Rethinking Domestic Violence

Started by whome112, Jun 15, 2006, 12:17 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

whome112

This fantastic article is the National Post.   whome

LINK



Domestic violence isn't one-sided


Don Dutton, National Post
Published: Wednesday, June 14, 2006

A few years ago, a woman arrived home from work in Saskatoon to find her husband, who had obviously spent the day drinking, complaining of irritation with their fractious child. She insisted she needed to rest before making dinner. She awoke to find him in a rage straddling her and brandishing a kitchen knife, which he used to cut her abdomen. Bleeding, terrified, she managed to call 911. The police arrived within minutes. They observed her plight, spoke to her husband and then, responding to the unspoken but powerful institutional guidelines routinely applied in such cases, arrested ... her. In spite of her wound, she spent the night in a jail cell, and was released the next morning.

As it stands, this story makes no sense -- and indeed would have aroused national indignation if it were completely true. But I deliberately misled the reader on one particular. In the real story, by no means a unique one in police archives, the genders were reversed: The man arrived home after a 12-hour shift; the child's mother was drunk; the man lay down; the woman stabbed him in a rage; the police didn't take his injuries seriously; they accepted the woman's explanation -- probably self-defence -- and arrested the man.

Unfortunately, such gender bias in the law-enforcement system and beyond is typical, not exceptional. A double standard for men and women, applied in cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) -- as well as in family law, including spousal support and child custody cases -- has become commonplace in most Western societies over the last 25 years. And in spite of a widening stream of incontrovertible statistical evidence to the contrary, the myth persists that it is women, and only women, who are the victims of IPV.

The stereotype that unprovoked men purposefully assault women, and never the reverse, is so ingrained in our public discourse that participants in research on IPV -- not just lay people but health professionals as well -- presented with a scenario in which one partner abuses another, perceive it as abuse only if the assaulter is identified as male.

The reality, borne out by independent peer-reviewed studies as well as StatsCan, is that women commit more severe IPV, and more IPV in general, than men. For all kinds of relationship types, females are unilaterally more violent than males to non-violent partners. More females strike first in IPV (men are conditioned not to strike first in our society) and, contradicting received wisdom, fear of their male partner is rarely a factor amongst violent women. Actually, both male and female victims of IPV report equal fear levels of "intimate terrorism".

Of course, some battering males abuse passive women -- about 3% annually, far fewer than implied in skewed studies by women's groups. But in spite of sensationalized cases, spousal homicide perpetrated by either sex is extremely rare. As many mothers as fathers practice child abuse alone or in tandem, and far more women than men murder their children.

Interestingly, IPV occurs more frequently in lesbian than in heterosexual relationships, supporting the view that relationship dynamics, not gender, fuel domestic violence. Honest research points to a norm of "assortative mating": The violence-prone tend to seek each other out for anti-social behaviour.

And yet our government, our social services and our judiciary prescribe remedies based on a false and simplistic view that denies not just the unprovoked violence committed by women in relationships, but the number and severity of the assaults engaged in by both partners in mutually violent couples.

Indeed, it is fair to say that no other area of established social welfare, criminal justice or public health depends on such weak and biased evidence in support of mandated practice as does IPV. The model of "treatment" for IPV that flows from this false understanding is not the kind of therapy that could benefit both male and female perpetrators. Instead, our system prefers "intervention" -- against men, never women --and a "psychoeducational" model of behaviour modification that essentially amounts to inculcating the radical feminist political viewpoint.

Where does the gender bias come from? Ideology. Radical feminism insists that men -- all men -- by their nature pursue power and control for its own sake. As a result, we become complicit in the myths of gender politics. So when a crazed individual male with a bizarre personal back story shoots women, we hold candlelight vigils. But when a vengeful woman cuts off a man's penis, he becomes fodder for standup comedians, while she is hailed as a symbol of female empowerment.

IPV is a serious issue in our society. Responding to it through the default demonization of one sex and victimization of the other is an insult to scientific integrity, a stumbling block to rehabilitation, a strong contributing factor in many arbitrarily ruined lives, and a shameful blot on our human rights record.

- Don Dutton is Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia and the author of Rethinking Domestic Violence.
© National Post 2006

(edited by dr e to shorten link)
ay what you mean: Mean what you say.
http://jwwells.blogspot.com

whome112

Another article on the same topic ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/culture/20060511-112526-4029r.htm

Family violence soars

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 12, 2006

For 22 years, domestic violence experts have estimated that a staggering number of children -- between 3 million and 10 million -- live in homes where violence occurs.
    A new study has updated -- and increased -- that number, to 15.5 million children, including 7 million who live in homes with "severe" violence between adult partners.
   Experts in domestic violence say these new numbers are an overdue recalibration of the tragic reality they see.
   But the study, published in the Journal of Family Psychology, may also reopen a long-festering ideological argument about whether men or women are the most violent in the home.
   The study found that, contrary to public perception, women committed more acts of violence than their male partners in 11 overall categories of violence. Specifically, women were more likely than men to throw something, push, grab, shove, slap, kick, bite, hit or threaten a partner with a knife or gun.
   However, men were more likely than women to commit "severe" acts of violence, such as beating, choking, burning, forcing sex or actually using a knife or gun on their partners.
   When minor and major acts of violence were tallied, female-to-male violence accounted for 18.2 percent of overall violence and 7.5 percent of severe violence. Male-to-female violence accounted for 13.7 percent of overall violence and 8.6 percent of severe violence.
   The study, which is based on an interviews with 1,615 married or cohabiting couples and extrapolated nationally using census data, found that 21 percent of couples reported domestic violence. Around 60 percent of these homes contained minor children, which allowed researchers to estimate the national numbers of children living in homes with some violence to severe violence, updating much lower earlier estimates.
   The new, larger estimate "has serious implications for policy and practice," said Steven Marans, director of the National Center for Children Exposed to Violence at the Yale University Child Study Center in New Haven, Conn.
   Children exposed to domestic violence often develop antisocial behaviors; have problems with social skills, learning and "emotional regulation; and are more likely to be involved in domestic violence as adults, said Mr. Marans.
   "The policy implications are absolutely clear," he said. If the nation doesn't confront the problem of family violence when children are young, "we pay through the teeth in multiple other ways" when they are grown.
   Jackie Warrilow of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence in Harrisburg, Pa., said the updated estimate of children living in violent homes is "far more representative" of the problem. She agreed with the study's authors that even 15.5 million is an undercount because the study didn't include single parents, homosexual couples or separated couples. "We know that violence escalates when the victim separates from her perpetrator," she said.

But Miss Warrilow's biggest concerns were the study's findings on who was committing the violence.
   "Without understanding domestic violence, somebody looking at this [data] would assume that women are more violent than men in intimate relationships," Miss Warrilow said. But that's not borne out in much of research, government reports, victim service agencies and law enforcement, she said.
   She also regretted the study's use of the Conflict Tactics Scale and its 11 categories of violence. The scale has been "refuted for many years," she said, because it doesn't take into account the frequency of violence, its intensity, intent or context.
   The study's home interviews also could have resulted in skewed numbers, she added. Batterers typically "do not own their violence," but blame others, she explained. "So if you are interviewing the perpetrator, you're not going to get a clear vision of what happened, of what that person is doing." Victims, on the other hand, "tend to place responsibility on themselves because that is what they have been hearing," she said. "Without context, the numbers are very concerning."
   However, other experts say the study confirms what has been widely known: Both men and women are fully capable of family violence.
   Richard Gelles, dean of the School of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania, said male-to-female violence is far more common at the most severe levels of violence, he said. Intimate-partner homicide data, for instance, show that in 2004, there were 1,200 females killed by their male partners, compared with 388 males killed by their female partner.
   But domestic violence is not a "gender crime" against women, he said.
   "The science is just overwhelming" that, in most kinds of violence, female-to-male rates of violence are equal to or exceed male-to-female violence, Mr. Gelles said.
   Instead, he categorizes it as a "family violence" crime, in which both men and women can be culpable, he said. "I am hoping to see people stand up and say, 'Enough of the ideology. Enough of the advocacy.' "
   Renee McDonald, one of the five authors of the federally funded study, said the findings on higher rates of female-to-male violence were not surprising because they were consistent with other studies.
   "But we don't know the context" of the violence, she cautioned. "We don't want to minimize [female-to-male violence], but on the other hand we don't want to forget the fact that men can be much more harmful to women."
   Mrs. McDonald, who teaches psychology at Southern Methodist University, called for more research to understand how family violence affects children and adults.
    "What is the threshold" for when seeing violence harms a child, she asked. "Is it one hit? Two pushes? Five shoves? A beating? We don't know. Is it once a year? Twice a year? Ten times a year?
   "We don't know very much about when [living with violence] begins to be a problem for children; we just know it doesn't take much of it for there to be an elevated risk for problems," she said.
ay what you mean: Mean what you say.
http://jwwells.blogspot.com

gwallan

Quote
But Miss Warrilow's biggest concerns were the study's findings on who was committing the violence.
"Without understanding domestic violence, somebody looking at this [data] would assume that women are more violent than men in intimate relationships," Miss Warrilow said. But that's not borne out in much of research, government reports, victim service agencies and law enforcement, she said.

Advocacy research and those "educated" by those same "advocates".

Quote
She also regretted the study's use of the Conflict Tactics Scale and its 11 categories of violence. The scale has been "refuted for many years," she said, because it doesn't take into account the frequency of violence, its intensity, intent or context.

There was nothing wrong with it when it suited your purposes.

Quote
The study's home interviews also could have resulted in skewed numbers, she added. Batterers typically "do not own their violence," but blame others, she explained. "So if you are interviewing the perpetrator, you're not going to get a clear vision of what happened, of what that person is doing." Victims, on the other hand, "tend to place responsibility on themselves because that is what they have been hearing," she said. "Without context, the numbers are very concerning."

Now I'm confused. When the victims were all women they were correctly blaming their batterers. Now when there's male victims added to the equation they're not "owning their own violence".


See those goalposts - they're moving.
Again.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

SIAM

Quote
Where does the gender bias come from? Ideology. Radical feminism insists that men -- all men -- by their nature pursue power and control for its own sake. As a result, we become complicit in the myths of gender politics. So when a crazed individual male with a bizarre personal back story shoots women, we hold candlelight vigils. But when a vengeful woman cuts off a man's penis, he becomes fodder for standup comedians, while she is hailed as a symbol of female empowerment.


So true.  The funny thing is - when you give links over at Hugos website to such articles, everybody COMPLETELY ignores them.  Talk about not interested in the truth.  Feminism - for those who want to be blinded by their ideology.

Great articles by the way whome......good to see the drip-drip effect slowly but surely changing the 'hearts and minds' of people.

dr e

Dutton's article is a thing of beauty.  The Times article was interesting to see the fems having to start to go on the defensive.  That's a new experience for many of them who have been coddled by the media for 30 years in their distortions and misinformation.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Sir Percy

You can almost see the panic in the eyes of "Miss Warrilow" as she spouts those nonsense excuses.
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

woof

Quote from: "Sir Percy"
You can almost see the panic in the eyes of "Miss Warrilow" as she spouts those nonsense excuses.

Yea....I agree SP.
What she means is that she is concerned that the truth is coming out, and the feminist lies and their co-conspiritors are being exposed.

Quote
But Miss Warrilow's biggest concerns were the study's findings on who was committing the violence.
"Without understanding domestic violence, somebody looking at this [data] would assume that women are more violent than men in intimate relationships," Miss Warrilow said. But that's not borne out in much of research, government reports, victim service agencies and law enforcement, she said.
Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.

Men's Rights Activist

Quote
Unfortunately, such gender bias in the law-enforcement system and beyond is typical, not exceptional. A double standard for men and women, applied in cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) -- as well as in family law, including spousal support and child custody cases -- has become commonplace in most Western societies over the last 25 years. And in spite of a widening stream of incontrovertible statistical evidence to the contrary, the myth persists that it is women, and only women, who are the victims of IPV.


The motto on the side of every LAPD police car says, "To Protect and to Serve," but I say, "To Prejudiced to Protect, to Corrupt to Serve, and to Incompetent to Care."  Every police car also has a bumper sticker that says, "There's No Excuse for Domestic Violence," but that bumper sticker makes a liar out of every cop on the street.  Idiots!  Primary aggressor policy excuses all kinds of female initiated domestic violence, not to mention police use of the gender feminist gender profiling models they use.  Patriarchal power and control profiling of domestic violence wherein it is assumed that men have the power makes approximately 35% of LAPD arrests nothing more than hate crimes under color of law.  Sieg Heil LAPD, you're just being good German soldiers, er, good LAPD officers.
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

Somebody else

The horns blow. And the walls come crumbling down...
ust because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get you.

Quentin0352

Interesting how it used to be that even ONE push, hit, toss of something acroos the room was DV and that person needed to be jailed before they did something worse but suddenly they start asking if a WOMAN does it if that should actually qualify.

Mr. Bad

Quote from: "whome112"
Another article on the same topic ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/culture/20060511-112526-4029r.htm

Family violence soars

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 12, 2006
[cut]
   Jackie Warrilow of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence in Harrisburg, Pa., said the updated estimate of children living in violent homes is "far more representative" of the problem. She agreed with the study's authors that even 15.5 million is an undercount because the study didn't include single parents, homosexual couples or separated couples. "We know that violence escalates when the victim separates from her perpetrator," she said.

But Miss Warrilow's biggest concerns were the study's findings on who was committing the violence.
   "Without understanding domestic violence, somebody looking at this [data] would assume that women are more violent than men in intimate relationships," Miss Warrilow said. But that's not borne out in much of research, government reports, victim service agencies and law enforcement, she said.
   She also regretted the study's use of the Conflict Tactics Scale and its 11 categories of violence. The scale has been "refuted for many years," she said, because it doesn't take into account the frequency of violence, its intensity, intent or context.
[cut]


The above is a half-truth at best (surprise?).  Indeed, feminists have been "refuting" (read: criticizing)  the CTS for many years, but researchers have modified it and re-analyzed data to address the concerns re. the original CTS.  For example, Johnathan Archer, Richard Gelles and Murray Straus have all re-analyzed data and refuted the criticisms of the CTS.  Further, the Modified CTS has been in use for decades so concerns such as those raised by Warrilow are moot.

The feminists are now concentrating of 'who gets hurt more' because the truth re. the symmetry of DV between male and female perps and victims is flooding out and they can no longer control it.  Thus, they're trying to change the subject so that they can once again focus on male perps. They are able to do this because on average men are bigger and stronger than women and thus able to do more damage.  Thus, the 'who gets hurt more' argument simply becomes a proxy for 'blame the man.'  

Feminists are ignoring the issue of 'who starts the fight' and focusing on 'who gets hurt more' after the fact, and this says a lot about their true motives.  'Who starts the fight' is crucial if we want to prevent DV, but apparently feminists are less interested in truly preventing DV (hey, their cash cow would disappear) and instead perpetuating the violence so that they can enter into the picture to 'rescue' the woman.  Thus justifying their jobs, paychecks, VAWA, etc.

After all, if we were to successfully prevent DV, what would those girls do for a living?
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

gwallan

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "whome112"
Another article on the same topic ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/culture/20060511-112526-4029r.htm

Family violence soars

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 12, 2006
[cut]
   Jackie Warrilow of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence in Harrisburg, Pa., said the updated estimate of children living in violent homes is "far more representative" of the problem. She agreed with the study's authors that even 15.5 million is an undercount because the study didn't include single parents, homosexual couples or separated couples. "We know that violence escalates when the victim separates from her perpetrator," she said.

But Miss Warrilow's biggest concerns were the study's findings on who was committing the violence.
   "Without understanding domestic violence, somebody looking at this [data] would assume that women are more violent than men in intimate relationships," Miss Warrilow said. But that's not borne out in much of research, government reports, victim service agencies and law enforcement, she said.
   She also regretted the study's use of the Conflict Tactics Scale and its 11 categories of violence. The scale has been "refuted for many years," she said, because it doesn't take into account the frequency of violence, its intensity, intent or context.
[cut]


The above is a half-truth at best (surprise?).  Indeed, feminists have been "refuting" (read: criticizing)  the CTS for many years, but researchers have modified it and re-analyzed data to address the concerns re. the original CTS.  For example, Johnathan Archer, Richard Gelles and Murray Straus have all re-analyzed data and refuted the criticisms of the CTS.  Further, the Modified CTS has been in use for decades so concerns such as those raised by Warrilow are moot.

The feminists are now concentrating of 'who gets hurt more' because the truth re. the symmetry of DV between male and female perps and victims is flooding out and they can no longer control it.  Thus, they're trying to change the subject so that they can once again focus on male perps. They are able to do this because on average men are bigger and stronger than women and thus able to do more damage.  Thus, the 'who gets hurt more' argument simply becomes a proxy for 'blame the man.'  

Feminists are ignoring the issue of 'who starts the fight' and focusing on 'who gets hurt more' after the fact, and this says a lot about their true motives.  'Who starts the fight' is crucial if we want to prevent DV, but apparently feminists are less interested in truly preventing DV (hey, their cash cow would disappear) and instead perpetuating the violence so that they can enter into the picture to 'rescue' the woman.  Thus justifying their jobs, paychecks, VAWA, etc.

After all, if we were to successfully prevent DV, what would those girls do for a living?


Which means we need to get actual abuse of the kids included in the domestic violence equation.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

whome112

Strauss, Gelles and others have gone over the CTS many times. They have addressed every complaint. The feminists still refuse to accept the measurement scale. The reject because it is a scale which includes male victims.

Now, there is good reason to pay attention to who gets more hurt. It is the ones most hurt which we want to put most of our money on. The thing is, among the most hurt we're looking at about 1/3rd men. The feminists though think that hurt men are guilty of something strictly because they are male. The governments agree with the feminists, so do the courts. This is an area of law wherein innocents are being hurt & rehurt for the political & religious aims of a bigoted minority.

Moreover, children are hurt by watching DV. We want to stop children from being hurt. But, feminists think that children CANNOT be hurt by watching female offender DV. The Governments agree. So we have children being hurt to support the political & religious views of a bigoted minority.

NOTE: I say religious when speaking of feminists. Their point of view can only be upheld if it is viewed as a para-religious viewpoint. What they believe is faith based; the facts are never relevant. Any view differing from theirs is viewed as "Satanic." Thus, feminism as it exists in the here & now is a religion.

whome
ay what you mean: Mean what you say.
http://jwwells.blogspot.com

gwallan

Quote from: "whome112"
NOTE: I say religious when speaking of feminists. Their point of view can only be upheld if it is viewed as a para-religious viewpoint. What they believe is faith based; the facts are never relevant. Any view differing from theirs is viewed as "Satanic." Thus, feminism as it exists in the here & now is a religion.
whome

Good one whome. I tried, albeit not as eloquently, to put this position ages ago but it fell on deaf ears.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

Quentin0352

No different than when they found out 60% of women in shelters ADMITTED to throwing the first punch. Women demand they be treated as equals but if they hit a man he can't hit back and if he does he is abusive while she is just venting her anger over issues of his causing. I know that when I would tell people about my ex hitting me the first question was usually "What did you do to deserve it?" and a laugh out of them. They would get real pissed real fast when I would say that they felt it would be OK for me to hit her for no reason too then using their logic. Suddenly it would turn in to a "But that is different!" argument and how a man hitting a woman for ANY reason including self defense was wrong.

Welcome to our indoctrinated society everyone!

Go Up