Dear Readers
Wikipedia is a site in which a lot of information is available instantly at the click of a button for virtually anything. History, science, politics, literature, you name it. It's also a gold mine of further citations for other pieces of information on links its editors use to back it up.
Unfortunately, in recent years - as you will know - the site has gained a reputation for being unreliable, hence when I've been studying in university I was always urged not to use wikipedia for referencing. And it seems that when it comes to female on male abuse, it hasn't improved at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men
When it comes to the subject "criticism" things start to go to shit right from the start.
"Many critics have rejected the research cited by men's rights activists and dispute their claims that such violence is gender symmetrical"
"Many critics". Not much of a citation.
"arguing that MRAs' focus on women's violence against men stems from a misogynistic political agenda to minimize the issue of men's violence against women and to undermine services to abused women"
Isn't that convenient? The idea that anyone wanting to help male abuse victims is the ever-present "MRA" boogeyman who simply wants to hurt women out of spite. What an erroneous crock of shit.
A 2008 review published in journal of Violence and Victims found that although less serious situational violence or altercation was equal for both genders, more serious and violent abuse was perpetrated by men. It was also found that women's physical violence was more likely motivated by self-defense or fear while men's was more likely motivated by control.
PROFILE OF AUTHORS The authors are Ravneet Kaur and Dr Suneela Garg. It's difficult to say who Ravneet Kaur is but Dr Suneela Garg is likely to be this person:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suneela-Garg
She's published several articles on domestic violence, and virtually none of them acknowledge male abuse victims.
Thing is, India has also already seen women's groups dismiss male abuse and rape victims as to be taken seriously, as happened in 2013:
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/309399/womens-groups-reject-ordinance-threaten.html
Whether or not she was part of this is another matter. Unlikely, but it shows the atmosphere present among the professional class here as well as in the western world.
Also, note the phrase "Less serious situational violence or altercation was equal for both genders". This is basically what we call goalpost shifting.
They also make good use of weasel words to basically minimise the actions of female abusers.
Also, isn't it interesting that they say "women's physical violence was more likely motivated by self-defense or fear" as if to protect a pre-conceived idea?
"Another 2011 review published in the journal of Aggression and Violent Behavior also found that although minor domestic violence was equal, more severe violence was perpetrated by men."
Note the use of "minor domestic violence was equal". There's a sense of desire to minimise here.
A 2011 systematic review from the journal of Trauma Violence Abuse also found that the common motives for female on male domestic violence were anger, a need for attention, or as a response to their partner's own violence.
You hear that? If your girlfriend or wife slashes you with a kitchen knife, she just wants your attention and it's all your fault. How sweet and adorable.
Another 2011 review published in the journal of Aggression and Violent Behavior also found that...men were more likely to beat up, choke or strangle their partners, while women were more likely to throw things at their partner, slap, kick, bite, punch, or hit with an object
Again, there's the damaging implication that being slapped, kicked, bitten or having things thrown at you is harmless. Anything to protect the concepts of "toxic masculinity".
Researchers have also found different outcomes in men and women in response to intimate partner violence. A 2012 review from the journal Psychology of Violence found that women suffered disproportionately as a result of IPV especially in terms of injuries, fear, and posttraumatic stress.The review also found that 70% of female victims in one of their studies were "very frightened" in response to intimate partner violence from their partners, but 85% of male victims cited "no fear". The review also found that IPV mediated the satisfaction of the relationship for women but it did not do so for men
They're setting the bar REALLY high for male abuse victims here. If you're not suffering from PTSD or afraid for your life, you don't count as a DV victim. If you're not outright murdered or in danger of being as such, you don't count as a DV victim. If you don't realise that what's happening to you is abuse, you don't count as a DV victim. The ideas of the researchers seem to be preying on the ignorance of female on male abuse and the fact that many of these men might not realise that it's happening.
So who is writing the 'psychology of violence' then? Well, apparently, the current editor is Professor Antonia Abbey from Wayne State University. "I have a longstanding interest in women's health and preventing violence against women. Most of my recent research focuses on understanding the etiology of men’s sexual aggression,"
https://clasprofiles.wayne.edu/profile/ab8222
Clearly someone who has a vested interest in male on female violence, but none in violence vice versa.
Gender asymmetry is also consistent with government findings. According to government statistics from the US Department of Justice, male perpetrators constituted 96% of federal prosecution on domestic violence.
Prosecution. It's not common for women to be prosecuted for abuse as shown above, so to use prosecutions as proof for their theories is more than a bit dishonest because it totally discounts crimes in which the perpetrator has got away with it.
Another report by the US Department of Justice on non-fatal domestic violence from 2003–2012 found that 76 percent of domestic violence was committed against women and 24 percent were committed against men.
There is another problem with this report, which seems at odds with the 2011 findings anyway, but James Landrith, SA survivor says it best on the Good Men Project in April 2012:
https://jameslandrith.com/2012/01/25/why-yes-rape-can-be-gendered-against-men-and-by-women/
This is of course depending on the statistical model. These models, with all of their obvious built-in bias, are then parroted around as if they are apples to apples comparisons of male and female predation. As such biases and outright distortions are often used to eliminate them from from data sets or intentionally isolate such data in lesser or hidden categories, we have no real idea of just how many female predators exist today.
Dr. Ruth M. Mann of the University of Windsor, an expert on sociology and criminology, stated her opposition to the gender symmetry theory of domestic violence on the grounds that women as well as children are the main victims in the "annual pile up" (Coyle, 2001) of victims being murdered by intimate partners and fathers throughout Canada (AuCoin, 2005; Ogrodnik, 2006)
Once again we get to the active opposition to the idea by Dr Mann on the grounds of bad faith, again setting the standard for male abuse victims to be so high that it cannot be reached, and male victims of female abuse are again invalidated by these same old lies.
And somehow this seems to be at odds with the "women are strong and equal to men" message. It's seems this only applies when it suits them. Suddenly, when it comes to DV, men are the stronger ones. One minute they bravely battle against "gender roles" then bravely get into bed with the same "gender roles" when it suits their own bias.
In an open message to these "activists" and "academics" I say this.
Our stories are real and deserve to be heard. We are NOT "All lives matter". We are NOT, as you imply, abusers getting our just desserts. We are NOT overstating abuse, if anything we fail to recognise it when it happens. If we discredit your ideas and careers by existing, then that's tough. We are NOT here to disappear for you and your careers' convenience.
We are NOT going away, get used to it.
Sincerely,
The Invisible Man
No comments:
Post a Comment