IT article on domestic violence against men: "No refuge for men"

kangaroo

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/1214/1224285473498.html

Men who are abused by their partners have very little support and often feel the legal system is against them

I'm no expert on domestic violence of any sort but this relatively short article managed to cram in a lot of the issues it seemed to me.

I thought this was interesting:

“She beat the s**t out of me on the honeymoon. It was very strange, it was all new to me,” he says. He didn’t know what to do, where to turn. He made excuses for his wife. She had a tough childhood, raised in a home where her mother was violent to her father, she didn’t know any better.

I have heard it said that men who had violent fathers are more likely to be violent themselves (although I imagine that many go the other way).

It may work the same with women who see their mothers abuse their fathers (or mothers' partners). So not dealing with the problem of domestic violence against men could lead to future generations having problems also.

Reward

kangaroo wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/1214/1224285473498.html



I'm no expert on domestic violence of any sort but this relatively short article managed to cram in a lot of the issues it seemed to me.

I thought this was interesting:


I have heard it said that men who had violent fathers are more likely to be violent themselves (although I imagine that many go the other way).

It may work the same with women who see their mothers abuse their fathers (or mothers' partners). So not dealing with the problem of domestic violence against men could lead to future generations having problems also.

Yeah its good that this is being discussed in Ireland. The independent scientific research thats out there points to women instigating DV more often than men, the strongest predictor of a woman being injured through domestic violence being her own violence and women doing the bulk of the child abuse.

It looks like women have been socialising most of the violence into society.

Here is a good article...

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1546465

CDfm

I agree with the article and you have gender feminists with political objectives but you also have egalitarian feminists.

Mary Cleary and a womens group in Navan set up Amen - a support group for male victims of DV.

So if you are discussing female violence you should also want to broaden the discussion to include female victims, those in same sex relationships, daughters abused by mothers or significant female adult , and elder abuse of women by women..

As a result, the model also does not serve females well either.

The DV model people want to use is based on a heterosexual model with kids and that is too restrictive.

I am all for reform, but, the multiplicity of agencies and stereotyping of victims and perpetrators has led to a surreal approach that is far far to complex.

Whats wrong with saying DV is always wrong irrespective of the age, gender or orientation of the victim or perpetrator and then you will get somewhere.

Otherwise, you will just perpetuate it thru generations like any social disease.

You may like this link but it says that women are as aggressive . That said, I hate it when groups come out and advocate for one sector and do not acknowledge the others.

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY


Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach


Last updated: July 2010


SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

I agree with the article and you have gender feminists with political objectives but you also have egalitarian feminists.

Mary Cleary and a womens group in Navan set up Amen - a support group for male victims of DV.

So if you are discussing female violence you should also want to broaden the discussion to include female victims, those in same sex relationships, daughters abused by mothers or significant female adult , and elder abuse of women by women..

As a result, the model also does not serve females well either.

The DV model people want to use is based on a heterosexual model with kids and that is too restrictive.

I am all for reform, but, the multiplicity of agencies and stereotyping of victims and perpetrators has led to a surreal approach that is far far to complex.

Whats wrong with saying DV is always wrong irrespective of the age, gender or orientation of the victim or perpetrator and then you will get somewhere.

Otherwise, you will just perpetuate it thru generations like any social disease.

You may like this link but it says that women are as aggressive . That said, I hate it when groups come out and advocate for one sector and do not acknowledge the others.

I have that bookmarked.

Female victims of females along with same sex couples as you say are discriminated against too. I have a source that advocates for victims of female pedophiles that has been harassed and hackled by feminists. Feminism has to be removed from the debate in order to put a holistic, non discriminatory and sensible system in place IMO.

CDfm

Reward wrote: »

I have that bookmarked.

Female victims of females along with same sex couples as you say are discriminated against too. I have a source that advocates for victims of female pedophiles that has been harassed and hackled by feminists. Feminism has to be removed from the debate in order to put a holistic, non discriminatory and sensible system in place IMO.

Yes , and you would not need to go far on boards to find women who would agree with you too.

Feminsm is not a unified group.

Its late , but if you google www.jezebel.com - a popular US womens ezine -and search articles you may find a very balanced view that may surprise you.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

Yes , and you would not need to go far on boards to find women who would agree with you too.

Feminsm is not a unified group.

Its late , but if you google www.jezebel.com - a popular US womens ezine -and search articles you may find a very balanced view that may surprise you.

Jezebele is known for misandric pieces. Here is a one in which the feminist author and commentators celebrate and brag about domestic violence against men.

From the article

"One Jezebel got into it with a dude while they were breaking up, while another Jez went nuts on her guy and began violently shoving him. One of your editors heard her boyfriend flirting on the phone with another girl, so she slapped the phone out of his hands and hit him in the face and neck... "partially open handed." Another editor slapped a guy when "he told me he thought he had breast cancer." (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.) And lastly, one Jez punched a steady in the face and broke his glasses. He had discovered a sex story she was writing about another dude on her laptop, so he picked it up and threw it. And that's when she socked him. He was, uh, totally asking for it".


From the comments section

"Confronted him. Slapped his glasses off his face. Bite him repeated so hard that he imediately bruised. Got out a kitchen knife."

http://jezebel.com/gossip/domestic-disturbances/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have-294383.php

CDfm

Reward wrote: »

Jezebele is known for misandric pieces. Here is a one in which the feminist author and commentators celebrate and brag about domestic violence against men.

From the article

"One Jezebel got into it with a dude while they were breaking up, while another Jez went nuts on her guy and began violently shoving him. One of your editors heard her boyfriend flirting on the phone with another girl, so she slapped the phone out of his hands and hit him in the face and neck... "partially open handed." Another editor slapped a guy when "he told me he thought he had breast cancer." (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.) And lastly, one Jez punched a steady in the face and broke his glasses. He had discovered a sex story she was writing about another dude on her laptop, so he picked it up and threw it. And that's when she socked him. He was, uh, totally asking for it".


From the comments section

"Confronted him. Slapped his glasses off his face. Bite him repeated so hard that he imediately bruised. Got out a kitchen knife."

http://jezebel.com/gossip/domestic-disturbances/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have-294383.php

That surprises me that you call them misandric

Jezebel often run stories when feminist groups or individuals deny that there are female perpetrators of Domestic Violence.

They are often tongue in cheek as in "we read the denial and how we laughed ,so we asked around the office"

I know a Jezebel contributor and it is their editorial policy to highlight DV in a non gender way.

So I think you are not being objective here.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

That surprises me that you call them misandric

Jezebel often run stories when feminist groups or individuals deny that there are female perpetrators of Domestic Violence.

They are often tongue in cheek as in "we read the denial and how we laughed ,so we asked around the office"

I know a Jezebel contributor and it is their editorial policy to highlight DV in a non gender way.

So I think you are not being objective here.

I posted a link to a Jezebel article in which violence against men is celebrated, Ive also seen Jezebele articles that have the first glance appearance of being pro-male but there is usually a spin or deception. For example, a piece that appears to be a pro male about male victims of female domestic violence but then the female on male violence is framed as women fighting back. This is just spin and damage limitation.

Here is Jezebele dismissing fathers rights issues.. http://jezebel.com/5296984/do-dads-get-a-raw-deal

Here is Jezebele using a murderer to stereotype the mens movement in canada
http://jezebel.com/5464971/in-canada-mens-rights-groups-gain-power-and-a-blogger-supports-femicide

It's not that Im not being objective, I'm quoting the magazine directly, celebrating and minimizing domestic violence against men and hostility towards fathers and mens rights groups is misandric. If you are suggesting that we over look the misandry because of a few examples to the contrary, perhaps its you that is not being objective.

Can you post one of the articles that you are talking about?

Bottle_of_Smoke

CDfm wrote: »

I agree with the article and you have gender feminists with political objectives but you also have egalitarian feminists.

''Egalitarian feminists'' sounds like an oxymoron to me. Like those ''Centrist Communists''

If they are in fact egalitarian WTF is point in putting ''feminist'' at the end, aren't they simply egalitarians?

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

''Egalitarian feminists'' sounds like an oxymoron to me. Like those ''Centrist Communists''

If they are in fact egalitarian WTF is point in putting ''feminist'' at the end, aren't they simply egalitarians?

I am not an expert but you have a wide spectrum of ideologies from Marxist Feminsm to Capitalist Feminism .

Maybe I should have said egalitarians but I think it was Taconnal who used the phrase first in TGC and I suppose it can be used as an adjective or a noun to make the meaning clearer.When she was around she used to explain the big words and grammar to me .

Most women I know would be against DV irrespective of the gender,age or orientation of the victim, as would most men I know.

I don't think gender stereotyping in this debate is helpful and I would be equally sympathetic to either my son or my daughter if they found themselves in this situation and would not care about the theories.


Thats me out of this discussion. & happy Xmas to everyone.

Bottle_of_Smoke

CDfm wrote: »

I am not an expert but you have a wide spectrum of ideologies from Marxist Feminsm to Capitalist Feminism .

Maybe I should have said egalitarians but I think it was Taconnal who used the phrase first in TGC and I suppose it can be used as an adjective or a noun to make the meaning clearer.When she was around she used to explain the big words and grammar to me .

It is an interesting term alright as its use alongside feminist argues that regular feminists are not egalitarian and generally have no interest in equality, just more benefits for women, which is more aptly interpreted as more rights for them personally. Which always seems to be the case with people calling themselves feminist.

iptba

Reward wrote: »

Yeah its good that this is being discussed in Ireland. The independent scientific research thats out there points to women instigating DV more often than men, the strongest predictor of a woman being injured through domestic violence being her own violence and women doing the bulk of the child abuse.

It looks like women have been socialising most of the violence into society.

Here is a good article...

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1546465

Thanks for the article. It covers a lot of issues that could contribute to DV (by either gender).

The criminalisation point is interesting. It seems when only men do something a lynch mob mentality can build - it can be presented like there are no mitigating factors and people call for tougher sentences for some crimes than say some people get for "aggravated" (my term) manslaughter/homocide where somebody's life has been lost.

Once women are also seen as perpetrators, there may be a bit more of a compassionate and/or nuanced approach to the issue.

Reward

iptba wrote: »

Thanks for the article. It covers a lot of issues that could contribute to DV (by either gender).

The criminalisation point is interesting. It seems when only men do something a lynch mob mentality can build - it can be presented like there are no mitigating factors and people call for tougher sentences for some crimes than say some people get for "aggravated" (my term) manslaughter/homocide where somebody's life has been lost.

Once women are also seen as perpetrators, there may be a bit more of a compassionate and/or nuanced approach to the issue.

I think that its important to realise that, just like with the original lynch mobs, the lunch mob mentality (with rape and pedo hysteria too) has been deliberately whipped up and directed at men through manipulative propaganda, for political ends.

CDfm

My problem with these debates and some of the arguments and debates is that people do not know what they are arguing for.

My own view is that if their is a national domestic violence budget, it should be either shared out proportionately to victim support groups without favouring any group, or you should have gender/age/orientatioin free service provision.

If one group effectively hijacks a victim support budget to finance a political cause then that is wrong.

Simples.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ireland:
On Tuesday 5th July 2005 the National Crime Council (NCC), in association with the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), published the first ever large scale study undertaken to give an overview of the nature, extent and impact of domestic abuse against women and men in intimate partner relationships in Ireland. Among the notable findings are:[/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 15% of women and 6% of men suffer severe domestic abuse[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]29% of women and 26% of men suffer domestic abuse when severe and
  minor abuse are combined[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]13% of women and 13% of men suffer physical abuse [/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]29% of women (1 in 3) and only 5% of men (1 in 20) report to the Gardaí[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to the Government Departments (Health and Justice) who have responsibilities in this area, the NCC study is the definitive piece of research on domestic violence in this country.[/FONT]

http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15270.htm

It may be that government departments do not do their jobs.

The provision of services including refuges is probably from the homeless budget.

If you put a middle class woman in a refuge with travellers or people with other social problems they will be frightened , probably with justification. Look at the occupancy and those turned away are usually turned away for other social problems..

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]49% of admissions to women’s refuges are Travellers (according to the 2002 census Travellers account for just 0.6% of the entire population) [/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of those turned away from refuges, 46% were for reasons other than
  the refuges being full.[/FONT]

That hardly sounds like a safe environment to me and the shelter budget is being used for other social reasons.

So if you are to argue for a shelter for men who are in a desperate situation then you should be arguing for better conditions then a homeless hostel , but, you should also want a minimum service delivery all around.

Thats what egalitarian means and is about.

In my mind , I find it hard to seperate the two genders and don't see why I should.

I reckon that DV Shelter provision could be better handled all around.

Erin Pizzeys book "Prone to Violence" is on-line , and, if you accept DV as a social problem that exists irrespective of gender with male and female perpetrators then you need a total mindset change to tackle it.

Pizzeys, who founded the first Womens refuge in Chiswick and Womens Aid , book is here.



http://www.bennett.com/ptv/

Not a pleasant read.

But anyone has to agree that providing emergency accomadation to travellers is a different issue to providing a Refuge/Shelter to abused women.

So you have to ask -what is the funding for and how is it regulated.

Homeless funding should go to the homeless , in the same way that Shelters/Refuges for abuse victims should house genuine victims.

Simples.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

My problem with these debates and some of the arguments and debates is that people do not know what they are arguing for.

My own view is that if their is a national domestic violence budget, it should be either shared out proportionately to victim support groups without favouring any group, or you should have gender/age/orientatioin free service provision.

If one group effectively hijacks a victim support budget to finance a political cause then that is wrong.

Simples.



It may be that government departments do not do their jobs.

The provision of services including refuges is probably from the homeless budget.

If you put a middle class woman in a refuge with travellers or people with other social problems they will be frightened , probably with justification. Look at the occupancy and those turned away are usually turned away for other social problems..



That hardly sounds like a safe environment to me and the shelter budget is being used for other social reasons.

So if you are to argue for a shelter for men who are in a desperate situation then you should be arguing for better conditions then a homeless hostel , but, you should also want a minimum service delivery all around.

Thats what egalitarian means and is about.

In my mind , I find it hard to seperate the two genders and don't see why I should.

I reckon that DV Shelter provision could be better handled all around.

Erin Pizzeys book "Prone to Violence" is on-line , and, if you accept DV as a social problem that exists irrespective of gender with male and female perpetrators then you need a total mindset change to tackle it.

Pizzeys, who founded the first Womens refuge in Chiswick and Womens Aid , book is here.



http://www.bennett.com/ptv/

Not a pleasant read.

But anyone has to agree that providing emergency accomadation to travellers is a different issue to providing a Refuge/Shelter to abused women.

So you have to ask -what is the funding for and how is it regulated.

Homeless funding should go to the homeless , in the same way that Shelters/Refuges for abuse victims should house genuine victims.

Simples.

I cant really comment on the system here but from what you are saying there are parallels with the american system.

For example, it operates in a black box. The US gov site states its "not preforming" which means there is no feed back on how the money is spent.
Homeless can drop in, the more that stay there, the more funding there is.
Dental work can be paid for and illegal immigrants will be supplied with a lawyer and helped to get papers.

As well as that there is what Pizzy observed, 40% of the women turning up being of a violent disposition and sometimes abusing the children that they have with them, all thats kept quite though and the ideology wont recognise these women as abusers, shelters have also functioned as political recruitment grounds, counselors tell women that have been abused to stay away from all men... very weird.

CDfm

It should not mattter what the gender of the abused is as the abused are victims irrespective of gender.

I suspect that funding allocated for victims are being spent and the occupants of the shelters are not in fact DV victims at all. Refuges/shelters may be funded for that purpose but the reality may be that they do not operate as shelters and that real victims/vulnerable would not go there.

The fact is that 46% of domestic violence is mutual violence i.e two violent people together

http://www.amen.ie/Downloads/26023.pdf

So if you strip away the traveler occupants, violent occupants and those with other problems how many real vulnerable people occupy the shelters. I would say very few.

Can you really say now that Refuge/Shelter delivery is helping dv victims. It may also be helping people whose children should otherwise be taken into care.

So if you provide shelters for men, will you get genuine victims or will you get everything being sent to it.

Funds are allocated to qangos to provide services to dv victims and these organisations do anything but that but that is what they get paid to do. In that way the funds are really diverted for other purposes.

Reading Pizzeys account, 40 % of her clients were violent/unstable and why would you support these people to bring up kids.

Gender based service delivery is wrong and whatever the funding is being used for or diverted to - helping real domestic violence victims - vulnerable victims of domestic violence does not seem to be on the list.

kangaroo

CDfm, you make interesting points about refuges.

However, in case you or anyone is put off by the title, most of the Irish Times article isn't on refuges. I think it may partly be a play on words.

Otis Driftwood

While this is a topic worthy of discussion The Gentlemans Club never has been nor will it ever become a forum for anybody to push their own personal agenda.Making potentially inflammatory statements,some of which read as being pure speculation without any back up or posting links to members only/password encrypted articles is not permitted.Please bear this in mind when/before posting.Thanks,Ned.

kangaroo

nedtheshed wrote: »

or posting links to members only/password encrypted articles is not permitted.

Not sure what you have in mind here? The Irish Times article certainly isn't members only (I know their articles used to be at one stage) and don't recall any other ones from this thread.

Otis Driftwood

Post #2 contains a link that has kicked me out twice when I tried to read it by asking for a member login and password.

kangaroo

nedtheshed wrote: »

Post #2 contains a link that has kicked me out twice when I tried to read it by asking for a member login and password.

Ok, thanks for replying. I had no problems with it except when I wanted to look at the second set of comments below it.

And it was in a medical newspaper/journal so "better" than a lot of links one finds on the internet.

CDfm

kangaroo wrote: »

CDfm, you make interesting points about refuges.

However, in case you or anyone is put off by the title, most of the Irish Times article isn't on refuges. I think it may partly be a play on words.

Thanks - it is a social disease that has become gender politicised.

A guy in a violent relationship is probably going to be advised to leave the house by the gardai or even loose residency of the family home in a seperation agreement which is a very mixed message to violent femmes.Its hardly fair and isn't any kind of justice or social policy to be proud of to leave children in the care of a violent parent.

Then again, do the public know where their funds are being spent. Womens Groups do not portray themselves as traveller support organisations when fundraising or explain this in their client statistics.

It is like the organisations see themselves like Victorian ladies helping poor working class and saving them from themselves. Well meaning people but.... ........ its not too long ago people thought paedophiles would not become priests or that social workers/government officials would act decisively on such allegations.

Laudable aims for sure, but, for all the money raised and gotten from public funds the aid precious little aid seems to reach actual dv victims in the general population -there is a lot of razzamatazz but very little bang for your buck.

So yes , while I passionately believe more should be done for men and family law massively reformed for the safety of children, I also believe that the domestic violence groups in Ireland are very ineffective and inefficient in terms of actual service delivery.

So in a roundabout way , would a carbon copy mens service delivery be just as ineffective and inefficient. Probably, if it did not acknowledge the reality of its client group.If you hate domestic violence you should hate it for everybody.

kangaroo

CDfm wrote: »

A guy in a violent relationship is probably going to be advised to leave the house by the gardai or even loose residency of the family home in a seperation agreement which is a very mixed message to violent femmes.Its hardly fair and isn't any kind of justice or social policy to be proud of to leave children in the care of a violent parent.

Yes, this the sad situation. Men may stay longer than they would like for this reason.

CDfm wrote: »

So in a roundabout way , would a carbon copy mens service delivery be just as ineffective and inefficient. Probably, if it did not acknowledge the reality of its client group.If you hate domestic violence you should hate it for everybody.

Yes. Though I'm not sure who is a fan of DV.
I thought the article posted earlier: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1546465 brought up a lot of the issues that could be at play e.g. psychiatric problems, borderline personality disorder, ADHD, etc.

CDfm

kangaroo wrote: »

Yes. Though I'm not sure who is a fan of DV.
I thought the article posted earlier: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1546465 brought up a lot of the issues that could be at play e.g. psychiatric problems, borderline personality disorder, ADHD, etc.

But these issues are not the victims fault.

We have a list of ready made excuses and excuses do not help the victim. A lot of the most vulnerable victims are children.A lot of the the perpetrators were victims as children or came from dysfunctional families.

Some US stats - I dont know if we have Irish equivalent stats - but a recent issue has been the increased numbers in female sex abuse perpetrators in the UK.

Child Abuse Statistics: Distribution of Child Abuse and Neglect by Perpetrator Characteristics

• Birth parents were the most closely related perpetrators for 72 percent of the physically abused children and for 81 percent of the emotionally abused children.
• Nearly one-half of the sexually abused children were sexually abused by someone other than a parent or parent-substitute, while just over one-fourth were sexually abused by a birth parent, and one-fourth were sexually abused by other than a birth parent or parent- substitute.
• Children were somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: 65 percent of the maltreated children had been maltreated by a female, whereas 54 percent had been maltreated by a male. Of children who were maltreated by their birth parents, the majority (75%) were maltreated by their mothers and a sizable minority (46%) were maltreated by their fathers (some children were maltreated by both parents). In contrast, children who were maltreated by other parents or parent-substitutes, or by other persons, were more likely to have been maltreated by a male than by a female (80 to 85% were maltreated by males; 14 to 41% by females).
• In cases of child neglect, 87% of the perpetrators were female while 43% were male. This finding is congruent with the fact that mothers and mother-substitutes tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in caretaking.
• In cases of child abuse, children were abused by males 67% of the time compare to 40% by females. The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 89 percent of the children were abused by a male compared to only 12 percent by a female.
• Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%), while those who had been physically abused by other parents or parent- substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their fathers or father-substitutes (90% by their fathers versus 19% by their mothers). For sexual abuse, the child's relationship to the perpetrator made very little difference, since males clearly predominated as perpetrators, whatever their relationship to the child. Moreover, the severity of the injury or impairment that the child experienced as a result of maltreatment did not appear to bear any relationship to the sex of the perpetrator.

http://www.zentactics.com/child-abuse-statistics.html

DV runs in families but is seems to me that there is too much of it about for cherrypicking.

We should be tackling the perpetrators irrespective of their gender.

Its an investment in stopping it in the next generation - which is what we all want -isnt it.

iptba

I was looking at a medical journal and happened to notice the following study:

Consistent with at least 16 previous studies, girls in this sample were more likely to report physical DV* perpetration than boys[7, 12, 26-39] ... 2 studies have found nearly equivalent rates of injury reported by male and female victims of DV* [7, 27] and at least 3 studies have found that a greater proportion of girls than boys report perpetrating "severe" DV [7, 29, 43]

* Dating violence

Also:

Of the 1084 respondents with siblings, 256 of the boys
(50.8%) and 351 of the girls (60.5%) reported that they
had physically assaulted a sibling, peer, and/or dating partner
(Figure).

Reference:

Perpetration of Physical Assault Against Dating Partners, Peers, and Siblings Among a Locally Representative Sample of High School Students in Boston, Massachusetts
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(12):1118-1124.
Emily F. Rothman, ScD; Renee M. Johnson, PhD, MPH; Deborah Azrael, PhD; Diane M. Hall, PhD; Janice Weinberg, ScD

Article can be read for free at: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/164/12/1118

Reward

iptba wrote: »

I was looking at a medical journal and happened to notice the following study:


* Dating violence

Also:

Reference:




Article can be read for free at: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/164/12/1118

We have been utterly scammed and defrauded by feminism on abuse and the nature of it.

Josh_Calvert

the only thing that stops women from being physical with men is the fear of getting killed by the guy.women are every bit as aggressive and violent as men, it just usually comes out in the form of destructive psychological barbs or social betrayal.

I would say women in fact raise their hands to men far more often than the other way round, but quite obviously men wont admitted to being bitchslapped or henpecked, and women aren't able to do much damage without a women anyway.

My own view is if a woman laid hands on me, I'd have no problem incapacitating her.Much the same as if any guy punched me or tried to manhandle me.

The only time it's happened to me was when a group of drunk girls tried to pull my trousers off and when I shook them off, one hit me, so I hit her back.They were more surprised than pissed off.I can only imagine the horror if a group of drunk teenage boys did the same to a woman...

CDfm

Any statistics there on dv in homosexual relationships or elder abuse.

These sectors often get left out when dealing with the issue and it isn't fair either IMHO.

If you are to say it isn't a gender issue then it shouldnt be an orientation issue either.

If you are challenging the heterosexual male as perpetrator/female as victim model you should also include areas you dont like.

We have had same sex relationships legislated on , so its not a huge jump in logic to recognise that they need support services too.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

If you are challenging the heterosexual male as perpetrator/female as victim model you should also include areas you dont like.

I don't know what you mean by "areas you don't like" - who said anything about not liking homosexual relationships or liking elder abuse.

I also don't think amateurs have to know everything about an area.

Also, female-female relationships only make up a small percentage of total relationships (probably more so again in teenagers) so it could not make up the majority of dating violence incidents perpetuated by females.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

Any statistics there on dv in homosexual relationships or elder abuse.

These sectors often get left out when dealing with the issue and it isn't fair either IMHO.

If you are to say it isn't a gender issue then it shouldnt be an orientation issue either.

If you are challenging the heterosexual male as perpetrator/female as victim model you should also include areas you dont like.

We have had same sex relationships legislated on , so its not a huge jump in logic to recognise that they need support services too.

There is a paragraph on domestic violence in lesbian relationships in the article "Newer Perspectives on Domestic Violence" I posted above.

I haven't seen much about DV in gay male relationships, I know that the entire LGBT community in the US was discriminated against by the feminist VAWA until some time last year.

and what do you mean by "areas that you dont like?!

CDfm

I think you misunderstand me - I prefer to see dv discussed in a holistic way but if you are limiting it to couples in intimate relations you need to include male victims of male partners.

Proportionately , as a sector of the population there are just as likely to be victims and need help too. If you are making it a definition victims of female aggression then include lesbian victims.

If you are to remove heterosexual distinctions then you should remove distinctions on grounds of orientation -they are not a different species.

Nowhere is it written that we discuss dv in a particular way and limit ourselves within the gender model.

Who knows we may learn a bit and in some small way widen the debate.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

I think you misunderstand me - I prefer to see dv discussed in a holistic way but if you are limiting it to couples in intimate relations you need to include male victims of male partners.

Proportionately , as a sector of the population there are just as likely to be victims and need help too. If you are making it a definition victims of female aggression then include lesbian victims.

If you are to remove heterosexual distinctions then you should remove distinctions on grounds of orientation -they are not a different species.

I don't think that anyone here has said anything to suggest that different sexual orientations are different species.. or that by publishing studies on het female on male abuse that they are willfully discriminating and it would be tedious to have to publish a study for lesbian and gay relationships for ever one we publish on het.

This is the way I see it, the main reason men, children of female abusers and the LGBT community are discriminated against is the lie that abuse is mainly heterosexual male on heterosexual female. The people that are pro holistic and non discriminatory services have to destroy the lie that abuse is gendered and rest will follow. Logically, once the feminist lies are chased out of services, a holistic and inclusive program is the natural progression.

CDfm

Ah but reward , your motivation should be positive to help people who are abused rather then attacking feminism. Remove the gender model and you are still left with abused people that need help.

Maybe if you did something like the definative boards survey/stats on abuse on people of all genders ,orientations , and ages could be included and have a say- you might do something new.

I would have no problem passing on a Womens Aid number to a woman who as in a dv situation -because it is the resourse that is available.

The ideology of the support organisations has nothing to do with the victim or the numbers of people getting abused and attacking any particular group may stop people posting who would otherwise contribute.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

Ah but reward , your motivation should be positive to help people who are abused rather then attacking feminism.

We are in a free society and should be free to decide what our own priorities or motivations are in life, thank you very much.

If feminism is a common thread that is causing lots of problems in different areas, going after it could be a perfectly worthy goal rather than having to fight dozens of individual battles.

CDfm

Yes but the same people who are anti- domestic violence when a woman is a victim is also likely to be anti dv when it is a man, a child, a gay man, a lesbian or an elderly person.

Thats just my view and you dont have to agree with me.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

Yes but the same people who are anti- domestic violence when a woman is a victim is also likely to be anti dv when it is a man, a child, a gay man, a lesbian or an elderly person.

Thats just my view and you dont have to agree with me.

Where are you getting this idea that others here on the thread are disagreeing with holistic and non discriminatory treatment of DV?

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

Yes but the same people who are anti- domestic violence when a woman is a victim is also likely to be anti dv when it is a man, a child, a gay man, a lesbian or an elderly person.

Pretty much everyone in society are "anti-domestic violence".
However some people e.g. some feminists, might downplay the importance of some types e.g. perpetuated by females. So bringing in feminism could be relevant to this issue.

Looking at overall patterns can also help specific cases.

CDfm

Reward wrote: »

Where are you getting this idea that others here on the thread are disagreeing with holistic and non discriminatory treatment of DV?

What I am saying is that there are lots of people out there who are victims of abuse who are interested in this topic as well as well as their relatives and friends.

Why wouldnt a Lesbian who is in an abusive relationship not have an interest or a woman whose mother was getting abused by her brother not want to know what services there are.

The common denominator is abuse not feminism.

Maybe if you tabulate the numbers factually ,you may see that the issue is wider then you think.

I just think that by not looking at it objectively you are limiting yourself.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying is that there are lots of people out there who are victims of abuse who are interested in this topic as well as well as their relatives and friends.

[..]

Maybe if you tabulate the numbers factually ,you may see that the issue is wider then you think.

But the issue could also be wider than domestic abuse as I say. People could be losing out in other ways because of feminism which might be a common thread.

So you want it widened in one way, others might like it widdened in another way. We should be free to make our points without being lectured too much. This isn't the first thread you've tried to tell us what to say. In this other thread, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055914071 you were quite assertive when it started up again recently. I think freedom of thought should be allowed.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying is that there are lots of people out there who are victims of abuse who are interested in this topic as well as well as their relatives and friends.

Why wouldnt a Lesbian who is in an abusive relationship not have an interest or a woman whose mother was getting abused by her brother not want to know what services there are.

The common denominator is abuse not feminism.

Maybe if you tabulate the numbers factually ,you may see that the issue is wider then you think.

I just think that by not looking at it objectively you are limiting yourself.

The common denominator of discrimination against the groups that are excluded is feminism and feminist propaganda. The LGBT community in the states had to challenge feminist ideology in court and win in order to be recognised and included under VAWA, feminism was the problem and the reason that they were excluded and NOW to this day wont acknowledge that the most dangerous relationships are lesbian relationships.. and anyway,I still don't understand why you are projecting an agenda to exclude people in the basis of sexual orientation, that I don't have in the first place, on to me.

CDfm

The issue is normally approached with reference to the heterosexual male perpetrator model to the exclusional of all others because that is the popular model and that is what you respond to. I am not saying you are prejudiced but the model is.

I just think you are not doing yourselves any favours and you havent tried this before so do not know how family violence / relationship violence is approached and tackled.

You may have a wider audience than you think.

The states is the states -so why dont you let Irish LGBT's have their say on how they see it.

Also let other people have their say without telling them that feminism is the problem, maybe it is Department of Health policy or Department of Justice.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

I just think you are not doing yourselves any favours and you havent tried this before so do not know how family violence / relationship violence is approached and tackled.

You may have a wider audience than you think.

I don't really know what the first paragraph is about, sorry, the last sentence - are you saying that you yourself feel alienated or is just you continuing to insist that I have an agenda, that I dont?

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

Also let other people have their say without telling them that feminism is the problem, maybe it is Department of Health policy or Department of Justice.

But it doesn't just happen in Ireland.
An example perhaps of why looking at the big picture can be useful.

We can say we think feminism is some or all of the problem but nobody is forced to accept it.

Your attitude on the other thread that feminism shouldn't be allowed be brought into a discussion is a different attitude altogether - it's blocking freedom of speech: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055914071 so I think should be challenged if it appears you're doing it again.

You are free in this thread to bring in other issues. Just I think it would better if generally you didn't tell us what should be in our posts. If you want to make suggestions about how we could say things, you should probably use less assertive language.

CDfm

Reward wrote: »

I don't really know what the first paragraph is about, sorry, the last sentence - are you saying that you yourself feel alienated or is just you continuing to insist that I have an agenda, that I dont?

I am not saying you have an agenda just that your terms of reference around the debate are self limiting and even I know that it is going to arrive at an anti feminist conclusion.

It would be great if there was a more inclusive debate .

Thats me done.

Reward

iptba wrote: »

But it doesn't just happen in Ireland.
An example perhaps of why looking at the big picture can be useful.

We can say we think feminism is some or all of the problem but nobody is forced to accept it.

Your attitude on the other thread that feminism shouldn't be allowed be brought into a discussion is a different attitude altogether - it's blocking freedom of speech: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055914071 so I think should be challenged if it appears you're doing it again.

You are free in this thread to bring in other issues. Just I think it would better if generally you didn't tell us what should be in our posts.

There is an international push to end the feminist strangle hold on abuse services and information and debunk feminist abuse myths. I'm not just some lone voice here.

Feminists that are preaching patriarchal abuse theory, should be excluded because an abuse industry that runs on patriarchal abuse theory is one that discriminates against men, the children of abusive women and the LGBT community, you don't seem to get that part. The international push for an inclusive abuse industry involves pushing patriarchal abuse theory and feminism that wont accept the truth about abuse out of the discussion.

WildOscar

CDfm wrote: »

So if you strip away the traveler occupants,
.

what if the traveler is a victim of DV? Do you mean traveller victims of DV should not be allowed in? Or what other reasons are the travellers there for?

CDfm

WildOscar wrote: »

what if the traveler is a victim of DV? Do you mean traveller victims of DV should not be allowed in? Or what other reasons are the travellers there for?

My point there is that Refuge places can be allocated for reasons other than abuse such as homelessness etc.

Thats my understanding of it and the resourses allocated may not used exclusively for DV victims. It doesnt do what it says on the tin.

I can't imagine that the levels of DV in the traveller community are 6000 % higher or whatever the figure is then in the rest of the population.

It is a valid question to ask if the refuge places are being used for other purposes than the funds are allocated and maybe the client group for which they are intended would not feel safe staying in them.

WildOscar

CDfm wrote: »

My point there is that Refuge places can be allocated for reasons other than abuse such as homelessness etc.

OK i understand what you mean

Thats my understanding of it and the resourses allocated may not used exclusively for DV victims. It doesnt do what it says on the tin.

do you come to this understanding from statistics

I can't imagine that the levels of DV in the traveller community are 6000 % higher or whatever the figure is then in the rest of the population.

I would not know

It is a valid question to ask if the refuge places are being used for other purposes than the funds are allocated and maybe the client group for which they are intended would not feel safe staying in them.

It is indeed.

It is a bit OT but have you read A Man In Womans World - scroll down. It is about politics and attitudes in Rape Crisis Network.

CDfm

@WildOscar I have read around the subject a bit.

I do not know the answers and it seems like a logical conclusion to me that the funds/resourses are not being targeted to where they might help the most people.

If the refuges are being used for "emergency housing " for other purposes then why not say so.

Organisations develop, expand and change. If their objective now is to help travellers and other disadvantaged women -then they should do so.

I somehow doubt that travellers have that much more domestic violence then the rest of the community for them to account for 50% of the occupancy of DV refuges.

Thanks for the link.

I do not think we should let "gender politics" get in the way of helping people.

WildOscar

CDfm wrote: »

@WildOscar I have read around the subject a bit.

I do not know the answers and it seems like a logical conclusion to me that the funds/resourses are not being targeted to where they might help the most people.

If the refuges are being used for "emergency housing " for other purposes then why not say so.

Organisations develop, expand and change. If their objective now is to help travellers and other disadvantaged women -then they should do so.

I somehow doubt that travellers have that much more domestic violence then the rest of the community for them to account for 50% of the occupancy of DV refuges.

Thanks for the link.

I do not think we should let "gender politics" get in the way of helping people.

that is not the same as having official stats though. I do not know about it but you should do some official research and get official figures before coming to conclusions

Reward

CDfm

The problem you are talking about is difficult to fix. The ethos is "always believe the victim". So as long as you are female and say that you are battered, there is a place there for you, so these places can fill up with people scamming bed and board. Genuine homeless shelters have problems too, many people wont use them because of the risks of going into them.

On top of that they willfully discriminate against most of the population, spread misinformation and run on an political ideology that is based on falsehoods.

You might find this interesting, its a resource page about corruption in womens shelters.

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-55.htm#birkenhead