Understanding that, I feel, is the definition of emotional intelligence. Its also a good indicator of healthy self esteem and self confidence. Great insight. Its amazing if you go down every contentious issue in politics or life you'll find highly educated and intelligent people on both sides of the fence (and some riding that said fence). I'm always humbled and encouraged when someone who I respect disagrees with me and I certainly don't feel the need to take every disagreement as an opportunity to feel smarter or better than someone.
That's not the definition of emotional intelligence.
Emotional Intelligence (EI), often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ), describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups.
That means. I feel, but I recognize that those feelings do not convey fact prema facie, but they are brought on by an external influence and obscured by my own personal biases. Therefor, I may feel cheated by a friend, but that does not mean that in reality I was cheated or that was the intention of my friend.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Understanding that, I feel, is the definition of emotional intelligence. Its also a good indicator of healthy self esteem and self confidence. Great insight. Its amazing if you go down every contentious issue in politics or life you'll find highly educated and intelligent people on both sides of the fence (and some riding that said fence). I'm always humbled and encouraged when someone who I respect disagrees with me and I certainly don't feel the need to take every disagreement as an opportunity to feel smarter or better than someone.
I always find it a personal challenge when I come up against a difference of opinion. Because there's so much to learn from trying to see it from the other person's perspective. I see it a lot like you've said. And I've always wondered about how I could mostly agree with someone, completely enjoy their company but just not see eye to eye about a particular issue. I wonder at the commanilities and then when the differences come up they're really food for thought. Because it helps you to examine yourself and your motivations and your perspective and see if you need to make changes in your own thinking. Or even just recognize that maybe your own thinking isn't up to par but you're not sure if you can change it. Even the simpliest of people and their views have provided food for thought for me. I think we can always learn things from each other. Just like I just did from you. Thank you.
Um, didn't John Wayne Gacy have the sexual identity issues? Wasn't he the guy who used to like doing traditionally female chores and his dad ridiculed him for it. He was married to a woman but raped and murdered several boys and stored their dead bodies in the basement. Then when he was caught he kept saying "I'm not gay". I'm pretty sure that was the guy, yup.
So... how does this relate to violence against women? Gacy murdered 33 boys and young men, no women.
weren't you speaking of Dahlmer that only killed boys and young men? Gacy may have had sexual identity issues, that's not to say that he didn't kill those boys and young men out of lust as well. psychopathic behavior isn't so black and white as it say that his motives was all out issues of sexual identity or all out of lust.
this doesn't relate to violence against women....it would seem that topic went off the rails aways back. anyway I'm not going to comment anymore on this thread unless it's to address the original topic
weren't you speaking of Dahlmer that only killed boys and young men? Gacy may have had sexual identity issues, that's not to say that he didn't kill those boys and young men out of lust as well. psychopathic behavior isn't so black and white as it say that his motives was all out issues of sexual identity or all out of lust.
this doesn't relate to violence against women....it would seem that topic went off the rails aways back. anyway I'm not going to comment anymore on this thread unless it's to address the original topic
Cate was saying that insanity is a motivation for violence against women. She used Dahmer as an example, but Dahmer murdered boys, then you came in with Gacy, who also murdered boys. Bundy would have been a better example, but I'm glad these other two came out, because they are examples of the exact same violence against men. I don't think insanity cares what gender you are. But the point I was trying to make is that these cases are so rare that you might as well be talking about motor vehicle accidents, since they are more threatening.
Now, why aren't I afraid of Clowns? Why am I not afraid to leave my house? I have the threat of insane men deciding I have a delicious ass that would look great on the barbecue. In addition, I might be struck by lightning or some scaffolding might fall on me from a nearby construction site. Why don't I fear these things? Better yet, why do women fear the insane man, but not the scaffolding?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Okay. Sorry Caterina for my part in derailing your thread.
I just wanted to let you know I signed the petition and I've sent the link to everyone in my address book.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Ok... so what is UNIFEM going to do about it? They are going to petition the governments. Great!. What are the governments going to do about it? Fascistically impose your beliefs on another country through sanctions or military action? I'll bet you, more people will die from those sanctions than from being beaten by a partner. Maybe G Dubya will wavie his finger at Ahmenidinejad and say "You naughty person you!"
Anyone would have my support if they offered a clear and concise game plan with a realistic projection of the results. I personally can't see how any good might come from these petitions, other than a good measure of how many people care enough. I do care, but I'm not gonna blindly lend my support to a totally useless program. Especially, what if the governments do impose sanctions then people die from starvation or lack of medical care. Or Dubya says "fuck it" and invades Iran killing 300,000 women in the process. Meanwhile Iranian women are running at US tanks with bombs on their chest yelling "allah akbar!"
Anyway, maybe I am too cynical, but what is the game plan besides just petitioning the governments to do something, do what?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok... so what is UNIFEM going to do about it? They are going to petition the governments. Great!. What are the governments going to do about it? Fascistically impose your beliefs on another country through sanctions or military action? I'll bet you, more people will die from those sanctions than from being beaten by a partner. Maybe G Dubya will wavie his finger at Ahmenidinejad and say "You naughty person you!"
Anyone would have my support if they offered a clear and concise game plan with a realistic projection of the results. I personally can't see how any good might come from these petitions, other than a good measure of how many people care enough. I do care, but I'm not gonna blindly lend my support to a totally useless program. Especially, what if the governments do impose sanctions then people die from starvation or lack of medical care. Or Dubya says "fuck it" and invades Iran killing 300,000 women in the process. Meanwhile Iranian women are running at US tanks with bombs on their chest yelling "allah akbar!"
Anyway, maybe I am too cynical, but what is the game plan besides just petitioning the governments to do something, do what?
Did you go to the site Ryan?
All things start small you know. That's why I reckon if you want to get the ball rolling on violence against men that you start now with small things that bring awareness, so that more people can become educated on what is acceptable and what isn't. EVENTUALLY there will be a ground swell of awareness and people will come to the table with realistic ideas about how to fix the problem. It's no different to anything else. Things start as small ideas held by one person, they share it with another and add their own perspective and pretty soon changes start to occur. Just think of this petition and the setting up of Unifem as one of the first baby steps. Acknowledgement of the problem. From there we move forward one step at a time until hopefully violence against ANYONE is a thing of the past.
Did you go to the site Ryan?
All things start small you know. That's why I reckon if you want to get the ball rolling on violence against men that you start now with small things that bring awareness, so that more people can become educated on what is acceptable and what isn't. EVENTUALLY there will be a ground swell of awareness and people will come to the table with realistic ideas about how to fix the problem. It's no different to anything else. Things start as small ideas held by one person, they share it with another and add their own perspective and pretty soon changes start to occur. Just think of this petition and the setting up of Unifem as one of the first baby steps. Acknowledgement of the problem. From there we move forward one step at a time until hopefully violence against ANYONE is a thing of the past.
What if I think UNIFEM is a problem?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea, let's talk about the chances of being struck by lightning. Is that a reason to stay inside your entire life?
You are using a extreme cases, very rare cases, in a general way. If you don't fear being struck by lightning when you leave your home, you shouldn't fear being raped and murdered by a psychopath, because they are just as rare.
well as difficult as this may be to believe ryan, i don't intimidate easily.
so no i dont fear being raped and murdered when i step out my front door.
just cause i have no concerns for my own welfare doesnt mean i cant understand other's concerns for theirs. or admit that sometimes such things happen. and im sure i never mentioned the prevalency of men capable of such things.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well as difficult as this may be to believe ryan, i don't intimidate easily.
so no i dont fear being raped and murdered when i step out my front door.
just cause i have no concerns for my own welfare doesnt mean i cant understand other's concerns for theirs. or admit that sometimes such things happen. and im sure i never mentioned the prevalency of men capable of such things.
Whatever, I'm going to watch the agenda for an hour or so. This should be good it's on Palestine-Israel.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Cate was saying that insanity is a motivation for violence against women. She used Dahmer as an example, but Dahmer murdered boys, then you came in with Gacy, who also murdered boys. Bundy would have been a better example, but I'm glad these other two came out, because they are examples of the exact same violence against men. I don't think insanity cares what gender you are. But the point I was trying to make is that these cases are so rare that you might as well be talking about motor vehicle accidents, since they are more threatening.
Now, why aren't I afraid of Clowns? Why am I not afraid to leave my house? I have the threat of insane men deciding I have a delicious ass that would look great on the barbecue. In addition, I might be struck by lightning or some scaffolding might fall on me from a nearby construction site. Why don't I fear these things? Better yet, why do women fear the insane man, but not the scaffolding?
no ryan. i wasnt saying insanity is a motivation for violence against women.
i explained this to you. i only used the example of dahmer to illustrate my disagreement with your statement about people not hiding their true selves in order to take advantage of someone else. besides insanity isnt a motivation for anything. dahmer's motivation was, amongst other things, to have someone he could love and who could love him. the fact that he could be classed by some as insane is what enables him to carry out his plan. but i think by itself insanity is not a motivation.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
don't believe me? all you gotta do is catch an occasional episode of cops. they DO get arrested and charged though the charges usually DO get dropped.
also:
One of the effects of stricter laws and policies directing police to treat domestic violence as serious violent crime has been skyrocketing arrest rates of women for domestic violence. In some police departments the percentage of domestic violence arrests of females has shot up to 30 to 40 percent of the arrests. What's most revealing about this massive shift toward arresting more females is the fact that conviction rates for males vs. females remains basically unchanged. Between 90 and 95 percent of domestic violence convictions continue to be convictions of males. Or looking at it from another angle, a study in San Diego found that in cases in which females were arrested for domestic violence, only 6% of those cases resulted in prosecution.
What these and many other studies strongly suggest is that the evidence in most female arrests is so flimsy or non-existent that prosecutors can't justify filing charges, or even if the prosecutor does file, the evidence doesn't stand up in court and the case is quickly dismissed. Clearly, in a significant number of these cases, the officers are mistakenly arresting the victim of domestic violence and not the perpetrator. This is also the conclusion that we and many other victim advocates around the country have come to in dealing with these cases on a day by day basis. All too often, when women are arrested for domestic violence you're dealing with a victim who has been mistakenly designated as a perpetrator.
Women's advocates around the country feel the skyrocketing arrests of females for domestic violence stems from a combination of causes. In some cases outright officer hostility against women, or officer resentment of having to treat domestic violence as serious crime, motivates the arrest. In other cases officers are failing to properly determine the dominant aggressor. In a common variation of this problem, the officer fails to correctly identify defensive wounds and as a result they are arresting women who defend themselves, especially those women who defend themselves successfully. And in another whole set of cases, there are indications that domestic violence perpetrators themselves have gotten increasingly sophisticated at turning the law on women by doing such things as calling 911 themselves or by purposely injuring themselves before police arrive.
To be sure, there are cases in which the arrest of a female for domestic violence is a legitimate arrest. But the observations of victim advocates and studies around the country indicate that in a high proportion of female arrests, it is a domestic violence victim who has been mistakenly arrested.
no, what this says to me is cops have orders not to just take someone's word for anything. you both get hauled off to jail. this is a good way to ward off false accusations. you put both people in jail, let them cool off safe from each other, get the story, and then release the innocent party. simple enough.
no, what this says to me is cops have orders not to just take someone's word for anything. you both get hauled off to jail. this is a good way to ward off false accusations. you put both people in jail, let them cool off safe from each other, get the story, and then release the innocent party. simple enough.
Can you see why many people never ring the police?
Can you see why many people never ring the police?
There is an interesting paper on that too at dvmen.org
I also found this amusing.
The feminism is a secular religion with its own high priestesses, dogmas, and initiation rituals. Its creation myth holds that on the first day Goddess created Eve, and all was right with the world. But that idyllic state was shattered when first patriarch Adam stumbled into the Garden, pounded on the table, and demanded his apple.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
There is an interesting paper on that too at dvmen.org
I also found this amusing.
The feminism is a secular religion with its own high priestesses, dogmas, and initiation rituals. Its creation myth holds that on the first day Goddess created Eve, and all was right with the world. But that idyllic state was shattered when first patriarch Adam stumbled into the Garden, pounded on the table, and demanded his apple.
I'll check it out.
And haha! This is why I don't play team sports! Too much time spent with any one group or ideology is not healthy.
no. if you're innocent you'll get nothing but a total police escort until your attacker can be booked and charged.
maybe the neighbor should just come over and shoot them both just in case someone might have committed murder?
Seriously do you ever let anything go? :rolleyes:
Anyway, regardless, I'd not ring the police unless I absolutely had to because after having the shit kicked out of me who'd want to subject themselves to having to convince police of your guilt or innocence? Just like I couldn't be bothered prolonging my misery by getting the courts or police involved in the first place. Be like being attacked twice. Fuck that.
no. if you're innocent you'll get nothing but a total police escort until your attacker can be booked and charged.
maybe the neighbor should just come over and shoot them both just in case someone might have committed murder?
That's not how it is here. And research in the US has shown that the law about DV actually causes more harm to the victims. Somehow, I think you are making shit up.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
no, what this says to me is cops have orders not to just take someone's word for anything. you both get hauled off to jail. this is a good way to ward off false accusations. you put both people in jail, let them cool off safe from each other, get the story, and then release the innocent party. simple enough.
a total police escort to jail? the police aren't going to escort a DV victim any place else. plus if the police arrest her she sits in jail until it goes before a judge and charges are dropped or continued. and while that's all going on any kids in the home get a total escort into children's protective custody.
so yeah instead of deciding who's the initial primary aggressor and arresting that person lets make DV even more tramatic for all the parties involved including any kids.
Let's see: she has a black eye, has numerous bruises and abrasions all over, and perhaps a couple of cracked ribs. he has a red mark on his skin from where she tried to push him away and the back of his hand is kinda swollen and red from throwing punches. yeah lets just go ahead and throw both of these violent pieces of shit in jail. because it's easier on the cops that way
a total police escort to jail? the police aren't going to escort a DV victim any place else. plus if the police arrest her she sits in jail until it goes before a judge and charges are dropped or continued. and while that's all going on any kids in the home get a total escort into children's protective custody.
so yeah instead of deciding who's the initial primary aggressor and arresting that person lets make DV even more tramatic for all the parties involved including any kids.
Let's see: she has a black eye, has numerous bruises and abrasions all over, and perhaps a couple of cracked ribs. he has a red mark on his skin from where she tried to push him away and the back of his hand is kinda swollen and red from throwing punches. yeah lets just go ahead and throw both of these violent pieces of shit in jail. because it's easier on the cops that way
Ah the old women and children card.
I don't really see a better way of involving police in domestic violence. To be honest, I think the best method I know of is a complete separation of all parties effective immediately. Then it should be handled like any other assault case. Hard evidence must be used to convict someone, not just allegory and stereotypes. People are quick to accuse and convict, and not so quick to require proof. You could try to use generalities as an argument for a more biased approach. However, generalities are delicate and no evidence supports them. I'd rather not see police involvement. I think domestic violence should be approached from an awareness perspective.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't really see a better way of involving police in domestic violence. To be honest, I think the best method I know of is a complete separation of all parties effective immediately. Then it should be handled like any other assault case. Hard evidence must be used to convict someone, not just allegory and stereotypes. People are quick to accuse and convict, and not so quick to require proof. You could try to use generalities as an argument for a more biased approach. However, generalities are delicate and no evidence supports them. I'd rather not see police involvement. I think domestic violence should be approached from an awareness perspective.
and if the aggressor goes to jail and the victim (and any kids in the home) to a DV shelter how are they not seperated? why should the person that was attacked go to jail also?
proof is needed to convict someone in court. unless the accused pleads guilty that's how it goes. a prosecuetor isn't even going to take a case to court without any proof.
as if someone that attacks another person is going to give a shit to approach it from an awareness perspective.
and if the aggressor goes to jail and the victim (and any kids in the home) to a DV shelter how are they not seperated? why should the person that was attacked go to jail also?
proof is needed to convict someone in court. unless the accused pleads guilty that's how it goes. a prosecuetor isn't even going to take a case to court without any proof.
as if someone that attacks another person is going to give a shit to approach it from an awareness perspective.
How do the police know who was attacked? How do they know anything? It really depends on the situation. Who is reporting it? If police respond to report from a neighbour, then they shouldn't have any assumptions about the situation. They shouldn't be thinking "...some guy, beating his wife, kids are scared... traumatized.". They are likely to show up arrest the guy and leave. Meanwhile he's got serious injuries, stab wounds. Who knows? Other people are prone to bruising and others injure themselves. Police shouldn't have any assumptions at all about a situation.
On the other hand, if you mean a complete case against someone, then that's completely different. That should require good evidence. In that case you detain the person who is being charged with assault. I have no idea why they charged my friend for defending himself. His wife admitted to being the offender. Some how my friend was perfectly fine with it. The whole thing was biased against him as a man and he didn't seem to care. I care, but that's a different story.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Then cut out the rhetoric and actually debate like a mature adult. Or I mean, like someone who is capable of a debate. You know, with logical arguments and physical evidence. The statscan link I posted has all the details right down to the correlation coefficient, which is a hugely important value of any statistical study. All I saw from you was opinionated statements from bias individuals.
Did you read your own linked report? Apparently noone else here did either, because the following is directly quoted from the summary of your linked report:
• Women were more likely than men to report what could be considered more severe forms of violence. Women were
more than twice as likely as men to report being beaten, five times more likely to report being choked, and almost
twice as likely to report being threatened by or having a gun or knife used against them. Men were more likely than
women to report being slapped (57% versus 40%), having something thrown at them (56% versus 44%) and being
kicked, bit or hit (51% versus 33%).
• Women were also more likely than men to report repeated victimizations. Sixty-five percent of women who were
assaulted by a partner were victimized on more than one occasion, 26% more than 10 times. By comparison, 54%
of men who experienced marital violence were the targets in more than one incident and 13% said it happened more
than 10 times.
• Women were more likely than men to be injured by spousal violence. Women were three times more likely than men
to be injured by spousal violence and five times more likely to require medical attention.
• During the 5-year period almost one-quarter (24%) of spousal violence victims feared their lives were in danger. This
fear was much more prevalent among women than men: 38% of women compared to 7% of men feared for their lives
because of the violence.
• Women were more likely than men to report negative emotional consequences as a result of the spousal violence.
Twenty-two percent of men who reported spousal violence in the past 5 years reported that the violence did not have
much impact on them compared to only 5% of women. Meanwhile, women were much more likely than men to
report being fearful for themselves and their children, and to have depression or anxiety attacks, sleeping problems
and lowered self-esteem.
What you do is to take one single stat out of context to make the opposite point than what is the finding in the report based on numerous stats. That's skewing the results based on your own agenda, and not in any way scientific. Even if you know words like correlation coefficient.
The report, apart from the one stat you posted, gives the opposite result. What's your defence there?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Did you read your own linked report? Apparently noone else here did either, because the following is directly quoted from the summary of your linked report:
What you do is to take one single stat out of context to make the opposite point than what is the finding in the report based on numerous stats. That's skewing the results based on your own agenda, and not in any way scientific. Even if you know words like correlation coefficient.
The report, apart from the one stat you posted, gives the opposite result. What's your defence there?
Peace
Dan
These stats you posted are referring to reports. The number of reports does not convey number of incidences. Neither does this element debase the fundamental point that a biased system is erroneous. The point is to cast doubt on the usefulness of generalizations and the efficacy of drawing conclusions from correlations. A .33 is not that great? We don't even know what 95% of them are. Men and Women are both the victims of domestic violence. Children and Adults. Domestic Violence doesn't seem to imply a child battering his dad. But I can certainly recall a few incidences of it. Why is it such an offense to ask that domestic violence be approached differently? Why have UNIFEM? Why have this stereotypical view of domestic violence? Are there not sociological implications to this? Does a husband and father dare leave his wife with the threat of losing his kids? Because in his mind he will lose them and from what I've seen probably will. There is no evidence supporting the folk theory that women are better parents is true either. That same evidence can be rendered totally useless by serious philosophical debate anyway. Factor into those stats the stats I posted. Women reported more, that was already covered in my statistic. Men reported less and were less likely report. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. My stat says it did happen, they just didn't report it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sorry to break it all up like that, but there were so many different issues and statements being adressed in so small a space, I divide it up in order to adress them individually and throughly.
These stats you posted are referring to reports. The number of reports does not convey number of incidences.
Obviously, as it's pretty hard having facts about things that are not reported in any way... Unreported = unknown.
But my quotes are from the highlights of the same study. When you use the legitimacy of the entire study to support your cherry-picking of numbers you are making an error.
Neither does this element debase the fundamental point that a biased system is erroneous. The point is to cast doubt on the usefulness of generalizations and the efficacy of drawing conclusions from correlations. A .33 is not that great?
A biased system will on the whole be erronous, yes. When using statisitics, to generalize ius precisely the point and the goal. So by referring stats, you are already generalizing yourself. Science on the whole = generalization, you know. A finding in a limited study/experiment is sought to be made applicable to the universe/population as a whole. A correlation of .33 can be considered quite a bit depending on circumstances and context. Where did you pull that number btw? If that was the correlation between violence and sexes, then if 33% of variation in violence is explained solely by sex, well, that's a lot!
(edit) I see where you got it from. What a correlation of .33 means there, is that the effect of gender alone, before you consider any other variables, accounts for 33% of the variation of choking, weapons and sexual assault. That is a lot of explanatory power in this context. (I would like to see a regression analysis with more variables too, ideally, to check whether other variables explain it better)
We don't even know what 95% of them are.
Are you referring to confidence intervals?
Men and Women are both the victims of domestic violence. Children and Adults. Domestic Violence doesn't seem to imply a child battering his dad. But I can certainly recall a few incidences of it.
I dont think anyone is saying that violence is always man against a woman. What many are saying is that women are disproportionally the victims, even in a country like Canada which is considered pretty equal. Look back on my quotes. If you view severity as well as incidence, I think you see the discrepancy just as well as I. The reasons for discrepancy is up for debate ofcourse.
Why is it such an offense to ask that domestic violence be approached differently? Why have UNIFEM? Why have this stereotypical view of domestic violence?
No, it's not. But delivery, Ahnimus, delivery is the main reason you get flaked again. UNIFEM highlights it, becuase if you view it globally, women are to a much larger degree the victims of violence targetted at them for being women, and being placed so low in hierarcies many many places. Look at the rape-victim in Saudi Arabia for instance. That the problems are smaller in Canada, US, parts of Europe, certainly. But as your Canadian data shows, also here there are significant discrepancies.
The focus is not on violence targetting women per se, but violence targetting women for not much more reason than being a woman. This could be because of machismo or discrimination in regards to rights. There is also violence being done almost exclusively to women (like rape).
Are there not sociological implications to this?
Of course, many.
Does a husband and father dare leave his wife with the threat of losing his kids? Because in his mind he will lose them and from what I've seen probably will.
I dont see the relevance.
There is no evidence supporting the folk theory that women are better parents is true either.
Sure, but relevance? Just because something is generally thought, doesnt make it always wrong, even if it sometimes is.
That same evidence can be rendered totally useless by serious philosophical debate anyway. Factor into those stats the stats I posted. Women reported more, that was already covered in my statistic. Men reported less and were less likely report. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. My stat says it did happen, they just didn't report it.
But that is pure speculation and "what if". Maybe men doesnt report, because they generally are affected less physically and even mentally than women are. More women report because they're beaten the shit out of, while men dont report a slap. But this will be speculation and hearsay. You can't assume a reason about lack of reports, and expect it to be accepted just like that. You have no backing for that save gut feeling, anecdotal evidence and conventional wisdom and logic.
Point is the survey pretty conclusively show that women get abused harder and more often. Twice as many women (26%) as men (13%) reported "more than 10 times". And that is percentage of the sexes, so lower reporting by males doesnt figure into it. Many more women reported beating/choking/weapon, while males were more in danger of being slapped and thrown things at. And women used a bit more emotional abuse.
Women DO get more of this, even in countries that are suppsoedly free and equal. Why they do so is the question. Perhaps residual machismo from patriarchy? Men are by nature more agressive? Who knows? The numbers are as presented here. You can not invalidate them through speculation about what is not reported.
And finally, why do you have to shit on people focusing on a particular situation with violence? Would you shit on people arguing for action in Israel to end the atrocities on the grounds that people are hurting in Sudan, India, Iran etc too?
(edit) Just to be crystal clear, women have the potential and ability to be just as violent and crazy as men. The point is that in general, they arent, and that in general men are more prone to commit acts of violence, or at the very least use more severe violence against women.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Sorry to break it all up like that, but there were so many different issues and statements being adressed in so small a space, I divide it up in order to adress them individually and throughly.
Obviously, as it's pretty hard having facts about things that are not reported in any way... Unreported = unknown.
But my quotes are from the highlights of the same study. When you use the legitimacy of the entire study to support your cherry-picking of numbers you are making an error.
A biased system will on the whole be erronous, yes. When using statisitics, to generalize ius precisely the point and the goal. So by referring stats, you are already generalizing yourself. Science on the whole = generalization, you know. A finding in a limited study/experiment is sought to be made applicable to the universe/population as a whole. A correlation of .33 can be considered quite a bit depending on circumstances and context. Where did you pull that number btw? If that was the correlation between violence and sexes, then if 33% of variation in violence is explained solely by sex, well, that's a lot!
Are you referring to confidence intervals?
I dont think anyone is saying that violence is always man against a woman. What many are saying is that women are disproportionally the victims, even in a country like Canada which is considered pretty equal. Look back on my quotes. If you view severity as well as incidence, I think you see the discrepancy just as well as I. The reasons for discrepancy is up for debate ofcourse.
No, it's not. But delivery, Ahnimus, delivery is the main reason you get flaked again. UNIFEM highlights it, becuase if you view it globally, women are to a much larger degree the victims of violence targetted at them for being women, and being placed so low in hierarcies many many places. Look at the rape-victim in Saudi Arabia for instance. That the problems are smaller in Canada, US, parts of Europe, certainly. But as your Canadian data shows, also here there are significant discrepancies.
The focus is not on violence targetting women per se, but violence targetting women for not much more reason than being a woman. This could be because of machismo or discrimination in regards to rights. There is also violence being done almost exclusively to women (like rape).
Of course, many.
I dont see the relevance.
Sure, but relevance? Just because something is generally thought, doesnt make it always wrong, even if it sometimes is.
But that is pure speculation and "what if". Maybe men doesnt report, because they generally are affected less physically and even mentally than women are. More women report because they're beaten the shit out of, while men dont report a slap. But this will be speculation and hearsay. You can't assume a reason about lack of reports, and expect it to be accepted just like that. You have no backing for that save gut feeling, anecdotal evidence and conventional wisdom and logic.
Point is the survey pretty conclusively show that women get abused harder and more often. Twice as many women (26%) as men (13%) reported "more than 10 times". And that is percentage of the sexes, so lower reporting by males doesnt figure into it. Many more women reported beating/choking/weapon, while males were more in danger of being slapped and thrown things at. And women used a bit more emotional abuse.
Women DO get more of this, even in countries that are suppsoedly free and equal. Why they do so is the question. Perhaps residual machismo from patriarchy? Men are by nature more agressive? Who knows? The numbers are as presented here. You can not invalidate them through speculation about what is not reported.
And finally, why do you have to shit on people focusing on a particular situation with violence? Would you shit on people arguing for action in Israel to end the atrocities on the grounds that people are hurting in Sudan, India, Iran etc too?
(edit) Just to be crystal clear, women have the potential and ability to be just as violent and crazy as men. The point is that in general, they arent, and that in general men are more prone to commit acts of violence, or at the very least use more severe violence against women.
Peace
Dan
Hi there Dan
I started the thread, but then I had to travel abroad for work (I'm still away), so I couldn't answer some of the posts.
Thanks por providing a sensible answer; I would have posted pretty much the same .
Anhimus, about UNIFEM: this is not a bogus organization with an obscure organization. If UNIFEM exists it is because indeed women are victims of specific crimes more often than men; and this situation is compounded in developing countries. Take a look at Mexico's statistics for instance, you'll find very scary stories. And about Muslim countries, what UNIFEM encourages is respect for Human Rights. See the UN is all for multiculturalism and respecting differences, but multiculturalism has a limit and that's Human Rights, which are universal and acknowledged by all of the countries that are part of the UN.
Furthermore, UNIFEM also promotes women's rights to make decisions about their bodies, i.e. reproductive rights (which, "surprinsingly" don't exist everywhere). For example, in some indigenous communities of the Andes, women cannot decide for themselves whether to take the pill; it has to be decided by all community members. So, UNIFEM and similar organizations, try to bring awareness about the importance of birth-control and women's right to choose for themselves.
Anhimus, about statistics: you need you to do your homework, the correlation coefficient has to be assessed with other indicators, estimators and taking into account the number of independent variables, for starters. Also, the correlation belongs to a cohort study, a time series study or a cross-section study? Are there any dummy variables in the model? What kind of model are you using? Logit, Probit, Multi-lineal, Fixed Effects?... I coud go on, since I really had to study this for over three years to get my degree, but gotta go...
Wow, neither Dan nor CaterinA read anything. Congratulations for basing your entire posts on received wisdom.
Look at the stats again, lesbian couples are more likely to report domestic violence than heterosexual or gay couples.
Yet, the ads these organizations like UNIFEM run depict a stereotypical DV case and often leave out statistics. "4 women a day are murdered by the husbands that said they loved them." that is the stat often quoted, it doesn't say "2 men are murdered every day by the wives who said they loved them."
Now you are talking about severity, ok, so twice as many women are killed, I guess the men don't matter then. It's better to make men out to be the bad guys than address the whole issue unbiasedly.
The research shows that women are more territorial in the household and more likely to be violent at home. Men are more likely to be violent in public. Women are more likely to plan their revenge. By cutting off their husbands penis while he is asleep for example.
A new Statistics Canada study on family violence suggest an alarming, and perhaps surprising, trend is on the rise. More women than ever before are attacking their domestic partners.
According to the 2003 edition of Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, Statistics Canada says more women killed, hurt or threatened their partners in 2001 than in years before.
From 1995 to 2001, the rate of incidents of spousal violence reported by police increased -- for both men and women. In 2001, there were 344 incidents for every 100,000 women aged 15 and older, an increase from 302 in 1995.
For men, there were 62 incidents for every 100,000 -- up 40 per cent from the 37 cases in the report's first edition six years ago.
In the report, spousal violence is defined as cases of murder, attempted murder, sexual and physical assault, threats, criminal harassment and other violent offences in which the accused attacker is a spouse, ex-spouse or common-law partner of the victim.
For some abused men -- shut out of federal funding that has, so far, only been offered to groups helping abused women and children -- the report's findings suggest a need for services geared to male abuse victims and their children.
Earl Silverman has created the Men's Line Support group in Calgary -- only the second shelter for abused men in Canada. There are currently 508 women's shelters across Canada.
Himself an abused spouse, Silverman knew what it was like to be assaulted by a woman and not be taken seriously about it.
"I got hurt, she hit me and no one believed me," Silverman said, explaining why he was compelled to spend his life savings on the project.
While Statistics Canada says 6 out of 10,000 men in Canada report incidents when their partner has tried to kill or injure them, family violence specialist Dr. Reena Sommer believes there is a lot more abuse that goes unreported.
Because men are usually bigger more powerful, it's often embarrassing for most men to concede weakness and report abuse, Sommer told CTV. "I think that there is a lot of shame."
But abuse happens to men for the same reasons it happens to women.
"It's a relationship dynamic," Sommer said, explaining the cycle of abuse stemming from an inability to cope with an emotional trauma from the past.
"I recall I did an interview once and it was a call-in show. The individual says ' I'm six-foot-two, I'm a police officer and my wife beats me.' "
Rates of spousal violence by a current or previous partner in the 5 year period were 7% for women and 6% for men,
representing an estimated 653,000 women and 546,000 men. While there was no statistically signifi cant change in the
level of spousal violence against men since 1999 (7% versus 6%), there was a small but statistically signifi cant decline
for women during this period (8% versus 7%).
Then there is this tidbit
Aboriginal people were three times more likely to be victims of spousal violence than were those who were non-Aboriginal
(21% versus 7%).
Perhaps we should follow the trend and restrict our concern to Violence against Aboriginal Women?
Oh and this
While the rate of spousal violence among those who are gay or lesbian was twice the rate of reported violence experienced
by those who are heterosexual (15% versus 7%), the survey found that those who indicated that their sexual orientation
is gay or lesbian were more likely not to have a current partner (40% versus 16%) than those who are heterosexual.
So, let's focus on Violence against Lesbian Aboriginal Women?
Common-law spouses and those separated from a spouse were overrepresented as victims of spousal homicide
relative to their population in Canada. A larger proportion of separated women were killed by a spouse compared to
separated men (26% compared to 11%) while a larger proportion of males (54%) were killed by their common-law
partner compared to females (35%).
Among all those who indicated that they were injured,
bruises (92%) and cuts (40%) were the most frequently
self-reported injuries for both women and men (Figure 1.4).
While women were more likely to say that they had been
bruised than men (96% versus 82%), men were more
likely to have been cut (56% versus 35%). These results
are consistent with police-reported data that reveal that
women in cases of spousal violence are more likely to
rely on weapons than men, while men are more likely
to use physical force against their spouse (Brzozowski,
2004).[/quote]
So men are more likely to bruise, their wives, and women are more likely to cut their husbands with a knife. Just as I said. Let's look at the actual numbers instead of this word "More"
From figure 1.4 pg 17
Bruises involved in 92% of cases
96% of females reported bruises
82% of males reported bruises
Cuts involved in 40%
45% of females reported cuts
56% of men reported cuts
Ok, so how does 14% more bruises equate to "more" while men are cut 11% "more"?
See, I think it's ridiculous to even get to this point. It shouldn't even be a battle of statistics. We should all just dislike violence, period. And abuse centers should be egalitarian not "Women and Children". The people and the government need to step up to the plate and quite playing this stupid numbers game anyway.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Earl Silverman has created the Men's Line Support group in Calgary -- only the second shelter for abused men in Canada. There are currently 508 women's shelters across Canada.
Well if that isn't totally disproportionate I don't know what is.
Even if twice as many women are abused as men, there are 254 times as many shelters available for them. The men's abuse shelters are independently funded, not government funded.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Interestingly over 2,500 kids were reported to have abused one of their parents.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
That's not the definition of emotional intelligence.
Emotional Intelligence (EI), often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ), describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups.
That means. I feel, but I recognize that those feelings do not convey fact prema facie, but they are brought on by an external influence and obscured by my own personal biases. Therefor, I may feel cheated by a friend, but that does not mean that in reality I was cheated or that was the intention of my friend.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
weren't you speaking of Dahlmer that only killed boys and young men? Gacy may have had sexual identity issues, that's not to say that he didn't kill those boys and young men out of lust as well. psychopathic behavior isn't so black and white as it say that his motives was all out issues of sexual identity or all out of lust.
this doesn't relate to violence against women....it would seem that topic went off the rails aways back. anyway I'm not going to comment anymore on this thread unless it's to address the original topic
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Cate was saying that insanity is a motivation for violence against women. She used Dahmer as an example, but Dahmer murdered boys, then you came in with Gacy, who also murdered boys. Bundy would have been a better example, but I'm glad these other two came out, because they are examples of the exact same violence against men. I don't think insanity cares what gender you are. But the point I was trying to make is that these cases are so rare that you might as well be talking about motor vehicle accidents, since they are more threatening.
Now, why aren't I afraid of Clowns? Why am I not afraid to leave my house? I have the threat of insane men deciding I have a delicious ass that would look great on the barbecue. In addition, I might be struck by lightning or some scaffolding might fall on me from a nearby construction site. Why don't I fear these things? Better yet, why do women fear the insane man, but not the scaffolding?
I just wanted to let you know I signed the petition and I've sent the link to everyone in my address book.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Anyone would have my support if they offered a clear and concise game plan with a realistic projection of the results. I personally can't see how any good might come from these petitions, other than a good measure of how many people care enough. I do care, but I'm not gonna blindly lend my support to a totally useless program. Especially, what if the governments do impose sanctions then people die from starvation or lack of medical care. Or Dubya says "fuck it" and invades Iran killing 300,000 women in the process. Meanwhile Iranian women are running at US tanks with bombs on their chest yelling "allah akbar!"
Anyway, maybe I am too cynical, but what is the game plan besides just petitioning the governments to do something, do what?
Did you go to the site Ryan?
All things start small you know. That's why I reckon if you want to get the ball rolling on violence against men that you start now with small things that bring awareness, so that more people can become educated on what is acceptable and what isn't. EVENTUALLY there will be a ground swell of awareness and people will come to the table with realistic ideas about how to fix the problem. It's no different to anything else. Things start as small ideas held by one person, they share it with another and add their own perspective and pretty soon changes start to occur. Just think of this petition and the setting up of Unifem as one of the first baby steps. Acknowledgement of the problem. From there we move forward one step at a time until hopefully violence against ANYONE is a thing of the past.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
What if I think UNIFEM is a problem?
well as difficult as this may be to believe ryan, i don't intimidate easily.
so no i dont fear being raped and murdered when i step out my front door.
just cause i have no concerns for my own welfare doesnt mean i cant understand other's concerns for theirs. or admit that sometimes such things happen. and im sure i never mentioned the prevalency of men capable of such things.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Whatever, I'm going to watch the agenda for an hour or so. This should be good it's on Palestine-Israel.
i explained this to you. i only used the example of dahmer to illustrate my disagreement with your statement about people not hiding their true selves in order to take advantage of someone else. besides insanity isnt a motivation for anything. dahmer's motivation was, amongst other things, to have someone he could love and who could love him. the fact that he could be classed by some as insane is what enables him to carry out his plan. but i think by itself insanity is not a motivation.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well I'm not convinced they're the Messiah either but until they prove otherwise I feel I should support the initiative.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
no, what this says to me is cops have orders not to just take someone's word for anything. you both get hauled off to jail. this is a good way to ward off false accusations. you put both people in jail, let them cool off safe from each other, get the story, and then release the innocent party. simple enough.
Can you see why many people never ring the police?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
There is an interesting paper on that too at dvmen.org
I also found this amusing.
The feminism is a secular religion with its own high priestesses, dogmas, and initiation rituals. Its creation myth holds that on the first day Goddess created Eve, and all was right with the world. But that idyllic state was shattered when first patriarch Adam stumbled into the Garden, pounded on the table, and demanded his apple.
I'll check it out.
And
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
no. if you're innocent you'll get nothing but a total police escort until your attacker can be booked and charged.
maybe the neighbor should just come over and shoot them both just in case someone might have committed murder?
Seriously do you ever let anything go? :rolleyes:
Anyway, regardless, I'd not ring the police unless I absolutely had to because after having the shit kicked out of me who'd want to subject themselves to having to convince police of your guilt or innocence? Just like I couldn't be bothered prolonging my misery by getting the courts or police involved in the first place. Be like being attacked twice. Fuck that.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
That's not how it is here. And research in the US has shown that the law about DV actually causes more harm to the victims. Somehow, I think you are making shit up.
and
a total police escort to jail? the police aren't going to escort a DV victim any place else. plus if the police arrest her she sits in jail until it goes before a judge and charges are dropped or continued. and while that's all going on any kids in the home get a total escort into children's protective custody.
so yeah instead of deciding who's the initial primary aggressor and arresting that person lets make DV even more tramatic for all the parties involved including any kids.
Let's see: she has a black eye, has numerous bruises and abrasions all over, and perhaps a couple of cracked ribs. he has a red mark on his skin from where she tried to push him away and the back of his hand is kinda swollen and red from throwing punches. yeah lets just go ahead and throw both of these violent pieces of shit in jail. because it's easier on the cops that way
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Ah the old women and children card.
I don't really see a better way of involving police in domestic violence. To be honest, I think the best method I know of is a complete separation of all parties effective immediately. Then it should be handled like any other assault case. Hard evidence must be used to convict someone, not just allegory and stereotypes. People are quick to accuse and convict, and not so quick to require proof. You could try to use generalities as an argument for a more biased approach. However, generalities are delicate and no evidence supports them. I'd rather not see police involvement. I think domestic violence should be approached from an awareness perspective.
and if the aggressor goes to jail and the victim (and any kids in the home) to a DV shelter how are they not seperated? why should the person that was attacked go to jail also?
proof is needed to convict someone in court. unless the accused pleads guilty that's how it goes. a prosecuetor isn't even going to take a case to court without any proof.
as if someone that attacks another person is going to give a shit to approach it from an awareness perspective.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
How do the police know who was attacked? How do they know anything? It really depends on the situation. Who is reporting it? If police respond to report from a neighbour, then they shouldn't have any assumptions about the situation. They shouldn't be thinking "...some guy, beating his wife, kids are scared... traumatized.". They are likely to show up arrest the guy and leave. Meanwhile he's got serious injuries, stab wounds. Who knows? Other people are prone to bruising and others injure themselves. Police shouldn't have any assumptions at all about a situation.
On the other hand, if you mean a complete case against someone, then that's completely different. That should require good evidence. In that case you detain the person who is being charged with assault. I have no idea why they charged my friend for defending himself. His wife admitted to being the offender. Some how my friend was perfectly fine with it. The whole thing was biased against him as a man and he didn't seem to care. I care, but that's a different story.
Did you read your own linked report? Apparently noone else here did either, because the following is directly quoted from the summary of your linked report:
What you do is to take one single stat out of context to make the opposite point than what is the finding in the report based on numerous stats. That's skewing the results based on your own agenda, and not in any way scientific. Even if you know words like correlation coefficient.
The report, apart from the one stat you posted, gives the opposite result. What's your defence there?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
These stats you posted are referring to reports. The number of reports does not convey number of incidences. Neither does this element debase the fundamental point that a biased system is erroneous. The point is to cast doubt on the usefulness of generalizations and the efficacy of drawing conclusions from correlations. A .33 is not that great? We don't even know what 95% of them are. Men and Women are both the victims of domestic violence. Children and Adults. Domestic Violence doesn't seem to imply a child battering his dad. But I can certainly recall a few incidences of it. Why is it such an offense to ask that domestic violence be approached differently? Why have UNIFEM? Why have this stereotypical view of domestic violence? Are there not sociological implications to this? Does a husband and father dare leave his wife with the threat of losing his kids? Because in his mind he will lose them and from what I've seen probably will. There is no evidence supporting the folk theory that women are better parents is true either. That same evidence can be rendered totally useless by serious philosophical debate anyway. Factor into those stats the stats I posted. Women reported more, that was already covered in my statistic. Men reported less and were less likely report. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. My stat says it did happen, they just didn't report it.
Obviously, as it's pretty hard having facts about things that are not reported in any way... Unreported = unknown.
But my quotes are from the highlights of the same study. When you use the legitimacy of the entire study to support your cherry-picking of numbers you are making an error.
A biased system will on the whole be erronous, yes. When using statisitics, to generalize ius precisely the point and the goal. So by referring stats, you are already generalizing yourself. Science on the whole = generalization, you know. A finding in a limited study/experiment is sought to be made applicable to the universe/population as a whole. A correlation of .33 can be considered quite a bit depending on circumstances and context. Where did you pull that number btw? If that was the correlation between violence and sexes, then if 33% of variation in violence is explained solely by sex, well, that's a lot!
(edit) I see where you got it from. What a correlation of .33 means there, is that the effect of gender alone, before you consider any other variables, accounts for 33% of the variation of choking, weapons and sexual assault. That is a lot of explanatory power in this context. (I would like to see a regression analysis with more variables too, ideally, to check whether other variables explain it better)
Are you referring to confidence intervals?
I dont think anyone is saying that violence is always man against a woman. What many are saying is that women are disproportionally the victims, even in a country like Canada which is considered pretty equal. Look back on my quotes. If you view severity as well as incidence, I think you see the discrepancy just as well as I. The reasons for discrepancy is up for debate ofcourse.
No, it's not. But delivery, Ahnimus, delivery is the main reason you get flaked again. UNIFEM highlights it, becuase if you view it globally, women are to a much larger degree the victims of violence targetted at them for being women, and being placed so low in hierarcies many many places. Look at the rape-victim in Saudi Arabia for instance. That the problems are smaller in Canada, US, parts of Europe, certainly. But as your Canadian data shows, also here there are significant discrepancies.
The focus is not on violence targetting women per se, but violence targetting women for not much more reason than being a woman. This could be because of machismo or discrimination in regards to rights. There is also violence being done almost exclusively to women (like rape).
Of course, many.
I dont see the relevance. Sure, but relevance? Just because something is generally thought, doesnt make it always wrong, even if it sometimes is. But that is pure speculation and "what if". Maybe men doesnt report, because they generally are affected less physically and even mentally than women are. More women report because they're beaten the shit out of, while men dont report a slap. But this will be speculation and hearsay. You can't assume a reason about lack of reports, and expect it to be accepted just like that. You have no backing for that save gut feeling, anecdotal evidence and conventional wisdom and logic.
Point is the survey pretty conclusively show that women get abused harder and more often. Twice as many women (26%) as men (13%) reported "more than 10 times". And that is percentage of the sexes, so lower reporting by males doesnt figure into it. Many more women reported beating/choking/weapon, while males were more in danger of being slapped and thrown things at. And women used a bit more emotional abuse.
Women DO get more of this, even in countries that are suppsoedly free and equal. Why they do so is the question. Perhaps residual machismo from patriarchy? Men are by nature more agressive? Who knows? The numbers are as presented here. You can not invalidate them through speculation about what is not reported.
And finally, why do you have to shit on people focusing on a particular situation with violence? Would you shit on people arguing for action in Israel to end the atrocities on the grounds that people are hurting in Sudan, India, Iran etc too?
(edit) Just to be crystal clear, women have the potential and ability to be just as violent and crazy as men. The point is that in general, they arent, and that in general men are more prone to commit acts of violence, or at the very least use more severe violence against women.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Hi there Dan
I started the thread, but then I had to travel abroad for work (I'm still away), so I couldn't answer some of the posts.
Thanks por providing a sensible answer; I would have posted pretty much the same
Anhimus, about UNIFEM: this is not a bogus organization with an obscure organization. If UNIFEM exists it is because indeed women are victims of specific crimes more often than men; and this situation is compounded in developing countries. Take a look at Mexico's statistics for instance, you'll find very scary stories. And about Muslim countries, what UNIFEM encourages is respect for Human Rights. See the UN is all for multiculturalism and respecting differences, but multiculturalism has a limit and that's Human Rights, which are universal and acknowledged by all of the countries that are part of the UN.
Furthermore, UNIFEM also promotes women's rights to make decisions about their bodies, i.e. reproductive rights (which, "surprinsingly" don't exist everywhere). For example, in some indigenous communities of the Andes, women cannot decide for themselves whether to take the pill; it has to be decided by all community members. So, UNIFEM and similar organizations, try to bring awareness about the importance of birth-control and women's right to choose for themselves.
Anhimus, about statistics: you need you to do your homework, the correlation coefficient has to be assessed with other indicators, estimators and taking into account the number of independent variables, for starters. Also, the correlation belongs to a cohort study, a time series study or a cross-section study? Are there any dummy variables in the model? What kind of model are you using? Logit, Probit, Multi-lineal, Fixed Effects?... I coud go on, since I really had to study this for over three years to get my degree, but gotta go...
Peace
Caterina
Look at the stats again, lesbian couples are more likely to report domestic violence than heterosexual or gay couples.
Yet, the ads these organizations like UNIFEM run depict a stereotypical DV case and often leave out statistics. "4 women a day are murdered by the husbands that said they loved them." that is the stat often quoted, it doesn't say "2 men are murdered every day by the wives who said they loved them."
Now you are talking about severity, ok, so twice as many women are killed, I guess the men don't matter then. It's better to make men out to be the bad guys than address the whole issue unbiasedly.
The research shows that women are more territorial in the household and more likely to be violent at home. Men are more likely to be violent in public. Women are more likely to plan their revenge. By cutting off their husbands penis while he is asleep for example.
From the 2005
Then there is this tidbit
Perhaps we should follow the trend and restrict our concern to Violence against Aboriginal Women?
Oh and this
So, let's focus on Violence against Lesbian Aboriginal Women?
Among all those who indicated that they were injured,
bruises (92%) and cuts (40%) were the most frequently
self-reported injuries for both women and men (Figure 1.4).
While women were more likely to say that they had been
bruised than men (96% versus 82%), men were more
likely to have been cut (56% versus 35%). These results
are consistent with police-reported data that reveal that
women in cases of spousal violence are more likely to
rely on weapons than men, while men are more likely
to use physical force against their spouse (Brzozowski,
2004).[/quote]
So men are more likely to bruise, their wives, and women are more likely to cut their husbands with a knife. Just as I said. Let's look at the actual numbers instead of this word "More"
From figure 1.4 pg 17
Bruises involved in 92% of cases
96% of females reported bruises
82% of males reported bruises
Cuts involved in 40%
45% of females reported cuts
56% of men reported cuts
Ok, so how does 14% more bruises equate to "more" while men are cut 11% "more"?
See, I think it's ridiculous to even get to this point. It shouldn't even be a battle of statistics. We should all just dislike violence, period. And abuse centers should be egalitarian not "Women and Children". The people and the government need to step up to the plate and quite playing this stupid numbers game anyway.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE2005000.pdf
Well if that isn't totally disproportionate I don't know what is.
Even if twice as many women are abused as men, there are 254 times as many shelters available for them. The men's abuse shelters are independently funded, not government funded.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE2007000.pdf
Interestingly over 2,500 kids were reported to have abused one of their parents.