Talk:Domestic violence

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)