SJF,
Personally I don’t pay that much attention to DV surveys because so many have been so heavily corrupted by feminism that the results are normally corrupted also.

For example: - There have been a very large number of surveys into domestic violence that have excluded all men, and completely gender biased and feminist organizations such as the Office of Women continue to exclude all men from any survey they undertake (whether it is a survey into DV or something else).

If the people running the surveys have an attitude that “men are often violent as a method of control or response to rejection” or that men are “cavemen”, or men are “underendowed with brain-power”, then they will organize the DV survey to achieve the results they desire.

Instead, I look around, and I have never seen a woman with a black eye out of the many 1,000’s of women I have seen. These women have been walking down the street, at schools, at workplaces, at shops and supermarkets, at festivals and also at sporting events.

SJF,

Melanie Phillips (a woman) wrote "their main arguement 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 victims of DV."

So basically feminist researchers are highly selective in the use of their criticisms.

Interestingly the WSS used a conflict scale and the figure of 1 in 4 was and still is often quoted.

Please note in my previous post how feminist researchers feel that individual women "do not necessarily possess sufficient knowledge to explain everything about their lives."

SJF, firstly feminist researchers expand the definition of DV to include things like "giving the silent treatment" which by the way almost 100% of the male population would have been on the recieving end at some point in their lives.

Many earlier feminist researchers dismissed alcohol and drug use as contribuiting factors in DV.

So now you complain that using such definitions as the silent treatment in DV research is unfair too women and doesn't show the true extent of violence.

"Would you say that the idea that both females and males can be both aggressors and victims is becoming more accepted among those in the field? Why or why not?

These notions are not new; they had found support as far back as the 1970’s, in the work of Murray Straus, Peter Neidig and other researchers. For years, studies conducted by these mavericks were dismissed, and in some cases suppressed,"
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1843#more-1843

About 70 women are murdered per year, yet Ovarian cancer killed 851 women in 2004.

Warren Farrell made a poignant point "as soon as research stops showing women as victims, the research stops."

Eeva Sodhi (a woman) wrote an interesting paper on How perceptions are not facts" and in the paper she exposes how feminist researchers use statistical slight of hand and blend methodologies to support their arguement.

So SJF, I think this is a case of the "kettle calling the pot black"(sic)

Whitty

‘If you really want equality, you have to take away all this rubbish about women being so virtuous by nature, and men being violent by nature.’

I would think that if you really want equality, you have to ‘take away’ the fact that men batter women at least seven times more than women batter men. Besides, victimhood does not equate with virtue, nor does violent male behaviour indicate that men are violent by nature.

Gwallan

‘You suggest Murray Strauss now rejects CTS? He has done no such thing and is still using it.’

I did not say that Straus rejects CTS. I said that he rejects INTERPRETATIONS of CTS that claim equal levels of gender battering. I think this quote from Straus is a fair enough representation of his views:

‘... although women may assault their partners at approximately the same rate as men, because of the greater physical, financial, and emotional injury suffered by women, they are the predominant victims … Consequently, first priority in services for victims and in prevention and control must continue to be directed toward assaults by husbands.’

Source: ‘The Controversy over domestic violence by women: a methodological, theoretical and sociology of science analysis’, Murray A. Straus, 1997.

HRS

‘Instead, I look around, and I have never seen a woman with a black eye out of the many 1,000’s of women I have seen.’

This comment reminds me of a time I was dining with my husband at a bistro. Suddenly, a woman literally came flying through the air and landed on the table right next to ours, smashing it in two. The man who had thrown her there came running over, pulled her up by the hair and started pummeling her with his fists - all amidst the screams of the children she had just landed on. As he was being subdued by two security guards, the woman shot off into the night without a single word.

SJF,

I never said victimhood equates with virtue, I suggest false assumptions of female virtue, and false assumptions of mens propensity for violence hides the truth of the situation.

You can only find what you are looking for in statistics, as you and the other posters have shown. There are simply more feminists than any other group looking for a situation where women are the victims of domestic violence.

'This comment reminds me of a time...'

Yes and that comment reminds me of my former partner constantly comming home drunk and abusive, who would punch and kick and throw anything she could find at me. If I grabbed her arms to defend myself she would accuse me of abuse and threaten to call the cops, and would get a knife out and swing it at me. If I attempted to leave the situation she would put the knife to her wrist and threaten suicide.

I also had a work collegue who had 12 stiches in his head from his partner bashing him with the broken leg of a table. I'm sure you would assume he was somehow at fault (as did the police), but other housemates confirmed she was regularly abusive.

Just because you have one story doesn't strengthen your case at all.

I believe you are like so many feminists who believe that these things just don't happen, and that somehow it is really the guys fault, and that the guy is always in the position of power. Life's not that simple dear.

While ever people like you attempt to play down the amount and severity of instances of females assulting males, and try to absolve women from any responsibility in domestic violence just because a women has ended up been injured more, we will be a long way from a solution to the problem.

While ever researchers interview only women victims, and carry with them preconceived bias', and government campaigns portray men as being the sole villians in domestic disputes, and there are only 'Violence against women' hotlines to ring, the issue is not being dealt with effectively.

SJF,
Judging by the amount of abuse of myself and other men on this forum and a number of other forums by those who say that men are abusive, then it is very difficult to believe anything from a feminist.

Finding some truth in what a feminist says is about as easy as walking down a street and trying to find a woman with a black eye.

Or trying to find a woman with a black eye in a shopping center, supermarket, workplace, sports grounds, school, university, church, beach, park, cinema, café or restaurant

The Conflict Tactics Scales and Its Critics:
and New Data on Evaluation Validity and Reliability

Murray a Straus

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS4.pdf

Summary - "Although far from a perfect instrument, the comparison presented in this chapter of the CTS with the available alternatives, together with the evidence on stable factor structure, inoderate reliability and concurrent validity, and the strong evidence of construct validity, suggests that the CTS is the best available instrument to measure intrafamily violence."

Making something a first priority should not make it the only priority.

R0bert