Trotskylvania wrote:Tahar Joblis wrote: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.
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 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.