A question on statistics and victims of domestic violence

TisIChenoir · 2023-03-24T07:50:55+00:00

I am no expert, but py gut feelings is that in the collective psyche, reciprocal violence is counted as male-on-female violence (you'll often hear things like "if she hit him, it was self-defence or stuff like that.)

So if all reciprocal violence is counted as unilateral toward females, then statistically it appears that men are very little impacted by DV.

That's unfair I know, but I'm pretty sure that's it.

JJnanajuana · 2023-03-24T09:14:53+00:00

I've only recently started digging into this topic, so, I'm no expert, here's what I've seen so far.

Studies vary a lot, and the way statistics are measured/found varies a lot.

CTS2: The conflict tactics scale/2 is a survey, they ask have you done x? Has your partner?

It normally finds stats like the ones you mentioned. Lots of mutual, and more sole female perpetrators than sole male perpetrators.

were you abused surveys find less victims than "describes abuse, has that happened to you" surveys (for both genders, but by a much larger margin for men)

Some studies only ask women (like the 1 in 5 women raped on college campuses) then there's no Stat to compair to Men, or it gets compared to a Stat with different methods that finds less for women too.

Police reports will show more female victims (they report more) (interestingly they also show that violence against men is more likely to be more injurious and/or use weapons,.... Is that because women use more weapons or because men don't report until the violence is more damaging/dangerous?)

Studies that sample from domestic violence shelters or convictions find more female victims than male victims, This one is a good example of both that (while not presenting that obviously) and (PDF) of...

Some studies diss the CTS2 for not digging into the details of incidents or Patterns of abuse. They claim a lot of that abuse is reactive or self defence rather than mutual (fair, but their further interpretation is not) then these studies ask details about the abuse and they shift the female perpetrators much more towards reactive, and the men as far towards abusive as possible) . (I'm almost finished writing up a review on one paper that does so, I'll post here once I'm done (within a week))

On the note of the claim that mutual abuse doesn't exsist they claim it's self defence and reactive abuse for women all the time, in Cort, in batterers intervention programs, in outreach to potential victims and perpetrators. I've seen basicly no recognition that it may apply to Men too.

Some studies select what they want to 'count' as abuse, the Dobash study linked above claims that, 'sure the abuse is even, but that's because your including verbal abuse as the same as physical violence. If you seperated then we'd find more female victims of the more serious physical abuse.' Even though an earlier Dobash study found that 'the boys and girls (in that study) were equally physically violent, but when you include verbal abuse the girls were more likely to be victims.'

Then there's injury reports from hospitals they find more damage to women (because women get more hurt, or because hospitals aren't identifying as many male victims? Or a combination of both.)

Then there's ipv homicides more women are killed by their partners (although as the tin man's latest post points out that doesn't include male victims who kill themselves.) and even though this is a straight Stat that more women are killed by their male partners than visa versa, a Un study that is often quoted measures them as a percent of all homicides, making the men's look like even less by comparison because men are killed by strangers more often. (And sometimes includes women killed by family (so honor killings and female baby killings too, although they try to be clear and do both it's sometimes lost when quoted elsewhere)

For the criticisms of the stats that say it's equal refer to the Dobash study I linked. Most of it is "they don't account for or differentiate between (things that could apply equally to Men and women) which made it look like women were more abusive than they are."

TLDR: variations in study methods, in bold above.

CoffeeWorldly9915 · 2023-03-24T08:40:58+00:00

I've always taken these results to mean roughly "women are more likely to be violent to their partners when the chance of retaliation is low". The one flaw I have found in the study is that it doesn't specify and separate types of violence to my taste. Nevertheless, since violence was exerted, this means that an existing intentionality was actually carried out.

At the very least, this is evidence enough that women aren't inherently any better than men in moral terms. And very hinting that, if women had the same upper body strength than men, we'd be seeing men and women at least at equally physically damaged rates for unarmed violence.

If men couldn't physically overpower them, women as a whole would have zero qualms for being as violent as men as a whole are made to be. The non-reciprocal numbers propose by contrast with the rest of percentages the hypothesis that, what deters a non-trivial number of women from willfully being as harmful to men, is the prospect of being hit back by someone that surely hits harder.

TheToxicWyvern · 2023-03-24T22:57:43+00:00

>My question is this, if women are higher perpetrators of domestic violence and most relationships are heterosexual, shouldn't men be appearing as the gender who suffers domestic violence by some proportion more?

I have seen studies that showed that lesbian couples have higher rates of domestical violence than hetero or gay couples. But unless every single lesbian is a domestic abusing harpy (seeing as I'm not a lesbiphobe, I'm going to say that most definitely is NOT the case), female homosexual couples shouldn't skew the data that much.

The real answer may simply be a disconnect between DV studies. Most earlier studies don't even acknowledge the existence of male as possible victims and female perpetrator, and the few that did were silenced (hence why feminists femsplained, threatened, and attacked Erin Pizzey).

Also, I've seen the term "primary aggressor" show up a lot in modern discussions of domestic violence. "Primary aggressor" does NOT mean "which party attacked first" or "which party instigated the fight" or even "which party is committing more violence at that time". What it actually means is "who MIGHT be a bigger threat" which essentially translates to "arrest the man/more masculine presenting individual". Hence the disconnect

Gasblaster2000 · 2023-03-27T17:25:40+00:00

Women are more likely to abusing partners but men are more damaging when they do it, I suppose.

That and large groups of feminists have fought long and hard to paint all mass things as done by men against women and that anything women do wrong is also the fault of men

Title	A question on statistics and victims of domestic violence
Author	lokithejackal
Upvotes	24
Comments	16
Date	March 24, 2023 5:10 AM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1209xg7/a_question_on_statistics_and_victims_of_domestic/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/a-question-on-statistics-and-victims-of-domestic.1186513 https://theredarchive.com/post/1186513

Comments