Jump to content

Talk:Epidemiology of domestic violence/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NPOV assertion

This article is titled, and it's first sentence implies, that it covers the general breadth of statistics about domestic violence. However, the thread of "argument" about the relative frequency of male vs. female survivors as well as perpetrators seems to overwhelm the very few other pieces of data presented. A particular example of this undue weight, although far from the only one, is the placement of that controversy in the first paragraph of the article.

Quite a bit of research has been done on domestic violence, looking at the issues involved from perspectives not only of sex but also of economic class, religion and probably race. The problem of the frequency of domestic violence in a study being highly linked to what definition of DV people use is also quite interesting, and deserves explanation as well. How long do battered partners typically stay in such relationships? Etc.

I understand that there is a lot of emotion and controversy about how to frame domestic violence verses gender, and I do not mean to suggest that that should be ignored. But it feels to me that the controversy has reached a point where authors are inserting the same arguments and data into several places in both this and the parent article Domestic violence, and that that undue weight is detremental to the other important things both articles need to say. --Joe Decker 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole issue of both gender bias and under-reporting issues in domestic violence statistics is worthy of a significant discussion in the article. The source of every statistic citing one gender is more or less likely to be subject to domestic violence should be identified, as the statistical methodology of that source will affect the bias in any statistics. As domestic violence statistics have the potential to be mis-used by advocates of various lobby groups, with political adgendas, it may also be useful to outline how the statistics from various sources have been used to promote political platforms. -- Cameron Dewe 03:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten the article and tried to find sources, up to halfway through the United States section. I'll finish it later. JCDenton2052 (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is "Strauss"

This (I assume) person is mentioned and cited a dozen times in the course of this article. However neither the article, nor the sources give any hint on who this Strauss person is. Are you talking about Murray A. Staus? (one 's')

Further to that, he is cited a lot of times, but the citations are not very clear. For example, citation 9 simply declares: "Strauss, 2005". What is this supposed to mean? Is this a study? A newspaper article? A blogpost?

I am concerned because there's a lot of citation provided which only references quotes from this "Strauss" person, which are not based on wikipedia standards, such as published peer-review work. Just random quotes. Db0 (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the "citations" which simply give a non-existent name, a year and an unverifiable quote. Db0 (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a bunch of papers by this guy on these pages on the University of New Hampshire site where Straus is Professor of Sociology and Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory. The author (who considers himself a feminist) reports considerable difficulty getting his work accepted, simply because it doesn't give the message that feminists would find acceptable. He also reports several forms of harassment and suppression of evidence.--86.130.104.160 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Added a template for Violence against men.

I apologize if it is a little untidy, it is a fledgling effort on my part. I saw an inequity, and attempted to redress it.Lore Spinner (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fiebert self-published source

Five citations in this article are referenced to the webpage http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm. This appears to be a self-published source, which should be avoided per WP:RS. Kaldari (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New CDC Report

All of the US information needs to be updated with the 2010 CDC report data. (Currently most of our US data is from the 2000 report or older.) Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory claims about National Violence Against Women Survey (2000)

Right now this article says: "These include... the National Violence Against Women Survey (2000). This research has tended to show that men and women are equally violent. The National Violence Against Women Survey (2000) found that women experience more intimate partner violence than do men, women experience more chronic and injurious physical assaults at the hands of intimate partners than do men, and that violence perpetrated against women by intimates is often accompanied by emotionally abusive and controlling behavior." This seems pretty contradictory to me. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The citations for this article are a mess. A large percentage of the citations in magazine articles, for instance, point to the Wikipedia page for that particular publication. Others lead to dead links or random search engines. This seems to reflect a larger and potentially problematic pattern across WP's domestic violence articles. Ongepotchket (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Gender bias

According to the first 10 results on Google from the Sydney Morning Herald about domestic violence:
1. Mothers of slain women call for change to domestic violence laws
2. Angela Zena Hadchiti had dared to hope the abuse was over.
3. Russian parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalise domestic violence
4. Counting dead women and domestic violence in Australia
5. Gold Coast domestic violence: 'The floodgates are open'
6. Stop thinking of domestic violence as a special crime that requires leniency just because it happens in a family setting.
7. Australia could learn a lot if it actually listened to Indigenous women
8. A domestic violence survivor's letter to her 16-year-old self
9. Russian move to decriminalise domestic violence shows how easily rights are bargained
10. Having a violent partner is now high on the list of risk factors affecting women's health

Of these 10 links, all 10 articles mentioned female victims only.

Using Google Images, the first 500 images from the Sydney Morning Herald showed 100% of victims being female and less than 2% of those victims were clearly not white.

According to the first 10 results on Google from the Daily Telegraph about domestic violence:
1. Domestic violence research shows shocking statistics for SA
2. Make family violence discrimination illegal, Equal Opportunity Commissioner (discrimination against women)
3. Domestic violence during pregnancy: This harrowing story is too common in Australia
4. Mischa Barton sex tape scandal: Domestic violence is more than just physical
5. Former army chief David Morrison calls for national day for domestic violence victims
6. Corrine Barraclough: Don't blame men for domestic violence. Blame Booze
7. Financial abuse: Form of domestic violence affecting two million
8. Domestic violence: Russian newspaper says women should be 'proud of their bruises'
9. [Lisa] Curry reveals family's domestic violence
10. Domestic violence: We must give alleged victims a fair hearing

Of these 10 links, all 10 articles mentioned female victims only. One article was gender neutral.

Using Google Images, the first 500 images from the Daily Telegraph showed 100% of victims being female and less than 2% of those victims were clearly not white. The headline about discrimination and domestic violence, while appearing to address the topic of gender bias, was about women not being given special leave from work.

These search results can easily be repeated using the following keywords at Google. 

 domestic violence site:www.smh.com.au [1]
 domestic violence site:www.dailytelegraph.com.au [2]

Also consider adding that these particular publications are breaching the Australian Sex Discrimination Act, 1984 as they are Australian publications.
Also consider adding comments on the role of the Commissioner for Sex Discrimination, as this topic is clearly in her jurisdiction.

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com.au/webhp?q=domestic+violence+site:www.smh.com.au
  2. ^ https://www.google.com.au/webhp?q=domestic+violence+site:www.dailytelegraph.com.au

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Epidemiology of domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Epidemiology of domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Epidemiology of domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Epidemiology of domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Epidemiology of domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Esquivel-Santoveña et al.

Regarding the WP: undue weight, we could include this other review of the literature that does say that low status of women predicts domestic violence by Ely et al. http://www.brown.uk.com/domesticviolence/ely.pdf. However, the Ely et al source is from 2004. So to really back up the charge of WP: Undue would require a more recent reliable secondary source, at least in my mind, because the state of knowledge in the study of domestic violence can easily change in 9 years. Regarding WP: OR. That "very few" wording was from the paper itself in the discussion section on page 64. So it is most definitely not original research. Sewblon (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this, I see no need to include "a correlation between gender inequality and intimate partner violence" in that section. That's the "Against men" section. When it comes to a correlation between gender inequality and intimate partner violence, it is always about how men treat women as a result of gender inequality, not vice versa. The text you added didn't clarify that a correlation between gender inequality and intimate partner violence is about how men treat women, which is something made clear in the Domestic violence article. With the lead of the Domestic violence article stating it, it has context because the paragraph begins by focusing on women as victims and, for example, states "In some countries, domestic violence is often seen as justified, particularly in cases of actual or suspected infidelity on the part of the woman, and is legally permitted." And per WP:Lead, the gender inequality aspect is made clear lower in that article. If we were to include the gender inequality text in this (the Epidemiology of domestic violence) article, it would need to be clear that it's focused on women as victims...even though people know that the topic of gender inequality is overwhelmingly about how girls and women are treated. And it should be near the beginning of the "Measuring" section, or in a "Factors" section if that was created. But a "Factors" section would get into some of the aspects already addressed in the "Against men" section. And, really, the "Against men" section deviates from the way the "Against women" section is set up since the "Against women" section only includes statistics data at the moment.
Regarding "but they found very few studies investigating the context of abuse: who hits first and how much violence is in self-defense", the text is not needed. Including it could make it seem that such context doesn't matter or only plays a small role. But researchers have been clear time and time again that it absolutely matters. And it's a fact that Hamel et al. relayed that when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, partner abuse is relatively even. That is all that that we need to relay. They are clear that if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims. And they relay this despite the fact that they supposedly "found very few studies investigating the context of abuse." Furthermore, what they found aligns with what other research has found, as is clear by this 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender source", from Sage Publications, page 1297, which states, "Research has indicated that females and males engage in comparable rates of physical aggression within intimate relationships, though the severity of the violence appears to be moderated by sex. Men tend to perpetrate more severe forms of violence against their partners; however, less severe violence (i.e., that which does not warrant medical attention) is often reciprocal and committed at equivalent rates."
Regarding self-defense specifically? As seen at Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 8#Self-defense edits., I've debated you on that enough. I'm not debating you on all of that again. What is missing from the "Against men" section is the fact that a number of scholars state that the reason, or a reason, for the "equal rates" is due to women hitting out of self-defense or other self-protection (such as standing up for themselves). But then there are the counterarguments. And, as you know, the self-defense matter is covered in the main Domestic violence article and in the Intimate partner violence article. So for this article to focus on the self-defense aspect as well, and in the "Against men" section when that section has enough material focusing on women as victims, and when the section is supposed to be about men as victims? Nah. At this point in time, I'd rather point readers to the related articles for further detail. If this article is to continue to exist, there are other things regarding it that need improvement. If one is going to try to use the "Against men" section to paint women as perpetrators being as significant a problem as men as perpetrators with regard to IPV, that is a no for me. As is, it needs the context it has regarding victimized women. Any more than that, and the section becomes less about IPV against men, although such a section focusing on women the way it currently does is unavoidable if relaying the literature appropriately.
As for the "low status of women predicts domestic violence", I don't see that this is needed in the "Against men" section. Again, that section focuses on women enough. If we are to include "low status of women predicts domestic violence" text, it should have WP:In-text attribution and be in the "Against women" section unless the text is about women as perpetrators. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
First, you are wrong about people only looking at how gender inequality relates to how men treat women not vice versa this time. Esquivo et al actually did regress gender inequality on physical IPV perpetration rates of both males and females (page 61). Granted, female perpetrated IPV also includes IPV by women in lesbian relationships. But in the populations that we have reliable data on, people who experience substantial same-sex attraction are a small minority. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301639075_Sexual_Orientation_Controversy_and_Science
So that shouldn’t affect this topic that much. Second, I don’t see how saying that a they found few sources investigating the context of abuse implies that it doesn’t matter. They opened the paper by saying that intimate partner violence has been under-studied compared to other social problems. So there isn’t anything surprising about some important aspect of IPV having little material available on it.
I am fine with saying that more severe IPV tends to be committed by men against women. That is what most sources that I can find say. However, the article by Chan cautioned that the studies it examined do not provide conclusive evidence for a convincing conclusion. So citing them as their conclusions were definitive seems like WP:OR. If you don’t want to discuss the self-defense issue, that is fine. But for the benefit of other people who see this talk page, like Crossroads, I am going to point out that there really isn’t a clear consensus on the issue among the encylopedias that you cited on this page. The SAGE encyclopedia of psychology and gender this page now cites says that men are more likely to use IPV for coercive ends whereas women are more reactive (page 980). The Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence and Abuse entry on “Self Defense, Homicides, and Domestic Abuse.” Says that most of women’s violence is reactive (page 543). But the entry on male victims of domestic abuse is more ambiguous, saying that the literature often notes self-defense as the main reason for women attacking men. But that little research has been able to test this assumption, and that in many ways both women and men report the same reasons for domestic violence (348-349). The entry on female perpetrators says that the idea that most female domestic abuse is in self-defense has been refuted multiple times (page 213). The most recent review of the literature around IPV that I know of, which to be fair was non-systematic, says that researchers now know that men and women are equally likely to engage in violence for coercive reasons (Intimate partner violence: gender issues and the adjudication, of homicide and other cases by John Hamel DOI: 10.1108/JCRPP-01-2018-0008). So saying that women’s IPV is primarily in self-defense is not something that I can authorize.
So, my preference is still to restore the “very few” wording and the results of the regression of gender inequality and IPV. I would also like to replace the “and” “The authors found that when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, partner abuse is relatively even.” to with “or”. Because they actually did examine the prevalence of physical abuse and emotional abuse seperately, which isn’t clear from the current wording. If you are worried about giving the impression that it makes it look like women perpetrated IPV is as big a problem as male perpetrated IPV, then perhaps we could cite this review of the literature, which states that the effects of IPV are unamibuously worse for women. “The Impact of Partner Abuse on Partners” by Lawrence et al.
Partner Abuse Vol 3 Issue 4 DOI: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.406. Sewblon (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm not wrong. No reliable source states that when it comes to a correlation between gender inequality and intimate partner violence, it is about how women treat men. And that was/is my point on a correlation between gender inequality and intimate partner violence.
As for the rest, I already stated that I'm not debating you on all of that again. Researchers are, for example, very clear that coercive control is typically committed by men. I made this clear to you before. I told you then, "intimate terrorism and coercive control are synonyms. That one or a few sources characterize them as two different things doesn't change the fact that they are commonly used and cited as synonyms. The 2013 'Rosen's Emergency Medicine - Concepts and Clinical Practice E-Book' source talks about the same exact thing that various other reliable sources talk about when speaking of coercive control, whether are not they are using the term coercive control, intimate terrorism, or a different term." You can debate that all you want to, but the literature stands. And I've cited more than just encyclopedias. And like last time with regard to self-defense and protecting themselves in another way, you zeroed in only on the "self-defense" part when I stated "self-defense or other self-protection (such as standing up for themselves)." We went over that "reactive" doesn't only mean self-defense. We also went over the fact that sources don't just state "main reason", but also give self-defense as a significant reason (meaning one of the top reasons) that women commit IPV. No, I don't think you rehashing things is "for the benefit of other people who see this talk page." It's just you wanting to drag me into the same, tired debate yet again. Not going to happen. Editors can look to the previous discussions I pointed to. I stand by what I stated then and above.
Crossroads, your thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the need for any changes. The "gender inequality" bit is off-topic for the subheading as noted, and the "very few" bit will just look like selecting a caveat sentence (which pretty much any paper has somewhere for something) and watering down the findings with it. Same principle regarding the Chan source - we can report what they found even if there is uncertainty remaining, as there often is in any field - that is not OR. And it says "tends to be" anyway. As for "and who hits first" vs. "or who hits first", it seems to mean the same thing either way. All three things are being included under that particular definition of abuse - it's not saying that abuse is all three things. Crossroads -talk- 04:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
To Flyer22Frozen: The Esquivel-Santovena source does say that they looked for a correlation between both male and female perpetration of intimate partner violence and gender inequality. What you are saying only makes sense if you think that the Esquival-Santanova source is not reliable. In which case, its a review article published in a legitimate journal about partner abuse. So what would be a reliable source for this claim? As for “coercive control” I didn’t use that term this time. The book that you cited, Rosen’s Emergency Medicine, doesn’t appear to use it either. So why are you bringing it up? But I admit, most sources I can find say that coercive control is more committed by men than by women. (Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence edited by Nicky Alli Jackson. However, “coercive control” doesn’t have a universally accepted definition, and there is very little research or consensus on it (Coercive Control and Intimate Partner Violence by Hamburger et, al. Aggression and Violent Behavior. Volume 37, November 2017, Pages 1-11.). So now, I am actually not in favor of using that term at all, except with that caveat that there is little consensus or research on it. It is true that the research mention’s women’s violence being “reactive” in senses besides self-defense, like retaliation and protecting themselves from emotional hurt. Its also true that self defense does not have to be the main reason to be a significant reason. However, self-defense can be a significant reason for women’s violence, without being more significant than it is for men. More Importantly, it doesn’t change that the most recent summary of the literature that I know of says that women are equally likely to commit IPV for coercive reasons (Hamel 2019). Or that other reliable sources say that women’s violence being primarily in reaction to men’s violence is not supported by the available evidence (Female Aggression by Gavin and Porter). https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Female+Aggression-p-9780470975480 (Hamby, Sherry. The Gender Debate about intimate Partner Violence, solutions and dead ends DOI: 10.1037/a0015066 ). As well as that women are the sole physical aggressor as often, or more often, than men. (Kelly, Linda. Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Violence: How Women Batter men and the role of the Feminist state. Florida State University Law Review. Vol 30, issue 4, article 7). ( Graham-Kevan, Nicola. “The Psychology of Women’s Partner Violence: Characteristics and Cautions.” Journal of Aggression Maltreatment and Trauma, august 2009). and that self-defense is consistently endorsed by both male and female perpetrators of IPV (Neal, Angela M. Edwards, Katie M. “ Perpetrators' and Victims' Attributions for IPV: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 05 Sep 2015, 18(3):239-267
DOI: 10.1177/1524838015603551 PMID: 26346749). So any attempt to say that women’s IPV is primarily explained by reacting to male violence is not something I will authorize. As you said, the literature stands. I would like to add the part from the paper about how research from the United States generally shows that women are not much more likely than men to assault for reasons of self-defense. But that this cannot be assumed to apply to other countries (page 64).
As for cross-roads: The Esquivel-Santanova source did not look at male victimization separately. So I see what you mean by the results of the analysis being off-topic. But, they did look at female perpetration. Most intimate relations are heterosexual, and most of the research on IPV is on heterosexual relationships. So I am not convinced that it is off-topic. If opposite sex perpetration is off-topic, then this page shouldn’t cite Esquivel-Santanova et al at all. That being said, your other points about Chan and the distinction between “and” and “or” seem valid. But I would like to remove “broadly.” They never actually said that their definition of IPV was broad. So that is WP:OR. I would also like to remove “and who hits first.” at all, since they didn’t address who hit first at all if I have read this paper right. Sewblon (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
To reiterate, I'm not debating you on all of this again. Your self-defense arguments are flawed for reasons we've gone over times before (including you consistently trying to prioritize what one or a few sources state over what the general literature states, therefore giving WP:Undue weight to that source or sources), and for reasons I'm not going to address since I know you love to keep debating this topic over and over again, dragging it out for weeks or months...and that you love to ignore or try to trump the general literature. For example, your most recent post even dares to state "and that self-defense is consistently endorsed by both male and female perpetrators of IPV" when "IPV for self-defense" is far more commonly attributed to women and when researchers are very clear about how men distort their IPV perpetration. No, I don't support you adding a "part from the paper about how research from the United States generally shows that women are not much more likely than men to assault for reasons of self-defense. But that this cannot be assumed to apply to other countries (page 64)." You stated, "But I would like to remove 'broadly.' They never actually said that their definition of IPV was broad." The "broad" wording is seen in this 2013 "Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse, Second Edition: Evidence-Based Approaches" Hamel source, from Springer Publishing Company; I added "broadly" to the Domestic violence article after an editor had summarized Hamel's research (including using the word "broadly") elsewhere on Wikipedia (on a talk page). The book source states that the "Partner Abuse" journal "is devoted exclusively to scholarly work related to abuse between partners, but takes a broad inclusive approach' [...]." And it is clear that Hamel's research does look at who hits first, which is what responsible researchers do since context is important; it is how researchers know that most women's IPV is reactive. "Broadly" does correlate with Hamel et al.'s research, as they look at the data in a broad, inclusive context, and also look at the data in the context of who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems, and conclude (after the latter context) that domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims.
I'm not going to thoroughly debate you on your additional arguments either. There is hardly a thing to debate when it comes to something like coercive control and gender. Why did I bring up coercive control? Because you stated, "The most recent review of the literature around IPV that I know of, which to be fair was non-systematic, says that researchers now know that men and women are equally likely to engage in violence for coercive reasons." Why did I mention the "Rosen's Emergency Medicine - Concepts and Clinical Practice E-Book" source? Because, to repeat, coercive control and intimate terrorism are synonyms (although you tried to dispute even that). I'm not going to sit here and list reliable sources that make that explicitly clear. I also noted that the source talks about the same exact thing that various other reliable sources talk about when speaking of coercive control, whether are not they are using the term coercive control, intimate terrorism, or a different term.
Your "researchers now know that men and women are equally likely to engage in violence for coercive reasons" commentary is a no. This opdv.ny.gov (New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence) source presents a chart summarizing the approximate percentage of men and women who perpetrate different sorts of IPV, estimated by Michael P. Johnson from prior research. That chart is what the IPV literature generally shows. I'm not going to sit here and list a bunch of reliable sources showing exactly that. And you'll notice that while that chart states "Attempt to forestall attack, defend self and others, or control the situation", the control mention at the end of that is not the type of controlling that men usually engage in. It, being under the "Responsive Violence" category, is far more characteristic of women. It's not coercive controlling. You stating that "coercive control doesn't have a universally accepted definition, and there is very little research or consensus on it" is a no. It's consistently defined the same way in various reliable sources and consensus among researchers is that it is typically committed by men. So stop acting like men and women typically engage in IPV for the same reasons; they typically don't. And as for gender inequality, there is no country in this world where men are oppressed and subjected to all sorts of horrors solely because of their sex; they don't have that gender inequality. Exactly where does the Esquivel-Santovena source state that when it comes to a correlation between gender inequality and intimate partner violence, it is about how women treat men? "Looking for a correlation between both male and female perpetration of intimate partner violence and gender inequality" is not the same thing as that. And you are misinterpreting the research anyway.
If you come back again to argue more of the same, cherry picking sources that do not reflect what the mainstream literature states, and acting like certain researchers' views trump what the mainstream literature states because their commentary is from 2019 or even 2020, my reply will be very short. I might not reply at all. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Epidemiology_of_domestic_violence/Archive_1&oldid=1029383057"