Creative Destruction

June 10, 2006

How Commonly Are Men Beaten Up By Intimate Partners?

Filed under: Debate,Feminist Issues — Ampersand @ 12:43 pm

In the comments of Chuck’s livejournal entry about the Male Privilege Checklist, Miss Fahrenheit wrote that “#42 just makes me angry because I know it’s wrong, but Google isn’t throwing up any helpful statistics I can scream about.”

Here’s what #42 says: “If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.”

I based #42 on the Centers for Disease Control’s report on intimate violence, which is (as far as I know) the largest and best-conducted study of intimate violence done in the US to date. According to this study, women are 14 times as likely to have been beaten up by an intimate partner at some point in their lives than men (8.5% versus 0.6%).

The study asked about many kinds of violence, ranging from being shoved to being attacked with a gun. In all categories, women were more likely to have been attacked by an intimate partner than men, and the discrepancies got larger as the violence became more serious. I focused on “beat up” because, unlike items like “threw something” or “pushed” (is a push a bone-jarring crash into a wall, or a painless, flirting push on the shoulder? What if someone pushed only in self-defense, or to escape?), “beat up” has little ambiguity, and implicitly contains a negative outcome.

They also found that men who had cohabited with a male partner were three times as likely to report having been assaulted by a partner as men who had only lived with opposite-sex partners.

Other studies have suggested that men and women are equal victims of intimate violence, but none of those studies are as large or well-conducted as the CDC’s study. Please see this past post for a much more in-depth discussion of “husband-battering” and intimate violence statistics.

(This is one of a number of posts responding to Chuck’s critique. You can use the category archive on “Alas” to see all posts related to the Male Privilege Checklist.)

Advertisements

9 Comments »

  1. Over on Alas in the corresponding pro-feminist only thread, Ampersand said

    [The authors of the report] found that there wasn’t a statistically significant difference between the results based on the sex of the interviewer.

    In fact they “found a few small but statistically significant gender effects.” (See footnote 2 to chapter 2 of the full report (PDF).

    This is a nitpick, because ‘statistically significant’ means that the differences are of a magnitude which is unlikely to be the result of chance. It does not mean that the difference is significant from the point of view of interpretting the results. However I thought you’d prefer to give accurate information.

    Comment by Daran — June 12, 2006 @ 11:29 am | Reply

  2. Thanks for the correction – I do indeed prefer to be accurate. I’ve posted your correction in the comments at “Alas.”

    Comment by Ampersand — June 12, 2006 @ 11:46 am | Reply

  3. Here is one of Ginmar’s posts,and my retort to it. I wish to post many more. I know the thread is long. Sorry for the length.

    Yeah, it’s so funny, all those men making laws that deny women their rights! It’s all the feminists’ fault. That totally makes sense.

    (Which is really a misleading statement. Because it doesn’t really matter who is in charge.)

    Then fork over the government, fuckwit. Doesn’t matter? Hand over the goddamn keys now. Give it up. Let’s see what happens when we get women controlling things like abortion and BC and EC and shit like that. C’mon, babe, bring it on. Let’s prove it, right here and now.

    (What matters is who is pulling their strings. And in terms of social issues regarding man/woman relations it’s been all feminists all the time.)

    Hey, pal? I guarantee that if feminists were controlling things, that for starters no pharmacist anywhere in this country would so much as think of denying BC, abortions would be federally funded–and pretty damned rare, because we wouldn’t have this stupid abstinence only shit. Rapists would get arrested, and convicted—for a nice change of pace. Wife-beaters would get arrested long before they turned into wife-killers. Half the damned TV stations, half the radio stations, and half of everything would be liberal—-and real liberal, not just the kind that guys think will get them laid. If you opened a fucking newspaper, you’d see more than All White Guys, All The Frickin’ Time. Women wouldn’t have to starve themselves to be ‘attractive’ and men would have to appeal to women. Womens’ magazines would cover issues other than men. Women wouldn’t have to stay with men who abused them, and men who whine about on site job deaths would have to share those damned jobs—which are pretty damned high-paying—with women for a change. Half the House and Senate, needless to say, would be female. We’d have our first female President. Suddenly, a view of the world that wasn’t All White Guy, All The Time would prevail. In other words, women would actually have some say in what goes on, instead of having to pathetic trolls whine about conditions that prove them wrong. Oprah Winfrey? Oprah Winfrey? Hey, I know. How about I take that style of reasoning and point to OJ when it comes to summing up the condition and lives of men, okay?

    Is that enough of a clue?

    What I really want to know is if these fools actually believe this crap. I mean, come on—How could anybody with a brain stem believe this crap? I swear to God—what the fuck? The Feminist Illuminati? How pathetic does a guy have to be to whine that the world is secretly controlled by women? Because you know that women who secretly pull the strings would do in such a way as to leave women everywhere in dire straits. Like if we got power the first thing we wouldn’t do wouldn’t be something practical and helpful—-like helping other women. In terms of conspiracy theories, it’s like the lowest of the low.

    $5.00 says he tries to whine about combat next. Bring it on, dude. Bring it on.

    Also? I just love it when they bitch about the death gap. Yeah, river, cry me, one of—–you know the drill. You’re responsible for your own death gap there, babe. All that ill-gotten power must be pretty stressful when you keep trying to wiggle out of all the responsibility that comes with it, and then try to stand on the people you’ve victimized and blame them for your sorry ass state.You made your own ulcer.

    And my response to her post;

    (Yeah, it’s so funny, all those men making laws that deny women their rights!) Mention one law of this sort that doesn’t involve abortion! politicians bend over backwards to favor women over men, starting with affirmative action on forward. Name one bill in the senate that mentions a specifically male issue. (prostate cancer, boys dropping out of school, etc.) Go on, I dare you! (Then fork over the government, fuckwit.) Name-calling is so classy. Not! (Doesn’t matter? Hand over the goddamn keys now. Give it up.) ( Let’s see what happens when we get women controlling things like abortion). Some women oppose abortion. Some men support it. Bad example. (and BC and EC and shit like that. C’mon, babe, bring it on. Let’s prove it, right here and now. ) That’s totally ignorant. Most men don’t run the government anymore than most women do, and you know it. The low-income people among both genders is often way higher than the rich. (women would actually have some say in what goes on). You mean like having a middle-class income, house,air conditioning, money, freedom of travel, longer life than men,etc. You have plenty of say. And you are the majority of voters! More funding goes toward your health concerns. And you want to compare the U.S. to Saudi Arabia? Go there if you want less freedom. Otherwise, stop complaining. If you were paid 80,000, would you stop whining? That would be a good experiment.(before they turned into wife-killers.) There are lot of husband-killers too. Gee, thanks for mentioning the victimhood motivated, violent men card. Women are as violent as men easily. They abuse children and the elderly at higher rates than men. (How pathetic does a guy have to be to whine that the world is secretly controlled by women?)It’s controlled by men and women who favor women’s issues before men’s. If women were 100% of politicians but weren’t good on your favorite social issues, would you be fooled? Not likely. (Womens’ magazines would cover issues other than men.) who’s fault is that? Think about it. Most men don’t support those magazines,to say the least. (Women wouldn’t have to starve themselves to be ‘attractive’)
    They can easily make the choice not to do that. Most of the beauty/cosmetic companies, and magazines that make women self-conscious are run by women, not by men. Don’t pin that on us. (you’re responsible for your own death gap there, babe.) Nice hypocrisy. Chivalrous men and women that usually run the government would try to pass a new law if women had the death gap going against them. No equality there either. (because we wouldn’t have this stupid abstinence only shit.) What’s wrong with abstinence? If you just stereotype and complain about men in general, what credible man would want you? Many feminists I’ve seen say that all sex is rape anyway. We have more prudes here, than among right-wing christians. (All that ill-gotten power). You don’t think any women had acquired any ill-gotten power? (must be pretty stressful when you keep trying to wiggle out of all the responsibility that comes with it,) What resonsiblity are you talking about? expand on that. (and then try to stand on the people you’ve victimized)Mostly dead men in wars. If it weren’t for men, you haven’t have houses, phones, cars, roads, supermarkets,a lifespan in the 70’s. etc. You would have nothing. Great.(and blame them for your sorry ass state.) If you really feel that way, give up all items invented by men, leave corrupt America,and go live in The Sudan. Don’t be a lying hypocrite about it. Live by stated values.(You made your own ulcer.) you should take your own advice. ($5.00 says he tries to whine about combat next. Bring it on, dude. Bring it on.) That will be the day. Women taking on a so-called “man’s” responsibilities, not just their “rights.” I support having women on the front lines of a war, actually defending the country the way men have had to. Great idea! I’ll say one thing, Ginmar, Damn those unfair, “patriarchal” men that invented the computer, so you can spew your bile online. Maybe they are “oppressive” after all. HaHaHa

    Comment by Mike — September 19, 2006 @ 9:14 pm | Reply

  4. Um… Why are you posting this here?

    Comment by Ampersand — September 19, 2006 @ 11:39 pm | Reply

  5. yes why are you posting this here i dont think its very apropriate childern could enter this site and could be cared for life im very angree with this !!!!!!!!!! :@:@:@

    Comment by jane — November 15, 2006 @ 7:41 am | Reply

  6. IIIIII HHHHAAAAAAAATTTTTTEEEEEEEEEE MEEEEENNNNNNNNAANAAA WOMENS RITES 4 LIFE!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    Comment by jane — November 15, 2006 @ 7:45 am | Reply

  7. Having been the victim of multiple abusive relationships with a woman, I understand that the “unlikely” qualifier doesn’t equal “never” as is the case on some of the other items (many of which I agree with).

    And while my isolated anecdotal incident surely doesn’t discredit the assertion, it does call into question something that’s often brought up in discussions regarding female abuse- reportage rates.

    You have to wonder if reportage rates for female-on-male abuse are considerably lower than estimated, given the societal circumstances surrounding it. I understand that the response is simply, “Why look for a reportage rate error when there’s no evidence to support a discrepancy, unlike with rape?” but I still feel the need to bring up the point, since, you know, I’ve had the shit kicked out of me by two women and don’t think that’s just acceptable.

    Comment by Matt — October 16, 2009 @ 2:48 pm | Reply

  8. I am a proud Misogynist. I hate child abuse, and women are the MAJORITY of child abusers. I have no problem with someone abusing, or taking the “rights” away from such a woman who does that. I would wish to “oppress” them. And even though there are mothers who don’t mistreat their kids, the mother over child is an power imbalance, in a world where we are supposed to recognize an imbalance in power, but only if it is men over women! We are not supposed to care if its women over men. I also don’t appreciate the double standard of having to care about women’s rights, when society doesn’t care about men’s rights. And I don’t appreciate any ideology that says that Men “run the world”. Most men do not, of course. Yes, There are 44 male presidents. And there are millions of men dead in wars, and homeless men. Which is a greater indicator of how most men are doing? I thought so.
    And the justice system is a corrupt system, including the lawyer profession. But, Lets talk about child-killers Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, or others. These women don’t “protect” their damn kids! From Men!! I wish to vilify the “good name” of motherhood, until I can find those who aren’t punitive. Yikes! And We can talk about Mary Winkler, getting away with murder! NOT JUST MEN HERE! Guys need To be liberated from this country!!! So Yes, Let us ABUSE these murderous, abusive mothers! Yes, beat the child-burning wretch, until bloody! Yes, This means more Domestic Violence! More Violence against Women!!! Whack! Whack!! OWW!!!!!!!!!! You cowardly, Child-whipping psycho whore!

    Comment by Screaming Dragon! — November 8, 2009 @ 9:00 pm | Reply

  9. I’m sorry but this statement is absolutely false, it’s horribly sexist and it needs to stop.

    First of all, you need to look at the full statement : “If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.” *Beaten up.* Then you have to take a look at the CDC study, and read the following part : “A national telephone survey on violence against women was conducted from November 1995 to May 1996 so as to determine the experiences of 8,000 women and 8,000 men regarding rape, physical assault, and stalking; this report focuses on the victimization experiences of the women respondents.” Do you see how rape is also in this statistic?

    Although undeniably rape is also a form of abuse and physical violence, the crime is of a different nature than being “beaten up.” Women are more likely to be victim of sexual violence, no doubt, but that’s not what the statement is about.

    If you exclude rape, several studies have found that men are at least as likely to be abused and hit by women. Studies have also found that women are more likely to initiate the violence. There has even been a very large scale study in the U.K. that has found that just under half of all heterosexual relationships with IPV are relationships with reciprocal violence. What’s more, in relationships where the violence is one-sided, women are the aggressors 70% of the time!

    The largest portion of victims of extreme violence are women though. But the narrative has been driven that this is because men are more likely to use violence. The reality is however, women, on average, are simply not as strong as men. When a man gets in a fit of rage and loses all self-control, he can grab a woman by the throat, pin her down, and choke her. Women, on average, cannot do that to men.

    In this false narrative, women have to take near zero responsibility. You can have a situation where she yells at him and starts throwing stuff at him. He just wants to get out of there, but she blocks his path while slapping his face. He gets tired of it, grabs her, and shoves her aside. She falls and hits her arm on a piece of furniture, causing a bruise. At that point, all she has to do is show the bruise at law enforcement, tell them he caused it, and that will be it. Everything the woman did up that point will be completely irrelevant. He caused a bruise, he’s the bad guy, no discussion possible.

    The irony here is that the feminist narrative does exactly the opposite of what feminism is supposedly about. Instead of getting women to be seen as equal to men, they’re portrayed as these poor fragile beings that cannot possibly defend themselves.

    It’s about damn time women take responsibility for their side of the violence! It’s about time we teach our girls it’s not okay for them to hit boys, just like we teach our boys not to hit girls!

    Sources :
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ – Large scale U.K. study
    http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17596591211244166
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2669408/Rise-female-relationship-terrorists-Study-finds-women-controlling-aggressive-partners-men.html

    This is also a very informative video. The woman speaking is the one who formed the first domestic violence victim shelter in the U.K.

    Comment by sixstring — May 29, 2015 @ 7:29 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: