Pass it on...Newsweek: Rihanna and 5 myths about domestic violence

[ourbluenation]

Domestic Abuse Myths
Five mistakes we make when we talk about Rihanna and Chris Brown's relationship.

By Raina Kelley | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Mar 9, 2009

Last week, R&B singer Chris Brown was formally charged with two felonies, assault and making criminal threats, in connection with the alleged beating of his pop-star girlfriend Rihanna on Feb. 8. Though we will never know exactly what happened that night, many of us have seen Rihanna's bruised and bloodied face on the front pages and read horrific details of the alleged attack from the affidavit of a LAPD detective in which he describes contusions on the singer's body. At same time, rumors are that the 21-year-old singer is back in a relationship with Brown, whom she has accused, according to the affidavit, of biting, choking and punching her until her mouth filled with blood.

While we can argue about how much of all that is true, it really doesn't matter. This sad story doesn't have to be verifiable for it to potentially warp how Rihanna's hundreds of thousands of tween fans think about intimate relationships. We've all heard that this should be a "teachable moment"—a chance to talk about domestic violence with our kids. But children and teens aren't just listening to your lectures, they're listening to the way you speculate about the case with other adults; they're absorbing how the media describes it; they're reading gossip Web sites. When you tune into to all the talk about Rihanna and Chris Brown, it's scary how the same persistent domestic-violence myths continue to be perpetuated. Celebrity scandals may have a short shelf life, but what we teach kids about domestic violence will last forever. So rather than "raise awareness," here are five myths that anyone with a child should take time to debunk:

Myth No. 1: It was a domestic argument, and she provoked him

We need to remember that any discussion of domestic violence should not revolve around what the couple may have been arguing about, or as one CNN anchor put it: "the incident that sparked the fight." Nor should we be using the word "provoked" when describing this case, as in the Associated Press account that said the "argument" was "provoked" by Rihanna's "discovery of a text message from another woman." Domestic violence has to do with, well, physical violence, not arguments. There isn't a verbal argument that should "spark" or "provoke" an attack of the kind that leaves one person with wounds that require medical attention.

Cable news has to stop referring to this incident as a "violent fight." A "fight" involves two people hitting each other, not—as is alleged in this case—a woman cowering in a car while a man punches and bites her. If Rihanna had called the police beaten and bloodied and alleging an attack of this nature by a stranger, no one would be calling it a "fight." They'd say that a man was being accused of severely beating and choking a young woman half his size.

Myth No. 2: Evolution makes us do it

Steven Stosny, a counselor and founder of an organization that treats anger-management issues believes that the tragic tendency of women to return to the men who hurt them (battered-woman syndrome) is a product of evolution. Stosny was quoted on CNN.com as saying "To leave an attachment relationship—a relationship where there's an emotional bond—meant certain death by starvation or saber-tooth tiger."

Apologies to Mr. Stosny, but that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. This is the kind of argument that really boils my blood because it seems to naturalize the torture of women. Very little is known about the emotional attachments of early humans. And trust me, after 50,000 years, our fear of saber-tooth tigers has abated. In most domestic-abuse cases, we're talking about a situation where one person is wielding power over an individual through pain, fear and domination. It's not about being scared to leave because of the dangers that await you in the world, it's about being too scared of what's at home to leave.

Myth No. 3: People make mistakes. Give the guy a break

When singer Kanye West talked about the Rihanna-Brown case with his VH1 audience recently, he asked: "Can't we give Chris a break? ... I know I make mistakes in life." Kanye's not the only one saying this kind of thing, so let's get something straight: People leave the oven on or fry turkeys in the garage and burn their house down. One may even accidentally step on the gas instead of the brake and run over the family cat. Mistakes resulting in tragic consequences happen all the time. But one cannot mistakenly beat someone up. You do not accidentally give someone black eyes, a broken nose and a split lip.

Myth No. 4: Brown said he was sorry and they're working it out
Experts will tell you that domestic violence is an escalating series of attacks (not fights) designed to increase a victim's dependence on her abuser. According to the police documents released last week, Rihanna told police that Brown had hit her before and it was getting worse. Sorry means you don't do it again. In discussions about abuse, we need to make it clear that sorry is not enough.

Myth No. 5: She's young, rich and beautiful. If it was really as bad as the media says, she'd leave

The secret to the abuser's power is not only making his victim dependent on him, but convincing her that she is to blame for the attack. No amount of money or fame can protect someone from the terrible cycle of emotional dependence, shame and fear that keeps them with abusive partners. Women who are abused look for ways they may have "provoked" an attack, finding fault with their own behavior to explain the unexplainable—why would someone they love hurt them? And it doesn't help when people outside the relationship blame the victim. In this case, Phylicia Thompson, a cousin of Brown's, told "Extra TV" that, "Chris was not brought up to beat on a woman. So it had to be something to provoke him for Chris to do it." As the rumors swirl about whether Rihanna is back with Brown, understand that those who are abused do not stay with their abusers because they want to be beaten again, or because they are really at fault; it's usually because they feel trapped and guilty.

You may have noticed that the words power, control and domination running through my rant. That was purposeful. What we need to remember, and what we need to teach our children, is that yes, you should never hit anybody and you should never let anybody hit you. But, we also need to tell them that love does not guarantee respect and that any relationship they find themselves involved in should be based on both equally.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188353

[ReliantJ]

1. LOL @ #2.

[ourbluenation]

3. I know, right? Ridiculous and stupid. n/t

[EOTE]

24. That might be the most damaging and stupid of the myths.

By that same reasoning, single women should be so desperately afraid of being alone that they'd seek out abusive men simply because they'd keep them safe from the saber toothed tigers. I shudder to think of the damage that will be caused by Rihanna taking back that pathetic excuse for a man.

[Kitty Herder]

73. And it surprises me how dangerously common it is.

Abusive men will grab on to any excuse to maintain their dominance.

[Hello_Kitty]

75. Rape is an evolutionary strategy too, dontchaknow.

The men need to spread their seed and if they can't find willing partners, oh well, some women will have to be involuntary breeders of their all-important DNA. Of course, this doesn't explain why some men rape little girls and post-menopausal women but there you go.

[ForrestGump]

135. I doubt that little runt would be of much use if a sabertooth were about.

As ridiculous as the assertion sounds, it's typical of a pretty predictable response by some here on DU, those who fancy themselves Men (well, so far it only seems to be men) Of Science. Poseurs, in other words. Insulting poseurs, at that.

[Ohio Joe]

2. K&R - nt

[D-Lee]

117. ONE-HALF of all US women and at least ONE-QUARTER of all US girl teens experience DV

This topic is very important. The rate of violence experienced by teen girls, in particular, is on the increase.

Male victims are an extreme minority -- nowhere near the HALF of US women who have experienced violence, which is not to deny that it does occur sometimes.

The discussion about male self-defense below ignores that self-defense generally must be reasonable.

From life experience, my biggest tips would be to have nothing to do with men who are (1) jealous and/or (2) degrade or insult a girlfriend, and definitely look for men who like their own mother.

If you know a woman who is in a violent relationship, just continue to support avoidance of violence by the woman and encourage the woman to stay in touch with friends and family. The reasons for delays of separation are remarkably complex and it should not be ignored that an abuser actively tries to isolate the woman from normal sources of emotional support.

[Froward69]

143. of abused Men

only one tenth report it. of those (both genders) who stay in abusive relationships, Ignore self preservation.

[TexasObserver]

4. It's not a myth that she physically attacked him, and that such is domestic violence.

His conduct was worse than hers, but hers was domestic violence, too.

So far, she seems to be getting a free pass on her acts of violence, which she admitted to police, according to their reports.

Domestic violence is a problem, and it's not just men attacking women. It's also women attacking men. And it is present in gay couples, too. We do no good when we fail to acknowledge the role her physical attack on him played in this event. They both committed a crime, although his was more serious than hers, based upon the severity.

[JuniperLea]

8. My brother was beaten by his now ex wife

And he suffered nerve and spinal cord damage. The authorities didn't want to hear anything about it, but kept asking her if he hit her back... which he never did, knowing what would happen. She even beat him with a cast iron skillet while she had their baby in her arms.

He ended up getting full custody of both kids, and she never completed the judges orders to clean herself up, but they still wouldn't listen to him about his being beat up. It was the weirdest thing.

[ourbluenation]

12. we have a long way to go w/ DV. Without a doubt attacks on men are underreported.

for a variety of reasons.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. My neighbor's wife was an alcoholic.

She'd get drunk and beat the shit out of him. Mostly he did nothing. One night, she chased him around the backyard with a hot fire-poker, then called the cops and told them he was beating her when she got tired of chasing him. Sure enough, he got brought up on charges, despite witness testimony to the contrary.

I understand the need to protect women, as they are far more often in harm's way in these things, but men are rarely afforded the presumption of innocence in these claims.

Not that Brown is innocent - that seems clear enough. It's only to say that if true, they both should be charged.

[JuniperLea]

19. I agree

If both threw punches, both should be charged.

Gender should have nothing to do with this.

[TexasObserver]

22. Yes, substance abuse and domestic abuse often go hand in hand.

And the perpetrators are men and women, as well as the victims.

If there is domestic violence in a heterosexual couple, the male is presumed to be the attacker and the female is presumed to be the victim. That's pretty much the standard of police and prosecutors.

[TexasObserver]

25. the failure of police to address reported acts of domestic violence by women is serious

It's a real problem. It's very difficult for a man attacked by a female partner to get any kind of justice. Our system is set up to protect women from men, but not men from women who attack.

[JuniperLea]

42. It's time to end the inequality on a lot of issues

We are all people, period. I'm mighty tired of the divisions... all of them. Race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It's well past time they were all obliterated.

[ejpoeta]

65. women can be abusers too. there shouldn't be this bs where a woman

can get away with hitting a man anymore than a man shouldn't get away with hitting a woman. Hitting someone is not the answer. period. I'm sorry about what your brother went through. I think the worst thing about that is that the women who do it usually know that they could get away with it because of the preconceived notions.

[JuniperLea]

104. Yep, it's really sad...

No human being should ever hit another human being. You're right, it's not the answer.

[Hello_Kitty]

10. If she struck him first, then he should have call the cops on her.

Not beaten her bloody.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. True enough, but that doesn't absolve either of them from culpability.

They should both be charged with domestic violence, if it is indeed the case that she struck him.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. If I slap you and you slap me back with equal or less force.

We are both equally culpable. If I slap you and you respond by bashing my face in with your fists it's not equal .

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Baloney.

If you slap me and I bust your nose open, it's self defense.

If you slap me, and I bust your nose open, and then continue to beat you out of spite, then it would be assault.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. Really.

So if a 5 year old slapped your face you would be able to claim self defense if you busted his nose open in response?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Are you saying women are the equivalent of small children?

If a woman is being physically attacked are you saying she doesn't have the right to shoot her attacker with a gun?

[Hello_Kitty]

51. Are you saying that Rihanna is the physical equivalent of Chris Brown?

And anyone who genuinely believes their life is in danger is justified in shooting their attacker.

Do you believe Chris Brown thought Rihanna was threatening his life? Is this what you are seriously arguing now?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. I'm saying they're equal in the eyes of the law.

If I throw a punch at Lennox Lewis and I end up the worse for it, it's not Lewis' fault.

[Hello_Kitty]

57. Great analogy. Totally fits with the OP.

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. The article in the OP appears to be misinformed.

"A "fight" involves two people hitting each other, not—as is alleged in this case—a woman cowering in a car while a man punches and bites her."

According to another thread, and the police report apparently, Rhianna initiated the fight by striking Brown.

[Hello_Kitty]

64. See reply #61

A police officer's take on the matter. I'm so tired of arguing about this with uninformed people with an ax to grind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5215363&mesg_id=5216383

[geek tragedy]

87. A slap to the face and a brutal beating are not the same thing.

To people who aren't apologists for domestic violence anyways.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. Both are assault.

And domestic violence.

:shrug:

[geek tragedy]

94. Yeah, and so if she slaps him and he cuts off her

finger with a knife, that's just the same too.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

95. Both would be assault.

And both would be domestic violence.

Unless, of course, one was self defense against the other.

[geek tragedy]

96. Wow. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. What can I say?

Regardless of what some domestic violence apologists have to say, slapping is a form of physical violence and the victim has a right to defend him or herself by whatever means necessary.

[tabasco]

118. You don't know squat about the law.

And, like all self-assured idiots, you squawk like you know it all.

[JuniperLea]

165. Some people might call you Mister Pot...

And it seems misconception can also lead to acting like a self-assured idiot... squawkity squawk right back atcha Big Guy.

:eyes:

I suppose you know all about all the DV laws in all 50 states... amazing you are!

[Political Heretic]

181. Seriously, this guy is a moron.

It's unbelievable. Post 61 describes it pretty well, but then I'm also a social worker and have a little understanding of how domestic violence situations are treated under the law.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

226. post #61 doesn't apply.

Post #61 applies to who gets arrest when, for some reason, both don't get arrested.

It's up to the courts to determine if it's justified self defense.

It is justifiable to punch somebody if they're slapping you. The important determination to make is when the victim stops defending his or herself.

[uppityperson]

230. "It is justifiable to punch somebody if they're slapping you" only if that is your only recourse

If you could run away, or get away, or protect yourself otherwise, no. It is not justified.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

231. Let me get this straight.

If Chris Brown was striking Rhianna, Rhianna would not be justified in striking back?

[uppityperson]

236. Only to protect herself or get away.

Legally she would not be justified in fighting back unless she had no other recourse to protect herself or get away.

To protect herself or get away, yes. But no, there is no "eye for an eye" law.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

237. Well there you go, we agree.

You have the right to punch somebody as long as it's to protect yourself.

[uppityperson]

239. I hate the month after the month after name changes.

Don't change your avatar for a while please. I'll be really confused then.

[Political Heretic]

182. That's actually categorically false.

You do not have the right to defend yourself by WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.

You don't have that right in any state.

None... not a single of all 50.


What's going on here, is you are speaking about what YOU feel should be the way things are, and then trying to pass that off as if its the law.

It's not.

You've now had more than a few people with varying degrees of EXPERTISE in the field tell you that is not. You're persistence is only underscoring your own ignorance.

[Kajsa]

208. I know,

the illogic is astounding,

It's like saying,

" if you slap me I have the right to bash your head in"

:eyes:


Now THAT sounds like an apologist for DV!!

[uppityperson]

229. Define "the same". Do you mean legally or the amount of harm caused?

Seems you guys are arguing different things. Unless you like to argue different things, in which case, have fun.

[benEzra]

179. One is simple assault, and one is aggravated assault or felony assault.

There is a difference, legally.

[Political Heretic]

180. You're not even right. Post 61 explains how law enforcement works. You simply wish what you say

was true.

Doesn't make it so.

[mzmolly]

202. But if you weigh 100 pounds and slap Lennox Lewis for cheating on you and he

put you in the hospital for it, it is Lewis's "fault". The law at best would allow a response of "equal" force and or a "proportional response" to any so called assault.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. Can you describe to me the exact conditions under which a woman should be charged with DV?

[Hello_Kitty]

58. When she commits DV.

In the case of the OP, you have no evidence that Rihanna struck Chris Brown first, other than "reports".

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. If the reports are accurate, is that DV? (nt)

[mzmolly]

211. Not unless he calls the cops and reports it vs. putting her

in the hospital with bite marks and bruises after nearly strangling her to death.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. If you slap me, it's domestic violence. Period.

If I restrain (and I don't use "restrain" in the context of the Rihanna situation, as this clearly goes WAY beyond that) you with equal or greater force, it's also domestic violence.

It's really not that complicated.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. Chris Brown was not 'restraining' Rihanna.

You are arguing a bullshit red herring.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. (and I don't use "restrain" in the context of the Rihanna situation...

Direct quote from my post: (and I don't use "restrain" in the context of the Rihanna situation, as this clearly goes WAY beyond that)

Either you don't read or you're intentionally being obtuse. Keep your red herrings to themselves, thanks.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Yes, you acknowledged the red herring in your red herring argument.

It's still a red herring.

And it smells.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. That makes absolutely no sense.

So tell me then - if you were me, how would you phrase the argument that the victim of abuse only has the right to restrain the abuser up to the point of using an equal measure of force, while acknowledging fully that equal force was not used in this situation, without it being a red herring?

Why can you not come to grips with the fact that hitting another person is domestic violence and that there are no exceptions to that?

[Hello_Kitty]

48. Why is this issue even brought up in this OP?

When Chris Brown was NOT merely 'restraining' Rihanna.


Why can't you come to grips with the fact that you should start your own thread if you want to discuss other aspect of or types of DV? The OP is about a man beating the living shit out of a woman and the myths that are being perpetuated by the incident. Why do people who want to discuss the issue in the OP have to address your argument? Again, if you want to discuss what constitutes justifiable restraint or escalation of force or whatever, START A THREAD ABOUT IT.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. Talk about red herrings.

Why start another thread when DV is being discussed right here? That argument of yours is utterly irrelevant. Why can't I talk about it here? Are you incapable of discussing more than one specific point at a time?

That seems more of a failing of yours than of anyone else's, quite frankly, and I don't believe I need to be segregated to another thread because of your shortcomings.

[Hello_Kitty]

52. Ok, let's discuss this.

Why do some men think they are entitled to hijack every discussion about DV against women and make it about them? Care to elaborate on that?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. They don't.

They see a related issue and try to discuss that as well. They do not prevent anyone from commenting further on the OP, nor to they demand everyone pay attention to their sub-thread. It is perfectly reasonable to allow sub-thread to wallow in obscurity, without comment. Some people believe that it is part of a healthy intellectual discourse to look at situations in a comprehensive way, rather than in the particularly narrow one that you suggest.

Care to elaborate as to why that is improper or why you're incapable of discussing more than one related issue at a time? Or, to get back on topic, what are the specific criteria required, in your opinion, for a woman to be charged with domestic violence?

[Political Heretic]

183. No actually, they do.

This is my opinion as a man. It's almost like clockwork. In virtually any discussion of domestic violence you can almost count on the "man brigade" to charge in and completely derail the subject. It really irritates me as a man where I feel like I somehow want to apologize for my idiot fellow men.

Men account for less than 10% of all victims of intimate partner abuse in heterosexual partnerships. Actually it's much lower than that, but I don't have the data right at my beckon call, so I say 10% because I know that number is very generous.

Does that mean male victims of IPA don't matter? Of course not. However, so many men seem to expect and demand that the experiences of both men and women with IPA be treated identically and given the same amount of attention. This is absurd. We have an epidemic of violence against women perpetrated by men, while we have some corner cases of violence against men perpetrated by women. It is appropriate that one is discussed more than the other.

The criteria for a woman to be charged with domestic violence by the way are very simple: she has to be determined to be the primary aggressor. Primary doesn't mean "first."

[mzmolly]

212. Thank you.

You have restored my faith in "progressive" men. ;) PHEW!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

215. It's so very non-progressive to say no one should be allowed to hit another.

I'm glad we have that clear. :sarcasm:

[mzmolly]

218. It's non-progressive to equate

a possible slap to putting a smaller, physically weaker person in the hospital after nearly strangling said person to death while threatening to 'kill' her, yes.

Have you taken any time to read the police report? There is nothing in it about Rhianna hitting Brown first. There were no visible marks on Chris Brown. The fact that we live in a society in which many excuse such a horrendous act of violence, is part of the problem.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

222. Not one single person excused Brown's actions.

At very least, I didn't. I said he should be charged with a felony, no matter what. Thanks for playing.

I'll ask again - what part of one human hitting another should EVER be tolerated?

[mzmolly]

223. I defer to my original

response.

[Scout]

225. no one is saying it should be tolerated

but if you want to talk about women committing violence against men, start your own fucking thread about it.

Or don't you think the problem is serious enough to warrant its own thread? Just serious enough to come into this thread and stamp your feet for attention?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

246. If that's how you feel, don't give it attention!

It's really that friggin simple! If you can't handle talking about two things at once that are very much related, don't do it, and don't act like you had no choice if you can't not do it. No one's stamping their feet. And I certainly didn't demand that anyone pay attention to my post. I added my $.02, like everyone here's still allowed to, as I understand it, and that should have been that.

Again, this is what it comes down to: Why can you not just nod your head at "women shouldn't hit men either" and move on? I'm not the one making more of an issue of this than it is - you are. I'm not the one bashing anyone - it's people like you who are.

And you know what - you are not the arbiter of where I can and can't post. There is absolutely no rule against what I did. So don't fucking tell me where I can and can't post, unless you're Skinner under some other alias (which you're not.)

[Scout]

249. you're not the boss of me!!

wah, wah, wah

right back at ya' ... love it -- i can't tell you where YOU can and can't post, but you've got no problem with saying this to me:

"If you can't handle talking about two things at once that are very much related ... I added my $.02, like everyone here's still allowed to"

typical of "people like you"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

250. Riiiiiiiiight.

:wave:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

214. My point is that the topic need not be derailed.

Is it really that outrageous or "hijacking" to say simply that hitting another human being is wrong? Can we not all just agree with that? I don't see the problem and I don't think anyone's exactly forcing people to vehemently disagree with that statement, which should just be universally true.

If you read the posts, you'll find precious little outside of the mantra that "this happens to guys, too." Why is it not possible to just nod at that statement and move on? Not one single person is forcing anyone to reply to these posts.

[uppityperson]

232. If I slap you, my partner, it is DV. If you slap me back, that is also DV

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

247. Absolutely.

If reports are accurate, they are both guilty. If they're not accurate, it's still pretty clear that Brown's guilty. Either way, felonies all around.

[TexasObserver]

27. Yeah, that's true. But it doesn't change the fact that she initiated domestic violence, does it?

If you read my comments, you know that I feel he committed domestic violence against her, that his violence was more serious than hers, and that his conduct is not excused by her conduct.

Which part of "they both committed domestic violence" can you not agree with?

[noiretextatique]

37. i don't know if she initiated violence

but i didn's see his face beat to a pulp.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. Is that the standard for domestic violence?

No case unless your face is beaten to a pulp?

[noiretextatique]

43. he beat this girl bloody

what did she do to "deserve or "provoke" that? whatever it was, it did not meet the legal standard of assault because she wasn't charged. if he had filed charges against her instead of beating her repeatedly in the face, then her actions would be the issue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. Nothing - he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Nothing she did warranted Brown's actions.

However, reports are that she did hit him, and it was before he hit her, so it was not in self-defense. That, too, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

No one has the right to hit another human being.

[noiretextatique]

45. "reports are"...she was not charged

i assume the DA's did an investigation and concluded, based on the evidence, that he committed a crime and she didn't, despite the gossip.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. And if they in fact investigated properly and came to that conclusion, that's proper.

I guess where we part company is that I don't assume the DA investigated the claims properly, although I will admit that it would likely be very difficult to prove outside of a witness willing to go under oath.

More to the point, however, is that I'm arguing the principle involved here, which if you look at the posts above, it is something that very clearly needed arguing.

[noiretextatique]

47. i don't understand what you're arguing, to be honest

if i push you and you respond by hitting me in the head with a hammer, you will likely be charged with assault, and i probably won't be charged at all.
that's what happened in THIS case. the fact that i pushed you doesn't change the fact that you hit me in the head with a hammer.
of course there are other cases where the woman is the abuser, just not in this case.
and even if she did attack him, that's no excuse for how he responded.

i dated a small woman who tried to attack me several times, but i would never fight back because i knew i could hurt her. i'd try to restrain her and stop her from hurting herself, but i didn't beat her down like i would a stranger who attacked me. i restrained myself for two reasons:

1) i really did not want to hurt her
2) i would be the one going to jail if i hit her back

she was 4'11", 110 lbs, i was 5'5" 160 lbs, both women, but i knew as the bigger person, i would be the prime suspect even though i wasn't the violent one. chris brown should have known that too.
sometimes being the physically larger person means you have to be the bigger person.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. What I'm arguing is precisely to protect you.

1) You probably should have called authorities rather than sit there and take it.
2) If you defended yourself and tried to restrain the woman you were dating, you should not be risking going to jail to do so. (NOTE THAT I AM NOT APPLYING THIS TO THE RIHANNA CASE - BROWN WENT WAY BEYOND THIS AND I AM NOT ARGUING OTHERWISE) (Apologies for caps, but if I don't do so, people will completely ignore that very, very important acknowledgement).
3) That no human being has the right to attack another human being. Period. Size, gender, etc. does not matter. Just because your partner was smaller than you, that doesn't mean the next time she got pissed at you that there wouldn't be a knife or gun involved, and people should not be forced to find out the hard way.

That is what I am arguing.

[noiretextatique]

54. i understand what you are saying

but in the real world, i would have been the prime suspect...that's just the truth of it. in retrospect, i should not have allowed her to manipulate me into staying with her because i was afraid she'd kill herself.
when i was about to leave her...finally had enough of her shit...she did try to kill me. but only after i got so angry that i picked her up and threw her about 5 feet into some bushes. she claimed that scared her, so she went and got a crowbar and hit me in the head. luckily i saw it coming and managed to block the blow with my arm. she could have killed me that night if i hadn't blocked that blow.

that was many years ago, and i haven't dated anyone like that since. i didn't want to get her in trouble at the time, so i never filed a complaint.
instead, i moved away and never looked back.

now i have a new attitude: if you hit me, i will kick your ass and deal with the consequences.

but you are right...people should feel comfortable enough to file a complaint if they are being abused or threatened, regardless of who they are.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. I am so very sorry you had to go through all of that.

"but in the real world, i would have been the prime suspect...that's just the truth of it."

That is precisely why I'm talking about this side of it - because it should not be the truth of it in the real world, and the only way we get beyond that is to have these discussions. No one should have to go through what you did - ever - no matter if they are a man, woman, or child. Hell, not even animals deserve that.

[noiretextatique]

63. some people are violent

as in the case of my ex. she watched her father beat her mother, so to her, that was love. i knew her for several years before we got together...never once did i see that violent side. after the first year, she started to change...more drinking, more controlling, more crazy. it took me another year to leave, and i got as far away from her as i could. i haven't seen her in over twenty years.

unfortunately, there are some crazy, violent people in the world, so you have to learn how to recognize them...and stay away from them. that experience just made me stronger and far less tolerant of bullshit, which is a good thing.

i am actually thankful for the experience, because it made me value myself more, and it made me have zero tolerance for violence and abuse. when a friend told me about the abusive relationship she was in, i hounded her to get out. it took three years, but she finally did it.

thanks for the discussion :hi:

[ourbluenation]

176. Domesitic violence is not inititiated by anyone other than the batterer. n/t

[TexasObserver]

206. It's initiated by the first person to hit, push or shove the other person.

ANY unwanted physical contact is a battery, making the person who commits such a harmful or offense contact the batterer. If the woman hits the man first, she's a batterer, and she initiated the domestic violence episode.

Domestic violence can and often does involve mutual battery. Either or both can be charged and convicted with battery.

[mzmolly]

219. Rihanna was not the batterer in this case.

I base my conclusions on the police report.

[uppityperson]

234. and if he hits back, he is also a batterer and continued the DV episode.

Each or both can be charged and convicted with battery, each or both can participate in DV. If you hit, push, shove, or hit, push, shove back except to do the minimum to defend yourself or try to get away, you can be charged and convicted with battery.

This does not mean that all cases of battery are equal, either in your conviction or in the damage caused to the other person.

Example: D hit me and knocked me against the table. I shoved a chair into his way. He threw chair aside and punched me in the face. I curled up in a ball on the floor until he was done.

Net result: chair with a broken leg, UP with a broken nose, D with a bruise on his leg from banging into the chair.

Net legal result: should have been he was charged with DV and battery.
Net legal result that happened: nothing since UP was too embarrassed to tell anyone but hid out for a month until the nose healed and bruises went away.

[paulsby]

61. kind of. i see this as a police officer all the time

in many domestic violence incidents i investigate, there is physical violence on both parts, such as this case.

iow, yes she apparently (let's assume the fact pattern as presented is corrected) assaulted him first... a so called low level assault. he certainly sustained little to no injuries.

then he went off and beat the crap out of her.

the DV laws in most states acknowledge that in many cases, it is not an outright "false crack" as we used to say in hawaii, but that both parties may have used violence.

the issue legally is - who was the "primary aggressor"? primary does NOT mean initial. it means essentially the most egregious violator.

if you slap me (i'm a man and been the victim of domestic violence a few times. i was slapped. no, i didn't call police, and i certainly didn't hit back.), making my cheek sting and i call police, you may get arrested for assault. you are the primary aggressor.

if you slap me, and i respond by punching you in the eye, several times ... i'm the primary aggressor. you will not get arrested. at lesat in my state, we are supposed to arrest (and charge) the primary aggressor, not both parties, even if both parties technically committed an assault

a study that came out of canada a ways back showed that actually women are more likely to commit domestic assault than men. i'm the perfect example, having been the victim of slaps three times by otherwise law abiding women (girls actually. this was primarily around college years).

the VAST majority of these are not reported. your average guy is not going to call the police cause his gf slapped him.

it does NOT excuse it, of course.

but when it comes to "hardcore assault", yer broken bones, your serious bruising, etc. it is almost always men. there ARE exceptions - look at the death of phil hartmann, but generally speaking, women are rarely beating the crap out of men.

and this is a perfect example of a case, where somebody got the crap beaten out of them.

i think the reason why so many women will commit these "minor" assaults (slaps, etc.) is that they are not taught "it's always wrong to hit a man", but as old fashioned as it is , most men are taught "you never hit a woman no matter what". now many men don't FOLLOW that, but most do.

that bright line is drawn as a matter of culture.

i remember when i took martial arts, it was very very difficult to spar with women at first, because i had that absolute rule drilled into me about hitting women.

it IS a double standard but it exists.

and considering that men are generally much stronger than women, it aint a bad rule to have.

[Hello_Kitty]

62. Thank you. eom

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. Thank you for the enlightening post - I truly appreciated that.

I do take issue with your last two lines, about double standards. As a former officer, you well know that weapons are the great equalizer, and while the rule that men should never hit women is a good one, we need to start drilling the reverse as well.

[paulsby]

85. not former

current.

i don't think the LAW should have a double standard. iow, if it is assault for a man to slap a woman, then it should be assault for a woman to slap a man.

let me make that clear.

culturally, i am not going to lose sleep if there are some men occasionally being slapped by their gf's, even though it is a crime.

i think the "you never hit a woman" is a good rule that men should be taught. i have no problem with women being taught "you don't hit your man" EITHER, but the reason for the former rule is that men are generally much stronger, and ARE more violent.

there are very few men, regardless of whether they are occasionally slapped, who live in FEAR of being assaulted by their female partners.

whereas there are metric assloads of women who live in fear. that is unacceptable.

[TexasObserver]

128. You do a nice job of explaining the reason for the double standard.

It is rationally based, because men generally don't fear for their lives with abusive female partners, where the same cannot be said of women abused by their partners or spouses.

However, the double standard consistently sends a message that is not helpful: it's OK for women to hit men, and if men ever hit back, they're wrong for doing so. From CPS all the way through the Justice system, we accept that standard, double that it is.

Stopping domestic violence requires attacking the problem with both genders. Can you imagine if we treated child abuse like that? It's ok to whip your boys black and blue, but don't spank your girls?! Failing to protect men from violence by their wives or girlfriends contributes to domestic violence and makes more likely the incidence of violence by men against their wives or girlfriends.

[paulsby]

130. you make good points

the most important difference is that men almost never even CALL if they are slapped, or if the cops are already there (like if a neighbor called), they are hesitant to admit it.

i've had more women admit they slapped their husbands than men admit they were slapped.

i don't think we will ever stop domestic violence, but i think we've done a lot towards decreasing it, AND ensuring accountability when it happens.

it's a two prong system also (much like DUI) in that there is a civil aspect (protective orders) and a criminal aspect.

the culture has changed a lot with women and violence. for example, women like gina carano, have normalized for men (and women) seeing women beat the hell out of each other, take a punch, and give a punch in the name of sport.

that used to be somewhat taboo.

[Triana]

97. thank you paulsby for putting this in its proper perspective. n/t

[ForrestGump]

136. Great post

The 'primary offender' part would seem to, if it applies in the appropriate jurisdiction (LA? I have no idea...didn't even know who these two were 'til now, except that they're on every magazine cover in the checkout lines), solve the problem posed by the young woman allegedly firing first.

I know what you mean about sparring with women, too. Actually, sparring effectively with anyone requires a paradigm shift for many of us (unless we're psychopaths or otherwise prone to violence, I guess, and the obstacles are probably even greater for most women because schoolboys tend to roughhouse more, voluntarily or not), but being prepared to strike a woman does require most men overcome what is probably a fairly entrenched taboo.

Early on in my martial arts life, however, I was repeatedly taken down by one particular young woman (I had size, reach, strength, and speed advantages but somehow she was able to repeatedly take me down, spectacularly, with her accursed sweep-from-hell) and later I was battered quite egregiously by others, so I did get to the point at which I saw these particular women as no different than any male in the class. By that I don't mean that I'd previously seen them as somehow inferior or otherwise unequal, just that the cultural conditioning that I should never hit a female was an almost impermeable barrier.

As it turned out, most of my training has been in traditional Chinese 'kung fu' styles in which classes were usually primarily composed of males; in the two schools in which I've joined specialized intensive fighting classes, separate from the main body of the school's training, females were few or absent, and it was in those classes that I did my most intense and grueling body conditioning, fight training, and sparring (outside of real combat, of course).

I suspect that, even now, I'd still find myself involuntarily holding back at least a little when sparring with a woman. In the past, the key to overcoming this was to tell myself that I owed it to my opponent not to hold back, that it would be unfair for me to not go all out (well,you know, within reason...nobody goes to a kung fu school to get killed) because if this person was ever attacked for real her attackers wouldn't be so kind.

And, yeah, I wouldn't mind a little time alone with this Chris Brown character. Not very enlightened of me, perhaps, but if I can be an Instrument of Karma by letting the little twerp know what it's like to be beaten mercilessly by someone who is bigger and stronger then, yeah, I'd have no choice but to serve in that cosmic role. Namaste.

[paulsby]

168. true dat

"The 'primary offender' part would seem to, if it applies in the appropriate jurisdiction (LA? I have no idea...didn't even know who these two were 'til now, except that they're on every magazine cover in the checkout lines), solve the problem posed by the young woman allegedly firing first."

it's pretty much par for the course in every jurisdiction i've looked at.

it doesn't mean that the other person doesn't have SOME culpability (like if she slapped him first), it just means that the prosecutors office is going to charge the primary aggressor. often, both parties share SOME blame, but there is a huge difference between a slap and a bunch of punches.

"As it turned out, most of my training has been in traditional Chinese 'kung fu' "

hA!!!! your praying mantis style is no match for my tiger claw!

"And, yeah, I wouldn't mind a little time alone with this Chris Brown character. Not very enlightened of me, perhaps, but if I can be an Instrument of Karma by letting the little twerp know what it's like to be beaten mercilessly by someone who is bigger and stronger then, yeah, I'd have no choice but to serve in that cosmic role. Namaste. "

not that it's always smaht to go with appearances, but chris brown hardly appears to be a bad-ass, nor does he have that whole gangsta persona. he's kind of like usher. a pretty boy who one does not think of as a tuff guy.

[redqueen]

172. The police here don't seem to be taught that general rule.

Thanks for your post.

[ourbluenation]

177. as a dv advocate I don't envy you trying to determine who is the primary agressor.

In our area we constantly see women arrested for dv who were defending themselves, because they left a mark. We also have male clients who got a frying pan to the side of the head by a very angry (and strong as hell) wife. Violence is violence. Managing the anger is key. It's unfortunate that we get so caught up in this gender stuff.

[paulsby]

210. it's a rough science at best

fwiw, DV crimes are the only crimes in my state, where we have CIVIL immunity for all arrests in good faith.

that is a major protection to law enforcement against civil suits, and is an encouragement (for better or worse) to make n arrest in a situation where the probable cause is sketchy and/or hard to determine primary aggressor.

i am CERTAIN that more innocents are arrested for DV than most other crimes, and that sucks, but that's the way the system works. arrests in DV cases are not just seen as a way to start the criminal process, but as a way to intervene in the cycle of violence.

some women do get arrested for defending themself. no doubt. some men get arrested because the woman lied and made false claims. no doubt.

it's an imperfect system. that's undeniable.

[uppityperson]

235. thank you.

[iamthebandfanman]

169. Bah, theres no excuse for violence.

unless you think your life is endanger, theres no excuse for any acts of violence.

[TexasObserver]

170. Your post has nothing to do with mine.

Your comment is a non sequitur, which supposes I have stated there is an excuse for violence, when I haven't. You merely threw up a straw man and attacked it. Try to focus.

[mzmolly]

201. Probably because Chris Brown had no evidence that he was physically attacked.

Slapping someone on the arm for cheating should not be equivocated to putting a partner in the hospital. There is no comparison.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. Awesomely succinct. eom

[liberation]

127. I don't think that "succint" means what you think it means...

I frankly find it revolting that some people in this thread are basically arguing that domestic violence is OK as long as the receiver of the violence is a male.

Since men are stronger than women, then it is A-OK if we get the "occasional" slap in the face. Is that it?

Don't pat yourselves too hard on the back, you are being as hypocritical as those who excuse domestic violence victimizing women.

[ForrestGump]

138. I guess I've been a victim of it, and I'm male

My wife used to fly off the handle, especially when she was in the midst of the stuff that led to the end of us being together, and she had little self control when she did...she'd hit me and throw things at me. I'm bigger, stronger, and trained in martial arts but I tend to be pretty implacable in such situations so I'd at most just block (parry, really...fairly passively redirect the energy of her attack rather than meet force-on-force, which is probably what most people think of as blocking) and, to be honest, her assaults never hurt me all that much because, for one thing, my body was at that time purposely conditioned to take all sorts of strikes and other punishment. What hurt was not the physical but everything else. That hurt a lot.

Of course, sometimes she'd go even more insane -- a very few times she really did scare me, she so completely lost all semblance of control and even what we perhaps ironically term 'humanity' -- and start screaming about how I was battering her, basically because when she tried to punch or kick me and her limb clashed with my forearm or elbow or whatever, she got a booboo. I found it difficult to muster up sympathy or get down on myself for being a wifebeater. It's kinda like ramming your head against a wall and then accusing the wall of malicious intent. My calmness also tended to drive her into more of a frenzy at such moments, too, just as it did when she was just simmering.

So, yeah, strictly speaking I was (very occasionally) a battered husband. For my own situation, although the indisputable fact is that I was aggressively attacked and that there is no possible excuse for unprovoked physical assault (unprovoked by physicality, I mean...words or actions that are not part of a direct physical attack do not warrant fists, anyway), I can't use that fact as some kind of rebuttal to assertions that a great many women are at significant risk because the men in their lives beat them. Again -- and this relates only to my own experience -- her assaults on my body were well within my threshold of 'sucking it up,' and probably would have been so even if I were not then busy intentionally making my body less vulnerable to attack. Would I have been within my rights and on the side of the legal angels to respond to an onslaught by just decking her? Possibly. Possibly not, especially given the discrepancy in physical attributes and my experience. Irrelevant, anyway, because I wouldn't have done it...nondestructive grappling or running were just two less vigorous and damaging alternative responses. If she'd come at me with a knife, yeah, though I'd still have been down on myself afterward for having had to respond violently and for it even getting to that point.

I'm keenly aware that there are indeed many men, undoubtedly far more than ever report such, who are beaten vastly more severely by their female partners, and who do sustain injuries and feel pain that wasn't relevant to my case. Some are killed, I know. I agree that their attackers are every bit as culpable as are the men who beat women. There should be no gender bias involved. But I am also keenly aware that, though we'll probably never have even approximate stats on the male as victim, if only because of the perceived humiliation of being beaten up by a girl, it's almost a dead certainty that the problem of males beating females is not only more widespread but VASTLY more likely to involve serious injury and even death. A woman slapping a man is battery, for sure, and she should not be given a pass for it, though the reality is that most men can shrug off at least the physical effect of a slap whereas all too often males who abuse don't stop with the slap but keep going until the target of their rage is not moving.

In other words, I'm offended by women who seek to minimize or even ridicule the notion of men being beaten by their partners (male or female) or who characterize every man as an abuser or rapist, but I also think there're degrees of severity in play and that women universally and to an extreme tend to get the short end of the stick way more often and with far more devastating consequence than most men will ever be able to fully understand.

[lunatica]

6. It's about time domestic violence gets serious coverage

Oprah Winfrey and now Newsweek. And I hope all domestic violence gets plenty of discussion including violence against children and gay and lesbian partners. It's time to stop blaming the victim all the way around. That includes some DUers too.

[ReliantJ]

9. I really hope this doesn't affect kids the way some are expecting

[camera obscura]

7. Thanks for this.

[LuckyLib]

11. Thanks for posting this. I'm sending it to every teen I know.

That she even thinks about returning to this loser says so much about how our culture supports the "power, control, and domination" of men in relationships. She needs to dump this idiot and move on.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. As usual, an OP about domestic violence against women is hijacked by the What About The Men crowd

Predictable as the sun rising in the east.

Ya know, if you want to talk about DV against men, you can start your own thread about it. Really. :eyes:

[JuniperLea]

16. Why should that be?

There is no difference between men beating women and women beating men. IMHO both parties in this case should be charged with assault, if in fact they both threw punches.

Gender should have nothing to do with it, and I think this is the point people are trying to make here.

[geek tragedy]

92. Except for the fact that men beat women a lot more

than women beat men, and that men inflict a LOT more damage than women do, etc etc.

But, yeah, other than that the false equivalence thing is great.

[JuniperLea]

102. How can you prove that?

Men are far less likely to report it, and when they do, they don't get any action. So how could you possibly know for a fact that men bet women more, or that men do more damage?

Whatever... you might try talking out of the other side of your ass.

[Lorien]

113. Testosterone

men also beat men more often then women do. Men are simply more violent due to their higher testosterone levels. Such is the case across pretty much the entire spectrum of the animal kingdom.

[geek tragedy]

140. More violent and just plain stronger.

Sure there are some women who are capable of physically battering their husbands, but they're vastly outnumbered by the men who are stronger than their wives.

[geek tragedy]

139. Every credible statistic backs me up.

Also, common sense--men are much bigger and stronger than women are. Duh.

[JuniperLea]

144. Duh your fucking self

Your idiotic condescension just ruined any good you may have done here. I asked a simple question, and others answered politely... and swayed my opinion... then along came old snarky ass and... if someone so fucking arrogant and pissy thinks it must be so, I'll have to rethink. You are a fucking tragedy, just like your name indicates.

[lukasahero]

145. If your opinion can be swayed by personality, then what you need to 'rethink' is

your thought process. Facts should not be believed or dismissed based on the personality of the one presenting them.

[JuniperLea]

149. You don't get it...

Nor does the person I was addressing.

I work in PR. I have a very low threshold for BS. When I see this sort of idiocy, I immediately go into counselor mode and tell the person they are not helping their cause at all. I don't personally judge a book by its cover, but far greater numbers of people do that than through a thought process. If you check out this person's response, you'll see... they just don't get it.

Framing and presentation are everything. You can do a cause far more harm than good by being an asshole while presenting solid facts. Being a snarkanista never helps.

[lukasahero]

151. And we wonder why we have a dumbing down in America

People care more about 'framing' than about facts.

Seeing as you are referring to the 'BS' and 'idiocy' of the poster that you, the 'counselor', must correct, I would suggest your own 'framing and presentation' could use a re-work.

[JuniperLea]

153. LOL!

Really? That's just funny:)

[geek tragedy]

147. Department of Justice study work for you?

The majority (73%) of family violence victims were females. Females were 84% of spouse abuse victims and 86% of victims of abuse at the hand of a boyfriend or girlfriend.

While about three-fourths of the victims of family violence were female, about three-fourths of the persons who committed family violence were male.

Page 5

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf

[JuniperLea]

150. Jiminy Crickets...

Thick, freaking thick.

[geek tragedy]

152. Yes. You just reject evidence that contradicts your moronic position.

You ask for proof, and it is provided, and then you reject it because of course men must be under-reporting it.

Wevs. For whatever reason, you're clinging to a mythology.

[JuniperLea]

154. No I'm not

You aren't paying attention.

[geek tragedy]

156. You asked for proof that men abuse their wives more often

than wives abuse their husbands.

I provided it.

But, you remain in denial much as the global warming deniers do.

[JuniperLea]

157. Show me where I'm remaining in denial...

?? :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

159. Roll the tape!

You:
me:


You: Gender should have nothing to do with it, and I think this is the point people are trying to make here.
Me: Except for the fact that men beat women a lot more than women beat men, and that men inflict a LOT more damage than women do, etc etc.

But, yeah, other than that the false equivalence thing is great.

You: How can you prove that?
Men are far less likely to report it, and when they do, they don't get any action. So how could you possibly know for a fact that men bet women more, or that men do more damage?

Whatever... you might try talking out of the other side of your ass.

Me: The majority (73%) of family violence victims were females. Females were 84% of spouse abuse victims and 86% of victims of abuse at the hand of a boyfriend or girlfriend.

While about three-fourths of the victims of family violence were female, about three-fourths of the persons who committed family violence were male. (link and reference provided)

You: Fingers in your ears.

Seriously, that you would even need statistics to prove that man-on-woman domestic violence is more of a problem than woman-on-man domestic violence shows that you're out of touch with reality.

[JuniperLea]

160. What bullshit

You cannot show that I am in denial, so you make shit up. Whatever.


Edited for the real story:

"Your idiotic condescension just ruined any good you may have done here. I asked a simple question, and others answered politely... and swayed my opinion..."

[geek tragedy]

So you're fighting just to have a fight. Have a nice day. n/t

[JuniperLea]

163. Good GAWD!

You just don't get it. I'm not fighting to fight; I had a clear message on how the public perceives assholes. Trouble is, those who most need the information are oblivious.

[geek tragedy]

162. Dupe delete

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

161. ...

"
You: Gender should have nothing to do with it, and I think this is the point people are trying to make here.
Me: Except for the fact that men beat women a lot more than women beat men, and that men inflict a LOT more damage than women do, etc etc.

But, yeah, other than that the false equivalence thing is great."

Gender may have broad sociological implications when it comes to domestic violence. In individual instances it's entirely irrelevant. The fact that men are more likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence is of no issue to a male victim of domestic violence. In fact, this borders on acceptance of domestic violence, and blaming the victim. "What about male victims? Well men cause domestic violence so they're less important."

"You: How can you prove that?
Men are far less likely to report it, and when they do, they don't get any action. So how could you possibly know for a fact that men bet women more, or that men do more damage?

Whatever... you might try talking out of the other side of your ass.

Me: The majority (73%) of family violence victims were females. Females were 84% of spouse abuse victims and 86% of victims of abuse at the hand of a boyfriend or girlfriend.

While about three-fourths of the victims of family violence were female, about three-fourths of the persons who committed family violence were male. (link and reference provided)

You: Fingers in your ears."

I believe JuniperLea's referring to the problem of male victims underreporting domestic violence. The DoJ statistics you cited indicate that male victims of spousal abuse are 10% less likely to report it. And that number itself is based on DoJ surveys, which could very well have their own highly significant error when it comes to compliance in reporting.

"Seriously, that you would even need statistics to prove that man-on-woman domestic violence is more of a problem than woman-on-man domestic violence shows that you're out of touch with reality."

I see no reason for the phony segregation of domestic violence into male vs. female forms. It seems counterproductive.

[JuniperLea]

164. Yep, that is the first part of what I'm trying to say...

And I thank you for getting it.

The other part is about swaying opinion, and the direct correlation between the perception of the messenger and what the actual message contains. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar... those old sayings are still around for a reason. Assholery can be fun, but it can be counterproductive too.

[geek tragedy]

166. You cannot discuss domestic violence in a meaningful way

without addressing the issues of power and control, which themselves are unavoidably tied to the issue of gender in society and specifically cultural attitudes regarding the place of the woman in the household.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

167. You can't discuss domestic violence in a meaninful way...

by dismissing a significant portion of it as no big deal.

[lumberjack_jeff]

171. CDC study might be more useful since it includes unreported assaults.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

Furthermore, Whitaker discovered, of the 24 percent of relationships that had been violent, half had been reciprocal and half had not. Although more men than women (53 percent versus 49 percent) had experienced nonreciprocal violent relationships, more women than men (52 percent versus 47 percent) had taken part in ones involving reciprocal violence.

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.

As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). "This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious," Whitaker and his group stressed.

This study suggests that the most promising way to end the cycle of violence is to reject the societal view that slapping men is okay. It very often escalates to the slapper's detriment.

[mzmolly]

221. I don't know where anyone suggested

that slapping men is ok? Also we don't know if Chris Brown was slapped. What we do know is that the police report makes no mention of it, and Brown has no physical proof of being assaulted.

Additionally, hospitalizing a smaller person who 'slaps' you is detrimental to the "slappee" as well. Brown is facing two felony charges. In fact, he could have been charged with attempted murder. And, his career may be over.

Regarding the "study" conducted under the Bush run CDC, ;) I would like to see the term "perpetration of violence" defined.

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Since this happens so often, according to you, please point out another instance.

Preferably, one that didn't involve charges of the woman attacking the man. Thank you for your time.

[Bunny]

28. Okay, here's one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5214665&mesg_id=5214712

The What About The Men crowd always, always, enter these threads. If you've been here for years, you've probably seen it. Unless you're so blind to it that you don't recognize it. :shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. Fail: That has to do with this incident, which involves a woman hitting a man (allegedly)

Once again, please cite an example that does NOT involve a woman hitting a man.

[Bunny]

31. No, you failed.

You didn't specify that it had to be separate from this incident, and furthermore, what difference does it make if the woman hits the man? The subject of the OP is myths domestic violence against women. NOT domestic violence against men. If you want to discuss DV against men, by all means start a thread. Or, you can continue to sit in this thread and harrumph about all those poor men. Your choice.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. Read carefully, please

"Preferably, one that didn't involve charges of the woman attacking the man."

That clearly rules out this one, does it not?

[ourbluenation]

26. As the OP and a DV advocate by profession, I welcome a discussion about dv regardless of gender.

Part of the problem with men not reporting is that they can't be viewed as victims by our culture, which is ridiculous. The more we talk about it, the more awareness there is, the sooner male victims will feel ok about reporting. I think this is particularly true of boys who are victims of violence in their own homes.

dv is dv. there are perps and there are victims. and the fact is that sometimes the two intermingle which makes it really hard for our law enforcement partners who respond to a dv call.

[TexasObserver]

80. Thank you! Parsing domestic violence is rationalizing it away.

I don't understand why it is difficult for some to acknowledge that domestic violence by women against men is part of the problem we face in dealing with domestic violence in our society. It's not the primary problem, but it is still a significant problem. The dismissive attitude some have about violence by women against men undermines efforts to defuse domestic violence. It excuses domestic violence on the sole basis of gender.

[Hello_Kitty]

82. You seem to be suggesting that women are provoking the violence against them.

I really hope that's not what you're doing but that's the sense I'm getting.

No one is saying that it's okay for anyone to hit anyone. What your perceive as a double standard is the realization that men (in general) have the ability to inflict much greater physical harm on women (in general) than vice versa, and that women are often terrorized and endangered in abusive relationships in a way that men rarely are.

[skygazer]

90. In addition, men are usually physically able to get away

Whereas women are often unable to do so. Also, a far greater percentage of men commit acts of domestic violence than women - it's not that violence against men doesn't happen but not often.

It amazes me that some men are so threatened by women having something of their own that they even want our oppression. :banghead:

[TexasObserver]

125. I'm stating simple facts that you would acknowledge but for your bias.

It is a fact that some violence by men against women is precipitated by violence by women against men. If you cannot accept that simple fact, you cannot rationally discuss the topic of domestic abuse.

Domestic violence is a problem that requires ALL violators to come to terms with their propensity to hit others, and it applies to women as well as men. Violence by women against men does not excuse violence by men against women, but it is domestic violence, it contributes to the cycle of violence, and is a part of the problem.

You are consistently unwilling to call abuse by women what it is: domestic violence. You are unwilling to acknowledge the role that such violence plays in creating and perpetuating an atmosphere of violence in domestic settings. Failing to hold women accountable for their acts of domestic violence is a part of our societal problem, and your rationalizations are part of that problem. Some women commit domestic violence against men, and it is a big problem.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasObserver]

126. The TOPIC is domestic violence.

If you can't discuss the topic rationally, without engaging in hateful, gender based attacks, maybe you should skip this thread.

Spousal abuse is about spousal abuse. Abuse by men against women is a bigger problem than abuse by women against men, but we are talking about THIS incident, and that's the reason the role of violence by the female is part of the topic.

If you can't talk about this topic without resorting to personal attacks, you should take a break from posting.

[liberation]

132. "you people" WTF?

Do some of the posters in this thread even realize how hypocritical they sound?

[Lorien]

114. It is sad to see so much misogyny on a "liberal" board

but at this point I, too, am sadly unsurprised by it. :-(

[RattusRattus]

148. Really

Misogyny is harmful to both women and men. Acknowledgment of that is the only way society as a whole will change. Women hitting men, particularly slapping them and kicking them in the family jewels, is normalized in our society, and this is an example of misogyny. It is assumed that the only way the man will acknowledge and understand what the woman is trying to communicate to him is through physical violence, that her words mean so little that she has to strike him, that she is so weak she needs to express herself with her fists. You don't find this assumption offensive? That we can't formulate a compelling argument for whatever it is we're pissed about. Generally, when such things are portrayed on TV, the woman is throwing a temper tantrum (not that in some cases the man has not acted in a pig-headed manner deserving anger). In general, the concept that women can hit men feeds into the stereotype that we're completely unreasonable emotional spazzes. You can't discount the experiences of men because they're in the minority. You can't pick and choose what to talk about with DV. Yes, more women are beaten than men, and more severely, but as people keep saying, it doesn't make it okay for the woman to hit the man (other than self defense).

A lot of the posts talking about the DV men have experienced high light the fact, that in these cases, misogyny was harmful to the men, rather than the women. You can't exclude men from feminism, if we're going to get anywhere as a whole we need to include them. Guys say misogynist things around me all the time--generally I take a minute out to explain to them why what they said is misogynist. Getting pissed does not get your point across.

[BlueIris]

242. And sadly, in this thread, it's really more the What About the Abusers crowd.

Because, you know, abusers deserve sympathy, too. More than there victims, in fact. What's up with those damn victims, trying to keep all the attention on themselves?

:sarcasm:

[geek tragedy]

248. DU has plenty of misogynist men and women who serve

the patriarchy.

[walkaway]

21. Years ago I had a friend who had beenterribly abused by her father

Her brother and mother were beat regularly as well. Her father had since passed away and, although she didn't believe in counseling of any sort, she believed she was over it and moved on.

She married a nice guy and had a great kid. When her son was almost off to college she divorced her husband and began dating. One day she told me that the artist she had been seeing hit her but it was her fault because she "pushed his buttons". Then she said something that really frightened me. She said "men who beat their wives never kill them". I asked her where she got that kind of an idea and she said it was from experience. Her father could have killed them at any time but he just hit them until the day he died. A year later she was dead. I always felt guilty that I couldn't convince her she was wrong.

[H2O Man]

30. Nominated.

Thank you for posting this. I also find the responses interesting, and hope that the discussion continues, without it becoming as negative as too many others on this topic tend to.

Although I do not remember ever hearing of either of the individuals in the case in point, and still could not identify the name of any song, etc, either has done, I have watched a number of news reports and CNN panel discussions about the incident and consequent events with interest. As a retired social worker, who had years of experience involving working with families and individuals involved with domestic abuse, I hope this case allows the country to take a good look at what has been and continues to damage the lives of so many people.

Domestic violence is a serious issue in our culture, and in order to address it, we need to take a long look at all that it involves. Men beat women; women beat men; men beat men; women beat women; adults beat the elderly; adults beat children; and more.

I believe that Chris Brown should be incarcerated at this time.

[H2O Man]

196. Sadly,

while the majority of the responders provided serious comments, a few talkative folks couldn't control themselves.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. i think people have no idea about domestic violence when they dont take into

affect intimidation and differences in strength

for instance, i could slap my man, but if this just irritates him and doesnt scare/hurt him its not DV

there is an aspect of fear and domination in DV, that a mere slap to the arm doesnt invoke.

[Hello_Kitty]

67. Oh I think a lot of them do know the difference.

But they play dumb about it to maintain the male dominance structure.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. So far about 3/4 of the posts on this OP are about how DV impacts men.

Disgusting.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

70. How many of those are responses to your persistance on that very topic?

Don't ignore your role in that.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

187. Perfect!

See, Hello Kitty? You're making them do it!

[noiretextatique]

72. it happens all the time

i think the police officer's post upthread addresses this issue. women tend to do low-level assaults, but it's mostly men who will beat someone to a pulp. not always, but mostly. i think some men, resent being tied to those horrifying statistics and others identify more with the man. you will notice this pattern in threads about rape here. the topic becomes more about false accusation of rape than the actual incidents of rape.

[Hello_Kitty]

74. Oh yes, it certainly does happen with rape.

And of course, we also get the obligatory reminder than men are sometimes raped too.

[geek tragedy]

89. Its' the same creeps from the 'fathers' rights' groups

who want DV taken out of divorce proceedings and stuff like that. We have a few guys around here who talk about how they used to hit their wives, but since the wives left before they could punch them again that means they've been rehabilitated.

[gollygee]

107. Standard practice around here

There has to be some way to turn a story about a pop singer being beaten to a pulp by her boyfriend into a discussion about how men have it worse, right?

*sigh*

[mzmolly]

213. We still have a very long way to go apparently?

:(

[truedelphi]

76. Wish I could K & R a hundred times.

And I am thankful that in California, if there is any evidence of someone in a relationship beating up another - then it doesn't matter if the victim refuses to press charges. The victim will see her attacker face court - regardless if she is now back under his sway or not.

Evidence is anything seen by a docotr or ER team, by neighbors, friends or even strangers. If it is added to the original charge, that evidence will mandate the perp having to show up in court.

[DailyGrind51]

77. But She probably wouldn't date a "nice guy" because he would be too boring!

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hello_Kitty]

81. I can't believe my response to you got deleted but I'll say again:

A truly nice guy doesn't have to go around reminding everyone how nice he is. A truly nice guy isn't nice with the expectation of getting laid or a girlfriend out of it.

Hope the way I put that didn't offend anyone. I didn't realize that "Nice Guys" are such a protected class around here.

[dustbunnie]

83. I don't blame that poster for being confused at all!

So many women pass up really incredible, intelligent, wonderful men to ruin their lives with the sexy bad boy who will cheat and screw them over from here to eternity. There is something that impels otherwise bright women to attach themselves to the worst dregs, and continue to support them even after their bank accounts have been emptied and they find themselves with an STD. Maybe it's the amazing sex or the excitement of being a bad boy's girl, but lots of women throw their lives away for useless men. It's a fact.

And lots of good men are bewildered by it, hurt by it, and finally become cynical. You have such a chip on your shoulder.

[Hello_Kitty]

84. But that has nothing to do with Nice Guys(TM)

Again, no one who is truly nice a) announces how nice he is at every opportunity, and b) expects to be rewarded with sex in return for being nice.

And lots of good men are bewildered by it, hurt by it, and finally become cynical.

Maybe those "good men" are ignoring all the incredible, intelligent, and wonderful women who might be interested in them because those women aren't "hot babes". :shrug:

You're right, I do have a chip on my shoulder.

[dustbunnie]

100. I've been hearing the wistful "women don't like nice guys" more and more -

I don't believe they say it to get points or for sex. (I hardly think that poster was trolling for female friendship here). They say it way the women say it, just as you did in your post. Maybe it's because we're becoming more and more narcisstic as a society, that people just gravitate towards money, beauty, the promise of excitement, but I think people just don't understand why someone would be attracted to a schmuck or schmuckerina rather than look for decent qualities. And women DO ask the question just as often as men do. I have a theory that men are now asking the question because they are more willing to make efforts in their relationships and are more open to being vulnerable enough to talk about their feelings.

[Hello_Kitty]

105. So what?

Social changes necessitating men acting more like decent human beings don't entitle men to sexual access to any woman they want. And yes, you're right that plenty of women whine too but they don't get the kind of latitude that the culture gives men. There are a LOT more mail-order bride companies that cater to bitter loser men than there are similar services for women.

Basically, it boils down to: If you want someone and they want a schmuck or schmuckerina instead of you, deal with it and move on.

[dustbunnie]

106. I honestly don't know why you keep focussing on sex.

I think someone who talks about women not wanting "nice" guys is referring to relationships. A nice guy is willing to date a woman and treat her well, and think that's what the poster and others are talking about. It's the exciting bad boy who beds women before they've even gotten out the door the first time.

Traditionally women don't use those mail-order services because women don't like to buy love, whereas men traditionally have had no problem with it. But there are a lot more chat rooms, match-finders and other message boards catering to people wanting to meet others these days, and more and more women are using them. Probably more so than men at this point. At one point, needing to use those services would have been a shameful admission for a woman. Your last line is correct of course, and that's real life, but doesn't mean people won't whine or talk, or go on about it. We're human.

[Hello_Kitty]

108. Uh, maybe because the nice guys want those relationships to be intimate?

Because if they were happy being platonic friends with the women they wouldn't be whining, would they?

A nice guy is willing to date a woman and treat her well and accept it if she doesn't return his (romantic or sexual or both) feelings toward her. At that point he can choose to remain friends with her or not, but he doesn't hang around and try to guilt-trip her and he doesn't piss and moan about how women don't appreciate nice guys like him to everyone who will listen. Because once he starts doing that he's no longer a nice guy - he's a Nice Guy(TM).

[dustbunnie]

110. Nice guys do accept dating a woman for weeks and not being intimate -

Nice guys are friends with women. I'm thankful to count a few of them myself. Nice guys get fucked over sometimes, other times they don't. Talking about it is somehow wrong? No man can ever say "I get fucked over and don't know why"? You're really going to tell me that women don't whine, don't complain, don't engage in the same behavior? Or not that they don't but it's somehow sainted when we do it? Different cause we've been kept down in the work world?

What's funny is, you've invented this entire story of the poster's "mindset" based on a post on DU.

You're really reaching out on a limb here, and trying to invoke some special rules for how women should be treated on the dating scene, while at the same time complaining that you don't get treated equally. I have yet to see one thread on DU where a man complains about the way he's treated by women, yet there are quite a few devoted to women's issues with men. One post that even remotely brings up another side of the equation other than "all men suck" and apparently it's the end of the world. I hate to tell you, but looking at men as the enemy is not going to do anyone any good, especially since we need both sex and male contribution in order to have children. You seem to have reached the cynical point yourself. Not all of us have and can still look at the individual.

[Hello_Kitty]

111. Huh?

Where do you get all that from what I posted to that guy? I was making a general comment about the "nice guy" lament and he, or someone, took it personally and got it deleted.

I hate to tell you, but looking at men as the enemy is not going to do anyone any good, especially since we need both sex and male contribution in order to have children. You seem to have reached the cynical point yourself. Not all of us have and can still look at the individual.

*sigh* You had such promise from some previous posts I'd seen of yours. And now you just sound like a "men's rights" concern troll.

[dustbunnie]

115. Sorry if I come off that way, but it's a fact that I live with men.

As for your post that got deleted, maybe it was because you made a blanket statement, not even remotely taking into account it was a post by an individual musing about the lack of understanding between the sexes. Perhaps you attacked that. I'm all for eliminating the misunderstandings between the sexes.

I got all that from what you posted because you seem to be quite passionate about cutting anyone down who doesn't seem to share your views.

I like many men, and respect some that I don't like. I live with the rest. What I've seen from your posts on this thread - they seem to me not anything related to feminism or a desire to end DV, but more so to spread a personal perception based on your own experiences. The fact is, even feminists would like to have relationships, build families, and what you're doing, this "all men suck" mentality will do us no good. If I've mistakenly taken away from your posts that you believe in the "all men suck" mentality then I apologize. But going back to my first reply to your post, that still stands. Women make stupid decisions, and I hope even my lame posts on DU might make some woman think. I'm with a "nice" guy I adore. I know what it means when someone says they're a "nice guy" just as I know what it is to be a "nice woman."

[Hello_Kitty]

119. Whereas I live on an island inhabited only by women, I guess.

I like many men, and respect some that I don't like. I live with the rest. What I've seen from your posts on this thread - they seem to me not anything related to feminism or a desire to end DV, but more so to spread a personal perception based on your own experiences. The fact is, even feminists would like to have relationships, build families, and what you're doing, this "all men suck" mentality will do us no good. If I've mistakenly taken away from your posts that you believe in the "all men suck" mentality then I apologize. But going back to my first reply to your post, that still stands. Women make stupid decisions, and I hope even my lame posts on DU might make some woman think. I'm with a "nice" guy I adore. I know what it means when someone says they're a "nice guy" just as I know what it is to be a "nice woman."

Ah, the man-hating Strawfeminist. A perennial favorite.

[dustbunnie]

120. Sometimes a strawman is just a thing made of straw, warding off the crows.

Not really an intellectual experience.

[treestar]

86. Aren't there any useless women?

Men often find the narcissists to be the most exiting woman, especially if she is good looking.

I knew a girl like that once - men lined up for her, she had a great figure and a pretty good face and talked about herself and how great she was 24/7.

And she did prefer exciting men - would't have bothered with a "nice guy." No loss to the nice guys, really.

A girl who is shy won't get any attention; the guys run after the life of the party types. So that works both ways, really. One just see the men whining about it more.

[Hello_Kitty]

88. And men get lots of sympathy when they whine

If an unattractive and boring woman complained that she wasn't dating good looking guys people would tell her to either improve her looks and personality or aim for a different type of guy. Yet when these Nice Guys blubber about how they can't get dates with the (almost invariably conventionally attractive) women they want, people actually join them in blaming the women!

[dustbunnie]

103. I don't know about that.

The women I know empathize to death, and can't remember how many countless lunches I and many others have sat at, commiserating with someone on a bad luck dating streak, that all men suck. It isn't reality though, just empathy.

[dustbunnie]

101. Yes, you're absolutely right.

I gave my opinion above. Although I didn't refer to it as "whining." :D

[DailyGrind51]

216. My point exactly, thank you!

[Lorien]

116. Isn't that the truth!

I've gone out with plenty of self described "nice guys"; two did turn out to be so insecure that they were abusive, but most were boring because of how completely narcissistic they were. "I'm a nice guy, and I like playing golf, and I once traveled to another state, and I used to own a really cool car...." and on, and on, and on, always about themselves and showing ZERO interest in their date and who she is until they decided the clothes should come off. Face it, EVERY guy seems to think that he's a "nice guy". Every abusive man I ever met believed that about themselves. Like you said; if they are truly nice, then they'll never have to remind anyone about how nice they are.

[redqueen]

174. That schtick is so worn out.

It's a bunch of bullshit is what it is.

[DailyGrind51]

217. Who is "reminding" anyone?

And, who mentioned anything about the "expectation of getting laid"? You are reading more into my post than I actually stated. Don't project your motives or prejudices on me!

[Evoman]

200. That's because nice guys suck ass.

They are full of shit, lying, little weasel men who try to gain the approval of women by being full of shit.

Fuck nice guys. If I was a women, no way would I go out with a pathetic nice guy.

[Undercurrent]

78. Myth No. 4 omitted from the article, (omitted due to

posting rules), is one of the most important, imo. I've seen this pattern repeated many times when I was a practicing RN. The grip of denial on the part of the victim -- accepting the "I'm sorrys", and the belief that it wont happen again -- is very strong. Sometimes it's a death grip.

External intervention is usually the only way to break this pattern.



Myth No. 4: Brown said he was sorry and they're working it out

Experts will tell you that domestic violence is an escalating series of attacks (not fights) designed to increase a victim's dependence on her abuser. According to the police documents released last week, Rihanna told police that Brown had hit her before and it was getting worse. Sorry means you don't do it again. In discussions about abuse, we need to make it clear that sorry is not enough.

[TwilightZone]

121. It's in the OP.

It's just not bolded like the others. Probably just a format issue.

[Undercurrent]

146. You are right!

My goodness! I read all of the OP, and then reread the article at the link, and dang! My eyes just glazed over that section in the OP. :blush:

Anyway, thanks for posting this. Good information.

[Number23]

99. K&R'd

[MonkeyMama]

109. I think the term "domestic violence" should be completely erased from our vocabularies.

It's assault. If some random stranger had beaten her up, people would be outraged and I doubt they would be working up excuses for him. But, because they have a history together it's domestic violence. Puts a softer spin on the whole disgusting situation. If people were correctly considered victims of the crime of assault, regardless of their relationship to the assailant, this type of thing might be taken more seriously.

[Lorien]

112. Good point. n/t

[Juche]

122. Blather

point 2 is stupid and baseless. No evidence whatsoever. The evidence for it is somewhat true though. Violence against women from men is somewhat designed to control the mating of women.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/242/4878/519

I disagree with point 3 too. I have done stupid shit in my life, and really don't need a bunch of knight in shining armor wannabes breathing down my neck for it. I can't stand that show 'to catch a predator' because I know alot of the viewers and participants who are acting so supercilious secretly have damaging secrets of their own. Mark Foley is a great example. By day he was a crusader against child abuse. By night he was abusing children. In life you find that some of the people who scream the loudest in condemnation of behavior are just doing it to cover up their own desire to engage in the behavior. Projection and overcompensation run amok. We are all fuck ups and deviants on this earth. Point is, we all do and have had things done to us that are evil. What is important is that we try to make amends and become decent people despite it all.

FTR, if Rihanna were not an attractive, fertile woman most of the people here wouldn't give a shit if she got beaten up. Laugh, complain, I don't care, its pretty much true. That makes point 2 about evolution not playing a role in our decision making laughable on its face. When people get as angry about a middle aged black guy getting beaten up by his brother as they do about a young, attractive woman being beaten by her boyfriend I'll change my perspective that people aren't necessarily upset about the violence, just what it signifies. Violence should be universally condemned as violence, but violence is always viewed through the prizm of evolutionary psychology and sociology. It is not some independent action that is always viewed as morally wrong. Its not the violence that upsets people, it is what role the violence plays in our cultural and evolutionary heritage that upsets people. To watch people pretend that this is some deep moral revulsion they have against violence in general is laughable.

I suppose for me what is that behind all this moralizing and condemnation we are just a bunch of monkeys who find some forms and kinds of violence more acceptable than others based on which violence threaten our social units the most. Ideally we'd oppose all violence, but we don't. Its almost like watching religious fundamentalists go through the 100k-ish sentences in the bible to find the 3 that justify oppression of gay people. You know its all a crock. They pretend they are motivated by the bible, but they are really motivated by the fact that they find gay people icky and the bible is the nearest excuse to justify that feeling. If people just came out and said 'I think violence against attractive, young women by men is wrong because I was designed by evolution to think that. Violence that advances societies goals I'm ok with though' then great. But people have to act like it is some deep moral principle that drives them to act this way. It isn't. It is monkey sex.

I'm a ramblin man

[BlooInBloo]

123. Myth #6: Any of those are actually myths...

They're not. Nobody believes them. They're just excuses guys cook up to defend each other with a thin veneer of plausibility.

[Juche]

124. Point 2 is disproved with actual science

If violence against women is designed to control their mating, you'd expect women in their fertile years to experience more violence than menopausal women. Apparently that is the case.


http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/12033558/Understanding_domestic_violence_against_women_using_evolutionary_psychology_to_extend_the_feminist_functional_analysis


Evolutionary psychologists such as Wilson and Daly (1993b) hypothesize that one goal of male-perpetrated domestic violence is control over female sexuality, including the deterrence of infidelity. According to this hypothesis, domestic violence varies with women's reproductive value or expected future reproduction, declining steeply as women age. We tested this hypothesis with a sample of 3,969 cases of male-perpetrated partner-abuse reported to a single police precinct in a large urban area over a 14-year period. Results show that (a) rates of domestic violence decrease as women age, (b) younger men are at greatest risk for perpetrating domestic violence, (c) younger, reproductive age women incur nearly 10 times the risk of domestic violence as do older, post-reproductive age women, and (d) the greater risk of domestic violence incurred by reproductive age women is not attributable solely to mateship to younger, more violent men. Discussion addresses theoretical implications of these findings and suggests a refinement of the feminist hypothesis of domestic violence against women.




FTR, I post this stuff not to justify or excuse things like DV, just to point out part of why they happen so people can do something about them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

129. Oprah said it best - love doesn't *HURT* - if he hit you once....

HE WILL HIT YOU AGAIN!

There's no such thing as counseling a male that hits women. NOT POSSIBLE.

[mackerel]

131. There's no way to know if she actually hit him first. She admitted

to getting angry with him and taking his cell phone. He fled the scene as soon as witnesses came to her aid. She had the proof of her wounds and the po po took a statement. He turned himself in the next day. He made a public apology. She hasn't made a public statement. You go with what's there in front of you which leads to him being the aggressor in this circumstance.

Either way it's clearly a toxic relationship. It will go the way of Whitney Houston's and ruin her career unless she ends the relationship soon.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

134. Doesn't matter...

If an adult hits a child, doesn't matter if the child hit first. You're going to jail.

If someone little with less muscles hits first, doesn't matter. And if in response you break their jaw, their eyes, their head, their nose, and make them all bloody, and you come out nice and unscathed, you deserve to have the crap beaten out of you. Until women get the testosterone and grow muscles like men, men had better learn to stay away from women.

Besides, the old story of, "but she hit me first" is a crock of shit beaters use to get away with that shit. Like some muscular guy is going to play poor sniveling, whiny victim. RIGHT.

[Juche]

142. So what about this scenario

What if Rhianna were beaten up by a more muscular woman, or what if Chris Brown (who really isn't that tough looking) beat up a guy who weighed 130 pounds. Would you have the same revulsion?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

188. You stand them side by side, the @$$hole is looking good....

and the other is bloodied, needs surgery, and is black and blue, I say take the @$$hole and beat the sh*t out of him, then throw him in prison and throw the key in the deep blue sea.

[lumberjack_jeff]

173. Here it is again: a woman is equivalent to a child

To be considered equal, one must accept equal treatment by the law.

The CDC has studied this issue and concluded that she usually does hit him first.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

[redqueen]

175. I hope I'm misreading your meaning there.

Read this, please.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5215363&mesg_id=5216383

[lumberjack_jeff]

178. I did. I see nothing in his anecdote to contradict the CDC's findings.

My meaning is:
As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). "This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious," Whitaker and his group stressed.

Of the study's numerous findings, Whitaker said, "I think the most important is that a great deal of interpersonal violence is reciprocally perpetrated and that when it is reciprocally perpetrated, it is much more likely to result in injury than when perpetrated by only one partner."

The "violence perpetrated by women" is not seen as serious until it escalates into injury on the woman. We need to do more to prevent it getting to that point. A good start would be dumping our widespread destructive stereotypes, including woman = child.

[redqueen]

185. I was misreading you...

I thought you were saying that in fact, woman = child.

Thanks.

[lumberjack_jeff]

191. You're right, I should have been clearer.

Unfortunately, by the time I saw my error, editing time had expired.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

189. I know. Men are SO SCARED of women, they cower, they cry, they run, they fear.....

That's why the statistics are that women die at the hands of men, and not the other way around.

You know, I thank God every day the overwhelming majority of men are not like you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

193. No, you clearly don't. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

195. Oh believe me, I do see nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

197. You're working entirely from stereotypes.

The CDC was sooo surprised by their findings precisely because the stereotype of women as victim is so pervasive. Half of DV is one partner hitting without the other reciprocating. In those cases, 70% of the time, it's the woman hitting the man.

It is a pointless exercise to combat domestic violence by ignoring one-half of the equation.

"Tempestuous" is a bad thing.

[cornermouse]

190. Nice graph.

Too bad it isn't based on reality. By the way, a link to your source would be??????

[lumberjack_jeff]

192. The source would be the Center for Disease Control.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

Same link as I provided in the post to which you are replying. Hope springs eternal - maybe you'll read it this time.

[cornermouse]

199. Well. No. The source is not the CDC.

Look again.

[lumberjack_jeff]

203. Are you reading something other than what I am reading?

"These findings on intimate partner violence come from a study conducted by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The lead investigator was Daniel Whitaker, Ph.D., a behavioral scientist and team leader at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (which is part of the CDC). Results were published in the May Journal of Public Health."

Here's the link to the original research paper.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

[cornermouse]

205. quote from your earlier link, your article, not mine.

"In 2001, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health attempted to amass data about the health of a nationally representative sample of 14,322 individuals between the ages of 18 and 28. The study also asked subjects to answer questions about romantic or sexual relationships in which they had engaged during the previous five years and whether those relationships had involved violence.

Of those subjects, 11,370 reported having had heterosexual relationships and also provided answers to the violence-related questions. So Whitaker and his colleagues decided to use the responses from these 11,370 subjects for a study into how much violence is experienced in intimate heterosexual partner relationships, who the instigators are, and whether physical harm accrues from the violence."

In other words, this is fron the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and the Psychiatric Journal, not the CDC.

Also

The NIH's definition of the organization, National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/sept97/chd-09.htm
"The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) is a survey designed to measure the effects of family, peer group, school, neighborhood, religious institution, and community influences on behaviors that promote good health, such as seat belt use, exercise, and nutrition, as well as on health risks such as tobacco use, sexual activity, sun exposure, and drug and alcohol use. The study was undertaken in response to a mandate by the U.S. Congress in the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-43, Title X, Subtitle D, Section 1031)."

Can you not see how trivial and limited the span is that this Bush years generated so-called study is based on?

Your study is not found on the CDC site. I know because I went and looked last night.

[lumberjack_jeff]

207. It's a well researched phenomenon

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

Women batter their spouses in comparable numbers to men. The main differences are the severity of injury and the likelihood that the violence will be reported. Dozens of studies demonstrating the same thing over and over again are rejected as outliers because they run into a wall of dogma.

Serious efforts to stop domestic violence must address the actual cycle of violence, not the stereotype.

BTW
"At the time of this study, Daniel J. Whitaker and Linda S. Saltzman were with the Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga. Tadesse Haileyesus is with the Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Monica Swahn is with the Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Daniel Whitaker, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, MS K-60, Atlanta, GA 30341 (e-mail: [e-mail])."

and

Our findings that half of relationships with
violence could be characterized as reciprocally
violent are consistent with prior studies.8,9,11
We were surprised to find, however, that
among relationships with nonreciprocal violence,
women were the perpetrators in a majority
of cases, regardless of participant gender.
One possible explanation for this, assuming
that men and women are equally likely to initiate
physical violence,20 is that men, who are
typically larger and stronger, are less likely to
retaliate if struck first by their partner. Thus,
some men may be following the norm that
“men shouldn’t hit women” when struck first
by their partner. A different explanation is that
men are simply less willing to report hitting
their partner than are women.21
This explanation cannot account for the
data, however, as both men and women reported
a larger proportion of nonreciprocal
violence perpetrated by women than by men.
One might be tempted to think that men who
perpetrate violence in nonreciprocal relationships
are the traditional male “batterer.” However,
the data were not consistent with this
representation; women who were victims of
nonreciprocal violence experienced less violence
and a lower likelihood of injury than did
women who were victims of violence in reciprocally
violent relationships. Some have suggested
that survey studies, such as this one,
likely exclude the more severely abused
women typically studied in clinical settings.22
Thus, our findings may represent 1 form of
partner violence—what Johnson23 has called
common couple violence or situational violence—
that is likely to be found in broader population
samples rather than in clinical samples.

[mzmolly]

224. "Not All Domestic Violence Studies Are Created Equal" ~ Fair.org

Edited to add http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1479">LINK Among the research overlooked by Mother Jones the "National Violence Against Women Survey" (NVAWS), which involved a subject sample of 8,000 women and 8,000 men (roughly 16 times as large a sample as that used by Moffitt). Cosponsored by the NIJ and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the NVAWS found that 25 percent of surveyed women, compared with 8 percent of surveyed men, were raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate--and that 93 percent of women and 86 percent of men raped or assaulted since age 18 were attacked by male perpetrators http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/172837.pdf). Also ignored by Mother Jones is a 1994 Bureau of Justice Statistics report on "Violence Between Intimates" that synthesized wide-ranging data from the FBI and the National Crime Victimization Survey, and found that women are 10 times more likely than men to be victims of violence by intimates.

Exact statistics shift from study to study, but results over three decades of investigation by governmental agencies, social service organizations, and women's health researchers consistently confirm that women are the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence--and that men who are victimized are most often assaulted not by women but by other men.

Yet in reviewing Moffitt's study, Updike--and other news outlets jumping on Mother Jones' bandwagon--preferred to dismiss most of this research as "advocacy science," implying that it was constructed to serve ideas "predetermined by ideological agendas set a long time ago." In so doing, these outlets unfairly taint the credibility of those working to protect, or provide services for, battered women.

...

It’s not clear to whom "we" is supposed to refer. Hospital workers understand domestic violence: The Bureau of Justice Statistics notes women are 84 percent of those seeking emergency room treatment for an intentional injury by an intimate partner. Law enforcement agencies understand the problem: By 1996, women were three of every four victims of murder by intimates.

Further, the study results noted above do not indicate that women are more likely to "hit first" as there was no definition of domestic violence provided. Also, there may be reporting bias. Men may not consider X an 'attack', while women may? Women may be more likely to admit to a so called 'attack' than men, etc.

From WIKI - In May, 2007, researchers with the Centers for Disease Control reported on rates of self-reported violence among intimate partners using data from a 2001 study. In the study, almost one-quarter of participants reported some violence in their relationships. Half of these involved one-sided ("non-reciprocal") attacks and half involved both assaults and counter assaults ("reciprocal violence"). Women reported committing one-sided attacks more than twice as often as men (70% versus 29%). In all cases of intimate partner violence, women were more likely to be injured than men, but 25% of men in relationships with two-sided violence reported injury compared to 20% of women reporting injury in relationships with one-sided violence. Women were more likely to be injured in non-reciprocal violence.<32>

[lumberjack_jeff]

227. It's worth reminding to what I was replying.

"If someone little with less muscles hits first, doesn't matter. And if in response you break their jaw, their eyes, their head, their nose, and make them all bloody, and you come out nice and unscathed, you deserve to have the crap beaten out of you. Until women get the testosterone and grow muscles like men, men had better learn to stay away from women.

Besides, the old story of, "but she hit me first" is a crock of shit beaters use to get away with that shit. Like some muscular guy is going to play poor sniveling, whiny victim. RIGHT. "

It does matter even if someone with less muscles hits first, and "she hit me first" is not a crock of shit. In fact, the cdc study suggests it's the norm.

We must address the actual cycle of violence, not the stereotype.

A) Why would the results of a 2001 study be suppressed until 2007?
B) The disparity between the rates at which men report domestic violence and women do render any research conducted by the Bureau of Justice meaningless. They underreport the actual occurrence by at least half.
C) If the CDC study has bias, it seems probable that a study compiled for the "National Violence Against Women Survey" would be at least as biased.

[mzmolly]

228. The single study you quote does not suggest it's the "norm."

The study suggests at best, that women in a particular age group considered themselves more likely to commit an act of non-reciprocal "violence" against a partner. That may mean they raised their voice for all we know.

[lumberjack_jeff]

233. From the study.

http://www.dvstats.org/pdf/Reciprocal%20violence%20AJPH.pdf


All relationship-level questions were asked
separately for each relationship (e.g., respondents
with 2 partners were asked each set
of questions twice, once for each partner). To
assess perpetration of physical violence within
intimate relationships, respondents answered
2 questions (“How often in the past year have
you threatened your partner with violence,
pushed or shoved him/her, or thrown something
at him/her that could hurt,” and “How
often in the past year have you slapped, hit,
or kicked your partner”) on the following
scale: 0=never, 1=once, 2=twice, 3=3–5
times, 4=6–10 times, 5=11–20 times,
6=more than 20 times, 7=did not happen
in the past year, but happened prior to that.
Two parallel questions assessed the partner’s
perpetration of violence toward the respondent.
Responses to the questions were highly
correlated (respondent’s perpetration,
r =0.65; partner’s perpetration, r =0.78)
and were thus averaged to create indices of
IPV perpetration by the respondent and IPV
perpetration by the partner. Injuries from
partner violence were assessed with a single
question for the perpetration of injuries upon
the partner (“How often has partner had an
injury, such as a sprain, bruise, or cut because
of a fight with you”), and a parallel question
assessed the partner’s perpetration of injuries
to the respondent. Analyses were conducted
at the relationship level with respondents providing
data about their own perpetration and
their partners perpetration (data was not directly
collected from partners and was therefore
not available).
Analytic Plan
To examine the prevalence of nonreciprocal
and reciprocal IPV, we first classified each relationship
as having either no IPV (neither the
respondent nor the partner perpetrated violence
against the other) or any IPV (either the
respondent or the partner perpetrated violence
against the other). We classified relationships
with IPV as having either reciprocal IPV (both
respondent and partner perpetrated violence
against the other) or nonreciprocal IPV (either
the respondent or the partner perpetrated
against the other, but not both). Finally, we divided
the relationships with nonreciprocal IPV
into those that were perpetrated by men versus
those perpetrated by women.
To examine the seriousness of IPV by reciprocity
(nonreciprocal vs reciprocal), we restricted
the analyses to only those relationships
with IPV and used logistic regression
to model reports of violence frequency and
injury occurrence. For violence frequency,
because responses were nonnormally
distributed and the response options were
not evenly spaced, we collapsed response
codes 1–6 into 3 ordinal categories of violence
frequency (low=responses 1 or 2;
medium=response 3; high=responses 4–6)
and conducted ordinal logistic regression.
For injury occurrence, we coded whether violence
perpetration had resulted in an injury
or not (yes=codes 1–7; no=code 0) and
conducted binary logistic regression.
Each logistic regression model included reciprocity
(nonreciprocal vs reciprocal) and perpetrator
gender (men vs women) as predictors,
along with several control variables: respondent
gender (men vs women), respondent
race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, other),
education (less than high school, high-school
graduate, some college, college graduate), relationship
length (less than 3 months vs greater
than 3 months), and relationship type (ever
married, ever lived together but not married,
never lived together nor married). Finally, to
properly analyze the data, we configured data
so that each potential perpetrator in a relationship
(i.e., the respondent and the partner) was
considered a separate case. This was necessary
because comparisons of reciprocal IPV
with respect to violence frequency and injury
occurrence would be within-subject comparisons
(i.e., they would be on the same line of
data), whereas comparisons of nonreciprocal
IPV would be between-subject comparisons.
Additionally, all analyses were weighted to
provide national estimates.19 Weights were
assigned to each participant on the basis of
grade of education, gender, and race, and according
to the sampling frame, which oversampled
specific groups of adolescents. Analyses
were conducted with SAS version 9.1
(SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) and SUDAAN
version 9 (Research Triangle Institute,
Research Triangle Park, NC) to accommodate
the complex sampling design and to provide
accurate standard errors for analyses.

[mzmolly]

243. It's good to see the actual study thanks. I appears that a threat constitutes an act of violence?

"I'm gonna kill you" is at times said in jest. Technically however the statement is a threat. Additionally, I don't think one can extrapolate meaningful data from a study that equates a so called threat or a gentle smack on the arm with an act that can cause serious injury. And, my concern about reporting bias is acknowledged by the study authors in their "limitations" section.


Limitations
There are several limitations of this work.
The first set centers around the measures of
partner violence. All measures were assessed
using only participant reports about their own
perpetration of violence and that of their partners.
The data are thus subject to all the biases
and limitations inherent to this form of
data collection, such as recall bias, social desirability
bias, and reporting bias. Regarding
reporting biases, there has been much discussion
of whether there are differences in reported
IPV by the gender of the reporter. A
meta-analysis of the reliability of the conflict
tactics scale concluded that there is evidence
of underreporting by both genders, and that
underreporting may be greater for men, 34 for
more severe acts of IPV.21 It would have been
ideal to collect violence data from both partners,
but those data were not collected from
the full Add Health sample.

A second measurement issue pertains to the
scope of violence measures. The 3 questions
included in the Add Health study do not capture
all forms of violence that occur between
relationship partners, including many of the
more severe forms of partner violence on the
Conflict Tactics Scale (e.g., used a knife or
gun, choked, or burned). Questions about
emotional, verbal, psychological, or sexual aggression
were also not included. Similarly,
only a single item assessed injury to victims
and it focused on injury frequency and excluded
injury severity and whether medical
attention was needed or sought. Thus, it is
unclear whether the data presented here
would be similar had the violence and injury
assessment been more thorough or if different
forms of violence had been measured and
analyzed separately. Perhaps more important
than the limited measures of violence and injury
is the fact that no data were collected
about the causes or function of violence. Such
data are needed to understand why relationships
with reciprocal violence are more violent
and more likely to result in injury. We
speculated that retaliation may lead to escalating
violence and injury, but data are
needed to examine this hypothesis. Future
studies should focus on the causes and context
of reciprocal and nonreciprocal IPV.
Another limitation is that the Add Health
study obtained partner violence data primarily
about relationships considered to be important
as defined by the Add research team.
Thus, it is not clear how this selection bias
may have impacted the findings—that is,
whether the findings would be the same with
a fuller sample of relationships. However, our
findings are consistent with previous research
on other samples that have shown reciprocal
partner violence is fairly common with adolescents11
and with broader populations.8,9
Finally, as noted, the data collected were part
of a nationally representative sample selected
when participants were in middle and high
school. The use of a nationally representative
sample greatly increases the generalizability
of the findings, but this particular sample is of
limited range in age (18–28 years) and likely
does not include the most severely abused
victims who are subjected to extreme control
by their partners and may be unable or unwilling
to participate in research.22

The quote from the study gives me great pause ~ Gender is at the forefront of feminist theories of partner violence ... Statistical consensus on domestic violence is not feminist theory.

I'm sorry LJ, but I think this study is a crock with the exception of the following ~

The findings ~ This replicates findings in the literature at large that women are more likely to be injured by partner violence.

So I say, even according to "non-feminist theory" men are more likely to act in a violent manner that causes injury.

Peace to you my friend.

[lumberjack_jeff]

244. There's no debate that women are more frequently injured by domestic violence.

If we're going to significantly reduce that we need to understand the entire dynamic. None of your concerns address the nature of the dynamic that they've identified, a dynamic that is validated by numerous smaller studies as well as anecdotal evidence.

I've known few examples of domestic violence where the couple wasn't previously described as "fighting like cats and dogs". I think it is in society's interest to stop it before that point.

And yes, a threat of violence was included in the data. I'd be surprised if credible threats of violence (something said in jest is not a threat) are not included in most every legitimate study of the issue. On the one hand, you're concerned that the data may be skewed because threats of violence are included, but on the other, you appear to be concerned about the absence of data on "emotional, verbal, psychological" aggression. :shrug:

Do you dispute that there's such a thing as "feminist theories of partner violence"? I submit that there is, and that it manifests itself in the stereotype society (and especially DU) works from.

The destructive effect of this stereotype is to discourage men from reporting violence because they know that they'll be the one blamed for it. Failing to report that initial violence results in an escalation. When it escalates and becomes reciprocal, people (especially women) are more frequently hurt.

[mzmolly]

245. My concerns do not center around blaming the victim using a handful of absurd studies, no.

Abusive men blame their partners for "provoking" them and "studies" like the one you note are part of the problem.

As for my disputing the notion of "feminist theories of partner violence"... I do not suggest there are not feminist perspectives on the matter. What I suggest is that the consensus surrounding domestic violence (and related statistics) are based upon decades of http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statistics.html">unbiased data, not feminism.

Additionally, women are not likely to report domestic violence. Most women are abused often and severely and are in fear of their lives before they involve authorities. To suggest that men don't report being victimized and women do, and partner violence is equal among both sexes is simply not supported by reputable evidence.

[redqueen]

251. Thank you for your posts in this thread. (nt)

[mzmolly]

252. My

pleasure Redqueen.

:hi:

[cornermouse]

238. It's the same flawed study being used to fill space in another

magazine. Nothing new. You may be selling but some of us aren't buying.

[lumberjack_jeff]

240. Why do you consider it flawed? n/t

[LisaL]

133. And what? She is young, rich and beautiful.

She doesn't depend on him unlike many women who depend on their husbands or boyfriends. They don't have kids together either. What would be the reason for her to go back with him?

[Cid_B]

137. Affidavit here

(Page 1)

(Page 2)

(Page 3)

http://www.mwza.com/chris-brown-police-report-rihanna-police-report/ (source)

I make no claims as to authenticity of these being real but it is what a google search reveals.

[Kajsa]

209. Why isn't this guy in jail right now?

No bail- Nada!

:(

[Pacifist Patriot]

141. Oh please do not apologize to Mr. Stosny

The vast majority of evoluntionary psychologists would vehemently disagree. There is absolutely nothing in our ancestral environment that would predicate or predict violence against women.

[Fleshdancer]

155. Thank you Newsweek

and thank you Ourbluenation for posting this here. Myth #2 is an argument I've never heard before but the other myths are all points I've argued before on DU of all places.

Also, upthread someone said it was a "fact" that Rhianna hit him first. The only people I hear say this are his lawyers. Why is this considered a "fact"?

[Yavin4]

158. If You Can Hit Someone, Then You Can Kill Someone

If you can physically strike someone, it doesn't take much to take things to the next level and kill that person. This is why I knew that OJ was guilty from the start.

[Political Heretic]

184. Only at this fucking site to we have a 100+ post thread of people defending CHRIS.

Unbelievable. If I had my way everyone of these "she's guilty of DV" MEN posting here would enjoy a special "I'm an ignorant fuckhead" Tombstone.

That's my opinion as a man, but one who is a social worker. Kind of enlightens one's perspective on intimate partner abuse a little bit....

[redqueen]

186. Going by those people's opinions, I guess my abusive dad was right all along.

My mom made him hit her.

[mzmolly]

220. Yes,

and she probably ran into his fist as well.

:sarcasm:

:hug:

[cornermouse]

198. PH: Domestic Violence Fact Sheet

http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf
A couple of pertinent facts from this source.
"One in every four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime."
"85% of domestic violence victims are women."
Parent website of above
http://www.ncadv.org/resources/FactSheets_294.html

http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/healthy/safety/kids-family/052.printerview.html
"Each year, at least 4 million women are abused in this country. Abuse happens to people of all races, ages, incomes and religions."

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/IPV-FactSheet.pdf

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/domesticviolence.html
Domestic violence is a serious problem. It is the most common cause of injury to women ages 15 to 44. Victims may suffer physical injuries such as bruises or broken bones. They may suffer emotionally from depression, anxiety or social isolation.

And then there are the collateral damage victims of domestic abuse
http://www.endabuse.org/section/action_center/
Consider this: each year, more than ten million children in the U.S. grow up in homes where there is violence.i And around the world, 1 in 3 women have been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in their lifetime. Most often, the abuser is a member of her own family

But you already know this given your line of work. One thing though, please. Bush and Co. thoroughly and no doubt deliberately screwed up the government websites and have made it nearly impossible to find anything. Search engines used to work pre-Bush. I know for a fact that it worked much better before he took office than after he had it changed. If you or someone happens to read this who can do anything to change things back to an easier and more logical format, it would be really nice.

p.s. I don't believe what's his face's statistics. Partly because they were gathered during the Bush years and were unlikely to be objective. Also after looking into the article, Lumberjack's study is flawed for a couple of reasons. First and foremost it focuses only on a very limited age group. It is a group that was hired by the CDC to gather statistics and it is possible the study may actually have consisted of nothing more than two interviews spaced a year apart. Although I could be wrong about that.

The NIH's definition of the organization, National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/sept97/chd-09.htm
"The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) is a survey designed to measure the effects of family, peer group, school, neighborhood, religious institution, and community influences on behaviors that promote good health, such as seat belt use, exercise, and nutrition, as well as on health risks such as tobacco use, sexual activity, sun exposure, and drug and alcohol use. The study was undertaken in response to a mandate by the U.S. Congress in the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-43, Title X, Subtitle D, Section 1031).

The main premise of the Add Health study is that social context--such as relationships with families, friends, and peers--influences the health-related behaviors of young people, and that understanding that context is essential to guide efforts to modify health behaviors."

It's late and I'm too tired to look into this further but basically I think the study itself had some serious flaws.

[Coventina]

253. This thread is chilling.

It's classic, "Look at what you made me do!" abuser rationalization.

Amazing.

DU never ceases to disappoint!

[Imagevision]

194. umm... Nicole Simpson got beat up badly before her life ended, OJ. never found out who did it...

[Mushroom]

204. Thanks for posting that

Here's another article that I lifted from Feminists Group about "language legitimizes how people view gender violence."

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/06/02/jackson-katz-violence-against-women-is-a-mens-issue

[BlueIris]

241. What's this? An actual piece of...journalism from Newsweek?

Can't be. I must be losing my mind.