Talk:Violence against women

Content moving from Domestic violence

The following information was in the Domestic violence article - and it seems more appropriate here. I've posted it here for the short term to see if these points are already made -- and if there are any thoughts about the addition of the information to this article.

potential additional content

According to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, a survey of 16,507 Americans by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30.3% of women and 25.7% of men reported being slapped, pushed, or shoved by a current or former intimate partner in their lifetime, while 24.3% of women and 13.8% of men reported being the victims of severe physical violence. A 2012 survey of over 21,000 residents of England and Wales by the UK Office for National Statistics showed that 7% of women and 5% of men were victims of domestic abuse (defined to include non-physical abuse such as emotional and financial abuse, as well as physical violence) in the last year. A study in the United States found that women were 13 times more likely than men to seek medical attention due to injuries related to spousal abuse. Women are more likely than men to be murdered by an intimate partner. Of those killed by an intimate partner about three quarters are female and about a quarter are male. In 1999 in the United States 1,218 women and 424 men were killed by an intimate partner, and 1181 females and 329 males were killed by their intimate partners in 2005. In England and Wales about 100 women are killed by partners or former partners each year while 21 men were killed in 2010. In 2008, in France, 156 women and 27 men were killed by their intimate partner. In their study of severely violent couples, Neil Jacobson and John Gottman conclude that the frequency of violent acts is not as crucial as the impact of the violence and its function, when trying to understand spousal abuse; specifically, they state that the purpose of domestic violence is typically to control and intimidate, rather than just to injure. A recent study in South Asia, done in from 2010 to 2013, interviewed 10,000 men from a variety of countries. The study found that "...overall nearly half of those men interviewed reported using physical and/or sexual violence against a female partner, ranging from 26 percent to 80 percent across the sites. Nearly a quarter of men interviewed reported perpetrating rape against a woman or girl, ranging from 10 percent to 62 percent across the sites."

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, I say you go for it @CaroleHenson: --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Violence against men

and where is the article for the opposite, this is, violence against men? or is it that if it is against women we can talk, but if it is against men nobody cares? It's strange, does not coincide with what I thought equality was  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.21.117.88 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 

There is a Violence against men article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate Source and Attributions, "Obstetric Violence."

Regarding the following section, there are several issues:

The WHO recently stated that “in normal birth, there should be a valid reason to interfere with the natural process. The aim of care is to achieve a healthy mother and child with the least possible level of intervention compatible with safety”. Practices that should be stopped (in normal labor), according to the WHO:

• Shaving the pubic hair
• Giving an enema to empty the bowels
• Electronic fetal monitoring
• Not letting the woman eat or drink
• Telling the woman to hold her breath and push during the second stage of labor (rather than leaving it to do her own way)
• Stretching and interfering with the entrance to the vagina when the baby is being born
• Episiotomy
• Taking the baby away from its mother at birth
• Getting the woman to lie down on her back during labor and/or delivery

First, the source listed, "Keeping Birth Normal," by Jilly Rosser, does not seem to exist. I can find no publications by that author on the subject. The attribution should go to "Care in Normal Birth," by the Maternal and Newborn Health/Safe Motherhood Unit of the World Health Organization, 1996. The publication can be found here, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1996/WHO_FRH_MSM_96.24.pdf?ua=1 in English.

Furthermore, there is, in my opinion some question as to the tone of this section as well as its relevance. To say "The WHO recently stated" is misleading, as the report was published in 1996. In addition, the report makes no distinction between practices which are "Clearly Harmful" and those which are merely "Ineffective." Finally, some of the items included in the original list, primarily electronic fetal monitoring and restriction of food and fluids are listed in the source as "Frequently Used Inappropriately" and there is no recommendation to eliminate those practices. I think this section should be eliminated or at least rewritten with truer consideration to the source matter. In any case, the source should be properly attributed.

164.49.251.71 (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)DSB

--Added reflist--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this post:

• Here's the archive url for the WHO page about Keeping Birth Normal.
• The link you provided looks very good. My only question is that since it's a pdf, is this the latest viewpoint?
• I agree with your points about tone - and it should be properly attributed and rewritten to focus on the salient points - a summary would do in a number of cases over giving a lot of detail. In addition, words shouldn'be be bolded for emphasis.
• It seems to me to be an important section - but, like I say, it also seems to have too much detail.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that the list is misleading and not appropriate for this section. I do not see the year (1996) as a problem. I agree that there is too much detail. I don't understand the problem you both see with the "tone" Could you explain? Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Too broad range of behaviours included in this article

This article is obviously written from feminist POV (which is by no means only one discourse in sociology), existence of patriarchy is a given, and every act of violence against women is considered to be happening BECAUSE they are women, and not - for instance - because they are physically weaker, often dependant and readily available for the abusers. There is an idea that women are raped BECAUSE they are women, not because they have a compatible orifice. This is not a "hate" crime, rather a "opportunity" crime. Same with domestic violence - the only reason women are not beating men at the same rate is that they are physically weaker. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-men-the-more-belligerent-sex/ There is no denial that this kind of prejudice exist, but putting everything into the same jar is just unacceptable. Especially given we're talking about social sciences theory, with no possibility of really testing it in experiment. 83.9.95.76 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Feminist See Men as the Enemy The artical implies that all men support violence against women. Is there anyone who isn't a man hater who believes men are all rapist, domestic abusers, cybertrolls, involved in human trafficking and are educated to think only with their sexuality. No I am not a men's rights activist, I just fell that all feminist groups are united by their hatred of men because gender studies don't warn women of being victimised but but go to the extreme and demonetise and persecute men simply because they have made them the enemy. Why does this artical compare every country to Saudi Arabia, every website to 4chan and every era to the stone age? Yes in some places its encouraged, but does that mean its ethical? No. Sexual violence is frowned upon everywhere, regardless to how it is treated and there for the page is imbalanced.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC) The vast majority of violence committed against women is committed by women? No, it isn't. If editors don't want this article to focus so much on men, then societies should do better to ensure that the vast majority of violence against women is not committed by men. I don't see how the current state of the article would benefit from what you've stated. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC) I never said that women are are abused by other women the most. I was saying that it implies that all men support violence against women.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC) It doesn't; it simply reports on men to an extensive degree because the vast majority of violence against women is committed by men. It focuses on the mindset of these men, cultures that exacerbate this violence, how all of this affects women, and so on. I'm not sure how you perceive the article as implying that all men support violence against women. Furthermore, it's common sense that not all men support violence against women. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC) And I know that you "never said that women are are abused by other women the most." I was making a point with my initial post in this section -- about why this article focuses so heavily on men as the perpetrators. Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Feminist believe all sex and sexual attraction attributes to rape and therefore they say every country is equally oppressive towards women.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)