Still confused about patriarchy

[PixelZing]

What's the feminist take on the fact that, even if we live in such patriarchy, the attention given to issues affecting men/boys is insignificant compared to the same attention given to issues of women/girls?

The list of such issues seems pretty long to me (paternity leave, family court bias, domestic abuse shelters, unequal sentencing, workplace fatalities, due process for false accusations, under-representation in HEAL, men's health funding, suicide rates, homelessness, ...) so I'd say there is plenty to advocate about.

(and BTW I don't even understand why we clump men and boys in the same category, wouldn't be more humane to put boys in the same category of women/girls, since they are affected by similar problems that affect girls?)

Which study are you referring to? The link I posted was a metastudy of 1700 peer reviewed studies. Surely you don't expect me to read all of them.

What you're talking about is domestic abuse/coercive control rather than DV and I'd say that controlling behaviour like isolating somebody from family and friends or bullying them into moving away from support networks (so they're more vulnerable/easier to control) isn't something to be taken lightly. Minimising it down to "not being allowed down the pub" says a lot about your view of men tbh.

You didn’t post a link to any study. You posted a link to a rather weird-looking page, not maintained by any academic journal, to a page that summarised the findings of loose group of studies, including the meta-analysis quoted.

I’m profoundly grateful to have been born into an era which allows women enough education to see right through clowns like you. Enjoy your victimhood.

You seem pretty aggressive for some reason, but tbf it seems to be the way on here from what I've seen that anybody who doesn't immediately agree with the 'women = good / men = bad' premise must be 'a misogynist' or a man by default.

I'm not arguing the case either way. I'm just saying that there does seem to be research that supports what the previous poster said. This 'weird-looking page' as you put it does seem to have been compiled by some pretty capable individuals at face value - it lists them at the bottom. Mostly university academics but also ADVIP (Association of Domestic Violence Intervention Providers).

The page I linked says 'a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants at 20 universities and research institutions spent two years or more researching their topics and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized and organized'.

Sounds quite comprehensive to me tbh. I'm guessing that if they'd found that men were the main perpetrators you'd not have questioned it at all.

But I'm ultimately not vouching for this study or trying to prove any point. I'm just providing context that there is data that supports what the PP said.

And let's be honest, some of the studies we've seen people using on this forum have been laughable. I remember a fair few posters mentioning a study that 'proved that the majority of men would commit rape if they knew they could get away with it'.

I was a bit sceptical as no doubt some men would but I don't believe the majority would. Guess what, the study only featured about 50 male students from a single American University. So a tiny sample size, certainly not enough to make claims about 'the majority of men', and from a single age demographic and from one country. And to make matters worse I read in another article that the students were offered course credits for taking part in the study so it was highly likely that the young men just did it for the points and gave silly answers for shits and giggles.

I also remember another widely quoted study about '1 in 5' female college students having been raped. When I read the actual study then authors had included a disclaimer saying something like 'this study shouldn't be used as proof of anything'.

Basically, a large proportion of the participants wouldn't necessarily have agreed that they'd been raped because the authors had included women who'd later regretted having sex and then marked it as 'unwanted sex' or something like that. So there were cases of consensual sex which the participants later regretted effectively being marked as 'unwanted' and this being extrapolated into non-consensual sex. Completely illogical methodology which the authors admitted shouldn't be taken as 'proof' and yet people were shouting from the rooftops about '1 in 5 college students' etc.

It seems people will often cherry pick which studies to believe based on their own agendas/beliefs and will question pretty solid ones whilst endorsing extremely dodgy ones if it fits their argument.

Surely no one likes an echo chamber? Why would you try and exclude 50% of the population from a debate?

I was talking about crime statistics. They don't back up the assertions that women are the primary instigator of DV anywhere in the world.

How do you define instigator?

If I follow you round the house shouting at you and not letting you get away are you the instigator if you eventually snap and lash out?

Even if you're right, and women - in the absence of any hard evidence - are every bit as abusive as men, the person who stays at home and does not earn faces far more barriers to escape than the breadwinner.

This is what has to change. Women need their own financial power. Deference to a man who could flip and kill you is a terrible foundation for family life.

You can keep on shadow-boxing against imaginary feminists if you feel like, of course. Mind you put those tissues in the bin when you're done.

note - the meta-analysis could have used coercive control, which is well-defined in law, as a criterion for abuse. The authors opted instead to use the entirely made-up term "emotional terrorism". They also published in in their own journal, and peer-reviewed it using their own writers. More tissues, sir?

I'm not sure what your example has to do with anything. I'm sure you're not suggesting that given the strength and size of men it's acceptable to hit women.

Not so laid back it seems.

I was simply trying to clarify what you define as an instigator?

A "primary instigator" is the main person to cause something, negative or harmful to occur.

So if I verbally abuse you, act in a threatening manner, cause you severe distress, don't allow you to leave and eventually you lash out and hit me who is at fault?

You're moving away from the original point to hypothetical scenarios. The original point was that women are the primary instigators in domestic violence and the crime statistics on domestic violence and VAWAG don't back up that assertion.

There are lots of other studies too. I'm not trying to turn it into a war of the sexes. It's just that we always hear about violent men but people start frothing as soon as you mention female violence.

I've seen it discussed loads of times on here. It always goes the same way. Posters ask for proof, somebody posts it, then the naysayers go all quiet. But then you see them popping up on another thread making the same claims as if they've not seen the previous data.

The point is that there are plenty of people on here that would refuse to believe the data even if it were 100% proven to be true.

So if I shout and scream at you until you hit me are you the instigator for hitting me or am I the instigator due to my behaviour?

We've already resolved what the main instigator is. Please see my post above.

We already know who are predominantly arrested and found guilty of domestic violence.

100% male violence is the biggest issue because we're actually getting killed by them. No amount of black eyes can equal being bludgeoned to death.

It's a bit like the argument people give of "oh, but chihuahuas are the most likely dog to bite somebody". End of the day it's the XL bullies that are killing people, because when they attack they do so much more damage.

I think it's a similar situation with men. The average man could kill most women with his bare hands in well under a minute whilst the reverse is generally not true.

However, that's not really my point. To combat male violence we need to get men onboard and it's not really going to help if we don't lead by example. Yes, a black eye isn't really comparable to being murdered but no doubt there are a thousand instances of lesser violence for every murder.

I mean, is a bloke really going to want to be lectured about male violence when he's sat there nursing yet another split lip after his partner had one too many lambrinis again? Especially if he's not the violent type himself?

So when women say "oh, well there's nothing we can do....men need to sort it among themselves". Well, there's actually plenty we can do. We could try and make sure we're not lecturing them on DV whilst simultaneously perpetrating it more than they do. Even if we're not killing them as often it's still a bit hypocritical IMO, especially if we won't even acknowledge it or make the slightest effort.

So which person does this describe: A "primary instigator" is the main person to cause something, negative or harmful to occur.

The one shouting or the one who lashes out?

Nice try, pal. Avenging your hurt feelings on here isn't going to clear your police record / get you a better divorce settlement / stop your ex outing you as a violent abuser [delete as appropriate]. Grow up.

I'm sorry you don't understand what a primary instigator is despite my explanation. My point was about data that purports to show women as the primary instigators of domestic violence when crime statistics don't back that up.

Well, I found the previous thread. Here are the studies that were linked.....

The theory that women perpetrate intimate partner violence at roughly similar rates as men has been termed "gender symmetry". The earliest empirical evidence of gender symmetry was presented in the 1975 U.S. National Family Violence Survey carried out by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles on a nationally representative sample of 2,146 "intact families". The survey found 11.6% of women and 12% of men had experienced some kind of intimate partner violence in the last twelve months, also 4.6% of men and 3.8% of women had experienced "severe" intimate partner violence.

Since 1975, numerous other empirical studies have found evidence of gender symmetry in intimate partner violence. For example, in the United States, the National Comorbidity Study of 1990-1992 found 18.4% of men and 17.4% of women had experienced minor intimate partner violence, and 5.5% of men and 6.5% of women had experienced severe intimate partner violence.[48][49]

In England and Wales, the 1995 "Home Office Research Study 191" found that in the twelve months prior to the survey, 4.2% of both men and woman between the ages of 16 and 59 had been assaulted by an intimate.[50]

The Canadian General Social Survey of 2000 found that from 1994 to 1999, 4% of men and 4% of women had experienced intimate partner violence in a relationship in which they were still involved, 22% of men and 28% of women had experienced intimate partner violence in a relationship which had now ended, and 7% of men and 8% of women had experienced intimate partner violence across all relationships, past and present.[35]

The 2005 Canadian General Social Survey, looking at the years 1999–2004 found similar data; 4% of men and 3% of women had experienced intimate partner violence in a relationship in which they were still involved, 16% of men and 21% of women had experienced intimate partner violence in a relationship which had now ended, and 6% of men and 7% of women had experienced intimate partner violence across all relationships, past and present.[36]

The 1975 National Family Violence Survey found that 27.7% of intimate partner violence cases were perpetrated by men alone, 22.7% by women alone and 49.5% were bidirectional. In order to counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only surveys were conducted, asking females to self-report, resulting in almost identical data.[52]

The 1985 National Family Violence Survey found 25.9% of IPV cases perpetrated by men alone, 25.5% by women alone, and 48.6% were bidirectional.[53]

A study conducted in 2007 by Daniel J. Whitaker, Tadesse Haileyesus, Monica Swahn, and Linda S. Saltzman, of 11,370 heterosexual U.S. adults aged 18 to 28 found that 24% of all relationships had some violence. Of those relationships, 49.7% of them had reciprocal violence. In relationships without reciprocal violence, women committed 70% of all violence.

In 1997, Philip W. Cook conducted a study of 55,000 members of the United States Armed Forces, finding bidirectionality in 60-64% of intimate partner violence cases, as reported by both men and women.[55]

The 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health found that 49.7% of intimate partner violence cases were reciprocal and 50.3% were non-reciprocal. When data provided by men only was analyzed, 46.9% of cases were reported as reciprocal and 53.1% as non-reciprocal. When data provided by women only was analyzed, 51.3% of cases were reported as reciprocal and 49.7% as non-reciprocal. The overall data showed 70.7% of non-reciprocal intimate partner violence cases were perpetrated by women only (74.9% when reported by men; 67.7% when reported by women) and 29.3% were perpetrated by men only (25.1% when reported by men; 32.3% when reported by women).[56]

The 2006 thirty-two nation International Dating Violence Study "revealed an overwhelming body of evidence that bidirectional violence is the predominant pattern of perpetration; and this ... indicates that the etiology of ipv is mostly parallel for men and women". The survey found for "any physical violence", a rate of 31.2%, of which 68.6% was bidirectional, 9.9% was perpetrated by men only, and 21.4% by women only. For severe assault, a rate of 10.8% was found, of which 54.8% was bidirectional, 15.7% perpetrated by men only, and 29.4% by women only.[57]

In 2000, John Archer conducted a meta-analysis of eighty-two IPV studies. He found that "women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently. Men were more likely to inflict an injury, and overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women."[58] By contrast, the U.S. Department of Justice finds that women make up 84% of spouse abuse victims and 86% of victims of abuse by a boyfriend or girlfriend.[59]

• More women (23%) than men (19.3%) have been assaulted at least once in their lifetime.
• Rates of female-perpetrated violence are higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%).
• Male and female IPV are perpetrated from similar motives.
• Studies comparing men and women in the power/control motive have mixed results overall.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticviolenceagainstmen#:~:text=The%20theory%20that%20women%20perpetrate,Straus%20and%20Richard%20J.

So an instigator can only be the person who throws the punch?

The question answers itself. What's done is done. Quiet reflection would help you.

Under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, domestic abuse is defined as:

"any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening, degrading and violent behaviour, including sexual violence, in the majority of cases by a partner or ex-partner."

So if for 5 years I do a selection of the above to my partner and one day she finally snaps and stabs me. I think we all agree that I am the instigator and she is the victim.