~ archived since 2018 ~

Domestic Violence Injuries: Men vs Women

Vegetable_Ad1732 · 2024-04-23T02:45:11+00:00

Most of the regulars in this sub are familiar with Whitaker et al 2007 (at Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With...

Vegetable_Ad1732

April 23, 2024

23 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Domestic Violence Injuries: Men vs Women
Author	Vegetable_Ad1732
Upvotes	23
Comments	5
Date	April 23, 2024 2:45 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1catquq/domestic_violence_injuries_men_vs_women/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/domestic-violence-injuries-men-vs-women.1516089 https://theredarchive.com/post/1516089

Comments

[+]Minimum_Disaster1910 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This is a fun study cause it has a pretty wacky idea of what it calls violence:

“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.”

I don’t know about you but I consider using a knife, burning someone or choking your partner as a form of violence, and the own authors state they aren’t sure if the data would be the same if it covered ALL violence

[–]WannabeLeagueBowler 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vegetable_Ad1732[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Minimum_Disaster1910 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vegetable_Ad1732[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"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”)"

"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”)"

Those are from the study. So, your position is that when they say they did not capture all forms of violence, that those incidents are not included in the data. But they say they did ask if you "threatened your partner with violence" of if you caused them an injury. So, you think you can use a gun or a knife on someone WITHOUT "threatening them with violence" or without cutting or bruising them? Doesn't really make sense does it? See, here's the thing if you wanted to make a valid complaint about this study, you could say it was confusingly written.

I think the key here is a sentence from your own quote "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." What they are saying is they did not capture knife or gun violence SEPARATELY, so that violence severity could be discussed more thoroughly. To use their words "if different forms of violence had been measured and analyzed separately." It's true the verbal stuff was not included, but I'm OK with that. The violence they included is just fine. They should have just been more clear in their writing.