Atheism and Misogyny

[Orcoa]

I agree. He applies solid science to everything, including religion.

which has much the same effect on religion as a chainsaw has on runny butter.

First off, I agree

Second, What the hell is runny butter?

[Sociobiology]

which has much the same effect on religion as a chainsaw has on runny butter.

First off, I agree

Second, What the hell is runny butter?

butter so warm it is runny: form => adjective noun.

runny
Adjective
More liquid than is usual or expected: "the soufflé was hard on top and quite runny underneath".

butter
Noun
A pale yellow edible fatty substance made by churning cream and used as a spread or in cooking.

I don't know how else to explain it.
the question kinda threw me for a loop.
Or is this a translation thing?

[Orcoa]

First off, I agree

Second, What the hell is runny butter?

butter so warm it is runny: form => adjective noun.

runny
Adjective
More liquid than is usual or expected: "the soufflé was hard on top and quite runny underneath".

butter
Noun
A pale yellow edible fatty substance made by churning cream and used as a spread or in cooking.

I don't know how else to explain it.
the question kinda threw me for a loop.
Or is this a translation thing?

Oh I thought it was a name of a brand of butter....you meant actual butter

My bad

[Sociobiology]

butter so warm it is runny: form => adjective noun.

runny
Adjective
More liquid than is usual or expected: "the soufflé was hard on top and quite runny underneath".

butter
Noun
A pale yellow edible fatty substance made by churning cream and used as a spread or in cooking.

I don't know how else to explain it.
the question kinda threw me for a loop.
Or is this a translation thing?

Oh I thought it was a name of a brand of butter....you meant actual butter

My bad

Its OK this kind of mental exercise is what makes NS fun for me, I love stuff that makes me stop and think. Especially about things like context and audience, makes me a better teacher I think.

[Tahar Joblis]

Pretty much all studies which have asked the general population of both men and women and used screening questions that actually pick up violence in both directions.Seriously.

Yeah, that's not true in the slightest.

1.3 percent of surveyed women and 0.9 percent of surveyed men reported experiencing such violence in the previous 12 months, writes your source; and then:

On the other hand, annual intimate partner violence prevalence estimates generated by the NFVS are substantially higher than those
generated by the NVAW Survey. The 1975 and 1985 NFVS found that 11 to 12 percent of married/cohabiting women and 12 percent of married/cohabiting men were physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually.11 The 1992 National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey, which included parts of the NFVS, found that approximately 1.9 percent of married/cohabiting women were severely assaulted by a male partner annually and approximately 4.5 percent of married/cohabiting men were severely assaulted by a female partner annually.12 The 1995 National Alcohol Survey, which also included parts of the NFVS, found that 5.2 to 13.6 percent of married/cohabiting couples experienced male-tofemale partner violence annually and 6.2 to 18.2 percent of married/cohabiting couples experienced female-to-male intimate partner violenceannually.13

Neither of the two features I mentioned (initiation/escalation of violence, and bi-directionality of violence) is measured in the NVAW report. It, in fact, avoided including perpetration by respondents. It appears to have deliberately avoided the question of bi-directionality of participants.

Which means your source is totally irrelevant to you contesting that women initiate and escalate violence no less often than men; and that unidirectional violence is much more often female-on-male violence than male-on-female violence.

It is difficult to explain why the NCVS, NFVS, and NVAW Survey generated such different annual intimate partner victimization rates or why the NFVS produced evidence of symmetry in women’s and men’s risk of intimate partner violence while the NCVS and NVAW Survey produced evidence of asymmetry.

Did you go on to read that section?

I'm guessing not.The NVAW states that women are victims of IPV more often; but does not actually consider the question of whether or not violence is reciprocal, or who initiates or escalates violence. The NVAW's screening questions also result in a low level of perpetration; and the screening questions used to select respondents for the long interview included:

1. A rape question directed only to female respondents.
2. An oral sex question defining oral sex as someone putting a penis in a mouth, or penetrating a vagina or anus with a mouth.
3. An anal sex question defining anal sex as someone putting a penis in an anus.

The NVAW is fundamentally designed to measure violence against women. It's right there in the title, and the NVAW has screening bias problems. As noted in the section, some researchers suggest the use of additional screening questions leads people to report more affirmatives, period. (This is on the theory that people are given more cues to remember incidents involving being victimized, even if the screening question that reminded them of the incident is one to which they will answer "no.") The use of extra screening questions on women can be expected to lead to more positive hits from women in the first place, in other words, across the whole survey... especially since positives on previous questions lead to them including you in the screened group. Notice the wording of the single physical assault screening question?

Not counting any incidents you have already mentioned, it begins - this is one of the later screening questions, and if I'm not mistaken, that means women who answered "yes" to the gender-biased rape questions were included in the screen. 41% of female respondents who reported being raped also reported being physically assaulted, and the lion's share of assaults on women were reportedly from an intimate partner; so there's also some screening overlap here.

That said; the "physical assault" questions on the NVFS were basically unscreened; leading to a much higher rate of reporting, period. The NVFS asked people how many times they committed, or had perpetrated upon them, violence by an intimate partner.

Don't claim that there is a consensus when there isn't.

Notice something funny? That's the same publication. Your source doesn't measure what I was talking about. Doesn't even try.

There isn't a consensus on whether or not men or women experience more violence, because a number of studies with methodological issues are published and are touted by people who are either unaware of the flaws in their studies, politically motivated to try to "prove" that men aren't victimized, or simply don't care about measuring violence against men and aren't trying to.

Funny that you should neglect rate and severity.

Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 to 44

63 percent of all homicides with a female victim and an identifiable perpetrator are perpetrated by a significant other.

Funny that you should make a completely bullshit statement that means jack and shit. Women are victims of assault and homicide much less often than men in the first place. The fact that women who are victimized are likely to be victimized by an intimate partner means, in that context, absolutely nothing.

And yet this is a common feminist talking point on the subject of those statistics. "X/Y is bigger than W/Z! Therefore X is a bigger problem than W!" Only Z is a fuck of a lot larger than Y; and W is significantly underreported for a wide variety of reasons familiar to social scientists.

Even with killing - and mind you, men, being larger, stronger, and much more often comfortable with guns, are in principle better-equipped to kill someone who just really pissed them off - the raw ratio of male victims of spousal killing to female victims of spousal killings is much closer to even than you would think. Even that measure is not a very good one, and is potentially impacted by a number of factors, e.g., the fact that female killers often choose to use poison and that this method is less likely to be detected as a killing; it's just the least subject to bias. As I've pointed out in comparing those figures to conviction rates.

So you really are saying that violence against women, in an era where they were treated as perpetual minors just never really happened.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that violence against women has never been sheltered from social disapproval relative to violence against men. In 1804, maybe nobody would intervene if you thumped your wife a few times; but they would be even less likely to intervene if your wife thumped you, and you could have a duel to the death with another man without that preventing you from becoming a vice president later in life.

You keep reciting talking points in response to what I'm saying. The problem is, what I'm saying is not addressed by your talking points. If you want to win this argument and make the claim that violence against women is somehow specially "sheltered" by Patriarchy^TM, you need to address the counterpoint that violence against men is "sheltered" even more. Reciting talking points about how violence against women actually exists is wholly insufficient.

Police officers, a male majority profession, have among the highest incidences of domestic violence against their partners.

Source?

Not that it's ultimately relevant to the point at hand - we have a demonstrable bias at the arrest level when it comes to domestic violence. The ratio of male to female arrests exceeds even the NVAW's ratio of male to female domestic violence. We have at present a culture of completely ignoring female on male domestic violence, to the point where a male victim can expect he is more likely to be arrested than his abuser. I am, however, curious as to how you can make that claim in the first place.

Yes, so did the head house slaves play a role in enforcing the racial obedience of black slaves. Didn't mean that there was any measure of equality.

Interestingly, that exact same argument has been used to dismiss the continued existence of male CEOs and politicians as relevant to the question of equality between common men and women.

[Free South Califas]

My advice to atheists, FWIW: Reject anti-theism on tactical grounds (and the anti-theists individually for their offensive bullshit), embrace rationalism as a movement, and groom a talking head or two who can give a kinder, gentler face to a more inclusive and more meaningful stream of cultural criticism.

[Free South Califas]

"She said a couple should explore their 'mutual fantasies' *mirthless chuckle*. There are no such things as 'mutual fantasies'."
-Bill Maher

"Those people who think sexual abuse is a black-or-white, all-or-none category are incapable of clear, logical thought."
-Dawkins

"Yeah. Well, you deserved it. So, fuck you. I hope it happens again soon. I’m tired of being treated like shit by you mean little cunts and then you using your rpae as an excuse. Fuck you. I think we should give teh guy who raped you a medal."
-Amazing Atheist

Not what I've said. I prefer to call myself an egalitarianist and not a feminist since it prevents confusion. Many people think that feminism is advocacy of female supremacy, and I can't count the amount of times I've argued over mere semantics. Sure, I've argued with complete idiots and borderline nazis on that, but whatever.

Ah, so you've thrown women under the bus to have a more comfortable time with other men. :nod: Well, I'm sure you have company.

[The Treorai]

Yes, because everything anti-feminist is automagically misogynist, right?.

I am not anti-women. I am very much pro-women. However, the myth that modern feminism spouts anything outside of stupidity and female superiority needs to be defeated so we can all begin to actually fix the problems that result in non-equal rights for women in this world.

Now on the topic of whether or not the greater atheist movement is misogynist, no. Simply because a few vocal people speak doesn't mean every single person agrees with, or even respects that person. That is like perpetrating the myth that all Christians are against gay marriage, or that all Muslims agree with the ideals of Al-Qaeda.

[The Treorai]

Not what I've said. I prefer to call myself an egalitarianist and not a feminist since it prevents confusion. Many people think that feminism is advocacy of female supremacy, and I can't count the amount of times I've argued over mere semantics. Sure, I've argued with complete idiots and borderline nazis on that, but whatever.

Ah, so you've thrown women under the bus to have a more comfortable time with other men. :nod: Well, I'm sure you have company.

Not Calling Yourself a Feminist =/= Throwing All Women Under The Bus.

Try not generalizing sometime.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes, because everything anti-feminist is automagically misogynist, right?.

I am not anti-women. I am very much pro-women. However, the myth that modern feminism spouts anything outside of stupidity and female superiority needs to be defeated so we can all begin to actually fix the problems that result in non-equal rights for women in this world.

Now on the topic of whether or not the greater atheist movement is misogynist, no. Simply because a few vocal people speak doesn't mean every single person agrees with, or even respects that person. That is like perpetrating the myth that all Christians are against gay marriage, or that all Muslims agree with the ideals of Al-Qaeda.

The myth that modern atheism spouts anything outside of stupidity and hatred of theists needs to be eradicated so we can all begin to actually fix the problem that results in non-equal rights for the non-religious of this world.

[The Treorai]

Yes, because everything anti-feminist is automagically misogynist, right?.

I am not anti-women. I am very much pro-women. However, the myth that modern feminism spouts anything outside of stupidity and female superiority needs to be defeated so we can all begin to actually fix the problems that result in non-equal rights for women in this world.

Now on the topic of whether or not the greater atheist movement is misogynist, no. Simply because a few vocal people speak doesn't mean every single person agrees with, or even respects that person. That is like perpetrating the myth that all Christians are against gay marriage, or that all Muslims agree with the ideals of Al-Qaeda.

The myth that modern atheism spouts anything outside of stupidity and hatred of theists needs to be eradicated so we can all begin to actually fix the problem that results in non-equal rights for the non-religious of this world.

That's a good point, and I agree with you, but it doesn't change the fact that not all atheists are women, and religion hating shit wads. Just like not all feminists are man-hating jagoffs. Doesn't change the fact that both organizations/beliefs make bigoted ideals just as acceptable as organized relgion does, or the GOP does, or any other group that has a fucking ideal that bases itself around giving more rights to a group of people, or challenging an ideal.

[Tahar Joblis]

The myth that modern atheism spouts anything outside of stupidity and hatred of theists

OK, I think I understand why you made this thread. Let me know if this covers it:

• You hate things which are "misogynist." (You can't tell what actually is and is not misogynist as far as I'm concerned; your working definition of the word hovers in the vicinity of "disagreed with a feminist" and "is a man.")
• You hate atheists. Well. Self-identified atheists, ones who stay in their place and keep their mouths shut about it are OK by your lights.
• You saw a couple cases in which someone, somewhere, posted a story where an atheist was called a misogynist.
• You saw this as an opportunity to smear both groups ("people who disagree with feminists" and "self-identified atheists") by associating them with each other.

Does that about cover it?

[The Treorai]

The myth that modern atheism spouts anything outside of stupidity and hatred of theists

OK, I think I understand why you made this thread. Let me know if this covers it:

• You hate things which are "misogynist." (You can't tell what actually is and is not misogynist as far as I'm concerned; your working definition of the word hovers in the vicinity of "disagreed with a feminist" and "is a man.")
• You hate atheists. Well. Self-identified atheists, ones who stay in their place and keep their mouths shut about it are OK by your lights.
• You saw a couple cases in which someone, somewhere, posted a story where an atheist was called a misogynist.
• You saw this as an opportunity to smear both groups ("people who disagree with feminists" and "self-identified atheists") by associating them with each other.

Does that about cover it?

Sounds about right to me.
/End Thread

[Ermarian]

Okay, so: I start with the premise that I think an egalitarian society would be cool, and that we have a long way to go there. Regardless of whether I call that "feminism" or disavow it, there would be people who would misunderstand that because ideology names aren't trademarked. (Consider all the meanings of "Liberal".)

On the whole, though, among the people who claim the "feminist" label I observe far, far more egalitarians than misandrists (though the latter do exist outside of strawman figures; they can often be recognized by the accompanying transphobia); and among the people who claim the "anti-feminist" label I notice a lot more misogynists than egalitarians. (Those egalitarians I do see often seem to be mistaken about the actual extent of sexism and privilege.)

So I'd make a sort of cost-benefit judgement there, and would rather give the egalitarian feminists and misogynist anti-feminists the correct impression (that I'm with the former and against the latter), even at the cost of alienating the honestly egalitarian anti-feminists. And I'm not concerned about the actual misandrist feminists thinking I support them, because as a man I rather doubt they'd care.

So in conclusion, feminism.

Edit: tl;dr version - this is essentially the descriptivist argument. Regardless of the etymology of "feminism", what matters is how people use it in communication.

[Iuronia]

Not what I've said. I prefer to call myself an egalitarianist and not a feminist since it prevents confusion. Many people think that feminism is advocacy of female supremacy, and I can't count the amount of times I've argued over mere semantics. Sure, I've argued with complete idiots and borderline nazis on that, but whatever.

Ah, so you've thrown women under the bus to have a more comfortable time with other men. :nod: Well, I'm sure you have company.

No, I just don't identify as a feminist. It's about terminology to me.

[The Parkus Empire]

The myth that modern atheism spouts anything outside of stupidity and hatred of theists

OK, I think I understand why you made this thread. Let me know if this covers it:

• You hate things which are "misogynist." (You can't tell what actually is and is not misogynist as far as I'm concerned; your working definition of the word hovers in the vicinity of "disagreed with a feminist" and "is a man.")
• You hate atheists. Well. Self-identified atheists, ones who stay in their place and keep their mouths shut about it are OK by your lights.
• You saw a couple cases in which someone, somewhere, posted a story where an atheist was called a misogynist.
• You saw this as an opportunity to smear both groups ("people who disagree with feminists" and "self-identified atheists") by associating them with each other.

Does that about cover it?

No, it does not. Perhaps you'd like to reexamine the context of what I just said.

In relation to what makes the three misogynists:

Dawkins: said that claims of sexual harassment are invalid because Islamic women have it worse and because if it isn't physical then no biggie.
Amazing Atheist: he essentially rallied behind the use of hate crime against someone he believed a woman. If someone says, "You should be lynched, nigger," that constitutes racism.
Maher: objected to women being portrayed as strong on TV, and said that women will not and cannot stand up for themselves.


The statement I have just made was clearly an illustration of the irrationality saying feminism is about nothing but female superiority, when feminism does not support a single female superiority policy. I have frequently and commonly identified as atheist and expressed disapproval in regards to religion. When you accuse me of trying to "smear" atheism, you are being nothing less than willfully obtuse.

[Free South Califas]

Ah, so you've thrown women under the bus to have a more comfortable time with other men. :nod: Well, I'm sure you have company.

No, I just don't identify as a feminist. It's about terminology to me.

Words have consequences, you know...but you're not a feminist, so I may be barking up the wrong tree. The way your words hurt women is irrelevant to your desire, so who cares? They're just words.

[Free South Califas]

Yes, because everything anti-feminist is automagically misogynist, right?.

I am not anti-women. I am very much pro-women. However, the myth that modern feminism spouts anything outside of stupidity and female superiority needs to be defeated so we can all begin to actually fix the problems that result in non-equal rights for women in this world.

Now on the topic of whether or not the greater atheist movement is misogynist, no. Simply because a few vocal people speak doesn't mean every single person agrees with, or even respects that person. That is like perpetrating the myth that all Christians are against gay marriage, or that all Muslims agree with the ideals of Al-Qaeda.

I think we can all agree that saying a few naughty words out of hate is slightly less damaging than supporting bigoted laws or being a global terrorist organization.

Ah, so you've thrown women under the bus to have a more comfortable time with other men. :nod: Well, I'm sure you have company.

Not Calling Yourself a Feminist =/= Throwing All Women Under The Bus.

Try not generalizing sometime.

Well, that was eloquent. I suppose I'd simply parrot the same advice back at you. What Iuronia did was clear enough; he described his process in detail. Don't worry, I'm detail-obsessed.

[Iuronia]

No, I just don't identify as a feminist. It's about terminology to me.

Words have consequences, you know...but you're not a feminist, so I may be barking up the wrong tree. The way your words hurt women is irrelevant to your desire, so who cares? They're just words.

I hurt women? That's new to me.

[Tahar Joblis]

OK, I think I understand why you made this thread. Let me know if this covers it:

• You hate things which are "misogynist." (You can't tell what actually is and is not misogynist as far as I'm concerned; your working definition of the word hovers in the vicinity of "disagreed with a feminist" and "is a man.")
• You hate atheists. Well. Self-identified atheists, ones who stay in their place and keep their mouths shut about it are OK by your lights.
• You saw a couple cases in which someone, somewhere, posted a story where an atheist was called a misogynist.
• You saw this as an opportunity to smear both groups ("people who disagree with feminists" and "self-identified atheists") by associating them with each other.

Does that about cover it?

No, it does not. Perhaps you'd like to reexamine the context of what I just said.

In relation to what makes the three misogynists:

Dawkins: said that claims of sexual harassment are invalid because Islamic women have it worse and because if it isn't physical then no biggie.

False. He said that being asked up for coffee is not, in fact, a form of oppression against women. This is true.

He is also the only person on your entire list who qualifies, in any way, as a leader within the atheist movement. He is the only one who could be considered better known for being an atheist than for other things. (Arguably! It's not why he became famous in the first place, but he is famous as an atheist now.)

Maher doesn't even accept the label "atheist," and instead calls himself an agnostic, which is the sort of thing that irritates the stuffing of the people in the atheist movement, who want people to rally around the label of "atheist." Hard to be a leader of the atheist movement.

TAA? Is AFAIK most famous for being an MRA. Well, I suppose, looking at his page, he has close to half a million subscribers, which is impressive, and gets close to 100,000 views on a lot of his videos; I guess that makes him more prominent than I thought he was, but I am still pretty dubious about the idea he's a leader within atheism. Can you provide any evidence to that effect?

The statement I have just made was clearly an illustration of the irrationality saying feminism is about nothing but female superiority, when feminism does not support a single female superiority policy. I have frequently and commonly identified as atheist and expressed disapproval in regards to religion. When you accuse me of trying to "smear" atheism, you are being nothing less than willfully obtuse.

OK, so you are hostile to the atheist movement, rather than to the general idea of atheism, and think that atheism is not "anti-theism," whatever you happen to mean by that. (I'm familiar with several definitional shell games we could play at the moment with both of those terms, but let's skip them.)

So. Aside from that substitution - you hate the "atheist movement" and "anti-theists" (who of course are people who call themselves atheist, but not to be confused with "good" atheists like yourself); you hate "misogynists" (which of course means anyone who disagrees with feminism, or at least any man, it's always harder to stick that label on women); and you want to smear both of them by association with one another.

Does that cover your motives in posting that thread, corrected? Because, for all that you posed the OP as a question, you seem to take it on doctrinal faith that Dawkins is a misogynist, the atheist movement is horrible, etc. You don't really seem to be looking for anybody to convince you of anything. Is there anything about the situation that you are open to having your view changed on?

[Tahar Joblis]

No, I just don't identify as a feminist. It's about terminology to me.

Words have consequences, you know...but you're not a feminist, so I may be barking up the wrong tree. The way your words hurt women is irrelevant to your desire, so who cares? They're just words.

Califas, are you actually saying that not identifying as feminist is an act which is intrinsically requires being misogynist?

Because that's both absurd and yet also what I have been accusing feminists of believing. I just didn't expect any of them to actually 'fess up to the fact that as far as they were concerned, you're either on board with the "feminism" ship or are automatically misogynist regardless of anything else.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Does that cover your motives in posting that thread, corrected? Because, for all that you posed the OP as a question, you seem to take it on doctrinal faith that Dawkins is a misogynist, the atheist movement is horrible, etc. You don't really seem to be looking for anybody to convince you of anything. Is there anything about the situation that you are open to having your view changed on?

It's a situation intrinsic to the committed ideologue. Whenever one makes a counter-argument the goalposts seem not only to move in two dimensions but also float several hundred thousand miles above the pitch whilst wearing cast-iron earplugs.

[The Treorai]

Does that cover your motives in posting that thread, corrected? Because, for all that you posed the OP as a question, you seem to take it on doctrinal faith that Dawkins is a misogynist, the atheist movement is horrible, etc. You don't really seem to be looking for anybody to convince you of anything. Is there anything about the situation that you are open to having your view changed on?

It's a situation intrinsic to the committed ideologue. Whenever one makes a counter-argument the goalposts seem not only to move in two dimensions but also float several hundred thousand miles above the pitch whilst wearing cast-iron earplugs.

Going into my signature.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Words have consequences, you know...but you're not a feminist, so I may be barking up the wrong tree. The way your words hurt women is irrelevant to your desire, so who cares? They're just words.

Califas, are you actually saying that not identifying as feminist is an act which is intrinsically requires being misogynist?

Because that's both absurd and yet also what I have been accusing feminists of believing. I just didn't expect any of them to actually 'fess up to the fact that as far as they were concerned, you're either on board with the "feminism" ship or are automatically misogynist regardless of anything else.

Not quite true, but close. Coming off of the definition of feminism (Oxford Dictionary: the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.), there are only three real options:
1. Gender equality has already been achieved. This one is a no-brainer. The answer to this one is no, as demonstrated by any analysis of people with power.
2. You support the ideals of the feminist movement.
3. Gender equality has not yet been achieved, and you want it to stay that way; ergo, a misogynist.

While you don't necessary have to be "on board with the feminism ship" to not be a misogynist, you do have to support its ideals.

[Kaylea]

Neither of the two features I mentioned (initiation/escalation of violence, and bi-directionality of violence) is measured in the NVAW report. It, in fact, avoided including perpetration by respondents. It appears to have deliberately avoided the question of bi-directionality of participants.

Which means your source is totally irrelevant to you contesting that women initiate and escalate violence no less often than men; and that unidirectional violence is much more often female-on-male violence than male-on-female violence.

Even with killing - and mind you, men, being larger, stronger, and much more often comfortable with guns, are in principle better-equipped to kill someone who just really pissed them off - the raw ratio of male victims of spousal killing to female victims of spousal killings is much closer to even than you would think. Even that measure is not a very good one, and is potentially impacted by a number of factors, e.g., the fact that female killers often choose to use poison and that this method is less likely to be detected as a killing; it's just the least subject to bias. As I've pointed out in comparing those figures to conviction rates.

Yeah, it's yet another conspiracy. Those MRAs have cracked another evil feminist plot. Not only has feminism apparently managed to encourage a hidden group of mothers to torment their male children in the name of women's rights. It's secretly allowed women to murder their husbands using all manners of poisons and other covert means. Hand-in-hand with male feminist sympathisers in government, bodies are being hidden and investigators duped.

The studies that find that women abuse men equally or even more than men abuse women are based on data compiled through the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), a survey tool developed in the 1970s. CTS may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence research because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics; it also leaves out sexual assault and violence by ex-spouses or partners and does not determine who initiated the violence.

Also men are more likely to overestimate female aggression in order to rationalise their own behaviour. “Gender Symmetry” in Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review (p. 1344 & various)

Even if women were initiating more DV incidents, men would still be hurting more women severely.