Talk:Domestic violence

Can We Cull Wild Guesses? please?

""""Estimates are that only about a third of cases of domestic violence are actually reported in the United States and the United Kingdom."""" (Could we just delete stuff like this?) Most reasonable folks understand that this is truly a "made up statistic." Quite honestly, I would hope that social science would reject gross over-emphasis of a real and painful topic. I don't want public reports to be filed every time a woman slams a door, spanks a child or raises her voice in frustration. Homebuilding (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to mention that, however, one should also mention that the term 'abuse' has been stretched so far that even breathing heavy or looking at someone is abusive...

I have to agree with you that the whole topic has been polarized and politicized in the last 25 years. Again, perhaps there should be a time relative factor to this topic.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Public opinion and perception

I'm not sure this section is suitable for the article, and these references the best ones for public opinion. We might find other sources that are even more reliable and worth including instead. And, to include mention of public opinion in the victimization section. --Aude (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A survey [1] in July and August 2006 of 2500 adults, males and females, 18 years of age or older, in the continental United States produced finding as per below. This survey was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation and Ruder Finn and funded by Redbook Magazine and Liz Claiborne

"When asked to define what actions comprise domestic violence and abuse, 2 in 5 Americans (40%) did not even mention hitting, slapping and punching. Over 90% of Americans failed to define repeated emotional, verbal, sexual abuse and controlling behaviors as patterns of domestic violence and abuse. The survey concluded: "When they can identify domestic abuse, Americans will act".

Reference - IPV factsheet from centres for disease control - page has moved

The link which is today reference 23 (cited multiple times in the article) as "Intimate partners violence factsheet" from Centres for disease control leads to a "page not found" at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm. Digging around the site, there's a factsheet "Understanding Intimate Partner Violence", 2006, at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/ipv_factsheet.pdf but I don't know whether it's the same document or not. Someone more familiar with the article, or the previous incarnation of the factsheet, might like to confirm whether it's the same doc and amend the ref, or do whatever else is needed. PamD (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ref unco-operative people

Do you know something, I won't even bother editing this article anymore - not is it just pro-feminist - but getting threats from Andrew C, makes me non willing to contribute to this article further, if this is how this person treats people trying to help then it's appalling i'm sorry. It appears to me that Wikipedia is not a very friendly place after all.--88.108.100.139 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Gender Paragraph

The studies cited in this paragraph have been manipulated into a POV:

Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, provides an analysis of 195 scholarly investigations: 152 empirical studies and 43 analyses, which he believes demonstrate women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men. Fiebert also argues that women are more likely to be injured, but not a lot more. Also Dutton, and Nicholls (2005) state that Results show that the gender disparity in injuries from domestic violence is less than originally portrayed by feminist theory. Studies are also reviewed indicating high levels of unilateral intimate violence by females to both males and females. Males appear to report their own victimization less than females do and to not view female violence against them as a crime. Hence, they differentially under-report being victimized by partners on crime victim surveys. It is concluded that feminist theory is contradicted by these findings and that the call for bqualitativeQ studies by feminists is really a means of avoiding this conclusion. Archer's (2000, 2002) meta-analysis of 82 couple-conflict studies found that women were more likely to use physical aggression than men, and to resort to violence more often than men.In the most serious violence the men do dominate for example in 1999 in the US, 1,218 women and 424 men were killed by an intimate partner, regardless of which partner started the violence and of the gender of the partner. On the other hand, Michael Kimmel of the State University of New York at Stony Brook found that men are more violent inside and outside of the home than women. Theories that women are as violent as men have been dubbed "Gender Symmetry" theories.

Let's work on cleaning this up.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely you could have 'cleaned' this up yourself? it seems unreasonable to remove multiple paragraphs that collectively contain 9 references. I'll have a look at it soon and see if I can reword it but, the research and sources are definitely sound. Kurushi (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Article is POV

This article is suffering from a severe POV problem. Citations from admitted pro-feminist researchers such as Dr. Michael Kimmel are being treated as gospel truth, and other citations from researchers looking into violence against men are being deleted and ignored. Domestic Violence against men is NOT a minority viewpoint. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed empirical studies which demonstrate that this is a very real problem. Wikipedia policy is violated when one side attempts to frame an article into an advocacy piece for their side. Here are the facts, Domestic Violence is wrong. Whether it is perpetrated by women or men, it is wrong. Studies have shown that women are just as aggressive, if not more aggressive then men in their relationships. That is a documented fact. Whitewashing it will not make it go away. This article needs to be presented from a neutral POV. BOTH SIDES need to quite attempting to make this an advocacy piece for their POV. We should re-work the article to mention both violence by men and women, and remove the POV slant that is currently very pro-feminist. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

"Pro-feminist" is a "weasel word" in this context. Please stop inserting it into the article. And, I completely agree that there is good, peer reviewed information from academic journals about male vicitims of domestic violence that needs to be part of this article. However, that good, peer reviewed information is not being cited in this article at present. There needs to be a massive cleanup of the information presented with regards to male victims of violence so that the information is accurate and scientifically sound (that means that the source of the information is sound, we should not accept blogs as sources).

Also, we ought to be careful to clearly lay out what these academic studies actually say. It is probably best if we quote directly from the studies, and do not impose our own points of view.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Pro-feminist IS NOT a "weasel word" as Michael Kimmel Identifies himself as such. In fact, Kimmel is identified in that manner on his Wikipedia page. The entire article needs a re-write, and we are going to take it one step at a time. Do not remove sourced paragraphs or material until we develop a consensus as to how we can NPOV the article to accurately present information on this issue. The entire article is a POV mess as individuals from both sides have attempted to use it to as an advocacy piece either for feminist or anti-feminist ideology. That cannot and will not be tolerated at Wikipedia. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I forgot to point out that Kimmel has written several books identifying himself as a pro-feminist, including Against the Tide: Pro-Feminist Men in the United States. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I have removed the qualifier "pro-feminist" from before the name "Richard J. Gelles". There is no source given to label him as such, and even if it were true, the purpose of that phrase seems clearly placed there to color the reader's judgement. I can understand adding qualifiers to explain who a person is so we aren't just introducing random names into the article (i.e. "University of Pennsylvania dean" or "Child Welfare and Family Violence scholar" or something like that). I could even understand balancing his views with other views that are in opposition to him, or even citing published criticism (if such criticism exists, and comes from reliable sources). But an unattributed label of "pro-feminist" when there are much more notable aspects to Dr. Gelles is entirely biased. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is important to show the manipulation of 'spousal abuse', relative to time. Yes this is some original research, but it should be able to be verified by some other source.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting concerned this article is getting pro-feminist, ignoring the male victims of Domestic Violence

I notice this article is slowing becoming extremely POV and we have a group of feminists intent to wipe out all mention of male victims of Domestic Violence by Women. Not just that - but the constant vandalism by feminists that has to be reverted is ridiculous. Also, the constant down-sizing of the "Violence against men" part and trying to remove any reference of women beating men, a widely growing problem and accounted for more than 60% of assault reports filed last year - is wrong.

Your views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.21.242 (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some info to the Violence Against Men subsection along with a reference. Hope this helps! I would also recommend that you create a user account and sign with four tildes (i.e., ~) before your user name. Sallicio (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

Here is the recent addition:

There has been an increase in the cases of male victims of domestic violence in recent years. Advocates have theorized that the increase could be due, in part, to the profession of the male victim. For example, many men work for the federal government, police agencies, military, or other jobs that may require some kind of security clearance. Due to the sensitive nature of the jobs, perhaps they are afraid that protecting themselves physical or legally could cause the loss of their jobs. Male victims are often ashamed that others will perceive them as weak or less of a man. There is also a belief that the police will not take the allegation seriously or that they (the man) will be arrested because "only men" are the abusers. In male/male relationshis there may be some shame because of the nature of the relationship (i.e., homosexual).[2]

Could you please work on sourcing this information to a WP:RS. The provided link also doesn't support many of the assertion in the new paragraph. Let's bring it up to wikipedia standards! -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wife beating in Islam

What are your views on Wife beating in Islam? Is it allowed at any time, forbidden or allowed only as the last resort? What is the definition of "beat" in the Quran in relations to husbands over their wives? --121.217.128.171 (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

“Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab: Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you. Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.” (Abu Dawud Book 11, Number 2141-2142) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.37.184 (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

Does anyone else think that article title "Domestic violence" might not be the most percise name considering that the article deals with non-violent forms of abuse such as economic and emotional abuse? I think the title "Domestic abuse" would fit better.Danny (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see logic in that. :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of logical consistency.

Just to point out and to suggest that there is a lack of logical consistencey in the definition of abuse, spousal abuse, relative to elder abuse, and I am certain child abuse.

Take a look at elder abuse in wikipedia.

---

Physical: e.g. hitting, punching, slapping, burning, pushing, kicking, restraining, false imprisonment/confinement, or giving too much medication or the wrong medication;

Psychological: e.g. shouting, swearing, frightening, blaming, ridiculing, constantly criticizing, ignoring or humiliating a person. A common theme is a perpetrator who identifies something that matters to an older person and then uses it to coerce an older person into a particular action;

Financial: e.g. illegal or unauthorized use of a person’s property, money, pension book or other valuables (including changing the person's will to name the abuser as heir), often fraudulently obtaining power of attorney, followed by deprivation of money or other property, or by eviction from own home;

Sexual: e.g. forcing a person to take part in any sexual activity without his or her consent, including forcing them to participate in conversations of a sexual nature against their will; Neglect: e.g. depriving a person of food, heat, clothing or comfort or essential medication. In addition some countries also recognise the following as elder abuse:

Rights abuse: denying the civil and constitutional rights of a person who is old, but not declared by court to be mentally incapacitated. This is an aspect of elder abuse that is increasingly being recognised and adopted by nations

Self-neglect: elderly persons neglecting themselves by not caring about their own health or safety.

---

The same types of abuses, or abuse forms should apply to all groupings...?

Have a great day !

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammar (Resource Theory)

"Women who are most dependent on the spouse for economic well being." That's not a sentence. It's most likely something that happened when someone tried to rephrase things. I'd change it myself, but the intended meaning is unclear to me. Is it just a statement (without citation!) that "it is women who are most dependent"? Did some study, no longer mentioned, find that it is? Was it originally part of some larger statement? It seems like it's getting at a valid point, but one that needs to be cited and clearly stated. --SoloGecko (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Statistics and recent edits by anon

Anon has mischaracterized the Bureau of Justice study and the Feibert study. The former was not simply a collection of crime statistics (the NCVS was a revised questionnaire). The latter was an evaluation of 209 studies and the findings do not necessarily stand in contrast to the BoJ findings. We go into this topic in much more detail elsewhere in the article. I'm not sure we need to try to include the Feibert study into the statistic section because it is discussed is fuller detail elsewhere. I'd like to hear why anon wants to include the information, and perhaps we can work together here on talk to reach a compromise wording that we all can agree with. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why data about controversy around ratio of male and female violence is removed

I wish to know why data about ratio of female and male experiencing violence is frequently removed? I mean this part of article:

"Another controversy is the ratio of man and woman experiencing intimate partner violence. For example majority of 418 surveys collected by Martin S. Fiebert shows no differences between violence against man and woman ."

Does only some surveys deserve to be known? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.54.242.170 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. This shows how 'politics' has manipulated 'the truth' of the matter by selecting specific truths, and ignoring others.

I think this should be added to show how social programs dealing with the topic of abuse, have 'paradoxically' contributed to the problem, which to SOME people is okay ! Expecially those who hate the family, or men, or something else.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why no inclusion of child abuse in "Domestic Violence", and little or no reference to female-perpetrated abuse?

I believe that a significant percentage of child abuse (including physical abuse) is committed by women/mothers, but reviewing this article, and following links to both "Child Abuse" and "Complex PTSD" there is no mention of female-perpetrated child abuse, let alone any statistics or references.

As most funding for "Domestic Violence" infers that it covers all aspects of familial violence, it would be helpful to:

- document the occurrence of female perpetrated abuse, and
- specifically address the inclusion/exclusion of child/elder abuse in this category.

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.66.37 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One must be careful in coming to a conclusion based on the stats. Mothers and women are more in contact with children, so the possiblity of 'abuse' will increase. Then again the 'definition' of abuse is so far expanded that even 'discipline' can be concidered abuse, by those who have a financial ingterfest in manipulating its defintion.

Anonymous, do you have a citation for mothers and women being more in contact with children? You should also note that some consider abuse to be discipline. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let history show the manipulation of this concept.

For decades 'spousal abuse' and 'spousal violence' was exploited by 'some' to promote a 'black and white' philosophy about violence.

To be specific, 'women were victims' and 'men were abusers'. The false logic used, was that 'most' victims were women, therefor all victims were women.

This model ignored all the complexities of human interreactions and abuse, ignoring such things as drug abuse, mental illness and other factors.

While true is some cases, this stereotyping of the situation should be recorded and not ignored, so that others may learn from the errors. Other countries are falling victim to this corruption of logic to polarize the sexes and the family; creating a paradoxical effect.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The polarization, the black and white thinking associated with this subject shows how legitimate sources can be corrupted.

Case in point.

We have in spousal relationships, many truths we ignore. There is not only on sided abuse, but also mutual abuse. Since the term abuse is far ranging, the term can be applied to most all behavior.

It is hoped history will show, (once someone prints this matter in a 'recognized source' something that i have learned most companies don't want to print, then we can correct this listing.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As a general observation, perhaps some of the entries in the encyclopedia, can show 'the truth' of the subject matter relative to the point in time, or year. It is important to show the progression on 'philosophy' concerning a subject, as in the earth being flat, and then round, and then someday, it will be round in a rotating universe.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hope I am not repeating myself. But the 'idealistic' nature of the current listing, should also include a place and time-relative section. Ie in the last part of the 20th century in North America spousal abuse, was noted as 'men who abuse, and women and children victims.' The model was polarized."

"It should also note that while the model dealt with abuse, most models focused merely on violence."

The purpose is to show truths relative to time and space and to ensure that the errors, (we are all human) are not repeated again, somewhere else on in some other time frame.

I hope I have made my suggestion clear.

Thanks.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

External links

I've trimmed the external links section and added two DMOZ sites. There was a curious imbalance towards a majority of ELs discussing abuse against men - that should be reflected on the page of course, but not 75% of the links discussing exclusively abuse against males. Per WP:CSB, WP:ELNO and WP:SOAP, advocacy sites, web forums and links to very geographically specific agencies (i.e. the oregon association against domestic violence; Brighton's anti-family violence alliance) were removed. I left the helpguide link in - it gives a reasonable bit of information, and has its own pretty extensive list of links in terms of number and coverage. WLU (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

It would be appreciated if this article could list the laws about domestic violence. If there is already such a list, please do tell me where it's at. Glorthac (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Like, world-wide? Wikipedia is international. WLU (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Time relative.

There was a time, where women in North America could not vote, (the radical feminists don't want us to forget that, even though today, many people even the majority don't vote) and then there was a time in North America where violence against men (and children) was tolerated by the simple half-truth statement, "Stop violence against women' that implied that violence against men and children was okay, especially when the slogan, "STop violence." would included all groups, at least saving us ink.

The encyclopedia should show this.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions...

Suggestions.

While I do not have time at the present, let me give you some suggetions.

1. Violence to abuse, includes also passive violence.

2. According to Dr. Berne's "Games People Play', there is a game called Rapo. Where the actual abuser is in fact the victim. The Victim's game is to entice the other participant to become the perpetrator of some act of violence. The victim is actually the abuser, and the perpetrator of the abuse is actually the victim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#Intimacy

3. What are the underlying cuases of abuse, or violence. In some cases there are issues, some might be related to gambling, drugs, unknown mental disease, some of which cause frustration and create conditions of 'conflict.'

4. In some cases the abuser is outside the relationship.

When I have time I will hopefully fill these in, if someone else has the time, please find appropriate sources.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Time-relative nature of domestic violence.

Given the noted discripencies into what 'domestic violence' is or was, I hope that wikipedia implements a time relative definition of the term.

What domestic violence is and was are two different things.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Same gender abuse.

"In same gender relationships, the abuser as well as victim is always a woman. "

It appears that the information provided is trying to 'weigh' the statistical evidence in favour of one group over another...

Tried to input an obvious fact that in 'same gendered' relationships, the abuser, relative to 'women abuse' the abuser is always a woman.

Do you want to call this 'original research' or mere common sense ?

Why ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I call it bullshit. Nar Matteru (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That statement implies that no abuse ever takes place in male-male relationships. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, excuse me for not claifying....the section related to 'violence against women'....

"Violence against women Main article: Violence against women In the United States, 20 percent of all violent crime experienced by women are cases of intimate partner violence, compared to 3 percent of violent crime experienced by men. "

You will note that there is no mention of violence against women, by women...and in same gender relationships (concerning women) the abuser (and the victim) is always a woman.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 05:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of saying something as the text you proposed, why not find a reliable source that perhaps has statistical information on female same sex abuse? It would be more helpful for the reader than the text you proposed. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks....I was trying to give some advise, I do not have the time to spend on these, however it is important as these whole issues of 'abuse' have been corrupted and need correction.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cycle of abuse missing "mental illness".

Just a lead for now.

It appears that the subject of mental illness is not viewed as a possible component of the 'cycle of abuse' in this heading.

That is the 'stress' of an illness, including mental illness should be part of this, as should other 'stresses' on the domestic couple.

When I have time I will search for that source.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• It is also important to the complexity of human interrelationships to include a section to 'other elements' that may contribute to 'abuse'...

It is also important to this topic to understand the paradoxical effects of some sedative drugs..Serious complications can occur in conjunction with the use of sedatives creating the opposite effect as to that intended. Malcolm Lader at the Institute of Psychiatry in London estimates the incidence of these adverse reactions at about 5%, even in short-term use of the drugs. The paradoxical reactions may consist of depression, with or without suicidal tendencies, phobias, aggressiveness, violent behavior and symptoms sometimes misdiagnosed as psychosis.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Do sentimental objects affect incidence?

Just out of curiosity, do workers in cases of domestic violence observe a greater or lesser usage of sentimental objects (rings, tattoos, etc.) relative to people of the same socioeconomic status? Wnt (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've worked in the Domestic Violence Unit of my Police Department for three years. Can you rephrase your question; I don't understand what you're asking.--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I was just curious whether, psychologically, the tendency of people to use sentimental objects in relationships tended to make them more or less prone to domestic violence. In theory, someone might throw a ring instead of a punch, tear up a picture instead of making an attack. Or it might just be one more thing to argue over... Wnt (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

International statistics

The article needs to list the statistics of wife-beating and other forms of domestic violence in more nations than the random sample given.--jeanne (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

what about this ?

i know this paragraph is little difficult to publish , but if someone is good at language please modify this so that it fits appropriately in wikipedia. i am sorry for my poor language skills

some old cultures such as some in india , pakistan and some african nations where the husband is considered as "owner" of his wife. man and woman who are grown up in those cultures would not consider many things as violence in these societies general violence is considerd normal whereas they only consider conventional crimes such as killing , raping , stealing etc as crime psychological violences of all kind that may lead to another are allowed

great problem arises when young peoples of the society who are educated under influnce of english and other cultures such as of developed nations , they realize that how they live or what they do is error ful such as example of common violences.

few examples- 1. dowri in india 2. wife as a assets in african and south asian nations

the proofs of these are hard to get because only new societies use written and legal sytems, but some proofs that can be given are goernment statistics of crimes of thiese.

please link articles from here if somebody can find any that i have typed here. please help to improve this post

59.95.175.58 (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC) piyush

There are various things like this recorded at different places and times. For example, Blackstone's Commentaries referred to a right to lock up one’s wife (certainly now considered abuse) and historically to strike her by way of control in line with the principle that a couple acted as one under the control of the husband. Welsh law apparently allowed it as retaliation in some circumstances. Islamic law notoriously does, and I’ve read an account by a British colonialist that it was permitted under traditional (non-Islamic) law there: [3] "A law is even made to direct the mode in which she is beaten". Billwilson5060 (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please put a link of the following to the See also section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.190.54 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Severe Gender Bias

This article frequently states "women" when it means to say "people." I am unable to correct this severe and blatant gender bias, due to protections placed on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maidix (talk • contribs) 06:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples please? In any case, the article appears to be move-protected, which would not stop text changes by a registered user.Billwilson5060 (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The source of my primary objection can be found under the section for "Emotional Abuse." There is a paragraph that reads: "Women who are being emotionally abused often feel as if they do not own themselves; rather, they may feel that their significant other has nearly total control over them. Women undergoing emotional abuse often suffer from depression, which puts them at increased risk for suicide, eating disorders, and drug and alcohol abuse." While technically this is not incorrect, it is incorrect by glaring omission. Perhaps it is some problem with my account, but even logged-in, I can only view the source of the article. I am unable to correct this flaw.