HRS, if you've never seen a woman with a black eye then you are indeed fortunate. I don't see many around my suburb either but have seen them.

I used to date someone who worked with kids in a rougher area than where I live and from her accounts violence was a regular part of those kids lives either with themselves as victims or between parents. Some people live lives that are unthinkable to most of us and see no real way out.

As for a lack of black eyes suggesting that sexual assaults don't occur - I'm no expert on sexual assault but my understanding is that the eye was not normally the prefered body part for a sexual assault. I'd not expect the bruising from a sexual assault to be readily visible in public places.

Yes some writers appear to exagerate some things and underplay others and we do need to address the places where that occurs but the exageration you use hurts the cause of those who want to highlight the misrepresentation.

It might make you feel better but it does not in my view provide incentive for others to take claims about misrepresenation of gender violence seriously, if anything it detracts from that possibility.

R0bert

Ah yes Romany, I thought I detected a certain level of facetiousness, however when HRS genuinely appeared to think ilk was some kind of insult, I was somewhat thrown.

Having perused wikipedia, aside from the moor dwelling creatures, I may have inadvertently accused him of being a scottish clansman, a person who hails from an area of Hungary or likened him to a drummer from San Francisco or even a german discus thrower.

Still no insults though. Unless, HRS, you've got some kind of problem with the Scots...

Turnrightthanleft
One of the reasons why I have only been injured once by another male (and accidentally injured) is that I have not been dismissive of men, nor have I referred to them as being an “ilk” or a “Neanderthal”, or referred to them in vulgar terms.

But you can do that.

Consider what will eventually and inevitably happen to you, as being a part of your life’s education.

Robert
“women are more likely than men to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners”

Archer, J. (2002). “Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners”

So if a male is more likely to beat up a woman, then counting the number of women with facial injuries would be a more scientific way of estimating the amount of abuse being carried out on women, than the unverifiable, non-quantifiable or subjective research that is normally carried out.

The basic fact that almost no women or girls can be seen with a black eye or facial injury does not equate with the majority of the research so often carried out.

A further scientific and also obvious way of establishing just how much abuse there is of girls would be to study their school marks and school attendance.

If there are 1 in 3 girls being sexually abused, (or abused in any other way), then this would obviously affect the school marks of girls right across the country, or there would be a decline in girl’s school attendance, or there would be a decline in the general health of girls.

But there has been no decline in girl’s marks, there has been no decline in girl’s school attendance, and any decline in their general health seems to be associated with the type of food being eaten and a lack of physical exercise.

So figures such as 1 in 3 girls being sexually abused are not just an exaggeration.

They are outright lies, and the author would know it.

Thanks R0bert for the links, and for your commonsense approach. I'm not sure about http://www.mediaradar.org, perhaps its a trifle too strident for my taste. I note that they prominently link to the Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn and Saltzman paper previously pointed out on this thread by HRS.

I notice a common denominator of many of the studies cited by Whitaker et al is that they rely on self-reporting by male and female subjects. I suspect (as suggested by one of the DV Clearing House reports) that females may overstate their own agression and understate their partner's and vice-versa. Mind you, my wife has just reminded me that she once flung a bowl of spaghetti at me (it missed). Perhaps these studies are paying too much attention to this sort of isolated incident and not enough to the systemic violence of dysfunctional relationships.

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti90.pdf in "almost 4 out of 5 intimate-partner homicides, the perpetrator was a male and the victim a female....in a little over 1 in 5 incidents, the homicides were committed by a female against a male." Even in homosexual partner homicides the rate was 5 to 1 (male vs female). These figures correspond strikingly with the previous assault stats I quoted, where men were convicted of assault at 5 times the rate of women.

I simply can't square the criminal stats with the notion of equivalent female partner violence. I'm sorry, but it simply doesn't add up.

You've obviously led a sheltered life HRS if you've never encountered a victim of domestic violence.

TRTL, you'd better be careful, the Ilk Mafia are gunning for you.

HRS, you are focusing on the young ladies that are attending the school of either your children or perhaps grandchildren.

Thank goodness that the young people in your school area aren't subject (we hope) to abuse. But it depends on where you live. When I was going to school, a friend was daily physically flogged to the degree of extensive and severe bruising. There were quite a few girls that suffered the trauma of rape, assault and/or abuse either by boyfriends, acquaintances or parents. But like I said before, a black eye doesn't not necessarily mean that someone has not been assaulted/abused. There is emotional abuse also - the bruises are on the inside - and you can't see those. How do you know that the young ladies you are seeing aren't being abused? You just don't know, because even these kids will try to put up a good front and say everything is fine - when it isn't.

But one thing you need to remember is that just because at your nearby school the female students may not be abused, raped or assaulted does not mean it isn't happening on a regular basis to women in their late teens, young adulthood and even the more mature ladies.

HRS, I never referred you you as a neanderthal, and I honestly don't know how ilk can be seen as insulting.

If there's an insulting meaning behind the word, which I've always taken to mean 'people of like' then perhaps you can explain it so I can avoid unintentionally insulting people in future?

As it stands I've got no idea what's getting your back up and you seem awfully precious about it.