MCP wrote:
> http://www.xyonline.net/Maleviolence.shtml
>
> Are women the perpetrators of domestic violence as often as men, and
are men
> the victims as often as women? Ben Wadham assesses the evidence.
>
> With an increasing interest in men and masculinity, a change in the
> awareness and understanding of gender and power relations is
occurring. That
> awareness is inherently influenced by the way we as individuals
within those
> gender and power relations are socialised. In this western world of
overt
> rationalist logic some of the emerging dialogue is limited and
adversarial
> in nature. One significant example is the recent emergence of
literature
> suggesting that women are as much perpetrators of domestic violence
as men,
> and men are as much victims of domestic violence as women.
>
> Recent research and literature by John Coochey, the People's Equality
> Network (PEN) and Katherine Dunn claim that contemporary
representations of
> male violence are false. These authors argue that female domestic
violence
> is as prevalent as male domestic violence. They suggest that domestic
> violence organisations and services, and some prominent women in the
> domestic violence field, are fudging statistics and actively
maintaining a
> false representation of domestic violence for political and financial
> purposes.
>
> Coochey is particularly vocal and he focuses on denigrating the
recent and
> current domestic violence research which predominantly considers male
> violence against women. He does not advance current perspectives and
> knowledge of domestic violence by offering an alternative which would
> consider the gendered nature of male and female acts of violence
toward
> their partners. Passages like, "These days people will accept even
the
> wildest claims, as long as they make women out to be victims.
Particularly,
> if they also put men in a poor light," express a conspiratorial and
> antagonistic stand. Is there a need?
>
> The development of this position demonstrates many men's strong
feelings of
> rejection of anything which portrays them in a negative sense. It is
> important to realise that many streams of feminism and pro-feminist
writing
> do not adopt a simple `all men are rapists' line although they may
critique
> elements of masculinity. Masculinity in most feminist paradigms is
seen as
> constructed, and therefore reflective of an array of power relations
and
> dominant interests, rather than being essentially male. The fact that
most
> research on domestic violence reports predominantly male violence
against
> women is not a personalised attack on men, but a representation of
the real
> safety issues which women and men face from male violence.
>
> Men as victims
>
> There would be little argument, I suspect, about the incidence of
female
> violence against males. Police and court records in the USA
consistently
> show that 5 percent of men are victims of domestic violence (Dobash
et.al),
> expressing the need to consider men's experience of violence by a
female
> partner. However, there is a more pressing need to develop a sound,
> contextual framework for understanding the epidemiology of male and
female
> violence. It is the development of an argument which suggests that
men and
> women perpetrate identical forms and levels of violence as a
justification
> for the re-allocation of services and resources which is problematic.
It is
> especially problematic when it is based upon a selective research
model
> which Coochey, Dunn and PEN continually cite.
>
> The research used by Coochey, Dunn and PEN to support the claim that
> violence is gender-neutral is an American study titled Behind closed
doors,
> by Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz (1980). This is an incidence survey,
> designed to identify how much violence is occurring in households
across
> America, and has been conducted several times. Questionnaires are
conducted
> through a telephone survey with the information collated according to
the
> "Conflict Tactics Scale" or CTS.
>
> The survey involved the interviewer asking a range of questions of
either
> the husband or the wife (not both) from randomly selected households.
The
> questions of the CTS were posed around how the couple settled their
> disagreements. The interviewee was presented with a list of 18 acts
ranging
> from discussing calmly, cried, threw something at him/her to beat
him\her
> up. These classified acts were intended to measure three
> things--"reasoning", "verbal aggression" and "physical
aggression"--on a
> scale of either minor violence or severe violence.
>
> The statistics which Coochey, PEN and Dunn cite are mainly reported
from
> studies using the CTS. PEN also base their analysis on another
research
> model used by the VicHealth Injury Surveillance Statistics (VISS) The
> findings of these research models report equal incidence and
prevalence of
> male and female violence. Steinmetz also used the CTS type of data to
> proclaim the `battered husband syndrome' in 1978 and there are a
range of
> other studies producing similar findings which use the CTS as the
> methodological tool.
>
> Coochey endlessly pumps out figures from the Straus et.al (1980)
study. For
> example, he states that "one in three households would experience
some
> degree of domestic violence but in half the cases the woman would be
the
> perpetrator" and he uses this finding to substantiate the claim that
> violence is gender-neutral. Furthermore, PEN suggest that "only
studies
> which are likely to prove useful in the future are those which, like
those
> developed by Straus et.al in the USA, do apply exactly equivalent
> methodologies to both female and male experience of domestic
violence". Dunn
> paraphrases Straus et.al (1980); "In about half the cases of mutual
> battering, women were the instigators--the ones who slapped, slugged
or
> swung weapons first. Male violence against passive wives occurred in
one
> quarter of the incidents; in another quarter of the incidents women
were the
> violent partners who attacked non-violent spouses." Straus et.al
conclude in
> their study that "women not only engage in physical violence as often
as
> men, but they also initiate violence as often".
>
> These findings are seriously incongruent with the majority of
domestic
> violence literature. Data from criminal victimisation surveys,
hospital
> admissions, police records, court orders, and spouses seeking shelter
and
> refuge all show that women are persistently victims of reported
assaults.


   As things stand now, women can expect to get a big pay-off for
claiming violent abuse and running to a shelter. Court orders are
routinely given out without any examination of the validity of the
claims. And there are more false accusations of domestic abuse than any
other type of crime.


> Dobash et.al suggest that police and court records continually
indicate that
> women constitute 90 to 95 per cent of such reported assaults.


   But this argument is entirely circular.

 The way
> authors such as Straus et.al and Coochey can develop such an argument
for
> `sexual symmetry in domestic violence' is by using a very suspect
> methodology.
>
> Battered Data Syndrome
>
> There are considerable problems with the Straus et.al (1980)
methodology, as
> Jack Straton explains. Firstly, the survey questions cannot
discriminate
> between intent and effect. The CTS fails to contextualise the
violence; the
> violent acts are not considered in relation to the events which led
up to
> the act, and there is no consideration of the outcomes, for example
the
> extent of injury or the degree of fear. Moreover, the type of acts of
> violence are poorly differentiated. For example, having kicked, bit,
hit or
> tried to hit with an object, beat up, choked, or threatened with a
knife or
> fired a gun are all naively grouped as "severe violence". It isn't
too hard
> to see that a man slapping a woman is a qualitatively different act
from a
> woman slapping a man, in terms of the potential for harm, the level
of
> force, the level of fear and the historical context in which such
acts are
> situated.
>
> Another major issue with Straus' studies is they only look at one
year so
> that the possible history of violence which may lead up to a violent
> response is left out and the violence again is decontextualised.
Moreover,
> there is no means of validating the claims of either spouse as only
one
> spouse is interviewed. Studies by Szinovacz and Jouriles and O'Leary
found
> that spousal accounts of violence differ significantly. This gives
grounding
> to the common knowledge that two people in a violent relationship are
going
> to give different descriptions and accounts of their experience of
violence.
>
> Furthermore, Coochey, Dunn and PEN use the Behind closed doors study
> selectively. Even Straus et.al (1980) point out a number of reasons
why
> abuse against women should remain the focus of intervention. Husbands
had
> the higher rates of the most dangerous behaviours, husbands repeated
their
> violence more often, husbands are more likely to do damage because of
their
> size and strength difference, wives are economically trapped in
marriage
> more often than husbands, and many wives may be using violence to
defend
> themselves. While the `men as victims' argument attempts to
substantiate a
> case for a `battered husband syndrome', it only substantiates a claim
for a
> `battered data syndrome'.
>
> The argument of these proponents of `men as victims' is hard-hitting,
just
> like the simplistic media portrayals of violence which have motivated
its
> emergence. It is based upon the idea that similar incidents of
violence
> behaviour mean that the violence, the circumstances leading up to it
and the
> effects and consequences of it are the same also. Coochey in
particular
> fails to elaborate that the Behind closed doors study also showed
that when
> both partners were violent 44 percent of the husbands used a higher
level of
> violence than their partners compared with 23 percent of the wives
who used
> a higher level of violence. He also failed to say that the study
found that
> the risk of victimisation of women is larger because of significant
size
> differences and relative lack of fighting experience (Saunders, p.
49). On
> average, at the time of the study, men were 45 pounds heavier and 4-5
inches
> taller than women.
>
> The Behind closed doors study also showed that if women do use
violence it
> is more likely to be against a violent partner than a non-violent
partner.
> This raises the question about the form and reasons for female
violence
> toward men. The PEN article cites figures from the VISS research
which
> suggest that men suffer more lacerations and puncture wounds than
female
> victims of domestic violence. Women were more likely to suffer
bruising,
> inflammations and pain. The study also states that women used knives
more
> than twice as often as men, as weapons of domestic violence. This
data has
> been used to imply that not only is male\female offending similar but
women
> are more brutal. However, this neglects the reasons and motivations
for
> violence. For example, Straus showed that husbands' threats to use
weapons
> were highly associated with their use and women's threats to use
weapons
> were not as highly associated with their actual use. This suggest
that
> women's use of weapons with little actual violence is a measure of
> self-defence while men's threats with actual use suggest actual
attempts to
> control.
>
> Moreover, the consequences of violence need to be considered. A push
or
> punch by a woman may cause rage or laughter in a male while a punch
or push
> by a man can be far more damaging and terrifying. Such a lack of
physical
> power is likely to promote women, if they do `fight back', to use
weapons
> for their own safety or as an equaliser.

   And you know this because they say so???


 Dunn and PEN then we are
> restricted to considering domestic violence as discrete from other
forms of
> violence. However, violence is not restricted to the domestic sphere
and
> unfortunately, males account for perpetration of 91 per cent of
homicides,
> 90 per cent of assaults and nearly all sexual assaults and robberies
in
> Australia (Egger, 1995). Men are also predominantly the victims of
violence
> from other men (Egger, 1995).
>
> It is counter-intuitive to suggest that women perpetrate the same
kinds of
> violent acts, in the same ways, and for the same reasons as men. It
has,
> historically, predominantly been men who have lead armies, gone to
war, and
> commanded expeditionary forces into other countries conquering and
> colonising. What is more, there are no phrases I can think of which
describe
> the use of force on male partners, like the term "wife-beating" does
for
> men. And there are few historical phrases like "A woman, a dog, a
hickory
> tree, the more you beat them, the better they be," which legitimise
female
> violence against men as this legitimises male violence against women.
> Moreover, personally as a man it is other men who challenge my
feelings of
> safety not women.
>
> For me this infers that as men we have an obligation and
responsibility to
> look at male violence, not only for the sake of women, but for our
own
> health and wellbeing.
>
> The way forward
>
> Writing an article questioning the emotive methodology of the `men as
> victims' argument potentially sets up an environment for antagonism.
This is
> however, what I am attempting to refute. I believe that it is time to
> consider the real effects of dominant masculine values upon others in
the
> family, the workplace, in politics or in the ways we perceive
difference in
> others. The dominant masculine values of `an unwillingness to talk',
to
> `admit weakness', to `disclose vulnerability' (as Newburn and Stanko
> describe them) or practices of control and `power over' are
successful
> tactics of power but they are also the site of men's undoing.


   Bullshit.  Feminized nonsense.


>
> Men who experience female violence may be unwilling to report their
assault
> because of shame and tensions with their ideas of masculinity, or
police may
> laugh at a man reporting female violence because `no real man would
let his
> wife hit him'. Research to date, of issues involving the implications
of
> masculine ideals in men's experience of female violence, has been few
and
> far between. Future research could well illuminate some of these
issues.
> However, this research will take us down the path of considering what
> dominance, control



   Guys rarely even dream of controlling women to any real extent. It
is normal for women to think that way about men.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100