"Perhaps most importantly of all, it ignores issues of initiation, intent or motivation, and context. It does not ask whether violent acts were initiated first or in self-defence. It does not ask about non-physical controlling behaviours. It often does not ask about fear."

Other factors which seem to be neglected are history of alcohol and drug use, mental illness and acquired brain injury. Even prescription medication can and does have undesirable side effects.

“Their main(arguement) was that the studies showing equal violence between the sexes used flawed methodology. Yet the same methodology has been used in studies which show women alone to be the victims of domestic violence.

Similarly, they complained about the ‘validity of self-reported data’ which were possibly compromised by failures of candour or memory’ because there was no consensus about the use of terms like ‘hit’ or ‘grabbed’ or ‘used a knife’, or what violence meant. Precisely the same terms, however are used by researchers who claim that women are abused by men. So once again their criticism was highly selective.”
Melaine Phillips the sex change society p.138

I find it interesting that Michael is now talking about exploring 'intent' and 'context'.

"Research stops when it stops showing women as victims." Warren Farrell

Around two decades ago a man who rang a phone survey (Adelaide) into DV was told they were only collecting data on women.

We have had two decades or more of campaigns about DV against women and zilch for men. Sure it is easier to measures bruises and broken bones and much harder to measure emotionally broken people.

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

Domestic violence campaigners accused of bias
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10410452

Reply to Flood contd..

"It is used only with intact couples, when much violence occurs during and after separation."

It is true there is no attention towards this in the CTS, but then mentioning this in the context of domestic violence is about the same as mentioning statistics from a third world country to support a campaign in a western one (which has been done). If it's after separation, it's not domestic violence, or IPV by definition, which is why the CTS doesn't measure it.

It seems to contradict police reports that it is significant in comparison to actual DV and it certainly contradicts advertising campaign's focus on a woman being beaten in a home, which this would not be.

"It asks only one partner in each couple about violence by them and to them"

I don't see this making any difference. Men and women are interviewed, they don't have to be partners.

"Perhaps most importantly of all, it ignores issues of initiation, intent or motivation, and context. It does not ask whether violent acts were initiated first or in self-defence."

Let's cut to the chase. You believe DV is primarily caused by "patriarchy" right? That's what you mean when you talk about intent, motivation and context. If you believe it, come out and say it instead of dancing around it so you don't lose credibility.

Recent CTS2 studies do look at this stuff and they have found that mutual combat outstrips one-sided initiation by around 100%. When mandatory arrest laws were in place in the US women were taken to jail for DV in droves. So feminists had "primary abuser" legislation enacted to blame the man, due to this unproven context of "patriarchy", even if it was mutual combat or even purely female initiated.

Men's concern that if their spouse provokes or starts a fight, THEY will just have to cop it for fear of being sent to prison themselves is very valid in the face of this.

"It does not ask about non-physical controlling behaviours."

False again. The threats and intimidation scale was present in CTS1.

“If it's after separation, it's not domestic violence, or IPV by definition,”
Interesting point Happy Bullet.

The time after separation involves an enormous amount of interpersonal stress. It is a period of grieving, with all the feelings associated with the grief process and as with any grief process unresolved issues can surface. Added to the process is that sometimes people involved what to hurt the other party, such as depriving the other parent of contact with the children or hurting the other emotionally and psychologically.

The behaviour of one party can escalate the situation. According to a psychologist from the family court, the vast majority of abuse is perpetrated by the women.

If one looks at Tom’s Tale by George Rolph or in Tony Millers diary (27 June 2006) it is easy to see how it all spirals out of control.

Feminist philosophy is that this is about patriarchal power and control, yet reading the stories there is a strong sense of helplessness and powerlessness. The term maternal gatekeeping applies, with tragic consequences. Grief becomes so overwhelming that any sense of perspective is lost. Very little empathy is shown to men experiencing this situation.

CTS may catch his behaviour and not her behaviour that for all intensive purposes initiated this destructive spiral. Once started it is almost predictable the course that it will take.

Contolling behaviour can also include such things as 'baiting' or other behaviour designed to make the other person respond angerily or pushing emotional buttons.

Signing Out

My lesson from this debate and the original article have only convinced me further to pick up the reins from where my brother left off and continue his fight for social justice and the protection of children.. By the way that means working a 100 hour week, which the government delights in not paying you for.

I have included a link to Brave Hearts which has an online petition for the call of a Royal Commission into the failure of Federal, State and Territory governments to prioritize the protection of children. My brother worked very closely with Hetty Johnston on a number of cases and issues dealing with the Child Protection Act. Please take a moment from your valid point making and sign it! http://www.bravehearts.org.au/

None of us condone the final act in my brother’s life, but we did condone and support his tireless work ethic toward those who had become vulnerable to all acts of violence. An irony I realize only to well. However, to have him used as a statistic and a poster case to benefit the biased argument of those feminists involved shows only too well their lack of non biased research. Did anyone of them dare ask what the hell may have gone wrong with this man, when his pathology showed no previous acts of DV? Did they dare ask whether he was suffering at the hands of DV?

There would be no hysterical gain for the Feminists if effective research resulted in a balanced representation of fact and subsequent measurement of the cause and effect that DV has on men. Well the sisterhood would lay claim, that as a woman I have sold out to the male movement and that I have been dominated by patriarchal processes because I support the representation of men’s issues in society. Hmm, I guess I have also opened myself up to the level of death threats that my brother was getting.

I wish you all well and a happy festive season and hope to see you on line in 2007. Take particular care of your loved ones.

Replying to Happy Bullet, in haste;

Violence by ex-partners *is* domestic violence, at least in the vast majority of definitions. That’s why the Personal Safety Survey and many other surveys ask about violence by current or former partners. And violence by ex-partners often takes place in familiar locations, such as the victim’s or perpetrator’s home, a car, etc.

You say that asking only one person in each relationship about violence doesn’t matter, but it does. Men and women disagree about how much domestic work each does in marriages, and they disagree more about touchier issues like DV. In fact, the evidence is that men underreport their own use of violence to a greater extent than women do, and women overreport their partner’s use of violence to a greater extent than men do.

No, I don’t believe that DV is primarily caused by patriarchy. I do believe that traditional and patriarchal norms and beliefs, as well as gender inequalities, do play an important role at least in men’s violence against women. But they’re not the only cause.

Intent and motivation are important because if you and I are in a relationship and I’ve been hitting and abusing you all year, and occasionally you use hit back in self-defence, then our violence isn’t equivalent.

And in relation to the CTS, you’ve missed my point. Sure, the actual scale asks about fear, intimidation, etc., but many of the studies which *use* the CTS don’t.

Cheers,

michael.

Fiebert’s bibliography is a favourite citation of anti-feminist men’s advocates. However, it’s selective and biased. In particular, Fiebert highlights findings showing gender symmetry, while omitting findings showing gender assymmetries.

I’ll give a couple of examples.

Arriaga et al. (2004). Adolescent dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19.

Fiebert fails to mention that, “Although boys and girls were equally likely to be victims, girls who were victims were more likely to experience severe violence, whereas boys who were victims experienced more moderate violence.” (175)

“Girls who were perpetrators used moderate behaviors, whereas boys used severe behaviors, and girls who were victims received severe behaviors, whereas boys received moderate behaviors. Thus, although there were fewer violent boys, those who were violent were more likely to be severely violent than were violent girls. Moreover, girls were more likely to have been both perpetrators and victims in past dating relationships… than boys… these results reveal that when girls are violent, they tend to be in relationships marked by a pattern of mutual and less severe violence.” (178-179)

Jackson et al. (2000). Violence and sexual coercion in high school students' dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 15.

Fiebert omits for example the findings;

Among males who were physically hurt by a partner’s physical aggression, the most common reaction was to be ‘not bothered’. Among females on the other hand, the most common reactions were anger and then fear (p. 32).

More female than male students experienced sexual coercion (p. 29). Almost half the males who experienced sexual coercion were ‘not bothered’ by it, while few females reported this. Female students were more likely to feel ‘cheap’ or ‘duped’ (pp. 30-31).

As the authors note, “Gender differences in the emotional impact of the violence revealed a great deal about whether it was perceived as abusive… male students were significantly more likely to report that they felt okay or were not bothered or that they had positive feelings about violence… Coercive behaviors were experienced as significantly more abusive by female students… Only females experienced physical abuse as scary, whereas only male students thought it was a ‘‘laugh.’’”