~ archived since 2018 ~

Studies that expect to find discrimination against women often find discrimination against men instead

May 16, 2020
228 upvotes

Has anyone noticed that there is a lot of research where the authors expected to find evidence of discrimination against women, but instead found evidence of discrimination against men?

Sometimes they take it gracefully and report their results in good faith. But other times they make excuses for it or try to cover it up.

The following is a list of 13 examples ranging from hiring discrimination, domestic violence, educational discrimination, and child custody discrimination.


A study about employment discrimination against women and mothers instead uncovered discrimination against men and fathers

One study on hiring discrimination looked at the effects of marriage and parental status on a person's hiring prospects. They expected to find discrimination against women and against mothers specifically. What they found instead was that in every cohort, women were preferred over men. Whether single, married, childless, or with children. Instead of reporting on this novel finding, they instead went into detail about how pregnant women are discriminated against compared to non-pregnant women, which they try to frame as being sexist against women.

The fact that they found that women were preferred over men is buried inside of the body of the study, buffered by handwaving remarks about how pregnant women still face other difficulties related to employment (which I'm sure is valid but they straight up sound salty about the fact that their own research contradicted what they expected to find).

You can read the full text of the study here:

Becker, S. O., Fernandes, A., & Weichselbaumer, D. (2019). Discrimination in hiring based on potential and realized fertility: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Labour Economics, 59, 139-152.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537119300429


A study about domestic violence against women finds that men are more likely to be victims than women

A 2005 study on domestic violence wrote their entire abstract in a way that implies that domestic violence is significantly worse against women than against men. But the actual body of their research reports the exact opposite of that. A fact that other researchers eventually discovered and wrote about. While not strictly about discrimination, they are guilty of expecting to find that things were worse for women when in reality it's men who appear to be disproportionately effected.

[A] recent study found that men are more likely than women to suffer serious injuries in intimate partner relationships and that men are actually less likely than women to use violence in intimate relationships (Felson & Cares, 2005). Some factors are apparently inhibiting men, who are generally much more violent than women (outside intimate relationships), from using violence against their female partners. Results in the Felson and Cares (2005) study show that those men who do engage in violence against their spouse and those women who engage in violence against their family members are more likely than other offenders to do so with high frequency. It is surprising that this result was obtained in what was essentially presented to respondents as, “a study of violence against women” (Felson & Cares, 2005, p. 15).In fact, the authors argue that men actually inhibit violence in intimate relationships compared to their non-intimate levels.

...Interestingly, authors responding to findings that suggest a narrow or non-existent gender gap in partner abuse rates also allege that females are universally more vulnerable to abuse by men than men are to abuse by women. Importantly, this perspective has found little support in the data.

Carney, M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 108-115.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Donald_Dutton/publication/222426549_Women_Who_Perpetrate_Intimate_Partner_Violence_A_Review_of_the_Literature_With_Recommendations_for_Treatment/links/5c465a1592851c22a386f74b/Women-Who-Perpetrate-Intimate-Partner-Violence-A-Review-of-the-Literature-With-Recommendations-for-Treatment.pdf

The offending study:

Felson, R. B., & Cares, A. C. (2005). Gender and the seriousness of assaults on intimate partners and other victims. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1182-1195.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00209.x


The 1975 National Family Violence survey uncovered higher rates of abuse against men

The very first large scale federal study on domestic violence in the US was carried out by researchers who expected to find higher rates of female victimization compared to male victimization. The results of that study showed that slightly more men than women were victims of domestic violence, including severe forms of violence.

Two of those researchers -- Murray Straus and Suzanne Steinmetz -- spent the rest of their careers researching this phenomen after discovering this. Steinmetz, in particular, was the first researcher to coin the "battered husband syndrome" back in 1977, a concept that would eventually be coopted by feminists during the 1980s and derided as a "myth" when applied to men.

Straus, M. A. (2010). Thirty years of denying the evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence: Implications for prevention and treatment. Partner Abuse, 1(3), 332-362.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.332

Related to this is the fact that Erin Pizzey discovered the same thing "on the ground" after opening the world's first domestic violence shelter for women in Britain.

All of the relevant parties here took this in stride and bravely went against the status quo. In some instances they even received death threats and bomb threats from feminists. All three are widely celebrated today by the MRM.


Multiple CDC sexual victimization surveys have found similar rates of female-on-male sexual assault as male-on-female sexual assault, despite famously reporting the opposite

Several studies on sexual assault have found near equal rates of male victimization as female victimization.

While there are a few "honest" studies out there, the most well-known tend try try and hide this fact in their research. The primary strategy they use is to define female-on-male rape as "something else that's not rape".

Recently the CDC has come under fire for this.

This striking finding—that men and women reported similar rates of nonconsensual sex in a 12-month period—might have made for a newsworthy finding. Instead, the CDC’s public presentation of these data emphasized female sexual victimization, thereby (perhaps inadvertently) confirming gender stereotypes about victimization.

Stemple, L., & Meyer, I. H. (2014). The sexual victimization of men in America: New data challenge old assumptions. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6), e19-e26.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/


A study trying to prove that mothers are discriminated against in family court instead found the exact opposite, and then tried to hide it

A study from the late 1980s on child custody discrimination expected to find discrimination against mothers, and not fathers (lol), but instead discovered that men were 6 times less likely to gain custody compared to identically placed women.

Not only did their publication attempt to use dishonest statistical shenanigans to hide this, they tried to burry the raw data to prevent other researchers from double checking their findings. Their study is still widely cited by other researchers as well as by random people on the Internet, because it is the only study that, on the surface, found discrimination against mothers. In one meta study it sticks out like a sore thumb in comparison to ~10 other studies that found the exact opposite.

You can read that meta study here, and a list of sources on page 974 in the footnotes:

"Beyond Economic Fatherhood: Encouraging Divorced Fathers to Parent".

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume153/issue3/Maldonado153U.Pa.L.Rev.921(2005).pdf

The offending study:

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Study Committee,. (1989). Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts.

The story of how one researcher discovered that the study was fraudulent, and how he came into possession of the raw data that they tried to bury, can be found here:

Rosenthal, M. B. (1995). Misrepresentation of Gender Bias in the 1989 Report of the Gender Bias Committee of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Breaking The Science.

http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php


Unsubstantiated reports that women were being underrepresented in medical research has created a large gap against male medical research

The researchers in this case may not have a bias, but the research was conducted against a general assumption that medical research was unfairly focused on men. The complaints were loud enough to inspire research into the topic where it was quickly found that far more interest and money was put into women's health research than men, including even in areas where men are known to be effected more.

Recently John Oliver repeated these myths, despite some of this research being almost 20 years old now.

Bartlett, E. E. (2001). Did medical research routinely exclude women? An examination of the evidence. Epidemiology, 12(5), 584-586.

https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2001/09000/Did_Medical_Research_Routinely_Exclude_Women__An.20.aspx

"John Oliver repeats healthcare myths in his coverage of gender bias in the healthcare field". Men Are Human.

https://menarehuman.com/6195-2/


A study expecting to find discrimination against girls in math and science instead found that boys are discriminated against in literally every single subject

Another study on educational discrimination expected to find discrimination against female students, in part to explain why girls struggle in math and science. They instead found exactly the opposite of this: that male students were discriminated against in every subject, including even in math and science. This study was honest in how they reported their results though. And the researchers were humble enough to admit that they expected to find different results in the abstract.

Using data on test results in several subjects in the humanities and sciences, I found, contrary to expectations, that male students face discrimination in each subject.

Lavy, V. (2008). Do gender stereotypes reduce girls' or boys' human capital outcomes? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of public Economics, 92(10-11), 2083-2105.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/vlavy/lavy_j.public.e_10.2008_gender_steriotypes.pdf


A researcher expecting to find discrimination against women in STEM instead found discriminated against men

An unpublished experiment meant to find discrimination against women in STEM instead found evidence of the opposite. The researcher masked the voices of candidates so that their gender wouldn't be known in interviews. The idea was that female candidates would do better than what they do when their gender is known. She instead found that this gender blind process benefited men instead of women, indicating that there was gender discrimination against men. She never followed through with a large scale study because the researcher, a feminist, didn't get the results she expected in her preliminary trials.

Turner, Karen. (2016, July 25). This tool gender-swapped the voices of tech job candidates. Here’s what happened. The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/07/15/this-tool-gender-swapped-the-voices-of-tech-job-candidates-heres-what-happened/


A study looking at discrimination against women in STEM instead found that women were preferred over men by a rate of 2:1

In this case the researchers don't appear to have had a bias, but they justified their research against claims that women were being discriminated against in STEM.

Williams, W. M., and Ceci, S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 5360–5365. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418878112.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/17/5360.full.pdf


A study about employment discrimination in Australia found evidence of discrimination against men instead of women

Another study on gender blind hiring performed in Australia was meant to find discrimination against women, but instead found discrimination against men.

The research team fully expected to find far more female candidates shortlisted when sex was disguised. But, as the stunned team leader told the local media: "We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist."

https://reason.com/2019/10/22/orchestra-study-blind-auditions-gelman/


A study reporting discrimination against women in music instead found, and then tried to hide, evidence of discrimination against men

A widely cited study on orchestra auditions that supposedly found evidence of discrimination against women is flawed, and may in fact show the opposite. The results were not statistically significant since the data was flawed to begin with, which is perhaps what allowed the original researchers to mold it to their pre-determined conclusions. However, it does support the idea that men are discriminated against, a fact that shows up in their own data tables plain as day inside of the study.

The research went uncriticized for nearly two decades. That changed recently, when a few scholars and data scientist went back and read the whole study. The first thing that noticed is that the raw tabulations showed women doing worse [during blind auditions].

https://www.wsj.com/articles/blind-spots-in-the-blind-audition-study-11571599303

Related: "Vancouver symphony holds blind composition competition, causes outrage when all the winners are male and mostly white, VSO promises to discriminate against white males next year.". https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/fht9n3/vancouver_symphony_holds_blind_composition/


Feminist inspired "investigations" into pay discrimination against women at Google and the BBC instead found that men were being underpaid.

Adding these from the comments. That brings the total up to 11.

Wakabayashi, Daisuke (2019, March 4). Google Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men as It Addresses Wage Equity. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html

Sherwin, A. (2018, January 30). BBC men to get pay rises as review rejects gender discrimination claims. iNews.

https://inews.co.uk/news/media/bbc-men-pay-rise-gender-514047


If you know of any others, feel free to post about them in the comments. I know I've seen more in the past. I just think it's funny that people are so confident that women have things worse that they automatically expect their research to back this up. This tendency to assume that women have things worse and are discriminated against is itself essentially a form of discrimination against men. Especially when those researchers try to hide or misinterpret their findings.

There is, incidentally, evidence of discrimination against research that dares to focus on men or men's issues. Research that focuses on men's issues get cited less, reported in the media less, and the researchers involved have less access to academic resources and grant money compared to researchers who look into women's issues.

So maybe that's why some of these researchers downplay their findings when they find evidence of discrimination against men.

For example:

Browne, Kingsley R., Mind Which Gap? The Selective Concern Over Statistical Sex Disparities (2013). Florida International University Law Review, Vol. 8, 2013; Wayne State University Law School Research Paper No. 2013-22.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2311459

Jussim, L. (2019). Scientific Bias in Favor of Studies Finding Gender Bias: Studies that find bias against women often get disproportionate attention.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906/scientific-bias-in-favor-studies-finding-gender-bias

Related: "Feminist Academic Fraud and Abuse". https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/emof61/feminist_academic_fraud_and_abuse/

I wonder how many studies have gone unpublished because the researchers didn't like their results, and knew it could negatively impact their careers. And I wonder how many of the studies showing discrimination against men were perhaps originally meant to find discrimination against women, but were begrudgingly published anyway. In either case, this bias seems to run pretty deep, which is something you wouldn't normally expect to find in academia.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

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

Post Information
Title Studies that expect to find discrimination against women often find discrimination against men instead
Author Oncefa2
Upvotes 228
Comments 43
Date May 16, 2020 3:29 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/studies-that-expect-to-find-discrimination-against.1063461
https://theredarchive.com/post/1063461
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/gkwhlh/studies_that_expect_to_find_discrimination/
Red Pill terms in post
Top posts by Oncefa2
Comments

[–]dontpet 24 points25 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

There is probably income research that gets muffled when it comes to single women earning vs male.

About 10 years ago in America and England there were headlines about it, with single women earning 8 percent more than single men. The difference was smaller in England.

I'm sure in all those other reviews of wages and gender have come across this many times but not played it up.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 26 points27 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Warren Farrell was commissioned by NOW to do research on the wage gap and he basically came back and said that when women make all the same choices that men do, they tend to make just as much money.

Some of his research uncovered that women in large cities tend to out earn men, especially when single.

Which upset NOW so much that they basically ended up firing him.

What's crazy is he saw it as as a positive message for women because it could be used to empower women to close the wage gap. He didn't come back trying to rub it in their faces or anything. After all, he had been a lifelong feminist at that point, and was on the board of directors. So he was definitely looking at it from a "team women" perspective. He just thought that they could start telling women to try their best because most of those barriers had been brought down. Instead NOW took the route of disempowering women by telling them they were being discriminated against so it was basically useless to try.

And that's when feminism, or at least NOW, stopped acting in the best interest of women and started looking at their bottom line instead. By convincing women that discrimination is everywhere, they can convince them to write a check.

[–]AskingToFeminists 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And that's when feminism, or at least NOW, stopped acting in the best interest of women

Oh, I don't think that was the moment it began. I mean, NOW gave an award to Solanas for being an exemplary feminist. And that was after she published her SCUM manifesto AND after she was jailed for shooting Andy Warhol.

[–]dontpet 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Will there will be lots of others that come across that data still and just don't focus on it. It should be on the list above.

[–]thereslcjg2000left-wing male advocate 62 points63 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Another example: when Google employees demanded an investigation intending to show wage disparities hurting women, it was instead found that the wage gap was at the disadvantage of men.

[–]sakura_drop 40 points41 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yet another excellent post, /u/oncefa2. If the text limit allows might I suggest adding two recent-ish ones: both Google and the BBC launched investigations into their own corporations re. the wage gap and found they were underpaying male employees, as opposed to what they hoped to find.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Thanks. I edited both in. They still complained about the fact that there are more men working in upper management in order to "save face" over that blunder. But I doubt the gender ratio is really that different from the rest of the company, especially at Google. Google actually has more female IT workers than the overall average for the industry. Which makes me think that they are given preference in hiring decisions. In addition to getting paid more.

But none of that matters apparently because the very small portion of employees at the top are mostly men.

I kind of wonder if feminists expect every woman on the planet to automatically get those types of cushy, high paying jobs, just for being women. So that men can be forced to do all the difficult, less prestigious work. They complain about the fact that women make up less than 50% of the cushy jobs at the top when they don't even make up 50% of the rest of workforce. I mean shouldn't they have to work their way up on their own merit instead of being handed all the best jobs automatically?

[–]sakura_drop 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But none of that matters apparently because the very small portion of employees at the top are mostly men.

They sure do love the Apex Fallacy. Like, really.

[–]SnowAssMan -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Try actually reading his first source, just the first one. It's not what he says it is, predictably.

[–]mellainadiba 15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is an excellent post, please try and get it mainstream, im sure you could with a bit of word tweaking

Maybe add:

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Was the assumption going in to it that women were discriminated against? They talk about how that's what the prevailing wisdom is, but I don't see any evidence that they were "fishing" for that result.

Either way it's a great study. There's a lot of research out there demonstrating this trend now.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Update: I'm editing this and one more study in since it follows the basics pattern. The researchers don't admit to having a bias but they do say in their research that they're carrying it out because of widespread reports of a bias.

[–]istira_balegina 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I dont see you mentioning the Google review of it's own practices after their female employees complained about a supposed wage gap and then they found the men actually got paid less.

[–]NotAnAlternateID 15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Lmfao, reminds me of that time when flat-earthers accidentally proved that the earth is round

[–]StoicBoffin 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That sounds hilarious. Do you have a link?

[–]Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe he is referring to the 'documentary' on Netflix called "Beyond The Curve" or "BEHIND The Curve" I forget which

[–]Threwaway42 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I need to read this more but I would add the sentencing gap study (unless it is there, I skimmed but missed it) as I believe they were doing it expecting to find women get more jail time for the same crime

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure if they expected to find discrimination against women or not.

Maybe an older study from a couple of decades ago might have.

If you know of anything though let me know ;). It is entirely possible that there's something like that out there.

[–]rannerbeer 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What a fantastic post.

[–]genkernels 8 points9 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Beautiful sources.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can we just accept that discrimination is rampant against men and women alike?

[–]SnowAssMan -2 points-1 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Your first study only looked at part-time work as secretaries & accountants. So you misrepresented it. Ironically it also says this:
"the younger female types received callbacks significantly less frequently than the younger men, when applying to highly qualified jobs"
So I could say about your post: the first study about employment discrimination against men in favour of women instead uncovered discrimination against women in favour of men.

In the case of the auditions & resumés – your "sources", which are only a secondary sources, reveal that modern hiring practices employ affirmative action, which is what accounts of the modern results. – I'd say this applies to all your links tangentially related to employment.
Will anti-feminists/MRAs et al finally have a reason to be in favour of blind auditions & anonymous resumés now? Both the old & new studies prove that that would make hiring meritocratic & unbiased. The new study confirms more than it debunks.

In the case of the gaps one (the second-to-last one) – the abstract is not very forthcoming. It concludes that men & women's choices are "biologically-driven" lol, so that, for instance, men choose more dangerous jobs, which are more likely to kill them, because of testosterone – Someone needs to explain to me how this is a result of discrimination.

The domestic violence stuff doesn't change crime stats which find that 96% of people convicted for domestic violence were men & that 86% of victims of violent acts by a significant other were female:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf

The thing that John Oliver (& many others before him) were talking about was the fact only male rats are used for experiments, excluding female rats because of their hormonal cycles interfering with the experiments. The result is that medication type or dosage are more optimal for men while women more often suffer from worse & unforeseen side effects.
I'd advise not using an MRA website as a "source" if you want to be taking seriously.

Regarding sexual assault – under the section addressing female perpetrators of sexual assault against men the study it cited doesn't appear to reveal the rate of that particular type of assault & whether it rivals the reverse.

Regarding child custody – the vast majority of cases don't even make it to court, instead decided by the parents in private. Your source confirms this:
“9 out of 10 custody arrangements are worked out privately among the parents and their attorneys”
In the majority of those cases the mother is agreed upon by both parents as being the more suitable custodial option. How come when a court comes to the same conclusion it's somehow biased?
Additionally: "out of 3.6 million custodial divorced mothers in the United States, roughly 1.7 million, or 47%, received child support payments" – Wow, over half of them are deadbeat dads. No wonder they have a hard time winning custody trials.

Next time leave out secondary sources please. Use primary ones exclusively.

[–]genkernels 4 points5 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Your first study only looked at part-time work as secretaries & accountants.

Part time and full-time work as secretaries and accountants, yes. The study itself doesn't list this in its introductory remarks for the same reason that the OP doesn't. Due to the sheer magnitude of the difference in callbacks, this isn't particularly important. The point the OP was making is concerning the researchers burying a salient finding that was not expected by them.

Ironically it also says this: "the younger female types received callbacks significantly less frequently than the younger men, when applying to highly qualified jobs"

You just accused someone of being misleading due to not including a piece of context. Lets break down the context of your quote:

In their correspondence study in France, Duguet and Petit (2005) and Petit (2007) varied the age and family status of their applicants, comprising three types: 25 year olds and childless, 37 year olds, single and childless, and 37 year olds, married with two children. They further compared males and females along those types. The different age groups were meant to indicate different probabilities of future childbearing. The authors found no evidence of discrimination against older women relative to older men. However, the younger female types received callbacks significantly less frequently than the younger men, when applying to highly qualified jobs, which the authors attribute to higher maternity costs in these occupations. Bartoš (2015) used a similar design for his correspondence study, conducted in the Czech Republic. It considered younger (25 year olds) childless males and females, and older (41 year olds) males and females, who were either childless or had two children instead. All job applicants were married. He found no difference in average callback rates among the younger male and female applicants but older women were preferred to older men. In line with Duguet and Petit (2005), Bartoš (2015) identified weak evidence for a motherhood penalty for younger women, but only when applying to highly qualified positions.

I'll leave it at that.

--

I'd advise not using an MRA website as a "source" if you want to be taking seriously.

You in the right sub, dude?

Will anti-feminists/MRAs et al finally have a reason to be in favour of blind auditions & anonymous resumés now?

As a whole, not likely. But MRAs have been laughing at feminists who cancelled blind hiring when it turned out to help men for a long time.

--

The domestic violence stuff doesn't change crime stats which find that 96% of people convicted for domestic violence were men

The sad thing is that you're for real.

[–]SnowAssMan -1 points0 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Some MRA guy: did you guys know employers prefer female secretaries over male ones???
You: surprised Pikachu face

The long quote you posted from the study was just a longer version of what I already said.

96% prosecuted & found guilty of domestic violence were male & 86% of victims of violent acts by a significant other were female, both can be confirmed by the source Ilinked: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 5 points6 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Because female abusers are more likely to walk free as a result of sexism against male victims.

There is a lot of research on this, and I really do mean a lot. But it all pretty much agrees on this point. You'll find some going one way or the other but they mostly bounce between 40% and 60%.

For example,

16% of men and 14% of women report being seriously injured by their partner.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of family issues, 17(3), 283-316.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/019251396017003001

Assaulted men are more likely than assaulted women to experience serious attacks by being hit with an object, beat up, threatened with a knife or being knifed.

Hoff, B. H. (2001). The risk of serious physical injury from assault by a woman intimate: A re-examination of national violence against women survey data on type of assault by an intimate. MenWeb on-line Journal (ISSN: 1095-5240 http://www.menweb.org/NVAWSrisk.htm). Retrieved from Web on Jan, 18, 2011.

1.8% of men and 1.2% of women reported that their injuries required first aid, while 1.5% of men and 1.1% of women reported that their injuries needed treated by a doctor or nurse.

Headey, B., Scott, D., & De Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: are women and men equally violent?. Australian Social Monitor, 2(3), 57.

https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=759479315231736;res=IELAPA

The least commonly reported violence was severe perpetration (<1.0% of total sample or 5% of violent relationships, n = 32), where it appears more women (1.6%; n = 29) than men (.9%; n = 2) reported performing such violence...Other findings showed that men reported being the victim of severe violence (3.%; n = 51) more frequently than women (1.9%; n = 35); but, this differences was only marginally significant.

Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). Patterns of violent relationships, psychological distress, and marital satisfaction in a national sample of men and women. Sex Roles, 52(11-12), 771-784.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stacey_Williams3/publication/30846401_Patterns_of_Violent_Relationships_Psychological_Distress_and_Marital_Satisfaction_in_a_National_Sample_of_Men_and_Women/links/02e7e52332186a94f3000000.pdf

Studies of undergraduate college students found that men sustained higher levels of moderate violence than women with severe violence being rare for both women and men (Katz, Kuffel, & Coblentz, 2002) and 29% of males and 35% of females reported perpetrating physical aggression; 12.5% of the males and 4.5% of the females reported receiving severe physical aggression; 14% of females reported that they were the sole perpetrators of aggression — injuries were sustained by 8.4% of males and 5% of females (Hines & Saudino, 2002). These rates, which suggest gender symmetry in the perpetration of relationship violence, are not unique and Fiebert (2004) has amassed a bibliography of 159 peer-reviewed publications finding equal or greater aggression by females than males. The total collected sample is greater than 109,000. An earlier version was published in 1997 (Fiebert, 1997).

Carney, M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 108-115.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Donald_Dutton/publication/222426549_Women_Who_Perpetrate_Intimate_Partner_Violence_A_Review_of_the_Literature_With_Recommendations_for_Treatment/links/5c465a1592851c22a386f74b/Women-Who-Perpetrate-Intimate-Partner-Violence-A-Review-of-the-Literature-With-Recommendations-for-Treatment.pdf

See also:

https://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

[–]SnowAssMan 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

The majority of women's physical violence against men (domestic violence) is in response to being abused by those men: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2968709/

Ultimately, you can't argue with a bodycount: 77% of all domestic homicide victims are female: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222320.pdf

In the cases female perpetrators of male homicide victims, usually the victim was an abuser: http://ncdsv.org/images/If%20I%20had%20one%20more%20day_Fatality%20Review_2006.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=130043

And that's why domestic abuse is a women's issue.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 5 points6 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

The majority of women's physical violence against men (domestic violence) is in response to being abused by those men:

Except your research has been reviewed and criticised since it was released. The problem in that study is they conflate "bi-directional" violence as "self-defense" even though "getting back at my partner" is the primary motivation in those types of cases. Reciprocal violence is the most common form of domestic violence, but women are still more likely to initiate and escalate patterns of abuse in reciprocally violent relationships.

Here's a "pop science" article talking about how this is a myth:

https://thedailycounter.com/male-victims-of-domestic-violence-are-they-ignored/

The most common reasons are things like "he wouldn't listen to me" and "he made me mad".

Here's some of the research that backs that up:

Bates, E. A., Graham‐Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2014). Testing predictions from the male control theory of men's partner violence. Aggressive behavior, 40(1), 42-55.

http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/13400/1/13400_Bates%20et%20al.,%202014%20Testing%20predictions%20from%20male%20control%20theory.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994556

http://www.batteredmen.com/carrgeo1.htm

https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.1997.80.2.583

Ultimately, you can't argue with a bodycount: 77% of all domestic homicide victims are female:

This depends on when and where. In Australia it's only around 50%, and in the US, rates have only recently gone up. Not because violence against women has gone up, but because violence against men has gone down, thus changing the ratio.

Most women murdered by their partners are also abusive. Their husband / boyfriend runs out of options and either kills his abuser, or kills himself.

Related to this is the fact that domestic violence related suicides out number homicides, and more total men are killed as a result of domestic violence when you include those deaths.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.5042/jacpr.2010.0141/full/html

The reason the rate of female-on-male homicide has declined is because women now have options to escape from abusive relationships and men don't.

If men received the same care, compassion, and help that women do, the rate for male-on-female IPV homicides would drop as well.

So let me ask you this: do you care about women who are murdered by their husbands and boyfriends? Are you interested in doing anything about it, or do you just want to complain about it and attack men for it?

This is a case where helping men also helps women. Are you willing to set aside your differences and come together to put an end to this? Are you ready to be an ally? Or do your misandrist attitudes run so deep that you will refuse to help men even when helping men also means helping women?

[–]SnowAssMan 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Wow, you actually decided to argue with the bodycount. Define "recently" then. You're going to have to show evidence that most of female homicide victims were abusing these men. Were the children they killed also abusing these poor murderers? "women now have options to escape from abusive relationships and men don't" – You live in topsy-turvy land, don't you? How many men are financially dependant on their wives? How many women stalk & hunt men down when they try to get away? Men can bugger off whenever the fuck they want. Asking me whether I'm a "misandrist" is like asking me whether I'm a unicorn. I can't possibly be one, as "misandry" doesn't exist. Putting a bunch of men in a shelter doesn't sound safe for anyone involved. They need to be institutionalised if they're considering murdering their own wife & children.

[–]LolwhatYesme 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Asking me whether I'm a "misandrist" is like asking me whether I'm a unicorn. I can't possibly be one, as "misandry" doesn't exist. Putting a bunch of men in a shelter doesn't sound safe for anyone involved.

Reading this quote right here made my day.

/u/snowassman you're a funny troll :D

[–]Is_This_Safe_To_Eat 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Wow god damn someone should print that quote out and frame it in a museum of unselfaware bullshit.

[–]hahahaThatsSofunny 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

How are we able to comment on a 1 and 1/2 year old post?

[–]Strikester101 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

He followed me over here from r/UnpopularFacts.

I guess maybe I should feel flattered lol.

u/genkernel already responded to him below, and he was corrected in the other thread as well.

[–]Strikester101 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey, please PM me.

There are some things I want to talk and get over my mind.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter