Talk:Domestic violence against men

Post on Fringe theories noticeboard

I've posted on Fringe theories noticeboard to solicit input from the community regarding what I'm concerned may be a WP:POVFORK here. There is an existing centralized consensus, reaffirmed e.g. at this RfC, that "the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women." Much of this article appears to run afoul of that consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I may begin making WP:BOLD removals soon. I will note that there appeared to be broad agreement at FTN with my overall assessment that this is a POVFORK which needs to be brought into line with the prevailing consensus on the so-called "gender symmetry" hypothesis, i.e. that it is a minority opinion within the scholarly literature. It would be best if this could be a collaborative process, but if I'm the only one who sees this as a priority I will be happy to spearhead the work. Generalrelative (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's start by organising the article first. Right now it's in quite a bad state and organised poorly, then I'm happy to help removing content. I'm also going to start adding some information about the history of research of DV against men at some point. —Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 04:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! I agree that organizing the article would be a great start :) Generalrelative (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we can remove quite a lot from the "Estimates of male victimization" section as it is overly detailed and just lists statistics from different studies. I think we should do what you did on the Intimate partner violence article and categorise them, showing some studies show gender asymmetry and others show symmetry. I don't see any point in listing every individual study in detail as there are thousands of them. —Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 05:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We should also look to prioritize meta-analyses and review articles published in high-quality journals over and above individual studies. Generalrelative (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

History section

I've written a bit of a history section here which was reverted. What I was trying to do was illustrate how research has shifted from past exclusion of male victims to studies that are more inclusive. Older studies relied on patriarchy and the duluth model, which studies are now moving away from. Because of this, there have been controversial studies suggesting that the strong majority of IPV isn't committed by males. Older studies suggested about 98% male, which academic consensus says that females commit significantly more than 2%. So these gender symmetry studies suggest a changing way of research, but my intention is to simply mention these without saying that they are true, which I'm having difficulty with. I believe that this is an important part of the history of research because it demonstrates that research methods has been changing.

I think whether we include mention of the controversial studies or not, I think it is at least quite important to include that older research was based largely on patriarchy and now it is less so.

Generalrelative, you say that the diff was undue and had a bad tone. Is there anything that I missed? From what I understand, I just need help wording it correctly. If you think that it should not be included at all, please explain why instead of using code words. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative What do you think? It's been a week and you haven't responded, so I'm here to remind you as looking at your contributions, you have been active on the site. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I was hoping that others might comment, since you're already well aware of my general disposition toward this content. Then I simply forgot. But to break things down:

1) Your first two sentences Early feminist theory said that the cause of domestic violence was patriarchy, which "forced women to remain in a submissive state" with male perpetrators trying to control their female partners. This caused feminist literature to focus on female victimization, which has since become more inclusive to studying male victims. appear to me to be UNDUE (i.e. unduly reductive). Looking at the source, I also see that your first clause before the quote is WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, and thus possibly WP:COPYVIO. Note too that your summary of this source is not a strictly accurate representation of what it says. The source specifically notes that views contrary to the patriarchy model are still very much controversial, and suggests that the longstanding debate between the feminist and family violence theories perhaps is a “false controversy” that is not resolvable. The source makes a perfectly compelling point however, that Although early feminists focused more on the experiences of women only, later feminist studies were extended to include men as well. George and Stith (2014) proposed an updated feminist perspective to understand IPV, maintaining a benign, socially just, nonviolent approach to treating couples who struggled with IPV and remaining receptive to the phenomena of both unidirectional and bidirectional violence. If this is the core point you'd like to include here, I'd be happy to work with you to find a way to say it properly.

2) The next three sentences of your edit are There has been controversial evidence suggesting that both men and women commit violence, with similar intentions. Some controversial studies suggest the genders commit at similar rates, and some suggest that women may perperate at higher rates. Many suggest that males commit at higher rates, however. This is treading more heavily on territory we've already discussed at length, so I will point you toward earlier attempts on your part to include language of this kind and the reasons why others disagreed. We would need to see some new arguments for inclusion that haven't been raised in the past.

Generalrelative (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response! And yeah, the first part (1) is the one that I am most interested in. The second part, while I think has some importance, I'm happy to have it omitted as it doesn't really serve much value, even if it was worded properly. If you could help me with the wording, I would be really grateful! —Panamitsu (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have the time to do a rewrite myself right now but I would suggest that we could use the source in question to revise the rather stark and reductive language currently in the section Domestic violence against men#History (I'd forgotten to add in my comment above that what you'd initially added was a kind of rehash of this existing section.) Perhaps we can come away from this with a much more nuanced presentation of the development of research into male IPV victimization. Generalrelative (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh my bad. I completely missed that the article already has this stuff. I'm probably not going to work with this source further then as I have reading difficulties. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: The Anthropology of Violence

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 23 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kreiswig (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by EliasSpence84 (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Domestic Violence

I am a survivor of domestic violence Survivor32 (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)