Stumbled across this while looking for something else...

[typhonblue]

Dr. Evil, could you give a bit more information on Archer's analysis?

I'd like to take a look at it too.

[woof]

I think it is Amp and I think it is here.

Thanks...Dr E
I think it was in my debate about this write up that I got banned from her site a few months back.....no reason given, she just stopped posting my replies....
I have found that they use each others faulty logic to defend each other, but if you can get to the source you will find that the original truth has been twisted, or distorted to fit their propaganda.

[lkanneg]

I'm finding all kinds of interesting stuff, now that I'm looking for it--anybody ever seen this one either or familiar with the author?

search | site index | faq | about us | what's new



Domestic Violence Factoids

Richard J. Gelles
University of Rhode Island Family Violence Research Program


Copyright © 1995 Richard J. Galles

Published: 1995

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Understanding Domestic Violence Factoids
According to the FBI, A Woman is Beaten Every (fill in the blank) SECONDS

First, the FBI does not calculate, tabulate, or track data on domestic violence. The FBI once did estimate that a women is beaten every 15 seconds, but they derived this estimate from Murray Straus, Richard J. Gelles, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz's book, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family.

Various other fact sheets list various other number of seconds. The number of seconds depends on the study (if there actually was one) and how violence was defined. For example, some versions of this factoid state that a women is beaten every 9 seconds and cite a study done by the Commonwealth Fund in July, 1993. The Commonwealth Fund study used the same measure as was used by Straus and his colleagues. Unlike Straus and his colleagues who defined "abuse" as acts of violence that were likely to cause and injury, the Commonwealth Fund defined "abuse" as every thing from pushing, shoving, and slapping to using a gun or knife.

There Are Four Million Women Beaten and Abused Each Year

Same problems as above. The Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz survey estimated that 2 million women were abused each year by their husbands. Straus and his colleagues speculated that if all the respondents told the truth and if ex-husbands and boyfriends were included, the number could be as high as 4 million. However, no study to date using a representative sample and measuring severe violence, has found more than 2 million abused women each year.

Domestic Violence is the Leading Cause of Injury to Women Between the Ages of 15 and 44 in the United States - More Than Car Accidents, Muggings, and Rapes Combined

This factoid has been attributed to both Surgeon General Antonia Novello and the Centers for Disease Control. The actual primary source of this "fact" is research by Evan Stark and Ann Flitcraft. It was probably Stark and Flitcraft who supplied the fact to CDC, who then included it in material supplied to the Surgeon General. Unfortunately, as good a sound bite as this is, it is simply not true. The original source of this statement goes back to two papers by Stark and Flitcraft. First, the actual research the "fact" is based on is a rather small survey of one emergency room. Second, in the original articles, they said that domestic violence may (emphasis added) be a more common cause of emergency room visits than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined.

Linda Saltzman from the Centers for Disease Control tells all journalists who call to check this fact that the CDC does not recognize this as either their fact or a reputable fact.

The March of Dimes Reports that Batterering During Pregnancy is the Leading Cause of Birth Defects and Infant Mortality

The March of Dimes actually reports that they know of no such study.

Sixty-three Percent of Young Men Between the Ages of 11 and 20 Who Are Serving Time for Homicide Have Killed Their Mother's Abuser

This factoid is often used by Sarah Buel in her speeches. It appears to be yet another fact from nowhere. The FBI has published no data that supports this claim. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports has no tables that report on prison populations, let alone a table or figure that breaks down prison populations by age of offender and relationship to victim. There are no Department of Justice reports that report on what number or percentage of young men kill their mother's batterer.

Family Violence has Killed More Women in the Last Five Years as the Total Number of Americans Who Were Killed in The Vietnam War

This factoid was often used by Dr. Robert McAfee, past president of the American Medical Association. There were about 55,000 American casualties in the Viet Nam war. According to the FBI, Uniform Crime Statistics, about 1,500 women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends each year. The total number of women homicide victims each year is about 5,000. Thus, in 5 years, even if every women who was killed, was killed by a family member, the total would still be 1/2 the number of American casualties in Viet Nam.

Women Who Leave Their Batterers Are at a 75% Greater Risk of Being Killed by the Batterer than Those Who Stay

Women are more likely to be victims of homicide when they are estranged from their husbands than when they live with their husbands--BUT NOT A 75 % GREATER RISK. The risk of homicide is higher in the first two months after separation.

SOURCE: Wilson, Margo and Martin Daly. (1993) "Spousal homicide risk and estrangement." Violence and Victims, 8, 3-16.

Women Who Kill Their Batterers Receive Longer Prison Sentences than Men Who Kill Their Partners

This factoid is often attributed to someone from Pace University. There is no actual published source for this. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Between Intimates (November, 1994), the average prison sentence for men who killed their wives was 17.5 years; the average sentence for women convicted of killing their husbands was 6.2 years.

Factoids From the Right of Center
Women are as Violence as are Men, and Women Initiate Violence as Often as do Men

This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.

Other Factoids from Nowhere
4,000 Women Each Year are Killed by Their Husbands, Ex-husbands, or Boyfriends

The FBI reports that approximately 1,500 women are killed each year by husbands or boyfriends. Even if one factors in the number of women killed by unidentified or undetermined assailants, the number could not be 4,000.

Women of All Cultures, Races, Occupations, Income Levels, and Ages are Battered - by Husbands, Boyfriends, Lovers, and Partners

While this fact is technically true, it is also true that domestic violence is more likely to occur in homes below the poverty line, in minority households (even controlling for income), and among men and women 18 to 30 years of age.

Nationally, 50% of All Homeless Women and Children are on the Streets Because of Violence in the Home

An interesting factoid stated by Senator Biden, but one without any actual published scientific research to support it.

There are Nearly Three Times as Many Animal Shelters in the United States as There are Shelters for Battered Women and Their Children

Another great sound bite, but one not actually based on a verified count of either type of shelter.


http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html

[dr e]

Look at the date.  This crap is 10 years old.  Imagine quoting research in some hard science that was 10 years old. Would it be up to date?  Would the resaerchers want you to go by what they said 10 yers ago?  Duh.  Gelles knows that men are screwed by VAWA and their victim status is clouded by the fems and their dv games.  Don't try to push a bunch of tired old quotes down our throats.

[dr e]

If you really want to know how Dr Gelles feels read this:

He endorses this statement and did so in the past few months, not 10 years ago..

The Safe Homes for Children and Families Coalition (SHCFC) advocates that federal domestic violence legislation should provide equal protection to all Americans, regardless of gender.
THE TIME IS NOW TO MAKE THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT GENDER-NEUTRAL

Men Represent 36% of the Victims of Domestic Violence
                        -- United States Department of Justice 1998

Thirty years ago some courageous and determined members of the women's movement raised the consciousness of America about the "dirty little secret" of domestic violence. Through their efforts laws were passed making the ending of family violence a social and law enforcement priority and ultimately resulting in the funding of thousands of shelters, services and educational programs through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed in 1995. Today the VAWA provides nearly one billion dollars per year for programs serving female victims of domestic violence.

Unfortunately, because this issue was left to be championed by activists within the women's movement, the nature and character of the issue was framed in the feminist model of male control and domination over women. Such a model is appropriate in some instances but falls far short of encompassing all of the circumstances and dynamics in which domestic violence is perpetrated.

As is clearly demonstrated by the statistics concerning arrests of women for domestic violence and the relative equal levels of domestic violence within both lesbian and gay couples, the gender based model is both an antiquated and inadequate model upon which to premise our efforts to end family violence.

The reality is that domestic violence is perpetrated by individuals of both genders, all races, religions and socio-economic status'. The universal characteristic of a batterer is his or her inability to control his or her emotions and/or resolve differences through discussion and compromise. These are not characteristics unique to any gender.

The Safe Homes for Children and Families Coalition seeks to broaden and make more inclusive our efforts to end family violence The Safe Homes for Children and Families Coalition recognizes that children and families are harmed and put at risk regardless of which parent- mother or father- is the perpetrator of violence. As little Stephanie Doe, appearing on the 1998 Oprah show on male victims said regarding her batterer mother, " We were all crying and upset... mad at the police for taking him instead of mom."

The Safe Homes for Children and Families Coalition has been formed to bring together the multitude of individuals and organizations across the United States who recognize the inadequacy of our present domestic violence policy and it's exclusive reliance upon a narrow model that ignores the reality and complexity of intimate relationships in this post-feminist era.

We seek one singular objective- that gender discrimination and bias be removed from our nation's domestic violence policies and efforts. To that end, the Coalition advocates nothing more than that the following language which was promised to be incorporated in the 2000 Re-Authorization of VAWA by it's sponsor Senator Joseph R. Biden but never so incorporated; To Wit:

" Nothing in this legislation shall be construed to prohibit funding for programs serving male victims of domestic violence"

[D]

(3) Anti-sexist or pro-feminist

Pro-feminist men emphasise that the current, dominant model of manhood or masculinity is oppressive to women, as well as limiting for men themselves. Pro-feminist men encourage men to take responsibility for challenging sexism and men's institutional privilege. They also recognise the costs of masculinity - that conformity comes with the price tag of poor health, early death, overwork and emotionally shallow relationships - and typically also stress that men's lives are shaped also by race, class, sexuality, age and disability.

Cute.

.

[dr e]

Here's an exceprt from an article by Gelles. (yes, it's only 4 years newer :wink: )  I would encourage you to read it in its entirety but here is an bit of it:

http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html

The "horror" of intimate violence toward men is somewhat different. There are, of course, hundreds of men killed each year by their partners. At a minimum, one-fourth of the men killed have not used violence towards their homicidal partners. Men have been shot, stabbed, beaten with objects, and been subjected to verbal assaults and humiliations. Nonetheless, I do not believe these are the "horrors" of violence toward men. The real horror is the continued status of battered men as the "missing persons" of the problem. Male victims do not count and are not counted. The Federal Violence against Women Act identified as a gender crime. None of the nearly billion dollars of funding from this act is directed towards male victims. Some "Requests for Proposals" from the U.S. Justice Department specifically state that research on male victims or programs for male victims will not even be reviewed, let alone funded. Federal funds typically pass to a state coalition against or to a branch of a state agency designated to deal with violence against women.

Battered men face a tragic apathy. Their one option is to call the police and hope that a jurisdiction will abide by a mandatory or presumptive arrest statute. However, when the police do carry out an arrest when a male has been beaten, they tend to engage in the practice of "dual arrest" and arrest both parties.

Battered men who flee their attackers find that the act of fleeing results in the men losing physical and even legal custody of their children. Those men who stay are thought to be "wimps," at best and "perps" at worst, since if they stay, it is believed they are the true abusers in the home.

Thirty years ago battered women had no place to go and no place to turn for help and assistance. Today, there are places to go--more than 1,800 shelters, and many agencies to which to turn. For men, there still is not place to go and no one to whom to turn. On occasion a shelter for battered men is created, but it rarely lasts--first because it lacks on-going funding, and second because the shelter probably does not meet the needs of male victims. Men, who retain their children in order to try to protect them from abusive mothers, often find themselves arrested for "child kidnapping."

The frustration men experience often bursts forth in rather remarkable obstreperous behavior at conferences, meetings, and forums on domestic violence. Such outbursts are almost immediately turned against the men by explaining that this behavior proves the men are not victims but are "perps."

Given the body of research on that finds continued unexpectedly high rates of violence toward men in intimate relations, it is necessary to reframe as something other than a "gender crime" or example of "patriarchal coercive control." Protecting only the female victim and punishing only the male offender will not resolve the tragedy and costs of domestic violence. While this is certainly not a politically correct position, and is a position that will almost certainly ignite more personal attacks against me and my colleagues, it remains clear to me that the problem is violence between intimates not violence against women. Policy and practice must address the needs of male victims if we are to reduce the extent and toll of violence in the home.

[lkanneg]

Look at the date.  This crap is 10 years old.  Imagine quoting research in some hard science that was 10 years old. Would it be up to date?  Would the resaerchers want you to go by what they said 10 yers ago?  Duh.  Gelles knows that men are screwed by VAWA and their victim status is clouded by the fems and their dv games.  Don't try to push a bunch of tired old quotes down our throats.

? I'm a little confused by your response.  The article is an attempt to debunk domestic violence sound bytes, most of which point towards women being heavily vicimized by men.  If you think they're "crap," why are you objecting to the article?

[dr e]

Look at the date.  This crap is 10 years old.  Imagine quoting research in some hard science that was 10 years old. Would it be up to date?  Would the resaerchers want you to go by what they said 10 yers ago?  Duh.  Gelles knows that men are screwed by VAWA and their victim status is clouded by the fems and their dv games.  Don't try to push a bunch of tired old quotes down our throats.

? I'm a little confused by your response.  The article is an attempt to debunk domestic violence sound bytes, most of which point towards women being heavily vicimized by men.  If you think they're "crap," why are you objecting to the article?

LOL!  That's what I get for not reading.  My apologies.  I was rushed and assumed it was the old piece that Amp had quoted from that made it appear that Gelles was less than friendly towards male victims.  My bad.

I do hope you have a look at the last article by Gelles which describes his history in learning about male victims and the response of the feminists to his views.  It is very telling.  I would be curious to hear what you think of it.

[The Gonzman]

This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.

Well, I went to school with the Steinmetz's kids, and the study that Dr. Steinmetz published resulted in death threats - and attempts - which required police protection.  I used to be scoped out by the police and later private security that guarded them.  But - anyway.  Just pointing out how the "peaceful" feminist organizations and DV industry dealt with heretics.

I'd like you to consider something.

I was beaten by my ex-wife for 6 years and some change, not because I couldn't bust her in two, but because I had been taught that at no time, never-ever, under any circumstance, for any reason whatsoever, is it okay, justifiable or in any respect condoned to Hit A Girl.  Never.  Not even in self defense.  So when she started hitting me, I just stood there in stunned silence, and walked out.

I took some bruises, some burns from things like boiling oatmeal - she broke my toes one time when she drilled an iron pan into my feet, bloody lips, bloody noses - but never anything serious, requiring treatment or hospitalization.

To make a long story short, this finally stopped when she took a LARGE iron pan, full of smoking hot grease, and went to throw it at me - and I had had it.  BEfore she could swing it, I grabbed her wrist so hard she dropped the pan back on the stove, spun her against the wall, drove a knife had to just touching her throat (without making full contact and crushing her larnyx) and coldly informed her if she ever raised hand or weapon to me again, I would drop her where she stood.  And she believed me, and it never happened again.

A few things to consider here:

I did not, despite imminent threat, follow through with anything then, because I knew that I would be the one to go to jail. (And I knew it because of past experience with the Indianapolis Police Department when I called them on her beating me).

Despite there being no marks on her, has she decided to call the police that day, and merely accuse me - I would probably have gone to jail, and if not, I would have been "invited" to to be the one to leave the house and take a time out.

Despite the fact that the ex could inflict no real damage on me without a weapon, or that I never required treatement or hospitalization, was she an abuser?  Was her abuse any less serious, or vicious?

And finally - The raw fact is - I laid hands on a woman.  I threatened and intimidated a woman into obeying me.  Regardless of why, by the standards of conventional wisdom, I'm an abuser, and since I could have seriously hurt her, that is more important than the fact that I didn't - despite any justification for it.  When you take the action out of context, it's abuse.  Place it IN context, and it becomes something else; yet, DV advocates do their damndest to say the context never matters.  So what is the agenda, there?

That is why that little "debunking" up there - is bunk in and of itself.

[lkanneg]

I'd like you to consider something.

I was beaten by my ex-wife for 6 years and some change, not because I couldn't bust her in two, but because I had been taught that at no time, never-ever, under any circumstance, for any reason whatsoever, is it okay, justifiable or in any respect condoned to Hit A Girl.  Never.  Not even in self defense.  So when she started hitting me, I just stood there in stunned silence, and walked out.

I took some bruises, some burns from things like boiling oatmeal - she broke my toes one time when she drilled an iron pan into my feet, bloody lips, bloody noses - but never anything serious, requiring treatment or hospitalization.

I can empathize, because I unfortunately had similar experiences in my first marriage, though the dynamics were not the same.  I have no idea if my first husband was raised not to hit girls; if he was, though, it sure didn't take.  Now, I was raised to never, ever initiate physical violence against someone, BUT ALSO that if it was initiated against me, to defend myself as strongly as possible.  So, when he started hitting me, I usually came up swinging.  Unfortunately, he wasn't interested in an even exchange of blows and then calling it quits--he was interested in my surrender and he'd fight me til he got it.  I admit, he was always the winner.  I ended up collecting the same types of injuries as you--bruises, scrapes, bloody lips, a broken finger and a broken toe, but nothing I ever needed to see a doctor about.  

To make a long story short, this finally stopped when she took a LARGE iron pan, full of smoking hot grease, and went to throw it at me - and I had had it.  BEfore she could swing it, I grabbed her wrist so hard she dropped the pan back on the stove, spun her against the wall, drove a knife had to just touching her throat (without making full contact and crushing her larnyx) and coldly informed her if she ever raised hand or weapon to me again, I would drop her where she stood.  And she believed me, and it never happened again.

It's funny--I ended it with an ultimatum, too. He threatened to shove me out of a moving car on the highway and was reaching over to do it--I got that cold, cold feeling; not fear, just utter hatred.  I remember looking at him and telling him that he'd better hope I died of it, because if I didn't, the first thing I'd do was call his supervisor (he was a cop).  And if he ever laid a hand upon me again, I'd do the same thing.  And it stopped; he never did lay a violent hand upon me again.  

A few things to consider here:

I did not, despite imminent threat, follow through with anything then, because I knew that I would be the one to go to jail. (And I knew it because of past experience with the Indianapolis Police Department when I called them on her beating me).

That's really unfortunate.  In my ex-husband's county, if the cops are called in on DV, they arrest everyone present accused of dv by another person.  My ex has made a lot of simultaneous arrests of husband and wife.  

Despite the fact that the ex could inflict no real damage on me without a weapon, or that I never required treatement or hospitalization, was she an abuser?  Was her abuse any less serious, or vicious?

Those are questions I asked myself a lot (except for the "inflict no real damage" part--he could have, and actually, I could have inflicted more upon him as well, had I chosen to use a weapon), as my level of injury paralled yours, along with the question, since I fought back, could I still be considered being abused?  I still haven't really figured out the answers.  My best answer:  Both our spouses were abusers.  It could have been much more serious, but it still wasn't trivial.  

I really feel for you, Gonzokid.  It's awful to be stuck in that kind of relationship/situation.  For me, the most awful part, hands down, was when it happened in front of the kids--you don't mention that, but you have mentioned having a son and daughter.  The time he was going to shove me out of the car onto the road--our kids were in the car.  That was the worst thing in the world, how they would have felt if they'd seen that happen.

[The Biscuit Queen]

Apparently I hit Dave in anger once, years ago. I do not remember it. Not because I blacked out, or am in denial, but because at the time I did not even think of it as abuse. It never occured to me to do so. It was unworthy of being remembered. I wacked him in the arm, I was pissed, he showed no reaction, so I thought nothing of it. But it was abuse. I was wrong for having done that, but had he told someone I would not have faced any penalties.  

Women are not taught that hitting men is abuse, in fact we are taught the opposite. In the movie Mooseport, for example, the girl keeps hitting Ray Romano's character. He says owww each time and rubs his arm, or picks himself up when his is shoved off a porch. At the end, she really slugs him in the arm, and he says oww, that really hurts, you are stronger than me. She says "I can't be, I am a girl"*big smile, audience expected to laugh*. This woman was commiting domestic violence and we were all supposed to find it funny. We are overjoyed in the end when he proposes to his abuser.

How are women supposed to know that men can hurt, that abusing your husband is wrong, if society thinks it is funny? How are men supposed to ask for help when they are never seen as victims of abuse to begin with?

Gonzo, had be been a woman, and had he killed his spouse, would have had a legal defense and gotten off scott free. Yet because he was a man, he would have gone to prison no questions asked.

I try to point out the abuse misandry in movies to people, and they usually cannot see it even then. They are so ingrained in believing women cannot posible hurt men that they cannot see it when it is right there.

The old ball buster gag is a prime example, need I say more?

[The Gonzman]

The whole thing I'm getting at is that we frequently have the "More serious injury" excuse trotted out by those would would minimize and trivialize male DV victins, and it just doesn't hold up to any reali life scrutiny.  One doesn't have to have serious injury inflicted to be abused.

[lkanneg]

Apparently I hit Dave in anger once, years ago. I do not remember it. Not because I blacked out, or am in denial, but because at the time I did not even think of it as abuse. It never occured to me to do so. It was unworthy of being remembered. I wacked him in the arm, I was pissed, he showed no reaction, so I thought nothing of it. But it was abuse. I was wrong for having done that, but had he told someone I would not have faced any penalties.  

Women are not taught that hitting men is abuse, in fact we are taught the opposite. In the movie Mooseport, for example, the girl keeps hitting Ray Romano's character. He says owww each time and rubs his arm, or picks himself up when his is shoved off a porch. At the end, she really slugs him in the arm, and he says oww, that really hurts, you are stronger than me. She says "I can't be, I am a girl"*big smile, audience expected to laugh*. This woman was commiting domestic violence and we were all supposed to find it funny. We are overjoyed in the end when he proposes to his abuser.

How are women supposed to know that men can hurt, that abusing your husband is wrong, if society thinks it is funny? How are men supposed to ask for help when they are never seen as victims of abuse to begin with?

Gonzo, had be been a woman, and had he killed his spouse, would have had a legal defense and gotten off scott free. Yet because he was a man, he would have gone to prison no questions asked.

I try to point out the abuse misandry in movies to people, and they usually cannot see it even then. They are so ingrained in believing women cannot posible hurt men that they cannot see it when it is right there.

The old ball buster gag is a prime example, need I say more?

I totally agree with you about the way violence against men by women is trivialized and considered humorous in the media.  Somebody posted a link here when I first started posting and I sent a protest e-mail to the producer...got a pretty rude reply, actually (sigh).

[Roy]

Dr. E. has innocently stepped upon the "mother" of all MRA issues.

Re:

You can also see this sort of thing in boys who are abused by their mothers. The mother spouts hatred and viciousness towards the boy and controls his movements and behavior and yet the boy identifies with her to the extreme. The boy maintains a "love" for the mother as he blindly follows the mother's demands and shows a devotion to her that though shallow will not be exposed as anything but dedication.

Here's just a little kerosene for the campfire.... or maybe balm for future encounters with HugoBoy and his ilk... courtesy of C. Jung ---

A little "fire and water...."

The mother archetype is symbolized by the primordial mother or "earth mother" of mythology, by Eve and Mary in western traditions, and by less personal symbols such as the church, the nation, a forest, or the ocean. According to Jung, someone whose own mother failed to satisfy the demands of the archetype may well be one that spends his or her life seeking comfort in the church, or in identification with "the motherland," or in meditating upon the figure of Mary, or in a life at sea.

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html

All are invited to comment about the connections to the pathology of feminism... and its genesis.

(Maybe call your Mom before posting...)   :shock: