women who abuse men

[AsAMan]

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/david-mohney-dad-kills-family_n_6027412.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000021

His wife opposed that idea, and the couple fought about it. Orlando Sentinel reports that the husband sought a protective injunction against his wife earlier this year. He claimed she had assaulted him and said that their marriage was plagued by alcoholism and abuse. Court papers show that Cynthia Mohney had recently been in treatment for substance abuse.

And that will go on the record as another "man being abused". The fact the he was clearly a violent psychopath won't change that stat will it?

That's the danger of statistics when relating them to complex issues such as relationships. In cases such as this example (the OP's), with the only one thing being measured, it's a tick box to a yes/no question. But to understand what goes on, you need to look in depth at any given case - TAKING INTO ACCOUNT - both sides narratives, before deciding what's what. Trouble is that people aren't able to do that.

Many posters (NAPALT) on this site just love the use of yes/no stats. [Stat ALERT !] might be a good idea.

I read an article the other day about women being the biggest abusers of male children (including stats), and that they internalise that anger and turn into angry men who abuse women.

That is such misogynistic shite GirlWithTheLionHeart, sorry to be so blunt (and I'm hoping you think so too!).

Lundy Bancroft refutes that theory . Only about 50% of male abusers were abused as children, for a start. But why do women who are abused as children end up being abused as adults and men end up being the abusers. There are other dynamics at play. Plus when men have been abused why does the default position seem to be that they would become abusers. Surely it is more logical that they would be more sympathetic?

Lies, damned lies and statistics…

Physical and sexual abuse of male children is overwhelmingly done by men. However if you then include neglect in the abuse statistics statistics, that is overwhelmingly done by chaotic end-of-tether single parents who are overwhelmingly women because patriarchy, which means that it is possible to create a statistic that "proves" that women are more abusive to children than men.

Exactly, you'd have to drill down into the circumstances of each of these cases before making any meaningful assertions. BTW Karma do you have any 'stats' for your claim re: men committing abuse on children ?

cadno yes it's pp4-5 of this report.

I wish I could find the article, someone posted it on shitebook (a bloke)

I agree with you scallops

Something like 98-99% of all sexual abuse is committed by men. And Karen Ingala Smith has some stats on child killers here.

As violence in general is overwhelmingly perpetuated by men I think it's safe to assume violence against children follows a similar path (though for the reasons Karma said there maybe slightly more females than in the general stats, committing violence against children).

Sorry! For some reason I'd completely missed that Karma had replied to cadno.

Ignore me!

Karma Thanks for that link. I started to look at several of its own links quoted from pages 4 & 5. One that caught my eye was that of Sedlak, et al. (2010). This is an American report (nb possible problems extrapolating this to UK conclusions) that was put before their Congress.

One noticeable aspect of it was the large size of the raw data, and the number of variables collected. Just for an example of a concern with such data - such data must have come from a large number of collectors, that'll cause problems in itself. I think that statisticians have techniques to try to iron out such differences - how successful that is I don't know. But one has to wonder what the back story is here in these case ( - an aside, I see you put some of it down to Patriarchy - any stats for that ? - or - jus' preaching to the converted ?) and how safe such data is without this in depth analysis. The report's conclusion by the way is centred on abuse suffered between 'black' and 'white' children , again is it safe to extrapolate such data over here.

Lastly, it's a large report as I say and difficult to skim through - but I couldn't see the finding attributed to it in the NSPCC report. Maybe it involved some arithmetic. Stats eh ?