<Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey
<67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

<Although the original researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now.>

This unusual in DV research, actually asking men and women the same questions.

I'd strongly recommend a look at the link Jay supplied earlier which takes you to a summary of research papers on DV most of which touch on the gender of perpetrator and victim. You might take a moment to think about how many nations are covered by those papers, how many are peer reviewed and publishes as then compare that to the misrepresentation of the research Killarney used early in the thread

"Look, guys. If it makes you feel better to throw up all kinds of links to all kinds of studies funded by uber-right wing (mostly US) think tanks to use silly methodologies like Conflict Tactic Scale to 'prove' that women are doing at least 50% of the spousal-thumping, raping, murdering, assaulting, warmongering and torturing of much of the world's population - go right ahead if it makes you feel better. And if it helps you to create nice little conspiracy theories about feminists suppressing all these plucky little MRM Gallileos trying to expose the truth - then do so. (Sheesh! Feminists should be so lucky??)"

CTS is criticised without ever clarifying why the alternatives give a better representation of whats actually happening. I've made the challenge to numerous supporters of the advocates of a gendered approach to DV to provide a reference to any research that supports their position which does not have significant inbuilt bias (or the statement of faith about who does DV - eg research which makes a genuine attempt to determine who perpetrates DV rather than working from a fixed belief that its men and have yet to see a single attempt to do so). Suzie's response is pretty much the norm from those pushing the gendered DV barrow.

The myth of gendered DV is a lie, based on marxist feminist dogma and supported by misleading or straight out dishonest research to support an agenda that has nothing to do with reducing the incidence or severity of DV. That has nothing to do with the generational harm from children being exposed to DV or achieving actual equality.

R0bert

The sociological research of the past two decades has
revealed an astonishing amount of family violence.
Tension over gender roles is
only one aspect of conflict
in the family. Finger-pointing and blaming one
group over another - won't solve anything.

Family violence occurs between spouses,
between parents and offspring - and among the offspring
themselves. We've seen from news reports, TV programs,
and the media in general, that wives assault their husbands
as often as husbands assault their wives, and spouses are
equally likely to kill each other. Although wives are
rarely a match for their husbands in a fistfight, they are
more likely to use lethal weapons (notably kitchen knives).

Family violence - whether it is between spouses, or child
abuse - involving such acts as burning children with
cigarettes, locking them in closets, tying them up for
hours or days, or breaking their bones - is alarmingly
common (and probably causes many of the thousands of
runaways that happen each year). This cannot be ignored.
Neither can sexual abuse of children now recognised as
a serious national problem.

We have to find out the causes of this violence and
workable solutions to end it. Blaming
one gender or the other as we know - does not solve anything.
In any event, the extent of violence in groups whose
members are supposed to love and care for one another is
not easily explained by blame casting. And suggests that we
need to look further into this problem. It also suggests
that the modern family may sometimes by under greater
pressures that it can easily bear.

I don't imagine that it is just 'family', if that is referring to the 'traditional' family and extended family. If anything, reports of DV seem to be lower in 'traditional' families. No surprises there - child abuse for example is reportedly lower where the biological father is present, than in single parent families, or where mum has another adult, a man or woman, in her life.

The concentration of feminists on heterosexual relationships also discriminates against gay and lesbian partners who suffer abuse. To expand the spectrum even further, bisexual relationships may have even more violence.

What seems to be the case and is likely given the prevalence of the 'traditional' family solution is so many societies is that it is more likely to be the most proof against such violence and other problems, particularly where the extended family is working well and giving support.

It is quite possible that the 'Progressive' policies of the left feminists have had unexpected negative consequences that need to be surfaced and studied in depth.

In any event this article is serving a very useful purpose in increasing awareness and stimulating debate. Of course there will be those who will try to soothe and put it back to sleep, to deep six it all again.

"This article is extremely biased towards men and in no way wants to come up with answers for reducing domestic violence in our community, but rather seeks to blame women....by sue.

Its taken millions of years of evolution in our development and to add the built-in mindsets, just cant be sharped or changed over night. Men are by nature hunters and killers for as far back in history and before recorded history. Just because the modern age is seeing mankind with new ways of behaviour, the instincts which comes from the oldest part of the brain, is in my opinion, reawakened when alcohol as added.

And to make matters worse,unemployment/rapid changes with technology/machines taking basic labour/costs of living/ which can cause depression/anxiety/a feeling worthlessness/mental illness/ drug and alcohol dependence, and the end result can sometimes lead to male violence, with catastrophic consequences.....however,to put it simply....where are too many men with nothing to do, and its not their fault, to a point.

Medical THC instead of alcohol(prescription only in extreme cases) has been proven in many studies around the world to reduce domestic violence, and until laws are changed, plus given the rising employment situation,we are going to see more violence as the population grows at its rapid rates.

Now, if every male was employed, violence in men would come into the bracket of only isolated cases......and we know the bible and it quotes along the lines of (Drink is the devils play-ground)

Kat

Origins of Man I do like your observation that violence in men would come into the bracket of isolated cases if all worked, I think not, digressing away from the text of this article is that thousands of innocent people have been killed in Iraq by violent brutal leaders like Bush, Blair, Howard and could be now Obama and Abbott in the same country. When we see brutality by men with positions of power, there is little hope for any domestic issues of brutality by man to woman or woman to man in this world, you may argue that the cases are different but they are not, power comes into play in all cases, whether in the home front or in a far away country like Iraq.