Kk
Advertisement
by Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:53 am
by Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:16 am
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:21 am
Purgatio wrote:Rape and Sexual Violence
According to the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv/SV-factsheet_2020.pdf), "sexual violence", which it defines as non-consensual sexual activity, is a problem that disproportionately affects women compared to men. 1 in 3 women experience sexual violence in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 4 men. When you narrow it down to rape specifically, the gender-disparity widens. 1 in 5 women suffer attempted or completed rape, compared to just 1 in 38 men. Even when you add in the category of being coerced to penetrate (since rape is typically defined in law as being sexually penetrated against your will), only 1 in 14 men have been forced to penetrate in their lifetime (or attempted thereof), still far smaller than the proportion of women who have suffered rape or attempted rape.
The same gender disparity is observable when you look specifically at sexual violence in the form of human trafficking, where according to the UNODC, the overwhelming majority of human trafficking victims - 71% - are women and girls (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/12/report-majority-of-trafficking-victims-are-women-and-girls-one-third-children/).
Turning to the UK, according to CSEW statistics, 20% of women have suffered sexual assault, compared to 4% of men (https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/statistics-sexual-violence/). Moreover, in the year ending in March 2017, 3.1% of women experienced sexual assault, compared to 0.8% of men. 2.7% of women experienced indecent exposure and unwanted sexual touching, compared to 0.8% of men. And 0.9% of women suffered rape or assault by penetration (including attempts), the percentage fell to 0.1% amongst men (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017).
I'm gonna make another post about domestic violence after this, so we can debate the issues separately. And wanted to post this earlier so you could respond to it as you wish as I type out my DV/IPV post.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:26 am
Purgatio wrote:Domestic Violence and Intimate Partner Violence
In the US, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), published by the DOJ in May 2000, women were the victims of intimate partner violence at 5 times the rate of men in 1998. Amongst all the people murdered by an intimate partner in that year, 72% were women (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf).
If we turn to NISVS statistics (https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_IPV_508_QC.pdf), 5.4 women per 1,000 women suffered intimate partner victimisation in 2015, compared to 0.5 per 1,000 men in that same year. 16% of women suffered contact sexual violence from an intimate partner, compared to 7% of men. 20% of female victims of IPV reported 1 or more PTSD symptoms, compared to 5% of male victims of IPV. Turning to CDC statistics (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv-factsheet508.pdf), 1 in 4 women suffer contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking from an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 10 men. 1 in 5 women will experience severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 7 men. 10% of women report stalking from an intimate partner, compared to 2% of men.
As for the UK, Women's Aid (https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/) compiled statistics from the ONS in 2018 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018) showing in 2014-2017, 73% of victims of homicide from an intimate partner were female, and in March 2018, 92% of defendants in domestic abuse cases were male, and 66% of victims were female. Moreover, according to the ONS Appendix Tables (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesappendixtables), in March 2018, 7.9% of women suffered domestic abuse, compared to 4.2% of men. 6.3% of women reported suffering partner abuse, compared to 2.7% of men. And amongst abuse victims, women were far more likely to suffer multiple types of abuse (non-physical abuse or threats/use of force, sexual assault, stalking etc.), with 21% of women suffering multiple types of abuse, compared to 17% of men.
In the UK, domestic abuse affects 1 in 4 women, versus 1 in 6 men (https://www.lwa.org.uk/understanding-abuse/statistics.htm). According to Home Office statistics in 2011, reported by Refuge (http://www.refuge.org.uk/files/Statistics-domestic-violence-and-gender.pdf), 73% of domestic violence victims are female, and 81% of perpetrators of DV are male. Four times as many women are killed by intimate partners than men. 89% of people who experience 4 or more incidents of DV are women. Female DV victims were also 4 times as likely to experience severe and potentially-lethal violence (threats, choking, assaults with a gun or knife), 3 times more likely to suffer a physical injury, twice as likely to report repeated assaults or more than 10 separate incidents of DV, and 5 times as likely to report fearing for their lives.
by Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:35 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Purgatio wrote:Domestic Violence and Intimate Partner Violence
In the US, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), published by the DOJ in May 2000, women were the victims of intimate partner violence at 5 times the rate of men in 1998. Amongst all the people murdered by an intimate partner in that year, 72% were women (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf).
If we turn to NISVS statistics (https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_IPV_508_QC.pdf), 5.4 women per 1,000 women suffered intimate partner victimisation in 2015, compared to 0.5 per 1,000 men in that same year. 16% of women suffered contact sexual violence from an intimate partner, compared to 7% of men. 20% of female victims of IPV reported 1 or more PTSD symptoms, compared to 5% of male victims of IPV. Turning to CDC statistics (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv-factsheet508.pdf), 1 in 4 women suffer contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking from an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 10 men. 1 in 5 women will experience severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 7 men. 10% of women report stalking from an intimate partner, compared to 2% of men.
As for the UK, Women's Aid (https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/) compiled statistics from the ONS in 2018 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018) showing in 2014-2017, 73% of victims of homicide from an intimate partner were female, and in March 2018, 92% of defendants in domestic abuse cases were male, and 66% of victims were female. Moreover, according to the ONS Appendix Tables (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesappendixtables), in March 2018, 7.9% of women suffered domestic abuse, compared to 4.2% of men. 6.3% of women reported suffering partner abuse, compared to 2.7% of men. And amongst abuse victims, women were far more likely to suffer multiple types of abuse (non-physical abuse or threats/use of force, sexual assault, stalking etc.), with 21% of women suffering multiple types of abuse, compared to 17% of men.
In the UK, domestic abuse affects 1 in 4 women, versus 1 in 6 men (https://www.lwa.org.uk/understanding-abuse/statistics.htm). According to Home Office statistics in 2011, reported by Refuge (http://www.refuge.org.uk/files/Statistics-domestic-violence-and-gender.pdf), 73% of domestic violence victims are female, and 81% of perpetrators of DV are male. Four times as many women are killed by intimate partners than men. 89% of people who experience 4 or more incidents of DV are women. Female DV victims were also 4 times as likely to experience severe and potentially-lethal violence (threats, choking, assaults with a gun or knife), 3 times more likely to suffer a physical injury, twice as likely to report repeated assaults or more than 10 separate incidents of DV, and 5 times as likely to report fearing for their lives.
I've addressed this with my previous link.
As for the UK ONS stats, I don't think it's reasonable to use prosecution statistics in this instance given that what is being alleged is a structural bias that would lead to female perpetrators being ignored by the justice system.
Many of these studies also use loaded terminology.
But the coup-de-gras on this notion that it's a "Violence against women" issue is work like this:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/research ... n_b_222746
Which suggests that many of the stats you're citing are the result of men defending themselves.
(I'm a little light on this one, I'm a bit busy, but if you could cover these two rebuttals and explain how/why they don't work, i'll get back to you later more in depth. Apologies for that, I've been inundated with shit to do).
by Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:41 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Purgatio wrote:Rape and Sexual Violence
According to the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv/SV-factsheet_2020.pdf), "sexual violence", which it defines as non-consensual sexual activity, is a problem that disproportionately affects women compared to men. 1 in 3 women experience sexual violence in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 4 men. When you narrow it down to rape specifically, the gender-disparity widens. 1 in 5 women suffer attempted or completed rape, compared to just 1 in 38 men. Even when you add in the category of being coerced to penetrate (since rape is typically defined in law as being sexually penetrated against your will), only 1 in 14 men have been forced to penetrate in their lifetime (or attempted thereof), still far smaller than the proportion of women who have suffered rape or attempted rape.
The same gender disparity is observable when you look specifically at sexual violence in the form of human trafficking, where according to the UNODC, the overwhelming majority of human trafficking victims - 71% - are women and girls (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/12/report-majority-of-trafficking-victims-are-women-and-girls-one-third-children/).
Turning to the UK, according to CSEW statistics, 20% of women have suffered sexual assault, compared to 4% of men (https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/statistics-sexual-violence/). Moreover, in the year ending in March 2017, 3.1% of women experienced sexual assault, compared to 0.8% of men. 2.7% of women experienced indecent exposure and unwanted sexual touching, compared to 0.8% of men. And 0.9% of women suffered rape or assault by penetration (including attempts), the percentage fell to 0.1% amongst men (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017).
I'm gonna make another post about domestic violence after this, so we can debate the issues separately. And wanted to post this earlier so you could respond to it as you wish as I type out my DV/IPV post.
Firstly, the CDC figures utilizing lifetime sexual violence are necessarily of lesser validity than the ones measuring yearly sexual violence because of how sampling for previous events is often poor. The yearly sexual figures show near parity between male victims and female victims, and also exclude the prison population.
There's also a semantic difference between "Have been raped" and "Are raped", and the yearly figures are vastly more relevant when discussing whether men "Are raped" at a similar rate to women. The issues in getting older men to recognize what happened to them after a lifetime of being told it didn't also should be considered, as well as the studies showing that men who we *know* have been raped will often deny this is the case. (I can find this if you wish but i'll assume you'll take it on faith).
There's also a question to be raised as to whether current policy should reflect current problems, or "Lifetime" problems. I doubt you'd think it was sensible to note that legal segregation is still a problem since some percentage of black people have experienced legal segregated businesses "In their lifetime".
As such, not only are the lifetime figures questionable in their own right due to the biases of those surveyed after a lifetime of being propagandized to and having their experiences recontextualized for them, but they're also not relevant to current politics, policy, or attempts to curb rape, and a continuing narrative that rape *IS* (present tense) a womens issue is a misandrist one that relies on statistical manipulation, such as the exclusion of made to penetrate.
On the issue of sexual assault, i'd readily concede that it may well happen more often to women. However, the framing of this as violence against women and stemming from patriarchy is problematic, and misandrist.
Socially inadequate or inexperienced men are pressured into trying to initiate flirting, or they'll never get anywhere. Meanwhile, socially inadequate or inexperienced women can simply wait for a man to flirt with them.
The framing of the issue as one of "violence against women" led by "Male entitlement" and patriarchy and so on is a misframing. It's more akin to a situation where one sex does all the cooking and the other refuses to, and then the one refusing to cook concocts an elaborate conspiracy theory about how the cooking gender hates them and wants them dead, because after all, the food poisoning statistics bare that out. Look at how few non-cooks poison cooks, compared to the reverse.
A simpler explanation, incompetent cooks from one sex are forced to cook, and incompetent cooks from the other gender don't do so, is not given air time.
*because the primary goal of the framework is to demonize men, cast suspicion on them, and make women paranoid about men, rather than to in good faith evaluate why these dynamics exist*. This is then used to demonize male sexuality and males, rather than to tell women to put the work in.
This is how even in this instance the VAW narrative falters and can be shown to be misandrist.
If women initiated flirtation and attempts to get sex at equal rates, there's every reason to suspect that predatory, inadequate, and inexperienced women would sexually assault men as well, OR that people of both sexes without the knowledge of how to do this task safely would sit it out and wait for the other sex to approach them.
by Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:36 am
Purgatio wrote:So first of all, I'm sceptical of the response that we can't rely on official crime statistics because the claim is that there are many invisible men whose cases of DV never get to the police in the first place. Its an argument that's certain plausible, but also unfalsifiable (Karl Popper's falsifiability criteria), and hence ultimately a bit pointless in the discussion.
Mention of domestic violence immediately brings to mind an intimidating male batterer. But a 2007 article shows that the problem — also called intimate partner violence — is often more complicated and may involve both women and men as perpetrators.
Nearly 11,000 men and women, a representative sample of the American population ages 18 to 28, participated in a national survey. They were asked the following questions about their most important recent sexual or romantic relationship:
How often in the past year have you threatened your partner with violence, pushed him or her, or thrown something at him or her that could hurt, and how often has your partner done that to you?
How often in the past year have you hit, slapped, or kicked your partner, and how often has your partner done that to you?
If there has been any violence in your relationship, how often has either partner suffered an injury, such as a sprain, bruise, or cut?
Almost 25% of the people surveyed — 28% of women and 19% of men — said there was some violence in their relationship. Women admitted perpetrating more violence (25% versus 11%) as well as being victimized more by violence (19% versus 16%) than men did. According to both men and women, 50% of this violence was reciprocal, that is, involved both parties, and in those cases the woman was more likely to have been the first to strike.
Violence was more frequent when both partners were involved, and so was injury — to either partner. In these relationships, men were more likely than women to inflict injury (29% versus 19%).
When the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70% of the time. Men were more likely to be injured in reciprocally violent relationships (25%) than were women when the violence was one-sided (20%).
That means both men and women agreed that men were not more responsible than women for intimate partner violence. The findings cannot be explained by men's being ashamed to admit hitting women, because women agreed with men on this point.
The authors say they have no intention of minimizing the very real problem of serious domestic violence — the classic male batterer. The survey did not cover the use of knives, guns, choking, or burning, and it was not concerned with the kind of situation that can drive a woman to seek shelter outside the home. The view of the authors is that most intimate partner violence should not be equated with severe battering. Domestic disputes that turn physical because of retaliation and escalation do not have the same causes or the same consequences as male battering. Couples counseling is generally regarded as ineffective for batterers, but if the violence is moderate and the injuries are minor, both partners are involved, and they want to stay together, it makes sense for a therapist to work with both of them.
Whitaker DJ, et al. "Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury between Relationships with Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence," American Journal of Public Health (May 2007): Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 941–47.
“They determined she was the aggressor but said since I was a man it was silly to arrest her.”
“Told me to get her help. Told me to spend the night in a hotel.”
“They saw mw [sic] as a large male and…took her side. I was at the hospital with bruising and burned eyes from hot coffee thrown in them. They didn’t believe that she did this…and refused to arrest her… The next incident…the police…saw me bleeding they charged her with felony DV but later dropped it to misdemeanor assault because we are not married and do not live together.”
by Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:07 am
Galloism wrote:-snip-
Across the whole sample of 692, the vast majority of IPV perpetrators recorded by the police were men (92%). Across the comparative subsamples of 96 cases, men were also recorded as primary aggressors in many more incidents (n = 467) than women were (n = 114), leading to more arrests overall of men than of women. Nonetheless, women were arrested to a disproportionate degree given the fewer incidents in which they were perpetrators. Women were 3 times more likely than men to be arrested when they were identified as a primary aggressor in a particular incident, and the police appeared more ready to arrest women despite patterns of violent behavior that were less intense or severe than the patterns exhibited by men. During the 6-year tracking period, women were arrested every 3 incidents in which they were deemed perpetrators (in 32% of incidents), but men were only arrested in about every 10 incidents (in 11% of incidents). Women were also arrested for a wider range of, and more serious, offenses involving assault than men—from common assault, to grievous bodily harm, to grievous bodily harm with intent. The tendency of the police to focus on individual incidents rather than patterns of behaviors meant that women’s use of weapons, albeit for protection, led to women being arrested more often for high-level assaults than men. McMahon and Pence (2003) argue that this is a gendered approach because it does not take into account the wider IPV pattern of women using weapons in self-defense rather than as main aggressors. In one example from the English police data, the police state that the woman is the primary aggressor, seemingly because she is arrested for a very serious offense (grievous bodily harm with intent) following retaliatory violence. Despite the husband’s long history of violence against her (he has 28 incidents of perpetration recorded by the police, compared to 2 for her) and a civil restraining order against him, he was only arrested for lower-level offenses and mainly for Breach of the Peace. The police record states: “Usually it is female assaulting male. She has previous for grievous bodily harm with intent.”
We began with a ‘puzzle’ about contradictory research findings concerning the violenceof men and women against an intimate partner. Research findings are contradictory,suggesting, on the one hand, symmetry, with men and women equally likely to perpetrateviolence against an intimate partner, and, on the other hand, asymmetry, with men theprimary perpetrators of violence against women partners. These contradictory researchfindings not only have implications for academic research but also for policies and inter-ventions. This adds importance to the task of trying to unravel the puzzle of how research-ers arrived at such contradictory findings. In order to do this, we considered how this ‘violence’ is conceptualized, defined, measured and reported. We suggest that research that uses a narrow, ‘act-based’ approach to the definition and measurement ofviolence is more likely to find ‘symmetry’ or equivalence of ‘violence’ between men andwomen. This is because it conflates acts of violence and aggression and does not exam-ine the context, consequences, motivations, intentions and reactions associated with theoverall violent ‘event’ or the relationships in which the violence occurs. The more com-prehensive methodology used in VAW research provides additional data about the prob-lem, including a more detailed look at the violence itself, as well as inclusion of factorssuch as context, consequences and intentions. This approach provides a wider base ofrelevant knowledge about the violence and illustrates important differences betweenmen and women in the perpetration of violence, as well as its consequences. Findings from this more comprehensive methodology support the notion that serious intimatepartner violence is asymmetrical, with men usually violent to women.
In those cases where women had used violence against their male partner, the find-ings reported here suggest that women’s violence differs from that perpetrated by menin terms of nature, frequency, intention, intensity, physical injury and emotionalimpact. All of the women in this study had been the victims of repeated physical vio-lence from their male partner, often over many years. Despite this, just over half hadused any form of violence against their abuser, none had used sexual violence and onlya few had used serious or injurious violence. Of the women who had used violence, theconsequences in terms of emotional impact were usually inconsequential; the conse-quences in terms of injuries were usually, though not always, less severe; the violenceoften, though not always, occurred in the context of ‘self-defence’ or ‘self-protection’;and women’s violence was usually, although not always, rated by both partners as ‘notserious’. In addition, women did not use intimidating or coercive forms of controllingbehaviour associated with the ‘constellation of abuse’. Men who were the recipients ofwomen’s violence usually reported that it was ‘inconsequential’, did not negativelyaffect their sense of well-being and safety, and these men rarely, if ever, sought protec-tion from the authorities. These findings regarding the nature and consequences ofwomen’s violence make it impossible to construe the violence of men and women as either equivalent or reciprocal.
Men’s and women’s reports about their own violence and the violence of their partnerreveal that they tend to agree about the nature, frequency and impact of the violence per-petrated by women but disagree about men’s violence. With respect to women’s violence,there is considerable concordance between men and women in reporting that women donot usually perpetrate violence. When women do use violence, men and women agree that it is generally infrequent, is rarely ‘serious’, results in few, if any, injuries and has few, if any, negative consequences for men. By contrast, there is considerable discordancebetween men’s and women’s reports about men’s violence. Men and women disagreeabout the nature, frequency and impact of violence perpetrated by men—women reportmore and men report less. Curiously, while men never report more of their own violence than that reported by women partners, women sometimes do. These results correspond to findings from other research (Szinovacz 1983; Margolin 1987).
by Stylan » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:08 am
by Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:20 am
Purgatio wrote:Galloism wrote:-snip-
This is one of the things I find a little bit espistemically difficult about this debate (and, in my experience, is generally how these feminism vs. MRA debates boil down). Someone will bring up an interesting study like the Douglas & Hines study that shows police are more likely to arrest male DV perpetrators than female DV perpetrators, ceteris paribus, because of prevailing social stereotypes, and its always important to put these studies within a wider context, because there are studies out there which show the exact opposite. The one I tend to cite the most is the Marianne Hester study for Bristol University, which found that, all else being equal, a female DV perpetrator was actually 3 times more likely to be arrested by the police than a male DV perpetrator, when identified as the primary aggressor when responding to a DV incident (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077801212461428):Across the whole sample of 692, the vast majority of IPV perpetrators recorded by the police were men (92%). Across the comparative subsamples of 96 cases, men were also recorded as primary aggressors in many more incidents (n = 467) than women were (n = 114), leading to more arrests overall of men than of women. Nonetheless, women were arrested to a disproportionate degree given the fewer incidents in which they were perpetrators. Women were 3 times more likely than men to be arrested when they were identified as a primary aggressor in a particular incident, and the police appeared more ready to arrest women despite patterns of violent behavior that were less intense or severe than the patterns exhibited by men. During the 6-year tracking period, women were arrested every 3 incidents in which they were deemed perpetrators (in 32% of incidents), but men were only arrested in about every 10 incidents (in 11% of incidents). Women were also arrested for a wider range of, and more serious, offenses involving assault than men—from common assault, to grievous bodily harm, to grievous bodily harm with intent. The tendency of the police to focus on individual incidents rather than patterns of behaviors meant that women’s use of weapons, albeit for protection, led to women being arrested more often for high-level assaults than men. McMahon and Pence (2003) argue that this is a gendered approach because it does not take into account the wider IPV pattern of women using weapons in self-defense rather than as main aggressors. In one example from the English police data, the police state that the woman is the primary aggressor, seemingly because she is arrested for a very serious offense (grievous bodily harm with intent) following retaliatory violence. Despite the husband’s long history of violence against her (he has 28 incidents of perpetration recorded by the police, compared to 2 for her) and a civil restraining order against him, he was only arrested for lower-level offenses and mainly for Breach of the Peace. The police record states: “Usually it is female assaulting male. She has previous for grievous bodily harm with intent.”
Hester also concludes that "At the same time, the emphasis by the criminal justice system on individual incidents, without a questioning of gender dynamics and constructions, meant that women were 3 times more likely to be arrested, often for violence used to protect themselves from further harm from male partners."
Again, however, I think there are nuances to be recognised here. The study was published following the UK's enactment of 'mandatory-arrest' policies for DV incidents, in which the police are required to identify and log down a primary perpetrator or aggressor when responding to a DV incident. Hester basically found that men were more likely to be identified as a primary aggressor than women - is this because of law enforcement bias, or because in those instances, men legitimately were more likely to be the aggressor or the abuser? I think there's room for debate here - the more reasonable inference in my view is the latter, precisely because of the study's findings that female primary aggressors were 3 times more likely to be arrested by the police than male primary aggressors, which is a strange result if we're supposed to believe that police officers act on misandrist stereotypes when responding to DV incidents. This conclusion is further bolstered by Hester's findings that female DV perpetators were arrested for a wider range of DV offences, and arrested for more serious DV offences, and were oftentimes arrested even if there was evidence that the violence on her part was retaliatory against a husband with a series of previous DV incidents which did not result in arrests.
I also think its necessary to situate that research in the existing literature - in particular, Michael Johnson's famous 1995 study for the National Council on Family Relations (https://www.jstor.org/preview-page/10.2307/353683?seq=1), which found that domestic violence generally fell into two categories of 'patriarchal violence' and 'situational couple violence', in which the former was characterised by more serious and repeated DV, a gender disparity (male perpetrators and female victims), and a pattern of coercive control, whereas the latter was characterised by less-frequent, less-severe DV, gender-equity (equivalent numbers of male and female perpetrators), and no overall pattern of power and control between the parties, with the violence often being sporadic and reciprocal. Johnson's findings were largely confirmed by the famous Dobash & Dobash study (http://www.brown.uk.com/domesticviolence/dobash.pdf) which, in particular, debunked the Straus-Gelles hypothesis that men and women committed DV at roughly-equal rates, confirming a gender-asymmetry hypothesis in respect of DV, in the following terms:We began with a ‘puzzle’ about contradictory research findings concerning the violenceof men and women against an intimate partner. Research findings are contradictory,suggesting, on the one hand, symmetry, with men and women equally likely to perpetrateviolence against an intimate partner, and, on the other hand, asymmetry, with men theprimary perpetrators of violence against women partners. These contradictory researchfindings not only have implications for academic research but also for policies and inter-ventions. This adds importance to the task of trying to unravel the puzzle of how research-ers arrived at such contradictory findings. In order to do this, we considered how this ‘violence’ is conceptualized, defined, measured and reported. We suggest that research that uses a narrow, ‘act-based’ approach to the definition and measurement ofviolence is more likely to find ‘symmetry’ or equivalence of ‘violence’ between men andwomen. This is because it conflates acts of violence and aggression and does not exam-ine the context, consequences, motivations, intentions and reactions associated with theoverall violent ‘event’ or the relationships in which the violence occurs. The more com-prehensive methodology used in VAW research provides additional data about the prob-lem, including a more detailed look at the violence itself, as well as inclusion of factorssuch as context, consequences and intentions. This approach provides a wider base ofrelevant knowledge about the violence and illustrates important differences betweenmen and women in the perpetration of violence, as well as its consequences. Findings from this more comprehensive methodology support the notion that serious intimatepartner violence is asymmetrical, with men usually violent to women.
In those cases where women had used violence against their male partner, the find-ings reported here suggest that women’s violence differs from that perpetrated by menin terms of nature, frequency, intention, intensity, physical injury and emotionalimpact. All of the women in this study had been the victims of repeated physical vio-lence from their male partner, often over many years. Despite this, just over half hadused any form of violence against their abuser, none had used sexual violence and onlya few had used serious or injurious violence. Of the women who had used violence, theconsequences in terms of emotional impact were usually inconsequential; the conse-quences in terms of injuries were usually, though not always, less severe; the violenceoften, though not always, occurred in the context of ‘self-defence’ or ‘self-protection’;and women’s violence was usually, although not always, rated by both partners as ‘notserious’. In addition, women did not use intimidating or coercive forms of controllingbehaviour associated with the ‘constellation of abuse’. Men who were the recipients ofwomen’s violence usually reported that it was ‘inconsequential’, did not negativelyaffect their sense of well-being and safety, and these men rarely, if ever, sought protec-tion from the authorities. These findings regarding the nature and consequences ofwomen’s violence make it impossible to construe the violence of men and women as either equivalent or reciprocal.
Men’s and women’s reports about their own violence and the violence of their partnerreveal that they tend to agree about the nature, frequency and impact of the violence per-petrated by women but disagree about men’s violence. With respect to women’s violence,there is considerable concordance between men and women in reporting that women donot usually perpetrate violence. When women do use violence, men and women agree that it is generally infrequent, is rarely ‘serious’, results in few, if any, injuries and has few, if any, negative consequences for men. By contrast, there is considerable discordancebetween men’s and women’s reports about men’s violence. Men and women disagreeabout the nature, frequency and impact of violence perpetrated by men—women reportmore and men report less. Curiously, while men never report more of their own violence than that reported by women partners, women sometimes do. These results correspond to findings from other research (Szinovacz 1983; Margolin 1987).
by Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:21 am
Stylan wrote:I find it funny that the one of the strongest voices of "anti-Feminist" men are incel-types. I assume this comes from a lack of knowledge about what a feminist society would do for them.
by Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:28 am
Galloism wrote:I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. I get where you're coming from, but I don't think it's quite what you think it is.
More likely, it's that to be identified as a primary aggressor, a woman must take far more violent actions. As you note - arrested for a wider range of offenses, more serious offenses, and even if there was evidence that violence on her part was retaliatory against a husband with a series of previous DV incidents that did not result in arrests (notably, that's not self defense even though it's phrased like that - that's revenge).
So, for example, and I'm being egregious on purpose, if they only identify a woman as the primary aggressor when the man is so injured he has to go to the hospital and she doesn't have a mark on her, yes, she's more likely to be arrested. Because it took much much more to identify her as a primary aggressor in the first place.
I won't particularly hazard a guess whether men or women are more likely to be the primary aggressor (the data is so close and conflicting it's hard to be sure), but ultimately, you're likely seeing only the most severe incidents of female perpetrated DV having her identified as the primary aggressor, and as a result she's more likely to be arrested. Grayer cases all tilt towards the man, because of sexist stereotypes carrying over from antiquity.
by Lanoraie II » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:31 am
by Stylan » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:32 am
Galloism wrote:Stylan wrote:I find it funny that the one of the strongest voices of "anti-Feminist" men are incel-types. I assume this comes from a lack of knowledge about what a feminist society would do for them.
Well I know what it's done for me as a man.
Protected my rapist. Protected my brother's domestic abuser. Because they were women, and feminism, as a political movement, seeks to protect rapists and domestic abusers who happen to be female. (#notallfeminists)
by Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:32 am
Galloism wrote:
Before I dig into this, can you verify how they sampled? Quite a few of these have sampled only women in shelters and only men arrested - which of course skews the sample of both.
by Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:35 am
Galloism wrote:Stylan wrote:I find it funny that the one of the strongest voices of "anti-Feminist" men are incel-types. I assume this comes from a lack of knowledge about what a feminist society would do for them.
Well I know what it's done for me as a man.
Protected my rapist. Protected my brother's domestic abuser. Because they were women, and feminism, as a political movement, seeks to protect rapists and domestic abusers who happen to be female. (#notallfeminists)
by Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:38 am
Purgatio wrote:Galloism wrote:I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. I get where you're coming from, but I don't think it's quite what you think it is.
More likely, it's that to be identified as a primary aggressor, a woman must take far more violent actions. As you note - arrested for a wider range of offenses, more serious offenses, and even if there was evidence that violence on her part was retaliatory against a husband with a series of previous DV incidents that did not result in arrests (notably, that's not self defense even though it's phrased like that - that's revenge).
So, for example, and I'm being egregious on purpose, if they only identify a woman as the primary aggressor when the man is so injured he has to go to the hospital and she doesn't have a mark on her, yes, she's more likely to be arrested. Because it took much much more to identify her as a primary aggressor in the first place.
I won't particularly hazard a guess whether men or women are more likely to be the primary aggressor (the data is so close and conflicting it's hard to be sure), but ultimately, you're likely seeing only the most severe incidents of female perpetrated DV having her identified as the primary aggressor, and as a result she's more likely to be arrested. Grayer cases all tilt towards the man, because of sexist stereotypes carrying over from antiquity.
This is what I mean by an epistemic problem that comes from competing inferences from the same data. I get what you're saying - what if women aren't identified as the primary aggressor except in the most egregious and serious of cases, then of course they'll be more likely to be arrested - but the point of the study was to try and identify, if men and women were placed in equivalent positions, controlling for other variables, which person is more likely to actually be put under arrest for DV, as compared to all the non-arrest responses (i.e. giving police warnings and cautions without arrest or prosecution).
The fact that female DV perpetrators who were labelled primary aggressors were more than 3 times as likely to be arrested than male DV perpetrators labelled as primary aggressors, is to me at least strongly indicative that the police aren't acting on misandrist or male-discriminatory assumptions when they exercise their police discretion in response to calls of this kind. As evidenced by the fact that, as Hester points out, female perpetrators were arrested for a wider range of offences, charged with more serious crimes than the male perpetrators, and sometimes were arrested even though their male partners had committed previous DV incidents in the past and weren't arrested for those incidents. Now, you might respond "oh, that just means female perpetrators were more likely to commit more serious crimes, not that the police and prosecutors were more willing to institute serious charges vis-a-vis the women as compared to with the men". The problem with that response, is that I could make the EXACT same response in respect of both the arrest data in the Douglas & Hines study you cited, and in respect of Hester's observation that most primary perpetrators were male. Maybe, instead of discrimination, men are more likely to commit more serious DV than women (and hence, more likely to be arrested, and to be identified as the primary perpetrator by police responding to the DV incident). Or, maybe its discrimination. This is the issue. Its all a matter of data interpretation.
But for me, Hester's findings that a female DV perpetrator, identified as primary perpetrator, controlling for other factors, is more than 3 times likely to be placed under arrest than a male DV perpetrator in that same position (i.e., identified as primary perpetrator), is at least strongly persuasive to me that police aren't acting on misandrist biases. But I'm also trying to, as far as possible, acknowledge the epistemic holes (i.e., what we can't know for sure, and what gaps have to be plugged by inferences from data that can go either way, as I've discussed above).
by Stylan » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:39 am
Purgatio wrote:Galloism wrote:Well I know what it's done for me as a man.
Protected my rapist. Protected my brother's domestic abuser. Because they were women, and feminism, as a political movement, seeks to protect rapists and domestic abusers who happen to be female. (#notallfeminists)
This has literally nothing to do with 'feminism' or the fact that your rapist was a woman. I was raped by a man and the system protected him too. The problem is a criminal justice system that is pathologically unkind and suspicious to complainants in such cases, juries and judges and prosecutors and police officers that are so distrusting of accusers whose accounts are even just slightly less-than-perfect, resulting in such an under-prosecution and under-conviction of both sexual offences and DV-related offences.
You're taking a tragic event that happened to you and your brother and blaming it on an entire political movement when they have nothing to do with one another. The implication is that your rapist and his abuser would have been arrested if they were both men, which is categorically untrue, as evidenced by how unlikely it is for male rapists and male batterers to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:39 am
Purgatio wrote:
It does seem semantic, I don't see how changing the question of "have been raped" to "are raped" changes anything,
and this seems highly-speculative at best, rather than undermining the validity of the data collected.
The idea that there's some gigantic misandrist conspiracy to convince men they aren't victims of sexual violence, influencing the data collected, is also inherently unfalsifiable and makes this debate impossible - yes, theoretically, that's possible, but there's absolutely no empirical proof of that, and this is a blanket argument against trusting any official data or statistics, anywhere, of any kind.
I don't see how recognising women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than men is misandrist.
I really don't. Its just an acknowledgement of the prevailing crime statistics.
I also don't see how socially-inexperienced men having to make the first move and flirt with women, rather than the other way round, is in any way relevant to VAW and sexual violence.Saying it means women aren't being asked to put the "work in" is also....confusing to me. Because, again, I really don't see how that's relevant to sexual violence and assault. At all. Maybe I'm missing something here, idk.
And yet, this entitlement is just as common among women. The difference being they don't *act on it* as often, and the reason they don't is they have offloaded the labor of flirtation to men and feel *additionally* entitled to have it performed for them, without their own contribution. That's the reason for the disparity. You're now waffling about how women are "Bad at cooking" and "Stupid enough to think you can serve chicken raw" and so on, and blaming their femininity for that, If we follow our example. Putting out the meme that they're destructive, dangerous, and stupid rather than admit men are being lazy, is absolutely sexist. And it's what your narrative is here regarding sexuality and flirtation.Its also not a demonisation of male sexuality generally to recognise that entitlement, or a view that women in certain situations are viewed by certain specific men as 'owing' them sex, contributes to rape culture and a belief that forcing sex in certain circumstances is not a form of morally-contemptible sexual violence
(for example, date rape or acquaintance rape situations, or marital rape where a husband feels entitled to his wife's body because she 'owes' him sex).
That's not a demonisation of all men, nothing about discussing the scourge of rape and sexual violence demonises consensual sex between men and women, clearly everyone recognises that in the case of consensual sex, male and female sexuality alike should be celebrated and approved of. I really don't see how combating rape and sexual violence involves a demonisation of male sexuality, there must be some link there that I'm missing.
by Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:40 am
Purgatio wrote:Galloism wrote:Well I know what it's done for me as a man.
Protected my rapist. Protected my brother's domestic abuser. Because they were women, and feminism, as a political movement, seeks to protect rapists and domestic abusers who happen to be female. (#notallfeminists)
This has literally nothing to do with 'feminism' or the fact that your rapist was a woman. I was raped by a man and the system protected him too. The problem is a criminal justice system that is pathologically unkind and suspicious to complainants in such cases, juries and judges and prosecutors and police officers that are so distrusting of accusers whose accounts are even just slightly less-than-perfect, resulting in such an under-prosecution and under-conviction of both sexual offences and DV-related offences.
You're taking a tragic event that happened to you and your brother and blaming it on an entire political movement when they have nothing to do with one another. The implication is that your rapist and his abuser would have been arrested if they were both men, which is categorically untrue, as evidenced by how unlikely it is for male rapists and male batterers to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:43 am
Stylan wrote:Purgatio wrote:
This has literally nothing to do with 'feminism' or the fact that your rapist was a woman. I was raped by a man and the system protected him too. The problem is a criminal justice system that is pathologically unkind and suspicious to complainants in such cases, juries and judges and prosecutors and police officers that are so distrusting of accusers whose accounts are even just slightly less-than-perfect, resulting in such an under-prosecution and under-conviction of both sexual offences and DV-related offences.
You're taking a tragic event that happened to you and your brother and blaming it on an entire political movement when they have nothing to do with one another. The implication is that your rapist and his abuser would have been arrested if they were both men, which is categorically untrue, as evidenced by how unlikely it is for male rapists and male batterers to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.
Exactly.
Again, if we lived under a feminist society, victims would be believed more often, and Galloism, your abuser would have likely been brought to justice.
The fact that your abuser was let off free is once again, because of a culture that views men as too strong to be raped or abused, the opposite of what feminists want.
by Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:47 am
Stylan wrote:Purgatio wrote:
This has literally nothing to do with 'feminism' or the fact that your rapist was a woman. I was raped by a man and the system protected him too. The problem is a criminal justice system that is pathologically unkind and suspicious to complainants in such cases, juries and judges and prosecutors and police officers that are so distrusting of accusers whose accounts are even just slightly less-than-perfect, resulting in such an under-prosecution and under-conviction of both sexual offences and DV-related offences.
You're taking a tragic event that happened to you and your brother and blaming it on an entire political movement when they have nothing to do with one another. The implication is that your rapist and his abuser would have been arrested if they were both men, which is categorically untrue, as evidenced by how unlikely it is for male rapists and male batterers to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.
Exactly.
Again, if we lived under a feminist society, victims would be believed more often, and Galloism, your abuser would have likely been brought to justice.
The fact that your abuser was let off free is once again, because of a culture that views men as too strong to be raped or abused, the opposite of what feminists want.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:47 am
Purgatio wrote:Galloism wrote:
Before I dig into this, can you verify how they sampled? Quite a few of these have sampled only women in shelters and only men arrested - which of course skews the sample of both.
According to Dobash & Dobash, they based their research on interviews with men and women that were part of a criminal justice IPV intervention studied that Dobash conducted in 2000. Thus, the men in the study had already been criminally-convicted of domestic violence. Before you say this skews the results of the study, Dobash & Dobash state specifically that " It should be noted that while the focus of this paper is on women’s violence to a malepartner, the sample is drawn from men who have used violence against a woman part-ner. As such, women’s violence is being examined in the context of men’s violence. While it might be useful to study only women who have been arrested for using non-lethal violence against a male partner, this is such a rare occurrence that it would bedifficult to obtain an adequate sample. As such, women’s violence within the contextof a sample of male abusers may be the most realistic approach to sampling, given that the focus is on violent behaviour and not domestic conflicts, disagreements, arguments, name calling and the sort of ‘aggressive’ behaviour often measured using the CTS and, in turn, defined as violence. As with all samples, this one has its limitations, but this sample has allowed us to open a window on the existing body of knowledge by providing intensive and extensive knowledge about intimate partner violence from both men and women partners, who discussed at length and in great detail their ownviolence and that of their partner."
by Galloism » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Purgatio wrote:Galloism wrote:
Before I dig into this, can you verify how they sampled? Quite a few of these have sampled only women in shelters and only men arrested - which of course skews the sample of both.
According to Dobash & Dobash, they based their research on interviews with men and women that were part of a criminal justice IPV intervention studied that Dobash conducted in 2000. Thus, the men in the study had already been criminally-convicted of domestic violence. Before you say this skews the results of the study, Dobash & Dobash state specifically that " It should be noted that while the focus of this paper is on women’s violence to a malepartner, the sample is drawn from men who have used violence against a woman part-ner. As such, women’s violence is being examined in the context of men’s violence. While it might be useful to study only women who have been arrested for using non-lethal violence against a male partner, this is such a rare occurrence that it would bedifficult to obtain an adequate sample. As such, women’s violence within the contextof a sample of male abusers may be the most realistic approach to sampling, given that the focus is on violent behaviour and not domestic conflicts, disagreements, arguments, name calling and the sort of ‘aggressive’ behaviour often measured using the CTS and, in turn, defined as violence. As with all samples, this one has its limitations, but this sample has allowed us to open a window on the existing body of knowledge by providing intensive and extensive knowledge about intimate partner violence from both men and women partners, who discussed at length and in great detail their ownviolence and that of their partner."
by Purgatio » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:51 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Purgatio wrote:
It does seem semantic, I don't see how changing the question of "have been raped" to "are raped" changes anything,
Gallo seems to have covered the DV example, so i'll address this.
Semantic = the meaning of words. It changes an awful lot, it means that in terms of policy discussion of how to curb rape, we need to discuss male victims as often as female victims and recognize they are raped at the same rate. The notion that rape is a womens issue belongs in a history class, not a politics one.and this seems highly-speculative at best, rather than undermining the validity of the data collected.
It's hardly speculative. Check they yearly incidents data. It clearly shows the yearly rate of victimization is the same for men and women, once you account for made to penetrate cases.The idea that there's some gigantic misandrist conspiracy to convince men they aren't victims of sexual violence, influencing the data collected, is also inherently unfalsifiable and makes this debate impossible - yes, theoretically, that's possible, but there's absolutely no empirical proof of that, and this is a blanket argument against trusting any official data or statistics, anywhere, of any kind.
Bias is not a conspiracy. It's something academics are supposed to guard against, and it's especially relevant here given the decades of denial on the part of feminist academics that bias against men as even possible.I don't see how recognising women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than men is misandrist.
I really don't. Its just an acknowledgement of the prevailing crime statistics.
It isn't, not by itself. It's what you do with that information that matters.I also don't see how socially-inexperienced men having to make the first move and flirt with women, rather than the other way round, is in any way relevant to VAW and sexual violence.Saying it means women aren't being asked to put the "work in" is also....confusing to me. Because, again, I really don't see how that's relevant to sexual violence and assault. At all. Maybe I'm missing something here, idk.
Ofcourse it's relevant. The cooking example should have illuminated it for you. By pressuring men into doing this task, those unskilled at the task will end up failing to perform it safely. Women, meanwhile, do not perform the task. This is the root of the disparity, womens entitlement. (I.E, the entitlement to feel like the social task of flirtation should be performed for them without their own input). Again, compare it to cooking.
Suppose men just outright refused to cook and women were pressured into doing all of the cooking. Then suppose that men got it into their heads one day that women were trying to kill them and hated them, because after all, look how many women were giving men food poisoning, and look how few women were poisoned by men. Suppose the men then decided to blame womens "Entitlement" and make this dynamic about something being wrong with womens mentality and perception of men, rather than the more obvious answer; that it was happening because men weren't doing the cooking.And yet, this entitlement is just as common among women. The difference being they don't *act on it* as often, and the reason they don't is they have offloaded the labor of flirtation to men and feel *additionally* entitled to have it performed for them, without their own contribution. That's the reason for the disparity. You're now waffling about how women are "Bad at cooking" and "Stupid enough to think you can serve chicken raw" and so on, and blaming their femininity for that, If we follow our example. Putting out the meme that they're destructive, dangerous, and stupid rather than admit men are being lazy, is absolutely sexist. And it's what your narrative is here regarding sexuality and flirtation.Its also not a demonisation of male sexuality generally to recognise that entitlement, or a view that women in certain situations are viewed by certain specific men as 'owing' them sex, contributes to rape culture and a belief that forcing sex in certain circumstances is not a form of morally-contemptible sexual violence(for example, date rape or acquaintance rape situations, or marital rape where a husband feels entitled to his wife's body because she 'owes' him sex).
Is there a reason you're characterizing these as male-on-female experiences? There's a difference between rape and sexual assault, and it's a crucial one. Sexual assault can occur as a result of a clumsy, inconsiderate, and overly aggressive flirtation. Sex can't. And that's why the figures for rape are much more equal between the sexes than the ones for sexual assault.That's not a demonisation of all men, nothing about discussing the scourge of rape and sexual violence demonises consensual sex between men and women, clearly everyone recognises that in the case of consensual sex, male and female sexuality alike should be celebrated and approved of. I really don't see how combating rape and sexual violence involves a demonisation of male sexuality, there must be some link there that I'm missing.
Because it's linking rape and its occurrence to masculinity and men without sufficient justification, in the process smearing men.
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Emotional Support Crocodile, Fort Viorlia, Hypron, Luminesa, Philjia, Port Carverton, Singaporen Empire, Tiami, Tillania, Tungstan