![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This is a recent, high-quality source that could be useful for establishing the relative weight of different facets of the topic, but full-text access requires a subscription. Posting the citation here for any interested editors:
((cite web))
: Missing or empty |url=
(help)—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf, seems like you are gaming the rules to remove a single source (an article from the Psychology of Men and Masculinity) from an article of which's reference list is full of similar journals. The content isn't even close to the core what is meant with WP:MEDRS's biomedical information but rather social effects of seeking help for IPV-related PTSD. So why this source problematic for men's experience related to IPV, but the reference #33 (Journal of Family Violence) from the previous sentece isn't problematic for describing women's experiences from IPV? Do you want to minimize the coverage IPV against men or what is the gist? --Pudeo (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The argument of "implies that things have changed since then" is not what we go by. Unless you have a source specifically stating that gender symmetry is as accepted as the gender asymmetrical aspects reported on by scholars, we won't be stating that and we should not be making it out as true. And any in case, whether you agreed with me or not, the quality sources I've pointed to are explicitly clear that IPV is overwhelmingly gender asymmetrical with regard to women more so being the victims in heterosexual relationships. What I have been trying to tell you repeatedly is that, per WP:Due weight, we are supposed to give most of our weight to that aspect. It is exactly why this section started off with an editor rightfully noting that we are not going to give as much weight to intimate terrorism against men in this article. As for the rest, one of the issues with you is that you latch onto one source and hold it up as fact. Above, you cited a source stating that women are more likely to commit acts of violence or aggression. There are quality sources I pointed to on the Domestic violence talk page and in this article that disagree with that statement. So I don't see why you think we should prioritize that source over the many other sources stating the opposite or something different. Well, I know why, given your POV, but still. I've already been over WP:Due weight, newer sources (per WP:Due weight) not automatically getting prioritized, and WP:YESPOV. Do keep these rules in mind; it seems that you don't care about them.
My issue is not with noting that some research indicates that men and women commit IPV at equal rates. We already note that in the article; we state the following in the article, "Although men and women commit equivalent rates of unreported minor violence via situational altercation, more severe perpetration and domestic battery tends to be committed by men." My issue is you wanting to add material on "equivalent rates" that make it out as though men are as much the victims as women are because of supposed equivalent rates, that men are psychologically harmed more even though the literature consistently reports that it's women who are, that women are more violent even though the literature is consistent that men (and males throughout the animal kingdom) are generally more violent than women (and females throughout the animal kingdom) are, you adding redundancy, and you adding information without important context. If your point is "commit more acts of violence" rather than "are more violent," it's still an issue. For example, we all know that people usually think of "physical violence" when they think of "violence." The literature on aggression and violence in general is clear that it's men who are more aggressive (like this Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology source notes) and who commit more physical violence. Same applies to IPV, depending on how "violence" or "physical violence" is defined. And if "violence" is defined broadly to include all types of violence, it's still asymmetrical in terms of what women endure. You can see that the aforementioned piece we include in the article states "minor violence via situational altercation" with regard to "equivalent rates." It's not about men and women committing "equivalent rates" for all types of violence. The Hamel content in the article also gives this important context. Context is important.
Razera (published by SciELO) even states, "Studies show that both men and women can be perpetrators in situations of violence, however levels differ depending on the subtypes of violence. [...] Gender symmetry is found, as believes Chan (2011), especially in cases in which contexts, reasons and consequences of violence are not evaluated." Wording you've added (except for a bit on Hamel pointing out disproportionate aspects) or wording you've proposed is without that context. We've already been over harm, intent and self-defense. I stated above, "The research shows that self-defense is often the primary motive or one of the top motives for women who commit IPV, but that some women define self-defense differently (for example, the retaliation aspect or the preemptive aspect). Fear is the other big motive, and that fear is often intertwined with self-defense or the belief that the act of IPV is self-defense. Men commit IPV for control and to physically harm far more than women do." There are quality sources on the Domestic violence talk page that agree with that statement. The idea that women do not usually or at least often hit men in self-defense or for overall self-protection (what some sources call "reactive," and which is also often entangled in retaliation, in part, because retaliation is often viewed as self-defense or other self-protection by women, researchers or law enforcement) is not supported by the general literature, which is why you keep citing Straus for the statement that women's use of IPV is not usually for self-defense. It's good that you acknowledged that the Straus statement is disputed. I've also noted that Archer's research is disputed in some respects. But even Archer qualifies the matter by stating women are slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to commit such acts more frequently. And then there are sources noting that women committing just as much or more acts of violence or physical aggression (which can also be defined as violence) is due to overall self-protection and/or fear. Furthermore, most of the research is from the United States or some other western areas, while the WHO focuses on IPV globally and finds that women are more so the victims, who often commit IPV in self-defense, and that men are more violent overall. I didn't ask you about the distinction between peer review and literature review, by the way; I stated that there is a difference, and I did so because you keep talking about peer review.
You state that you have "many sources that back up [your] claim that women commit IPV against men at the same or higher rates." Consider why you keep citing the same sources, some of which Hamel already cited...like Archer...and which are not many. This is because the literature on female-perpetrated IPV is significantly less than the literature on male-perpetrated IPV and it is not as supportive of the "women commit IPV against men at the same or higher rates" statement as you are making it out to be. It's not known as an undisputed fact, and it often comes with qualifiers even when stated. The literature is, however, more so in agreement in stating that women are more often the victims/survivors than perpetrators, and is very intent on noting women hitting men for self-protection, even if that self-protection might not legally be self-defense in some cases. So while I have no issue with noting some "equal rates" and gender symmetry material in the article, and stating something like "Most research indicates that men commit more [so and so] violence than women do. A 2017 review, however, indicates women commit more [so and so] violence than men do.", if the statement is actually about the general literature rather than a single study, I don't agree to you "balancing" this article in a way that makes it seem as though there is general agreement with what you want to add. What you want to add is debated, and some of it is redundant because the article already states it (except with context). When Razera reports on men committing significantly more sexual coercion, while women perpetrate more psychological violence, Razera is reporting on a 2016 study by Razera, Mosmann and Falcke. It is not a statement on what the overall literature has found. So adding that "A 2017 review, however, indicates women commit more psychological violence than men do." is misleading. It's a primary source that indicates that, not the general literature as far as psychological violence is concerned. See the sources below on self-defense, other self-protection, aggression, and on who is more violent.
Sources on self-defense or overall self-protection as the main, or one of the main, reasons that women engage in intimate partner violence. And sources on men being more aggressive and violent (or abusive, whichever term is used) in intimate relationships.
|
---|
1. This 2008 "A Review of Research on Women’s Use of Violence With Male Intimate Partners" source, published in Violence & Victims, states, "Studies have consistently found that the majority of domestically violent women also have experienced violence from their male partners. [...] Thus, many domestically violent women—especially those who are involved with the criminal justice system—are not the sole perpetrators of violence. The victimization they have experienced from their male partners is an important contextual factor in understanding their motivations for violence. Some women who have been adjudicated for a domestic violence offense are, in fact, battered women who fought back. [...] Women who engage in intimate partner violence commonly report using violence to defend themselves from their partners (Babcock, Miller, & Siard, 2003), and several studies have found that women cite self-defense as a motivation for violence more frequently than men do (e.g., Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Hamberger, 2005; Makepeace, 1986; but for an exception see Kernsmith, 2005). In an analysis of women’s motivations for violence (Swan & Snow, 2003), self-defense was the most frequently endorsed motive, with 75% of participants stating that they had used violence to defend themselves. In Stuart et al.’s (2006) sample of women who were arrested for intimate partner violence, women’s violence was motivated by self-defense 39% of the time." 2. This 2010 "Why Do Women Use Intimate Partner Violence? A Systematic Review of Women’s Motivations" source, published in Trauma Violence Abuse, states, "Self-defense was listed as a motivation for women’s use of IPV in all of the included articles, except three, one of which administered a questionnaire that did not ask about self-defense (Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2003; Rosen, Stith, Few et al., 2005; Weston, Marshall, & Coker, 2007). Of the 14 studies that ranked or compared motivations based on frequency of endorsement, (Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Carrado, George, Loxam et al., 1996; Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Hamberger, 1997; Hamberger & Guse, 2005; Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005; Kernsmith, 2005; O'Leary & Slep, 2006; Olson & Lloyd, 2005; Saunders, 1986; Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007; Stuart, Moore, Hellmuth et al., 2006; Swan & Snow, 2003; Ward & Muldoon, 2007), four (Hamberger, 1997; Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005; Saunders, 1986; Swan & Snow, 2003) found that self-defense was women’s primary motivation (46–79%) for using IPV, with one additional study reporting self-defense as the second most common motivation (39%) (Stuart, Moore, Hellmuth et al., 2006). Self-defense was defined differently between studies. Most women described self-defense as using IPV to avert their partner’s physical injury (Downs, Rindels, & Atkinson, 2007; Flemke & Allen, 2008; Miller & Meloy, 2006; Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007; Ward & Muldoon, 2007); some used IPV after their partner had struck, while others initiated IPV because of fear of imminent danger. Other women reciprocated their partner’s physical abuse to protect their emotional health (Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007)." The source also notes that retaliation was a listed motivation in 15 studies, but that only "one study document[ed] this as women’s primary motivation (Kernsmith, 2005)." The source additionally states, "Disentangling self-defense and retaliation was difficult in some studies. Hamberger & Guse (2005) grouped self-defense and retaliation as one motivation. O’Leary& Slep (2006) reported that women most frequently used IPV 'in response to their partner’s aggression,' which could incorporate either. Weston, Marshall & Coker did not list self-defense as a motivation, but hypothesized that 'women [may] perceive self-protective actions as more retaliatory than self-defensive' (p.1063). [...] This review demonstrates the difficulty in defining and measuring self-defense and retaliation. Many women discussed using physical aggression after their partner’s IPV to minimize personal injury (Downs, Rindels, & Atkinson, 2007; Flemke & Allen, 2008; Miller & Meloy, 2006; Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007; Ward & Muldoon, 2007). All would agree this is self-defense (Wimberly, 2007). Women also described using IPV because they did not want to internalize images of themselves as victims (Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007). Although these women were arguably using IPV to protect their emotional health, this does not meet the legal definition of self-defense (Wimberly, 2007). Whether this should fall into a more conceptual definition of self-defense or whether it is more consistent with retaliation is controversial." 3. This 2013 "Social Work and Intimate Partner Violence" source, from Routledge, page 47, which analyzes the literature on the gender symmetry debate (keyword "debate") states, "This chapter has explored the current debate about whether women in intimate relationships are as violent to men as some research has suggested. It should be clear from the research presented above that while a small number [of] women are abusive, their form of abuse is different, they are not intending to control their partners (for the most part), and do not engender as many injuries or fear in their partners. Awareness of this research is important for professionals to understand, as many abusive men will blame their partners for the abuse they themselves are inflicting on their female partners." 4. This 2013 "Motivations for Men and Women's Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: A Comprehensive Review" source, published in "Partner Abuse, Volume 3, Number 4," states, "It is necessary to note that literature reviews related to this topic have been conducted previously. For example, in 2003, Malloy, McCloskey, Grigsby, and Gardner conducted a qualitative review of women's use of violence within their intimate relationships. These authors located the question of whether there are differences between men's and women's motivations for violence under the larger issue of whether or not there is 'gender symmetry' in intimate violence perpetration. In essence, gender differences in motivations such that men use violence to control or coerce their partner, whereas women primarily use violence in self-defense would provide evidence that disputes the notion of gender symmetry in perpetration (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, &Daly, 1992; Pence & Paymar, 1993). Conversely, more similarity in men and women's motives for perpetrating IPV would tend to support the gender symmetry position." And "In the Malloy et al. (2003) review, two empirical articles that focused on motivations were highlighted. Specifically, in 1999, Dasgupta interviewed 32 women who had been court ordered to treatment as a result of their perpetration of IPV. Using transcriptions of the interviews that were conducted, motives for perpetrating IPV were coded. Dasgupta (1999) reported that several motivations for these women's perpetration emerged in her analysis. However, according to her coding of the transcribed interviews, the most common reason self-reported by these women was that they used violence to end their own abuse (i.e., in self-defense). [...] Then, in 2008, a second review of the literature was conducted. [...] Swan et al. used these data to infer that women are more motivated than men to perpetrate violence to protect themselves and their children." [...] It also states that "both the Swan et al. (2008) and Malloy et al. (2003) literature reviews appear not to be comprehensive in nature," however. It notes that "few of the existing studies have data that directly compare motivations for the perpetration of men's versus women's violence" and that they expected "that most of the existing studies would be obtained from university/school samples rather than large population, smaller community, clinical, or justice/legal samples" and that the "existing empirical studies would primarily focus on control/dominance and self-defense as motivations for men's versus women's violence, respectively (i.e., Shorey et al., 2010)." It notes that "further work needs to be done to distinguish between self-defense and retaliation for previously experienced violence because these motives were difficult to separate in many of the papers included in this review." It also states, among many other things, "Taken as a whole, however, the findings gleaned from this review suggest that this area of the IPV field is in its infancy. Researchers have employed different measurement tools, focused on different motives (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2011), reported findings in different ways, made use of different informants, differed in whether or not they measured both men and women, and used different samples. Moreover, although this review sought to be comprehensive in nature, it is possible that some important papers in the field have been overlooked. [...] In summary, much work remains to understand the motives underlying both men's and women's perpetration of IPV. The types of motives that are measured need to be theoretically based and consistent across samples to facilitate comparisons." 5. This 2014 "Domestic Abuse, Homicide and Gender: Strategies for Policy and Practice" source, from Springer, starting on page 30, states, "What we know is that female and male use of violence and abuse is different, cannot be easily compared, and has different repercussions and outcomes. The biggest problem, universally acknowledged and evidenced based, is that women are the group who are most often the victims of serious, long term, life challenging domestic abuse (Hester 2013a, Stark 2013, 2007, Websdale 1999). [...] When we look at the problem nationally, internationally and globally it is overwhelmingly women who are the predominant group suffering homicide, violence, and life altering control. Even if it were the case, which it is not, that men were suffering equal seriousness of abuse at the hands of women, and dying in similar numbers, it would not reduce the problem of violence against women. It would still be the problem it currently is. In fact, the highest risk factor by far in domestic homicide and everyday terrorism, is being female. [...] It is also our experience that the arguments which assert that women are the predominant victims are often automatically labelled as coming from a particular feminist perspective. [...] Feminist arguments are often considered biased, political and anti-men, which is, of course, in accurate. This has an effect of reducing the status of the argument. [...] There is simply no global epidemic of female violence against men. [...] [There are] arguments which seek to undermine the fact that women are predominantly the victims." 6. This 2015 Intimate partner abuse: identifying, caring for and helping women in healthcare settings. review (full link to the article here), states, "IPA is a major public health issue, with serious social, economic and health consequences. It has been found to pose at least as high a health risk to women of child bearing age as raised blood pressure, tobacco use and obesity, and is a leading contributor to death, disability and illness for women in this age group [...] Research has found that only 12–20% of women report being asked by their doctor about IPA, with barriers to inquiry including clinician uncertainty about how to ask, lack of knowledge and training about IPA, and insufficient time [17–19]. Barriers to disclosure by women include both internal factors (shame, normalization and minimization) and external factors (perception that others cannot help, judgmental attitudes, previous negative responses from health professionals). Additionally, women are not always at a point where they feel comfortable to disclose. [...] Although it is acknowledged that men may also experience IPA, the power disparities present in most cases of IPA mean that women are more often survivors than perpetrators, and that the community health and economic burdens of IPA lie primarily with women as a group." 7. This 2015 (reprint) "Family Violence: Explanations and Evidence-Based Clinical Practice" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 73, states that "the NVAW [National Violence Against Women] surveys indicated that IPV against women was more often accompanied by psychological abuse, controlling behavior, and fear of injury or death than IPV against men. Thus, some suggest using both quantitative (e.g., CTS) and qualitative (e.g., victim's interviews) assessment methods (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2001) for a more balanced and context-based assessment. It also notes that, back in the 1990s, "Straus acknowledged that his research has focused on physical assault and not the context for IPV. Although he supports research that focuses on context and effects of IPV, he argued against including these variables with studies on violent acts. He also acknowledged [in 2009] that women, on average, experience more frequent and more severe results of IPV (e.g., physical injury, economic loss, and psychological symptoms) than men. In addition, he stated his focus on physical assault is for legal, social policy, and ethical reasons. Even a 'minor' defensive assault by women places them and their children in danger of severe retribution by men." 8. This 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 80, states, "Generally, men have been documented as the more aggressive perpetrators in IPV. Much of the literature documents women perpetrating in retaliation, but recent research and further examination of older studies suggest that women initiate violence as well. Men, however, are more likely to use perpetration to control their partners, whereas women are more reactive in their use of violence. Men also tend to use more severe forms of violence, such as throwing a larger or more damaging object, than a woman might. [...] Many studies have been conducted to examine rates of IPV and to determine primary victimization. However, more conclusive research needs to be done to examine issues of symmetry and whether or not there is equality in perpetration. Also, studies show that men are more aggressive than women in general, so more work should be done to learn about this connection." 9. This 2018 "The Psychology of Sex and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 485, states, "Even today, researchers direct most of their attention toward violence against women in heterosexual relationships. [...] Some data indicate that women and men are roughly equally likely to be victims of intimate partner violence. However, the issue of sex differences in intimate partner violence is hotly debated." It goes on to examine both sides of the debate and suggests maybe the gender symmetry viewpoint better explains situational couple violence, which it states is more common than intimate terrorism, and that gender asymmetry better explains intimate terrorism. 10. Extra: As for psychological violence specifically, which may at times mean the same thing as emotional abuse or is sometimes noted as a subset of emotional abuse, there is less IPV research on it than physical and sexual violence. Sources usually either state that men commit more psychological violence or that men and women commit equal rates of psychological violence, or rates of psychological violence are similar between men and women. Men's use of psychological violence is noted as more severe, however, which is one reason why women express significantly more fear than men do with regard to IPV in heterosexual relationships. When psychological violence essentially means "emotional abuse" or is noted as a subset of it, though, the literature states that women receive more emotional abuse than men do with regard to IPV in heterosexual relationships, or that there is more data out there about women receiving emotional abuse. Like this 2013 study, which I'm citing because it looks at the literature, states, "There have been various studies investigating emotional and physical abuse against women, while research on emotional abuse against men is quite limited." Of course, the study also states, "that men's overall risk of emotional abuse may be increasing while women's risk may be decreasing." But it's not presented as fact. It notes that "the results can be interpreted through multiple theoretical paradigms." |
Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The text "anger and not being able to get a partner’s attention were pervasive themes"
Does not relate to gender symmetry. So moved up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Sewblon, regarding this, this, this,this and this, the source is not even about IPV or domestic violence, although it touches on it. So for one to look to such a source just to relay what you are always looking to relay about women and IPV? That's something. Anyway, the review is about aggression in women. If we are going to include it, we should include the fact that it says that compared to the literature on men's aggression, "relatively little is known about women's aggression." We should include the fact that it's clear that men are more violent than women are and that the aggressive behavior these women are typically engaging in is non-violent aggression, such as indirect aggression. Otherwise, we mislead readers into thinking that women are just as violent as men are and engage in the same type of aggression as men. Otherwise, the source is just redundant. I mean, I appreciate you changing the text to this, but the "large scale studies find men and women committing IPV at similar rates" and "but that men commit more severe IPV acts than women" piece is already covered in the "Gender asymmetry" section, where we state, "Although men and women commit equivalent rates of unreported minor violence via situational altercation, more severe perpetration and domestic battery tends to be committed by men." The section also states, "A 2008 systematic review published in journal of Violence and Victims found that despite less serious altercation or violence being equal among both genders, more serious and violent abuse was perpetrated by men." So the piece you added is redundant if it's not going to report on anything new. It's also without the "minor violence" aspect. The review is reporting on the same flawed studies that have been criticized for not making things like "equal rates for minor violence" clear. The only new thing you included is where it states that there are more similarities than differences in the motivations and risk factors in intimate partner violence between men and women. So I could support adding that only, and/or something else from the review that the article doesn't already mention.
Doc James was busy yesterday. So he may be able to weigh in today. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
___
References