly.

So what was your gripe again?

And come on, I'm still waiting for your proof of her victim blaming...

I highly recommend reading the book "See What You Made Me Do" by Jess Hill. It has a chapter called "When Women Use Violence" where she explores the claims that "women are as bad as men", looking at research carried out dating back to the 1970s. She also says that, over the years, the minimising of women's violence, or denial that it happens at all, has allowed men's rights activists to "fill the void with disinformation".

A pertinent point to make is that, overwhelmingly, men killed by their female partners are violent perpetrators themselves. Quoting a few mentions from the book:

In a review in New South Wales, it found that of 29 men killed by their female partner in the period 2000-2010, 28 had previous for violence.

In Russia 4 out of 5 women convicted for premeditated murder were defending themselves against domestic abuse.

In the 1970s the domestic murder rate in the US for men and women was roughly the same at 1,000 per year. Following the introduction of women's refuges the rate of males killed by females between 1976 and 2002 FELL by 69%, simply because women had the opportunity to escape violence at home that could have led to them killing their partner in self defence.

Her conclusion to the chapter reads:

"Here is the story, simply put. When it comes to family conflict and domestic hostility in heterosexual relationships, women are just as capable of being physically and psychologically abusive, and can cause serious distress and even trauma to their male partners. But when it comes to coercive control - the most dangerous form of domestic abuse, suffered by 60-80% of women who seek help - women make up an extremely small minority of perpetrators.
Domestic abuse IS gendered. In it's most dangerous forms, it is a crime perpetrated by men against women."