Talk:Spousal abuse

nother opinion

Whoever wrote this article needs to cite more, break the article down into sections, and talk about "the other side" of the story. Obviously any time one talks about any sort of abuse the mental and physical anguish of any person who might have experienced it is added to the article. Any time the world "radical" is associated with an ideology, its "radicalism" is in the eye of the beholder. At risk of taking a "holier than thou" appearance, I'd like to say that I completely agree with whoever wrote the article, but that it is written more as a persuasion piece than as a factual encyclopedic entry. In order to be more factual I recommend the following:

Tabulation of abuse percentages Comparison of the types of abuse and how they differ between men and women factual support for anything stated in the article.

eg. "a woman is more likely to physically batter their partner, while a man is more likely to sexually force their partner while using weapons." should be replaced with something like: "____ study showed that a woman is __% likely to mutilate the genetalia of their partner, while a man is __% more likely to kill their partner, according to XXX source, but it was slightly contradicted by ____ study which showed the percentages to be ___ and ___, respectively." (the previous statments were completely made up and should not be taken as factual in the slightest)

Wikipedia should be treated as a place to inform, not a place to tout one's own political beliefs. Even if you believe that the opposite of what someone posts might in fact be the case, please do research and cite RELIABLE sources before contradicting them. Samuel Clemens said: "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just aint so."

Jgreeter 06:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgreeter (talk • contribs) 06:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I think the problem about the article is there is no reference about geographical places, sources and citations. As an example: in Brazil, there is much more domestic violence caused by partners against women than men. According a research made by IBOPE, a respected brazilian research institute, 51% of the brazilian population knows a woman who suffered violence from his male partner. [1][2]. I think is very important to explain where the statistics come from and who did the research. As another example, according American Institute on Domestic Violence [3] 85-95% of all domestic violence victims are female. I think a solid statistic from a well respected source buries all doubt about if the females are more common victims or not. DaniCast 12:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

• It seems to me that most of this article (ie the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, out of 3) is devoted to defending the claim that men are battered too...it has a defensive feel to it. Perhaps the article should be about the subject instead of just answering a question like "aren't men abused too?" i'd be happier if that were a subsection that explained both sides of the assumed controversy. -- Doviende 03:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• added an extra paragraph to balance things a bit -- Doviende 05:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is questionable. Where is your source stating that the minority of abuse cases are men? I've seen some statistics saying women were actually the minority. -TKO, 23:12, 24 April 2006.

This article is misleading because it defines spousal abuse solely in terms of violence. It thus excludes emotional and psychological abuse and the use of threats of violence. The essence of spousal abuse is not violence, but of control or the attempt to control, within a couple relationship. Violence is simply the physical form and not necessarily the most prevalent form of spousal abuse. The memory of one episode of physical abuse, or of threatened physical abuse, can be sufficient to enable the perpetrator to maintain control by subtle hints and reminders. Further, 'spousal' abuse is not confined to couple relationships where the couple are legally married (whether formally or by common law). It can also exist within established, monogamous and 'committed' relationships between gay couples, for example. For these reasons, it is prudent to define spousal abuse in a gender neutral way. It is undoubtedly the case that, in some quarters, it is believed to be exclusively of women by men. In one particularly zealous book I read, the author went so far as to assert that women could not abuse men, since it went against their essential nature. No evidence or discussion was offered in support. However, this is essentially a sub-section of the main section (controversy over whether the existence, possibility, extent and nature of intra-couple abuse is gender dependent), since it diverts from the main concern of the section. - Andy Morel, 18 May 2006

FYI: A handy way to "sign" your Wiki talk page posts is to place four tildes (~~~~) after your text. When you press "Save page", these will be replaced by your Wiki username (in a handy Wikilink format). A timestamp will also be included.

Atlant 15:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

mental/emotional abuse

There is no mention of this anywhere in the entire article, even though this is a major form of abuse (perhaps even more common than all the other forms). Plus it is an often overlooked way in which males get abused, because (in my opinion) males tend to be the more physical creatures while females are more inclinded to use the tongue (yes, I know. Generalisations, but generalisations which I believe hold true asa generalisation). So while females may indeed come worse of in physical encounters that is not always so in the battle of the tongues. Mathmo 11:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Games People Play" Dr. Bernes. A lead here on the type of 'abuse' games that people, engage in. In fact there is also the RAPO game where the victim is in fact the abuser, and the abuser is the real victim, who is manipulated to that point; male or female. It does not merely deal with violence, although people can be abused, in a variety of ways, as some people have noticed, including passive abuse, silence; very damaging. As one person has noted in a above listing this whole field of abuse, and violence has been corrupted and it appears not corrected for a great period of time.

"The manipulation of violence statistics is something that wikipedia should avoid; including false conclusions, most is not all.

Nothing is perfect, there is bad in all things, in all groups !

Any entry in this encyclopedia, should have a listing t hat discusses the negative aspects of criticisms of that listing, even though there is a poltical attempt to neutralize such comments. "

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Is it true that Islam encourages spousal abuse to occur (i.e. men beating women)? Are men supposed to be abusive towards women in Islam? --Fantastic4boy 06:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There are alot of statements in this heading that shows how Truth can Lie...

This heading has been corrupted....seriously...by an anti-male agenda, some call radical feminism, I call cult-feminism.

I will try to clean this up using information out there...in the meantime....

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Would slapping or tapping your wife or husband on the shoulder be considered a spousal abuse? Islam permits only light hitting of your wife only in extreme cases and as a last resort. According to the hadith, a husband is not allowed to strike his wife on the face and not leaving any bruise on her. So, light tapping or slapping on the shoulder seems to be the allowed method. --125.254.22.218 02:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

POV template

I don't think I've ever seen an article as blatantly in violation of NPOV as this one. I don't have the expertise to fix it, but I hope someone else does. As it is, there is only one very radical view represented here. Isn't any article that uses the words "radical feminist agenda" probably suspect? Aesshen 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you've done an adequate job of expressing what content, specifically, you see in this article as being in violation of NPOV. Radical feminism is a recognizable social phenomenon with a specific ideology, as the article states. Mentioning its existence, in and of itself, is not suspect. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if you're going to place the template, you should be more specific. Joie de Vivre 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll break down how biased this article is for you.

I. " It should be pointed out that a misunderstanding of the family abuse issue is so pervasive, male verses female, or the focus on violence statistics only, that city and county governments, the courts, law enforcement, prosecutorÌs offices, mental health clinics, and other tax supported agencies[2] are now funding programs based on gender politics, rather than responsible scientific studies"

1. No references on either the opinion that finances towards support of spousal abuse hinge on a "misunderstanding", or that this "misunderstanding" in turn has led to support based on "gender politics, rather than reasonable scientific studies." The connotations with these statements underly a strong, non-neutral opinion that is not backed up by sources. Thus, a NPOV.

II. "Very few studies have shown men to aggress more frequently than women. However, until recently the bulk of domestic violence research did not even ask about women-on-man violence. It has also been found that many kinds of behavior, such as pushing and slapping, are experienced by both genders, but are mainly called "violence" by female victims. Early studies that merely asked "have you been a victim of domestic violence" did find far lower levels of male victims; but when they asked about specific behaviors ("have you been slapped, punched,...), the numbers evened out."

No citation on the "very few studies...". No citation on the "until recently the bulk of...". No citation on the "It has also been found that...". No citation on "Early studies that merely...". The usage of the word "merely" expresses an opinion. No citation on the last sentence, finishing with "the numbers evened out." Again, completely NPOV.

III. "Justice Department studies show that men are 32 percent less likely than women to report any form of violent victimization."

Uncited, again.

IV. "Women who kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9 percent of the cases, while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted only 1.4 percent of the time. In addition, women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only six years, while male spousal killers got 17 years, according to an LA Times article citing Department of Justice data."

This passage is an attempt at backing up an argument, but it has little to do with general information on spousal abuse. Also, it too is uncited.

Some general comments... 1. Usage of words like "tragically" and "merely" inherently imply a bias in the context each is used in. 2. The article itself doesn't address what spousal abuse is, which is why I came to this page to begin with. It's an argument on the blurred definition of spousal abuse, and also an anti-feminist piece on gender-bias towards women in reports on spousal abuse. Some good points are made, but they are made as the CENTRAL piece of an article that should be written about spousal abuse as opposed to bias. I'd rather see this argument summed up in one or two lines and as apart of a much larger article that includes the history of spousal abuse, legally what it is, psychologically what academics point to, etc., etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.82.118.61 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Totallydisputed and rewrite template

This article is indeed in violation of NPOV. Many statements are not cited. Read it for yourself before responding. Joie de Vivre 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is pretty poor, and I wouldn't mind if this article simply redirected to domestic violence (which isn't in top shape either). The bulk of this article isn't about spousal abuse, but about who is more violence, women or men, and it seems to be gives undue weight to the view that women are equally as violent. We shouldn't be using wikipedia to promote minority views. We should be summarizing the mainstream scholarship in this field. It seems like editors who disagree with the mainstream have written the bulk of this article. While those views are valid and should be presented, they should be presented with due weight, along side the prevailing views. It bothers me that if someone doing research on spousal abuse stubbles on this page, they read very little about spousal abuse, and instead read arguments about "feminist ideology", with citations coming from anonymous e-mails posted to a non-notable website.

Before drastic measures are taken to this article, I want to see if anyone out there thinks this article isn't problematic, and shouldn't have some extreme editing performed?-Andrew c 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The article needs a complete make-over. It is not helpful or informative, and seems to rely on argument as opposed to fact. I would echo the previous statements made by other Wiki members about the validity of this article. The entire article is sketchy, does not define spousal abuse and offers very little in terms of neutality.-mojopo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojopo (talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose that this article change to a redirect to Domestic violence, and any valid content be merged there. If ever someone wants to re-write an article on this topic, they should be encouraged to do that, but the current version seems to be doing more harm than good, and the majority of valid content is already at Domestic violence. What do others think?-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Spouses can also be abused by their children

I removed this statement from the article. That would be parental abuse, not spousal abuse. The fact that someone happens to be a spouse doesn't make and any all abuse they might suffer spousal abuse.GideonF 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A well written and well thought out article. This article sends a message to feminists of the US that the DV gig is up. Time to find another method to manipulate the courts.

Concerning the statement made above (ie "...this article sends a message to feminists of the US that the DV gig is up..."): Definitions and debates with sources etc, as many people have commented clearly before me, are desperately needed. Personal opinions are irrelevant to a factual explanation of the topic. And by the way, women are clearly on the verge of taking over the world since they enjoy better employment, less responsibility, higher self-esteem, and higher pay to name a few (clarification: entirely sarcastic, but I'll keep my eyes peeled for the conspiracy of the US feminist control of earth and their rampant court manipulation).

I agree with this article

Does need some clear up, but not total re-write—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.128.251.55 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 July 2007.

Question: What is "minor" abuse?

Although my personal experience makes me biased in regards to the subject of spousal abuse, I was quite taken aback at the unsupported claims of "some women's" motivation to get police assistance. In an attempt to overthrow the standard image of spousal abuse of a man injuring a woman, this entry has gone so far as to re-enter the territory of bias (to say the least) against women. It is in fact, the worst entry I have read in Wikipedia, and makes me now hesitate to going to Wiki for other information.

This is my first comment, ever, and possibly my last. Just because you can twist an argument and still have it pass through the guidelines doesn't change the fact that it is a hateful piece of writing..

feminalefilms

A good short documentary about the effects of spousal abuse on one particular woman can be seen on www.current.tv called "Second Chance, Last Call". The address is http://www.current.tv/watch/21570608?list=newVidsByProducer&filterone=6817916&filtertwo=-1&sid=21570608&fr=0 Markream 01:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)