Thursday, November 08, 2007
The Biggest Myth of Domestic Violence
Do an Internet search for domestic violence and you'll find a wealth of sites that make this claim "men abuse women in about 95% of the reported cases of domestic violence" Some even suggest a source as does PBS, "According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 95 percent of the victims of domestic violence are women." Searching the Bureau of Justice Statistics, I couldn't find the 95% figure anywhere. It may be there but well hidden.
Of course "reported" may be the operative word here. How many men do you know would report it to the police if his wife hit him? Or what about a man reporting psychological abuse, i.e. being nagged incessantly?
These claims have been debunked many times again and again.
A commenter to my last post said, "I don't really see this all as a vast conspiracy against men." I do. Women's "rights" groups misrepresent statistics, perpetrate propaganda and justify women murdering men in order to gain a legal advantage over men and to brainwash as many as possible into believing that in any conflict the man is at fault. Almost no one seems to question the 95% figure outside of the men's right movement.
Don't kid yourself. There are women who take every opportunity to demonize men. Even though they are so ignorant that they don't know that flooding can greatly increase the risk of the spread of disease.
Expanding the domestic violence definition to include child abuse, women don't look so good.
The real myths here are the ones being spread by the radical feminist and are used by every female who wishes to put the screws to her significant other.
Of course "reported" may be the operative word here. How many men do you know would report it to the police if his wife hit him? Or what about a man reporting psychological abuse, i.e. being nagged incessantly?
These claims have been debunked many times again and again.
A commenter to my last post said, "I don't really see this all as a vast conspiracy against men." I do. Women's "rights" groups misrepresent statistics, perpetrate propaganda and justify women murdering men in order to gain a legal advantage over men and to brainwash as many as possible into believing that in any conflict the man is at fault. Almost no one seems to question the 95% figure outside of the men's right movement.
Don't kid yourself. There are women who take every opportunity to demonize men. Even though they are so ignorant that they don't know that flooding can greatly increase the risk of the spread of disease.
Expanding the domestic violence definition to include child abuse, women don't look so good.
In 2003, 48.3 percent of child victims were male; 51.7 percent of victims were female. 83.9 percent of victims were abused by a parent. 40.8% of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.8 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 16.9 percent were abused by both parents.Children are about twice as likely to be abused by their mother as their father. Yet, somehow, these same women are always victims in adult circumstances.
The real myths here are the ones being spread by the radical feminist and are used by every female who wishes to put the screws to her significant other.
Comments:
<< Home
say a lie often enough... it will be taken as truth. I found the same about that 95% figure... it comes from the ether, in that no-one seems willing to cite where it came from. In saying I don't think there is a conspiracy, I guess I need to say that I don't see a central top down directed one. So what you actually get, on reflection, is more dangerous. It's so subtle that it doesn't actually need a top down structure.
I think in a lot of ways it simply reflects the nature of veering to extremes on a subject in order to find the middle. There was a time when 'barefoot, broke and preggers' WAS the rule of many women. The current caselaw and such 50years on is a reaction to that. Instead of making it equitable though, they built in retroactive punishment.
Domestic violence the same. Instead of looking at each situation on it's own, a trend was spotted and extrapolated. The fact that the genders may play their abuse differently has never entered into the equation.
It reamins that way because the male definition is still SO different than the female one. Until cases are looked at in the whole, until what goes on on both sides is taken into account, I don't see the scale shifting. That won't happen until a number of fairly rich guys who have had the problem, are willing to pay the big money to prove their point.
Right now it doesn't matter if the number of reported DV cases are 60% male or 95% male. The key is reporting. You can't prove the negative, and the opposite statistic even less. It will always SOUND like the men do more damage, because nobody reports when the women do it. Even the women who kill the guy are often not sentenced the same as a guy would be. It's hard to overcome because it is assumed that 120# woman will do less damage than 200# guy... it all begins right there. That's EVEN IF the 120# woman is the only one in the relationship hitting anyone with a frying pan.
As a society the takeaways are that you must always report if someone gets violent, no matter who. Secondly, every case must be treated as a sum of it's parts.
How to make that happen? dunno. You?
Post a Comment
I think in a lot of ways it simply reflects the nature of veering to extremes on a subject in order to find the middle. There was a time when 'barefoot, broke and preggers' WAS the rule of many women. The current caselaw and such 50years on is a reaction to that. Instead of making it equitable though, they built in retroactive punishment.
Domestic violence the same. Instead of looking at each situation on it's own, a trend was spotted and extrapolated. The fact that the genders may play their abuse differently has never entered into the equation.
It reamins that way because the male definition is still SO different than the female one. Until cases are looked at in the whole, until what goes on on both sides is taken into account, I don't see the scale shifting. That won't happen until a number of fairly rich guys who have had the problem, are willing to pay the big money to prove their point.
Right now it doesn't matter if the number of reported DV cases are 60% male or 95% male. The key is reporting. You can't prove the negative, and the opposite statistic even less. It will always SOUND like the men do more damage, because nobody reports when the women do it. Even the women who kill the guy are often not sentenced the same as a guy would be. It's hard to overcome because it is assumed that 120# woman will do less damage than 200# guy... it all begins right there. That's EVEN IF the 120# woman is the only one in the relationship hitting anyone with a frying pan.
As a society the takeaways are that you must always report if someone gets violent, no matter who. Secondly, every case must be treated as a sum of it's parts.
How to make that happen? dunno. You?
# posted by 
: 7:43 PM
: 7:43 PM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
