This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Kinai: Personally I think that we have to make a differentation when it's related to slapstick commedy (all the tsundere examples). I found this all the day in fanfics forums where people take slapstick violence at face value. Did anyone call any animal protection society when they were watching Looney Tunes? I would like to know other opinions, because I don't want to delete half of the article without a warning.
RedBeardSean: I'm wondering when/if they will start covering the flip side of stereotypical domestic abuse, where the husband is abused by the wife, or same-sex couples abuse/are abused by their partners.
Looney Toons: I'm pretty sure I've seen this on Law And Order at least a couple of times.
MercuryinRetrograde: What I want to know is why isn't this considered a discredited trope at least when it comes to male-on-female domestic violence? Female-on-male is still perfectly acceptable but the reverse is definitely not. Perhaps the fact that this is a discredited trope when the victim is female and not when the victim is male should be included? Also, "Law And Order" may show it a few times, but not nearly as much as the reverse, plus more banal forms of violence directed towards men—slapping and smacking—are almost never portrayed as abusive. Despite the fact that they are emotional and physical aggression intended to cow, humiliate and dominate another person into behaving and thinking as you wish them to. Abuse by any other name and—considering that most people don't question women's right to employ these silencing behaviors against men—all the more sinister for being banal. o_0
Cassy: Technically, Abusive Parents is usually Domestic Abuse too. Same for female-on-male battery or, for that matter, domestic abuse in gay and lesbian couples (didn't think of this one, did you?). This trope is actually about spousal battery and I suggest we rename it.
Orihime: Took the Nodame Cantabile example out. If you're gonna put it back, do it without the Chiaki hate and the misandry, please.
Brianne: The description has gone way too far in the other direction. Male-on-female domestic abuse results in far, far more deaths and injuries, yet female-on-male is mentioned a whopping three times. Almost seems like somebody has an agenda to push.
Orihime: Men are pretty much flanderized in media and Real Life as the only ones who abuse/beat up/scream/etc., whereas women who are violent towards their partners are seen as som sort of righteous angels who would only snap as self-defense. That's not necessarily true, from what I've seen - abuse does NOT distinguish between gender, and both men and women can be horribly abusive, yet a man who's abused is ridiculed or treated like he's the victimary. Dudley Moore, anyone?
Citizen: I'm wondering how to handle the overlap this article has with Rape Is Ok When It Is Female On Male...
Kongming: I've removed a couple lines because they struck me as a little ridiculous (and possibly wrong). For the curious, these are the lines:
"Even today, female-on-male domestic violence is generally considered acceptable."
I don't think this is true? I suppose it depends on what you consider domestic violence, but I wouldn't consider comedic violence (which happens to both genders) to be along the same lines as an abusive relationship. Most people take serious violence, well, seriously. Besides, female-on-male DV is usually accompanied by reciprocal male-on-female DV. Unless you're talking about a child, it's rarely one-way.
"One in eight people experience abuse from a partner in their lifetime; women as much as men, gay as much as straight. And while often played for laughs in the media, female-on-male violence generally carries a greater risk of death or serious injury to the victim, usually through the introduction of a weapon to make up for size and strength disadvantages."
These are rather specific and controversial claims, and I think they need source citations. I know this isn't Wikipedia, but we're not in the business of writing things that are just plain wrong.
Anyway, the tone of this article is (or was) ridiculous. It constantly emphasizes that domestic violence not only happens to men too, but it happens just as often as violence against women. Anybody who's spent five minutes with Google's search results for domestic violence should know this isn't the case. Putting this kind of emphasis on domestic violence against men isn't "balanced"; you risk trivializing abuse of women by comparing it directly to something with far less prevalence and danger.
MercuryInRetrograde: Strange. I managed to uncover a less black and white situation:
- "A review of the research literature indicates that female intimate partner violence (IPV) is a frequent as male IPV. It is just as severe and has much the same consequences for males as for females." Donald G. Dutton."Female intimate partner violence and developmental trajectories of abusive females." International Journal of Men's Health. Spring 2007. [2]
- A 2007 study of over 2,400 Spanish high school students found that girls are substantially more likely than boys to exhibit physical aggression (41.9% vs. 31.7%), including higher rates of hitting/kicking (13.4% vs 5.3%), slapping (12.4% vs 3.1%) and shoving/grabbing (22.5% vs 11.9%). See Munoz-Rivas, M. J., Grana, J. L., O'Leary, K. D., & Gonzalez, M. P. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 298-304.
- A 2000 meta analysis found that men inflict 65% of domestic injuries, but women are more likely (d=-.05) to use any act of violence or aggression. See Archer, J. (2000)."Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review". Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.
Here's an annotated bibliography
for additional reading:
- SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 256 scholarly investigations: 201 empirical studies and 55 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 253,500.
And, apparently, even the Violence Against _Women_ Survey found men to be 37.5% of victims of domestic violence.
Perhaps Kongming could cite his or her sources? And by sources, I mean not websites or DV groups, but actual peer-reviewed research.
Kongming: lol, yes, a cherry-picked bibliography with one-sentence annotations is a great source. I never said it was "black-and-white" (nice weasel words, BTW), but finals are coming up and I don't have time to waste on refuting your five minutes of Googling. In a few weeks I will be glad to destroy your pathetic attempt at an argument, though.
Kongming: Quick EBSCO search shows that Fiebert is the co-author of a paper called "Gender Stereotypes: A Bias Against Men." lmao
BrightBlueInk: What, men don't have stereotypes about them? I could probably find at least a dozen tropes about male stereotypes on This Very Wiki if I looked.
MercuryInRetrograde: You can add a recent Center of Desease Control survey to the list of 'cherry-picked' stats. Here's a link to an article on it.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/42/15/31.2.full
'Quick EBSCO search shows that Fiebert is the co-author of a paper called "Gender Stereotypes: A Bias Against Men." lmao' I have to concur with Bright Blue Ink. So?
'In a few weeks I will be glad to destroy your pathetic attempt at an argument, though.' Pathetic? I'm the only one that has, so far, backed up my argument. I look forward to your meticulous analysis of the methodologies of the Center of Disease Control Survey, the Violence Against Women Survey and all the other cited surveys and resources. Please be sure to explain where their statistical analysis went wrong in detail. I'm sure you'll be mentioning the CST, but remember many of the same results have been found with the CST 2.
I must say, I'm looking forward to your refutation of the Center of Disease Control Survey the most. This should be fun.
Kongming: I said I was going to refute your argument, not any specific articles. Nice job with the reading comprehension.
MercuryInRetrograde: My assertion is that domestic violence is a equal-opportunity activity. I have presented evidence to support said assertion. In order to refute my argument, you have to show that the evidence doesn't support my assertion. Which means you're going to have to look at the methodologies of all those studies in order to prove that they are somehow flawed.
Hell, I'll concede the point if you can convince me that just the CDC survey is flawed.
Kongming: Like I said, I don't really have time to do anything exhaustive right now, but here's an article that discusses some of the methodological problems with studies that purport to show women are just as violent as men: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/measuring.htm
MercuryinRetrograde: Scanned through your evidence and pulled out two pertinent points.
- Men are less likely to report victimization on surveys that emphasize safety or crime.
This is a very consistent effect. Men don't conceptualize their DV victimization as an issue of safety or criminality. This is because they are taught that female DV is 'not criminal behavior' and 'no big deal' by media portrayals of female-on-male DV as humorous or meaningless. Or even deserved. Also social attitudes tend to downplay any danger women can pose to men and see men as completely invulnerable to women. So even though a man may be with a woman who is escalating her violent attacks against him, he may not see her violence as an issue of personal safety. Male victimization is only captured when the survey focuses on the DV actions, not on categorizing DV as feeling in danger or criminal in nature.
- Surveys that find men to be equal victims of violence are mostly based on CTS, which has the following problems:
- Does not indicate who initiated the violence.
- Does not measure sexual assault or violence by former partners.
- Does not indicate motivation or coercive aspects of violence.
I'm not sure what they wanted to indicate about motivation or coercion but I find this objection to be spurious. The attitudes of abusers to why they abuse seems to be irrelevant. All abuse is motivated by control, regardless of gender. You don't hit someone for their own good. (However there are also reports that indicate that women abuse for much the same reasons as men and do not act in self-defense more then men.)
The revised CTS 2 addresses sexual assault. It adds an additional dimension of severity of injury. It also deals with a common complaint I've heard about the CST that 'threw an object at his/her' does not differentiate between a pillow and a brick. The CST 2 says 'threw an object that could hurt' instead. These surveys still find DV to be an equal opportunity activity.
The CDC survey addresses reciprocity and initiation of violence. The CDC survey found women initiating violence more often then men and in the majority of relationships with one-sided violence the female is the perpetrator. I am unsure if the CDC survey addresses sexual violence.
The NVAWS, which found men to be 37.5% of victims addresses sexual assault. I've read the NVAWS methodology and found it to be seriously flawed when it comes to female-on-male sexual assault. It omits several categories of female-on-male sexual assault, including coerced oral sex. Its section on sexual assault is also highly prejudicial: It gives the distinct impression that the survey is intended to capture female victimization and not male. I would suggest that this would tend to skew it's results on male victimization downward.
Even so, it shows that men are almost 40% of the victims of DV. Not insignificant by any measure.
Finally, all those 1 in 4 women will be abused numbers come directly from the CTS and CTS 2 surveys. The BJS and NCS surveys get results more around the 3% mark. CTS and CTS 2 surveys capture more abuse because of the way they are structured, they don't focus on criminality or safety but DV _actions_. I find it somewhat ironic that DV organizations will quote CTS and CTS 2 surveys for _prevalence_ of victimization but ignore them for composition of victims.
Which is it?
Is DV a fairly rare crime that mostly happens to women or is it a common and underreported crime that happens equally to men and women? You can't have it both ways.
Now THAT'S cherry-picking!
Ultimately it comes down to this. Do we believe the Crime surveys, or do we believe the surveys that measure acts of DV themselves? Fourty years ago if we looked at the crime surveys we would have concluded that DV victimization is a vanishingly rare occurrence for women. (Because, as this very page points out, that long ago even male-on-female DV was played for laughs thus people didn't see it as an issue of criminality or safety. Just like today's attitude towards female-on-male DV.) Which is why, forty years ago, DV activists said, 'look at the how many women report acts of DV against them, not the criminal statistics!' Of course these same activists are saying the exact opposite now. (Except for the ones who aren't, of course. :-S)
For anyone who's interested, here's additional reading about this particular controversy from one of the eminent researchers in the field:
Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence. Murray Strauss, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 13.3-4 (Dec 2007): p227(6).
MercuryInRetrograde: I'm actually wondering if the discussion of prevalence, rates of injury, etc. is really that appropriate in the actual tvtropes entry? I don't want to remove it as I'm pretty sure the individuals I'm currently in a quasi-editing war with won't take kindly to it, and at the same time I don't think it's fair to reduce such a complex issue down to three sentences.
Also I think it's better to cite first order sources then blogs that reference blogs that reference someone's statement blahblahblah. For example the only thing really relevant in the referenced blog post is Richard Gelle's 1995 University of Rhode Island Family Violence Research Program statement and that still doesn't have any citations of actual studies or research. In fact I generally offer an assertion, give a short summary of the first order sources I believe support that assertion and offer a link or cite to these sources. That way if someone thinks I'm full of herring, they can look directly at the sources I'm citing and come to their own conclusion. In my mind that respects the people reading in a way offering a link to a blog which buries the relevant reference under further references which point to further references (and still require a google search with some key words pulled out of a lot of opinion)doesn't.
Alrune: @MercuryInRetrograde
Why am I not surprised to find you here? You know I'm starting have the impression that you would justify ANY type of abuse dealt to women as long as it's done by men, because women DESERVE being treated like shit for no other reason than being women. And the scary fact is you are a woman yourself. Do you want us to go back to 19th century where we didn't even exist as people or something? Or are you doing this on purpose to elicit some "female-guilt" and to implicitly command women in general to Stay in the Kitchen?
Also I wonder, don't you wish you were born a male or something?
You know that I mostly agree with what you state in general but really you are going a over-the-top sometimes. I know you want men to be treated more fairly in media but do you really think any Double Standard about women don't exist?
Because, in the end, you criticize, you rant, you deconstruct but what solution do you propose? None at the moment.
MercuryInRetrograde: Alrune, I had a longer response to you, but I decided to delete it. You can probably see it in the edit history if you like. Unfortunately I have to bow out of this discussion to protect my psychological health—looks like this issue is still too raw for me and I don't feel like spending a second day stressed and crying.
I've also deleted my edits:
- However, the original author of the CTS(methodology of the study referenced above) is not Richard Gelles(as per the blog article) but Murray Straus. Murray Straus has offered an in depth critique of the DV orthodoxy's attempt to suppress evidence contrary to it's theories regarding DV. This includes denying funding to studies that simply ask female respondents about their own violence. (See: The Revised Conflict Statistics Table, Murray A. Straus, Journal of Family Issues, May 1996; Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence, Murray A. Straus, Eur J Crim Policy Res (2007) 13:227–232)
- Richard Gelles does not cite his sources for the 7-10 times greater rate of injury statistic in his 1995 University of Rhode Island Family Violence Research Program statement(referenced by the above blog link). A 2001 Center of Disease Control Survey on Intimate Partner Violence found that although injury was a more likely outcome when men alone were violent then when women alone were violent, men were more often injured in reciprocal domestic violence. It also found that women are more likely to initiate violence and more likely to be the sole perpetrators of violence. (A 2007 CDC IPV report reprises the 2001 data.)
- Women are also three times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner but this effect is recent. In the 1970s the risk for men and women was closer to equal. Since then the rate of women murdering their male partners has declined significantly while the rate of men murdering their female partners has remained steady.
Ultimately it would be great if there was balance, but... I'm not strong enough to deal with this issue right now. Godspeed.
Orihime: Alrune... what in the SHIT?! So a woman who wants to have equality for both genders and rebels against her past where she was tremendously abused by a female, only wants to erase any evidence of feminism and wishes she was born a male? That's not only a ridiculous and insulting strawman that MANY self-styled "feminists" use against anybody who commits the horrendous "sin" of critisizing them, but after reading why is she doing it, it pretty much puts you in the border of the Moral Event Horizon. And I say it as a n uni student who, as a little girl, knew that at least two separate classmates (a male and a female) were abused by their mothers, and more than a decade afterwards still feels like shit because she couldn't do anything to stop such a thing.
Stuff like that makes me not want to say a feminist, referring to myself as an equalist instead. Because BS like this is what gets us branded as hateful, whiny, cruel bitches who want men to be abused as revenge.
MercuryInRetrograde: Wrote a long spiel but I figure it doesn't really belong here anyway so I put it in my Contributers page. Thanks Orihime for the words of support—you actually really made my day. In Alrune's defense, she didn't know about my history before she wrote what she wrote, so that can't really be held against her.
Kongming: Still busy (sigh, this quarter will never end...) but here's some more reading: http://www.xyonline.net/content/claims-about-husband-battering
I'm not sure this argument is worth continuing, though? I think you've got a pretty compromised viewpoint on this, Mercury In Retrograde. I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. It seems pretty clear that you do.
Kongming: Yet more reading: http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/sexual_symmetry_myth.pdf
MercuryInRetrograde: I'm not going to engage in a debate. This issue brings up suicidal feelings. Anyway, I stated my evidence and people will decide for themselves.
makomk: Seriously, Kongming, please don't go there. You basically seem to be accusing Mercury In Retrograde of bias because she's a victim of female domestic violence herself. What would you say about someone who made this kind of accusation against a female victim of male domestic violence? (Same question to any feminist-identified tropers who are reading this.)
Kongming: Hurr, yes, because "feminist" = "hates men." There's nothing untoward about questioning someone's perspective on this issue, especially when it's such an intensely personal and emotional one. And yes, that includes victims of male abuse.
You know what's weird about your objection? Mercury In Retrograde herself stepped out of this discussion because it became too personal for her, because it was bringing up "suicidal feelings." And yet somehow, I go too far in suggesting that maybe her opinion is compromised?
MercuryInRetrograde: Actually Kongming, what's making me feel suicidal is the fact that I was accused of condoning abuse of women and the fact that you are questioning my right to speak out because I am a victim of female violence. The evidence I presented exists separate from me and has to be judged on it's own merits. You saying that you can ignore it because of a feature of my person is exactly the same as someone else saying they can ignore your arguments because you're a 'man-hating feminist' and thus your opinion is biased.
Also, your accusation that makomk equates feminist with man-hater is both highly inflammatory and a complete non sequitur.
Alrune: @ Mercury In Retrograde: I read all of your answer. And then I do understand better your stance. To be completely honest, I did suspect something like that. I apologize if that brought back bad memories but don't try to elicit a Tear Jerker from me.
For all what you've been through, I can understand you've seen what horrible things women can do, which I do agree with. But that doesn't mean you can justify Domestic Abuse on women. I agree that much of all the home violence is caused mainly by the impulsive and irrational nature of women. Since men Wouldn't Hit a Girl, most don't respond to violence and often believe that whatever abuse they take, they must have deserved it. The point is, some actually don't. But some do. Nowadays, Domestic Abuse on women is more addressed to because, as you said it yourself, the casualties of most domestic violence are women. Whether or not they started it is moot, women usually do not want to fight physically, they just want explanations. And men are often too scared of their reactions if they speak honestly.
Who is to blame? Both. Not one more than the other. Men are to blame for not having the guts of facing their responsibilities when asked to justify their fuckups. Women are to blame for expecting men to understand them instinctively, just like most women are able to do with men, and for being often too emotional to react in a rational manner.
To your credit, where I live, domestic abuse is not treated with so much bias as it is in the US. Where I live, a rape victim is seldom looked down on if they're male and seldom are women presented as unable to abuse children. So I can understand that you don't feel well represented by how Domestic Abuse is portrayed in the media.
@Orihime Mercury In Retrograde and I have talked to each other many times about gender equality. Don't try to butt in when you have no clue what we've been discussing before.
And about me being a cruel bitch, you can tell that all the way till the next blue moon. Your emotional reaction is understandable but I've never once insulted Mercury In Retrograde or you for that matter. So stay out of this please.
MercuryInRetrograde: Where did I justify domestic abuse of women? I'm not even sure how what I've written could be _misconstrued_ to justify domestic abuse of women. As for physical injury; what an emotional abuser doesn't do to you physically, you will likely do to yourself given time.
BTW, I did not write about my experiences to elicit a 'tear jerker', I did it to explain my motives, which were apparently suspect. And still are. If I'm interested in bringing awareness to women as domestic abusers because I've been abused by a woman, then I'm biased. If I'm not abused by a woman, then I must have some other sinister motive in bringing awareness to women as domestic abusers. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
Also, Alrune, your archaic notion of gender is a real head scratcher.
Alrune: Archaic? How is it archaic? Because I sometimes contend that "archaic" roles are so deep-rooted that many people behave the way they're expected, according to their gender? It's not being archaic, it's stating the effects of social pressure.
About the whole "domestic abuse on women" thing, I admit I got carried away. But your numerous Take That! comments are often misleading. I've never said you're biased BECAUSE you've been abused by a woman. Au contraire, I said what I've said in light of the discussion we've been having on the Ryona discussion page. Remember? But now that I know your story, I can understand what it feels like not to see women being depicted as abusive or domineering and perpetually virtuous victims.
And about emotional abuse, you don't need that to be suicidal. Many persons suffering from suicidal tendencies were never abused by their parents and/or siblings. It can be related but it's not a necessary cause.
Kongming: Hrm, yes, wondering if someone who has been abused has a confirmation bias related to this abuse is the same as questioning their right to speak. What was that about non sequiturs and inflammatory comments?
MercuryInRetrograde: How exactly are you supposed to interpret someone who says 'confirmation bias due to experience' negates a person's arguments when the arguments aren't even based on(or even related to) that person's experience? Unless you can prove some causal link between my experience and the studies I posted, you are effectively shutting down my arguments because of an aspect of my person EVEN WHEN THOSE ARGUMENTS ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED.
Let me put it another way, is there any conceivable argument that I can make that won't be dismissed by you saying 'confirmation bias?' If there isn't, can you see how that might be seen as 'questioning my right to speak'?
