I produced good research not just by googling but because I know the subject and read the research previously. The domestic abuse industry gets a lot of government funding worldwide just as the sexual abuse industry has and those pushing the AWG myth.

False sexual abuse claims in the 80’s seriously affected fathers for many years. The Telethon campaign in the NZ Herald featuring the picture of 4 baby girls with the caption “1 in 4 of these girls will be sexually abused by the time they are 18, half by their own fathers” did a lot of damage. It was claimed that these figurers were supported by research. This is now known to be rubbish.

The domestic abuse industry also does a lot of damage to fathers in the way it affects fathers in relation to custody and access. A Domestic Protection Order is based as much on how a woman feels as any violence she may have suffered.

I do take issue with your argument that the research is all undertaken by feminists. Some of the research I found was from male researchers.

I do not recall using the word “all”. However, I stand by my statement. The male researchers you refer to are also likely feminists. Just as there are white people who not only support reasonable Maori claims there are some who support the claims that the vast majority of the population reject including many Maori. Fortunately many women many of them older mothers of men reject the militant anti-male feminist propaganda.

I suspect you’d just google and find a whole pile of reports that show otherwise, so I didn’t bother linking to them. This is obviously a highly politicised issue, and I frankly don’t have the energy for the debate…

I do take issue with your argument that the research is all undertaken by feminists. Some of the research I found was from male researchers.

Anyway, let’s just agree to disagree on this one.

I repeat the comment from the feminist research.

Research suggests that most women’s violence towards men is self-defensive or retaliatory

I can accept some violence on the part of a man or a woman to defend themselves but one has to be careful justifying violence as a form of retaliation. How long after the initial event is it justified?

Let us get the time sequence correct. You stated first stated

The fact that the vast majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men on women should be enough to explain why most ads like these protray women as victims.

I challenged you to produce scientific evidence. You instead challenged me to produce the evidence. I did this twice. The fact that domestic violence is initiated about equally by men and woman is not in dispute. The feminist “researchers” that women’s violence is either in self defence or retaliatory whatever that means. They produce no evidence to support their claim. A footnote is not evidence. Someone could put their opinion down as a claim in another article.

The studies I quoted asked both men and women if they were the victim or perpetrator of domestic violence. The figures roughly added up. When feminist get involved in so called research they just ask women. The “Hitting Home Report” funded by Labour government just interviewed women. It was awarded the “Bent Spoon Award” by the New Zealand Skeptics. The New Zealand Skeptics are not anti-women but they are anti-shonky research.

The two groups that I quoted who did research on domestic violence did not have a political axe to grind. When Straus and Gelles did their original research they were surprised at the results. They were counter intuitive. They double checked to make sure they had not made an error.

Professor David Fergusson is a well respected researcher on many subjects. Violence was just one of the things he studied about a group of young people born in the year.

Compare this with the feminist who set out to “proof” that woman are good and men are bad.

In regards your question about what justification a man has for using violence in a relationship I would say just the same as a woman. Provocation is not an excuse but it can be a mitigating factor. Personally there are two things I would not accept in a relationship. One is infidelity and the other is violence. My advice to any man who was the victim of domestic violence would be to make it clear that it is unacceptable and if it is repeated the relationship will end. It would also be helpful for him to get prove.

My comment “There are many men some on this blog who have been conditioned from very young that there is no excuse to hit a woman even in self defense. Some women are prepared to exploit this.” means that if a woman believes that a man will not hit her back she if free to hit him without fear of retaliation. That is what I mean exploit. This can be dangerous. I am not taking about justification. Many if not most people will snap if provoked enough.

Scott out.

Chuck Bird, you said “People tend to what to make excuses for women’s violence yet expect men to be held fully accountable.”

I’m not sure who you mean by “people”. Most people I know would consider any instance of domestic violence unacceptable, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.

Also, the document I linked to had extensive footnotes and citations. I don’t think it can be dismissed as easily as you would like.

You also said “There are many men some on this blog who have been conditioned from very young that there is no excuse to hit a woman even in self defence. Some women are prepared to exploit this.” I’m not sure what your point is, although you seem to be suggesting that maybe it is okay in some circumstances for a man to hit a woman. What are those circumstances? In self defence? Defence of others? When she’s been a bit lippy? Is it okay if the man lashes out because she’s been goading him? Your response might help me understand where you’re comng from.

The claims by the government funded group you referenced make wild claims and use such terms as research shows without showing the research. For example

Research suggests that most women’s violence towards men is self-defensive or retaliatory,25, 26, 27 28 whereas much of men’s violence towards women is used instrumentally to dominate and control their partner.

Retaliatory like when Gaye Oakes murdered her partner, Doug Gardiner. It was easy to claim she was abused after she murdered him.

People tend to what to make excuses for women’s violence yet expect men to be held fully accountable.

Another quote

Researchers have found that some men who have experienced abuse by their female partner find the violence humorous

That may be the case of minor violence that a man is able to block but I doubt if many men would find a solid punch in the eye humorous or a glass that hits them with force in the head.

These apologists for female violence are actually putting women at risk. There are many men some on this blog who have been conditioned from very young that there is no excuse to hit a woman even in self defence. Some women are prepared to exploit this.

These men are able to fend off some blows from a woman especially if they are very much bigger. However, it does not matter how big anyone is if a glass hits you on the head it hurts. These men who think they can just restrain the little woman can easily lose control as the assaults get worse.

If female violence against a man was treated more seriously by authorities there may be fewer women hurt. That of course will not protect a woman against a bully who does not need any provocation to be violent. In these cases a woman should walk away. At least a woman is able to do so unlike children.

Young children have no defence; they cannot run away, cannot defend themselves and sometimes cannot tell anyone. Children are where the focus should be in domestic violence. There would not be the votes there that there is in portraying women as victims and men as perpetrators.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/VB2%20Societal%20Change%20and%20Change%20in%20fam%20viol.pdf

470 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
TABLE 2. 14,uuTAI. VIOLENCE INDEXES: COMPARISON OF 1975 AND 1985

Violence Index Rate per 1,000 Couples

t for 1975-1985
1975 1985 Difference
A. Husband-to-Wife
Overall Violence (1-6) 121 113 0.91
Severe Violence (4-8) 38 30 1.60
(“wife beating”)
B. Wife-to-Husband
Overall Violence (1-6) 116 121 0.57
Severe Violence (4-8) 46 44 0.35
C. Couple
Overall Violence (1-6) 160 158 0.20
Severe Violence (4-8) 61 58 0.46
Number of cases 2,143 3,520

TABLE 3. MARITAL VIOLENCE: COMPARISON OF SPECIFIC Acrs, 1975-1985

Husband-to-Wife Wife-to-Husband
Type of Violence 1975 1985 1975 1985
A. Minor Violence Acts
1. Threw something 28 28 52 43
2. Pushed/grabbed/shoved 107 93 83 89
3. Slapped 51 29 46 41
B. Severe Violence Acts
4. Kicked/bit/hit with fist 24 15 31 24
5. Hit, tried to hit with something 22 17 30 30
6. Beat up 11 8 6 4
7. Threatened with gun or knife 4 4 6 6
8. Used gun or knife 3 2 2 2
Number of casesa 2,143 3,520 2,143 3,520

http://www.nzfvc.org.nz/PublicationDetails.aspx?publication=14144

We all know some women hit men, but the evidence shows that male on female violence is much more prevalent.

For example, take this part of the report:

“The “creaming off into marriage of the “best” cohabiting relationships will tend to lower the average quality of cohabiting unions relative to marital unions in the population. Smock and Manning (1997) found that cohabiting couples were more likely to marry if the man had higher earnings, higher education, and full-time employment-all of which are negatively associated with intimate-partner violence. More directly, DeMaris (2001) found that violence by the female partner was associated with a reduced likelihood of marriage. These findings suggest that more-violent couples may tend to accumulate in the cohabiting population.”

So people who have better prospects (e.g. educational, employment, higher earnings) are more likely to get married. We know that crime and domestic violence statistics generally over-represent the poor and the the poorly educated. Those people are less likely to get married.

So this article would suggest that co-habitation (as opposed to marriage) is not a causal factor in higher rates of violence.

There a number of reasons why police stats do not reflect the true picture. The main reason is that many of the female initiated acts of violence are not in the stats. This is because men often do not complain to the police and when they do the police do not take their complaints seriously.

http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2006/08-02-06_press_release.html

Domestic Violence and Mental Health

08 February 2006

Latest research from the long-running Christchurch Health and Development Study (CHDS) at the University of Otago’s Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, calls into question conventional thinking about domestic violence between partners, and its effects on mental health.

This study by Professor David Fergusson, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, surveyed 828 males and females at 25 years regarding violence between partners and the impact on mental health. The violence recorded ranged from psychological abuse to serious physical attack.

“In broad terms the results provide a challenge to the dominant view that domestic violence is a ‘women’s issue’, and that it arises predominantly from assaults by males against females,” says Prof. Fergusson.

“In fact, what our findings suggest is that amongst young adults, men and women are equally violent towards partners, in terms of the range of acts of domestic violence examined in this study.”

The research shows the range of violence committed by men and women is similar, and that both men and women engage in serious physical attacks on their partners. The consequences of this domestic violence in terms of injury and psychological effects are also similar for both sexes.

The findings confirm other overseas studies that violent partnerships are more likely to be associated with psychosocial problems relating to childhood adversity, mental health disorders and other life course difficulties.

“Domestic violence tends to occur in those relationships which have a wider psychosocial history of disadvantage and difficulty,” says Professor Fergusson.

The research shows that domestic violence also has an impact on the mental health of those involved, even when other background factors, which might result in mental problems, are taken into account. With increasing exposure to violence there is a greater likelihood of mental health problems developing in both men and women.

Disorders such as depression, anxiety and suicide are between 1.5 and 11.9 times higher in those people who experience domestic violence than those who don’t.

However, Professor Fergusson says this study suggests the need for a broadening of analysis of domestic violence away from focussing on male perpetrators and female victims, to examining violent couples who use aggression in their relationship.

“This points to family policies that encourage couples to work together to harmonise their relationships and to overcome the collective adversities they face.”

Professor Fergusson says we need to understand why studies of community samples such as the CHDS usually show an absence of gender differences in domestic violence, whereas other sources dealing with severe violence, such as Women’s Refuge or police complaints, report a predominance of male perpetrators. “The best way of doing this is to study a large sample to examine the frequency of common couple violence involving mutual assaults and the frequency of more severe forms of domestic violence,” he says. This study only applies to young people, and domestic violence tends to decrease with age.

The research was funded by the Health Research Council, the National Child Health Research Foundation, the Canterbury Medical Research Foundation and the Lottery Grants Board.

In terms of evidence that cohabitating couples are more violent than married couples one just needs to google it. But here is another link-

http://www.allbusiness.com/human_resources/3482861-1.html

The benefits of marriage I would think to be self evident. But they are also well established in scientific research.

I’m not actually as anyone not trying so hard to be clever would recognise. I did make a mistake in assuming the ad was government funded however even tho the makers donated their services for free, Woman’s Aid itself does seem to be a quasi-government agency that gets at least some of its funding from the taxpayer. Here’s one example-”

snip

It would be sensible if you tried harder to be clever by actually watching the clip before making comments. Even after dpf corrected one error you went off making another.

In 2005 the English national body of Women’s Aid got about 38% of its funding from taxpayer funds. Should that mean the Govt can control how they get the rest of their income? That surely would be heavy handed state control.

Last year in NZ The Salvation received 61% of their income from the Govt, I don’t think that makes them a quasi -goverment church.

The ad is not telling anyone to do anything. It is a fundraising campaign. It seeks donors to pledge regular payments.
If you were in the UK you could use the on/off button, like you presumably do with everything else you don’t wish to watch.

The fact that the vast majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men on women should be enough to explain why most ads like these protray women as victims.

SBY, can you support your statement with any proper scientific evidence. By that I do not mean police figures? There is plenty of evidence in New Zealand and overseas which show that spousal violence is initiated equally by men and women.

In regards the links between marriage and child abuse one just needs to read the newspaper to see the marital status of where the partner of the mother kills her child. While there are many very good step parents it would seem self evident that someone who cares enough to commit for life to a woman is less likely to harm her child. The same applies to physical and sexual abuse.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread children often set out to destroy their mother’s relationship. This can also be the case when the mother remarries but is less likely.

The chance of child abuse by a partner in as long term de facto relationship would no doubt be a lot less than a short term one. However, if one compared a one year marriage with a one year de facto relationship it should be obvious that the risk of abuse would be higher in the latter case.

Interesting correlation, now all we need to do is find the causal factor that makes people co-habitate rather than marry and then we are getting somewhere.

As interesting as this is it’s a bit like saying that people who drive aggressively are more likely to be involved in road rage incidents. Sure great – but why did they drive aggressively in the first place.

Please don’t take me the wrong way, I’m not undermining the research or the conclusions, this information should be widely known (and probably is in an anecdotal sense) by law enforcement and justice agencies. It backs up the words I once heard a cop utter… ‘It’s always the stepfather’ !

I offer this link – http://www.jennifer-roback-morse.com/articles/cohab_fast_facts.html

The benefits of marriage are well researched and reliable. Outside of the world of Steve Maharey and others of the hard left we need to get a grip on what is now pretty reliable data on the good of marriage and the incredible downside of living together.