Is it any wonder DV has become a women’s issue? They only survey women!
That would be like only surveying women for if they have been mugged then declaring muggings a women’s issue.
Here is what it looks like when you include men in dv surveys.
Don't expect these results to ever be printed in mainstream liberal media
Posted by: Hujo | May 18, 2006 09:23 AM
I work for a DV agency, and, looking at our paperwork, "domestic violence" is a continuum that contains many, many things which, taken alone are not themselves abusive. For instance, in the "psychological abuse" column: we include insults; labelling; yelling; ignoring; blaming. These are all issues, but they aren't simply issues for battering relationships. So when I see studies, or reports of studies, that lump everything together into a single number, I get squeamish.
From a public policy perspective, I'm hesitant about not distinguishing between emotional abuse, physical violence in intimate relationships, and battering. They're linked, but they're not the same thing. Many of the people who have been physically assaulted by their partner have the capacity to report without consequences or leave their partner without assistance. Many of the people who are chronically disparaged by their partner have bad relationships, not violent ones. And there are people who are controlled by their partner by matrices of financial and emotional manipulation more subtle than this instrument is designed to report.
I've seen other studies of domestic violence with much smaller, but still shocking numbers: studies I'm more inclined to believe. In general, I'm hesitant of the willingness of DV advocates to seize upon not what the best numbers are, but what the most shocking numbers are. Any domestic violence is too much. Numbers around 24% -- the numbers I tend to believe -- are so profoundly unacceptable in a civilized nation that you don't need to expand your definitions to inflate them.
As to the study itself, looking at our own clients' reporting rate (and, hell, even their access to their own phones and mail), I'm worried that this study set the bar relatively low in order to compensate for underreports of DV. I'd be interested in how many of the people interviewed self-identified as being victims of violence within their relationship.
P.S. to Hujo: This is a study that reports incidents of violence, but not their severity. Studies like this are credible but misleading. Scroll down the page. See the part on assaults with weapons, sexual assaults, and homicides? See who's responsible? Hint: not women.
I am reminded of a story that the local batterer's treatment provider tells. He was trying to explain to a client why his violence was more important to her than her violence against him was to him. The discussion went like this:
Batt Tx: What would you do if your partner hit you as hard as they could?
Batt Tx: What would your partner do if you hit her as hard as you could?
Posted by: Andreas | May 18, 2006 01:39 PM
Yeah, its just I couldn't find a survey from the states that included men. (Funny that)
I am not claiming men get it worse, just that they are victims too, and deserve to be included in research and solutions.
Feminism stands in the way of that, it is real easy to say it is all women beating conservatives that oppose VAWA it makes for great demagogy, but the truth is, it effects men too, and it is only feminists trying to hold on to their paychecks and trying to maintain public empathy for women only that would try to deny that.
So is it about the severity of abuse? Or is it about being a victim?
Overall men are victims almost as much as women, yes that means gay men being abused by their partners but also women abusing men.
Why is it, “women are the victims and men are to blame” when it should be , in reality, “women men and children are victims, how can we help them all?”
Posted by: Hujo | May 18, 2006 02:52 PM
You're misinterpreting the right to self-defense. If someone strikes you, or appears to you have the right to act to prevent further violence. You do not have the right to shoot someone in the face because they slapped you. You do not even have the right to taser them. You have the right to protect yourself from violence. Any violence you commit yourself has to be for that purpose.
I've seen enough perpetrators offer the bullshit defense that they broke their partner's nose because their partner slapped him. Does that constitute self-defene? No. Bullshit.
Why is it that you can accept that men are responsible for crime at rates orders of magnitude higher than women in other arenas, but believe that, somehow, domestic violence has to be the one area where men and women have absolute parity?
Posted by: Andreas | May 18, 2006 02:52 PM
No. It's about the severity of abuse, Hujo. Unless you believe in infinite punishment or none at all, the severity of crimes matter. There's a difference between a traffic ticket and grand theft, and there's a difference between slapping someone and breaking their arm. Any legal system that can't take that into account produces no justice whatosever. Saying that you must be blind to the severity of the violence is exactly what I was criticizing above.
Women, men, and children are all victims of violence. That's fine. VAWA assists with all three. But insofar as VAWA provides money to get people out of domestic violence, providing money to men, women, and children equally would cause a grave injustice.
Posted by: Andreas Schou | May 18, 2006 03:02 PM
Because my friend, homelessness is a majority male issue, you can rest assured I would be opposed to the “homeless men’s act” as well, if feminists don’t inflate and twist the stats to make it about homeless women first, of course!
As mentioned by a few people a society that would do this; ignore the minority gender in any social problem, would be stagnating the minority genders support, as well as reinforcing the victim mindset “its all my fault” or “I cant be a victim”, leading to under reporting which further inflates the stats for the majority and allows for more victimization of the minority. This is flawed.
Like we see here in S’s post, psychological, emotional, mental abuse, listed as women’s issues? It’s not right. Neither is making physical abuse one.
Let us not forget the children thereare mothers that are be abusive to kids.
Honestly male on male violence is the most prevalent form of violence in the world, anyone actually need stats? (Here are some for murder) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm
It’s thought of as wimpy to go to the police for just getting punched around some.
Why ignore that?
Posted by: hujo | May 18, 2006 07:09 PM
From here the argument goes off-topic, but I was very amused to not only see the anti-feminist bring up his bullshit stats to a guy in the business of helping DV victims, but then try to tell the former case manager at a transitional housing facility what the score is on the issue of homelessness. Even better is that further in the argument (things had sort of veered off topic by that point, so I didn't include it), he tells ACS that his organization needs to hire male staff; ACS is a dude!* You can read the whole thing here if my cut-and-paste is too confusing.
Hujo? You are talking to the wrong person, because -- prior to being a DV advocate -- I was director of a transitional housing program. And, you know what? We provided far more apartments and beds to men than we did women, because that's where the need was. You'll find exactly the same thing in homeless shelters and transitional housing programs across the country, where -- because men are the ones more affected -- you will find more beds for men. Money goes where the need is.
Likewise, at the DV shelter where I currently work, we have a male victim of DV staying in shelter. He's the first male victim of DV we've had this year. I met with another man today. Our shelter provides shelter to men because it can, and I think it's admirable that it does, but I'm not particularly against shelters that don't. Why? Because when the proportion of men needing DV shelter services approaches 0%, 0% is the number of beds that should be available to men. Operating a shelter where 50% of the beds are full of whining abusers is not a place where I want to work.
Let me make an analogy. I'm a man. I have a disk of breast tissue about the size of a quarter underneath my nipple. There is the potential that I could come down with breast cancer. Does that make breast cancer a men's issue? Sure, we can recognize that breast cancer occurs in men as well as women, but is breast cancer gender-neutral?
This entire argument is bullshit that ultimately just empowers abusers to continue.
* On the issue of gender and violence: yes, there is far more violence between men than between men and women. Domestic violence is a wholly different beast, though. If you get in a barfight, for instance, it's unlikely that when you get home, the dude who punched you is going to be sleeping in your bed. It's unblikely that they'll have control over your finances and be able to punish you if you testify. Not so with DV. This is why -- unlike muggings -- DV requires a lot of services for the victim.
Also, women frequently abuse children. They do so more frequently than men.
Posted by: Andreas | May 18, 2006 07:39 PM
*How do I know he's a dude? I'm married to him. Great catch, eh?