"The CDC defined this as THREATENED, attempted or completed physical or sexual violence or emotional abuse by a spouse, FORMER spouse, current or FORMER boyfriend or girlfriend or a dating partner."

Those qualifiers make the brush so broad as to make this study useless except as rhetorical ammunition. No doubt such violence occurs and should not, but to include a parting shot by a dumped partner of "Fuck you, asshole," (certainly emotional abuse) or other verbal assaults by exes in this category has the potential of trivializing the problem.

Hey, SixtiesLiberal, fuck you!

I've been subjected to emotional abuse by a spouse who is now (thankfully) a former spouse. Not that my leaving him managed to shut him up. Being told "fuck you, asshole" is not emotional abuse.

Being told no one else would want a stupid whore like you for five years is emotional abuse. Being blamed for everything that goes wrong until you start to believe it is emotional abuse. Being afraid to bring up the slightest criticism or problem because it brings on screaming rages is emotional abuse.

Get your fucking terms straight before you decide this shit doesn't count. Because I really don't think you're in any position to be telling people when they have or haven't been abused.

kimmy,
you proved sixties point. what you went through is horrible but the issue is it can very well be included with saying "fuck you asshole" as there is no clear cut way to define levels of threatened emotional abuse. you said sixties isnt in a position to tell people what does or doesnt count. the same applies to you and it bothers me what role threatened or perceived threat may have had on these stats.

You're right, dananddanica. How silly of me not to see it. A single throwaway comment or argument is obviously the equal of what I and so many other women went through. How could I be so blind?

Jesus fucking Christ. It could not be very well included together. Why is that so hard to understand? People insult each other on the street every day. An insult is not the same as emotional abuse. It simply isn't.

Yeah, and threats are nothing to scoff at either. Such as, say I don't know DEATH THREATS, or RAPE THREATS. Why don't you mull those over SixtiesLiberal.

Don't be absurd, sixties liberal. Emotional abuse is a well-delineated concept familiar to clinicians and sociologists in the field. Your ignorance does not indicate that the rest of the world is ignorant.

Kimmy,

I would have no trouble including what you described as emotional abuse. I am sorry you experienced that.

It is not clear at all from the report that this is what all responders to CDC included. The MSNBC report is fairly typical for mainstream media in that it doesn't break down the numbers and doesn't really say what "emotional abuse" is for purposes of the study. "Emotional abuse" has a clarity for you because you experienced it. Can you tell me that what you experienced is what all the responders took it to mean? I can't do it today but looking at the study itself would probably be more illuminating.

The headline itself says more than the study says. Even the emotional abuse you suffered is a step down from having your jaw broken, or even having been swung at. To me emotional abuse is a separate, albeit related, problem than domestic violence.

Again, I must say, fuck you. I know, now you'll accuse me of emotional abuse, right?

Separate from domestic violence? Separate? GO TO HELL!!! I endured both physical and emotional abuse from my husband. And do you know what did the most long-term damage? The emotional. I'd almost rather he'd have broken my jaw if he'd have kept from breaking my spirit.

Whatever abuse women suffer, whether it be emotional or physical, is all domestic violence. It all causes pain and damage that can take far too long to heal. As EG said, emotional abuse is a well-defined concept, and this isn't nearly as confusing as you seem to want to make it.

I don't know what makes you feel empowered to decide what is or isn't a matter of domestic violence, but I really wish you'd give it a goddamned rest until you have some idea what you're talking about. You're spoiling my Friday.

kimmy,
you're talking about in general and in that regard I agree with you. What I'm talking about is this particular survey. I'm trying to find it online, if you have a link to it I'd appreciate it. Specifically talking about this survey, threatened emotional abuse far less severe than what you experienced could very well be included. Thats what worries me about this particular survey as it does about all surveys that have only easy access to the results and not the methodoloy. I'd like to know what the critera were.

"it bothers me what role threatened or perceived threat may have had on these stats" -Dananddanica

The point is that fear is invoked. Having someone say "Fuck you" in a non-abusive reltionship will not invoke the fear "Fuck you" would invoke in an abusive relationship. Perceived threat is a key to control in a relationship, and is often manipulated by abusers. A good general rule is that, if one person in the relationship is afraid of the other- the relationship is abusive.

And really, the sad reality is that people who are in emotionally abusive situations are more likely to not even see it as abusive, but more like "Well, they've got a bad temper" or "Maybe I am fat and stupid." I can guarantee you that these people who don't see the abuse as abuse far outnumber those who "cry abuse."

Emotional abuse is much worse than just physical abuse- the wounds it creates takes much longer to heal than a bruise or a broken bone. We don't know the context of the "fuck you" that is hypothetically in question. Perhaps "fuck you" always preceeded "you fat slut" or being locked in a closet. It could be a trigger that the abuser is aware of and uses. "Fuck you" can be very powerful in an abusive relationship.

Its true that people can be oversensitive, but it is also true that they are unlikely to overreport DV.

Do you have any idea how these studies work, Sixtiesliberal? Scientists don't just wander up to people and say "Hey, have you ever suffered emotional abuse?" Believe it or not, they use a series of questions designed to find out whether or not what their subjects have experienced fits the well-defined category of domestic abuse. Again, you're projecting your ignorance onto actual people who make a career out of studying the field.

Since we don't actually know the questions that were asked and the qualifiers that were used in the study (-not- the article), can we not argue about what qualifies as emotional abuse? We don't know what the study said. Also, qualifying someone as a "Former" anything doesn't mean they threw an insult as they were walking out the door. They may be former because like for Kimmy and many other women, the relationship ended after a long period of abuse.

So, let's focus on the real issue here. Fucking 25% (or so) of women in our home are abused, and yet people are not giving it the attention it deserves.

found it, interesting read.

"threatened, attempted or completed physical or sexual violence"

Sixtiesliberal, you are mistaken. This isn't even talking about emotional abuse per se (although threats are part of emotional abuse). It is talking about THREATS OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE like "If you don't shut up I'm going to punch you in the face", or "If you leave me I'll kill you" or "If you resist I'll fuck you anyway".

Also, why doesn't violence by former paramours "count"? Just because a woman escaped her abuser it wasn't abuse? Just because she called it quits and he still hunted her down and raped her it's not domestic violence? Seems like you should change your name to sixtiesconservative.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5705a1.htm

thats the link for it. as far as what we've spoken about so far, "information was not collected on the severity, frequency, and context of IVP experienced by respondents".

still, staggering numbers and especially bad for minoroties or multiracial women. interesting that hispanic rates are the second lowest and that asian is by far the lowest. is that a cultural thing?

http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/pdf-ques/2005brfss.pdf

module 26 is the questions asked for this survey.

any thoughts on the disparity between races?

The survey didn't seem to ask as many questions about emotional abuse as it did physical and sexual abuse, suggesting that this statistic actually UNDERestimates the prevalence of emotional abuse, not overestimates.
Here is a link to some of the other instruments the CDC uses to measure different forms of Intimate Partner Violence:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/Compendium/Measuring_IPV_Victimization_and_Perpetration.htm
As you can see, these are well-developed scales with demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity. They don't appear to base their assessments on isolated incidents such as saying "Fuck you" to a former partner.

dana, can you post a link to the study or tell us how to find it? This will be me last comment before I read it.

Katy, you tell us we don't know what the study said was emotional abuse but in your next paragraph you accept the 25% figure.

My problem may well be the imprecision of the MSNBC report. Leah, the report included violence OR emotional abuse in its definition of "intimate partner violence".

My point about "former" partners is that it may include situations where the spouses are already separated or divorced but are still verbally abusing each other over support, child custody or visitation. Again, the imprecision may be a problem in the report than the study.

My basic point is that to trumpet a study as saying "X" when it does not do that upon examination, damages both the person who plays that trumpet as well as the cause the player wishes to promote.

I believe in truth-telling, leah. If that means I'm not sufficiently liberal for your tastes, tough. Go ahead and live in your fantasy land.

sixties,
i think we might need a new name, its dan and danica, today you got danica. its our email, i was surprised when I tried to use dan&danica and that had been taken.

gomillis,
they didnt seem to use those tools for this survey.

Thanks, dana. Your post with the link showed up after I sent my last.

danica, sorry for the flub.

correction to my 11:13 post:

"damages both the CREDIBILITY OF THE person who plays that trumpet as well as the cause the player wishes to promote."

SixtiesLiberal, we believe in truth-telling, too. But we also trust women to know and tell the truth about when they've been threatened with violence, and we aren't eager to assume that women won't know what "threatened" means.

(I apologize if this shows up twice)

"My point about 'former' partners is that it may include situations where the spouses are already separated or divorced but are still verbally abusing each other over support, child custody or visitation."

I think your definition of "verbal abuse" is very confused. You're making it sound like either verbal abuse is to be expected in a situation like that (which is screwed up) or it somehow doesn't cause harm anymore (which is also screwed up). If one or both former spouses are still verbally abusing each other, whether it's over divorce issues or just because they feel like it, it's still verbal abuse. Period.

Having dealt with the emotional abuse of my father towards myself and others for many years, I can tell you that it doesn't matter what the status of the relationship is, it is still very harmful.

Looking at studies in a critical way is important, of course, but who - let's be real, please. Can you (and you know who you are) address what the study is saying, rather than...it shouldn't consider people who argues over child-support? Where the hell does that come from? Like EG says, these are not folks who do random polls - these are scientists who use complicated formulas and methods to prevent leading questions. Stop this - you are the ones trivializing the study results! Don't you get it? DV is a HUGE problem -always swept under the rug in MSM. Geez.

When I used to (I absolutely could not handle the emotional toll some of the stories took on me, from pet torture to continous rape) volunteer at a shelter, almost every woman who shared her story with me hands-down said the emotional abuse was hard. Like someone else brought up, a broken spirit is harder to mend than a knife wound.

I dont agree DV is swept under the rug though it also does not receive all the attention it should.

I dont really understand what you're getting at as far as the methods of these scientists. This was a survey, not a full blown study. I linked the results and the questions asked. Yes they used a lot of "complicated formulas and methods" in analyzing the data they received and the questions were not leading but also not specific as its a very subjective matter. They allow for this in the study saying, as I posted above, saying they did not collect information on the severity, frequency or context of the IPV.

Questioning the study or parsing the results is not trivializing it, to my mind it is embracing it. Trying to figure out why there are such disparities between race and educational levels. Its interesting the rates are higher for people with "some college" than for those without a high school diploma. Looking at what they themselves say about the study perhaps not being representative as a whole. Seeing the %'s of people who chose to respond to this part of the overall survey. Its fascinating stuff and worthy of a discussion, especially as we have some numbers and analysis to look at. That to me is a hell of a lot better than saying "25%!" or DV doesnt get the attention it should.

I will use some of the arguments posted here as I spend a lot of time debating with MRA's on their websites. We need to embrace the survey and examine it. I'm not qualified to do that thoroughly but there are already a few reactions to this survey popping up on some sites. One thing I know I will encounter is the issue here of self-identification. If I wanted to I could have answered yes to those one of those questions and been counted as a statistic as my husband did once threaten me physically but only after I had been emotionally abusing him. Context is important sometimes and I know I will struggle debating that against the more virulent MRA's who will dismiss this survey.

Is no one else shocked by that 11% of males stat? I've been working with DV victims for about three years and I've only had ONE male client.

Clearly, women suffer far more often (and like far more harshly) at the hands of their abusers, but Holy Crap, I had no idea it affected men to this extent. As important as it is to give women a safe place to go and the resources to leave if they are able, it seems we also have some work to do in making men feel more comfortable reporting and ending intimate partner violence.

I am wondering why the averages are not higher. In table 1 it seems almost every number in the categories is higher than the overall number. Can anyone explain?
Interesting that as younger people get, apparently the smaller the difference becomes between men and women.
Also this study shows that this is a potential problem for all women, not just poorer or richer, etc ones.
The reporting is odd though. Where are there questions about emotional abuse in module 26? It seems it is all related to physical and sexual violence and if it were reported in that way it would be even more shocking. I can see how the average person might read, "threatened, attempted or completed physical or sexual violence or emotional abuse" and think that emotional abuse could include a lot and that that pushes the number up to 25%.
And I've got to point out that I know researchers are educated and know what they're doing but we questioned the anthropologist from an earlier post, right? I naturally want to know where numbers in an article come from. Doesn't mean I'm minimizing the problem, actually in this case seeing the questionnaire and results is making me take these results even more seriously.

still, staggering numbers and especially bad for minoroties or multiracial women. interesting that hispanic rates are the second lowest and that asian is by far the lowest. is that a cultural thing?

do you think that maybe there's a difference culturally what is actually reported, people can lie, deny, on surveys.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that we shouldn't examine where the numbers are coming from and what they mean.

But the tone of some of the challenges by SixtiesLiberal suggested that threats of violence is the same thing as an angry "fuck you" during a break.

Plus, the CDC comes with a little bit more credibility than an anthropologist in a poorly written article talking about violence against women (not his field).

I dont know geek, I do believe the CDC is a highly credible source but I've seen feminists and MRA's attack any source of information if it doesn't jive with their worldview, seems its one of the things all groups share.

Sixties point I think is still valid in some way. Is a simple parting fuck you the same as threats of violence? Of course not but what you or I think doesnt matter much. What matters is what was going through the mind of the respondents to this survey. A "fuck you", a "i was cheating on your and never loved you" or a physical threat are all different things but would show up as equal in this survey.

I do find it interesting that somewhere I was reading, I think another page on the CDC site, says there is no real increase even though the numbers now are higher than the '95 survey. for men it went from 7.x% to 11.x%. thats quite a jump. I'd be interested to see some sort of follow-up to this survey as well as some sort of study on how many male victims of DV actually report it.

Neon,
That could be it but are we prepared to say that asians, if we choose to group people that way as this study has, report at a significantly lower rate and that asian "culture" is responsible for this?

"1,200 women killed; 2 million injured each year, new CDC study estimates"

I feel it necessary to point out that the number of deaths at least, are much lower than what feminist websites tell me. Common sense would also tell me that one spouse or partner killing the other should be counted as IPV/DV by definition, even if allegedly in self defense (as part of "reciprocal violence" documented by the CDC in prior study).

"Is no one else shocked by that 11% of males stat? I've been working with DV victims for about three years and I've only had ONE male client." Kristen

No, I am not shocked, because I read about IPV/DV, just because I feel like it. I am very surprised that you do not know about [the extent of] violence against males, or the reasons it is underreported in general, or underrepresented among your clients. To put it simply, a man admitting to fearing a woman, much less reporting it to the police or actually RUNNING from it with or without children in tow out of concern for their safety, fears being considered a pussy.* In the worst case scenario, as described by popular men's/father's rights advocate Glenn Sacks, the MAN could be arrested for being a victim of DV, and in a divorce, most likely lose custody of his children to his/their abuser, perhaps by decree NEVER seeing the children again, as well as being ordered to pay alimony or child support to her, and subject to future financial demands of his abuser.

* Pardon, but "pussy" is definitely the term that would likely be used in male conversation about such a male victim.

I humbly request you look into it, so your work which may involve males (as well as any public statements you make) will not be colored by popular misconceptions, such as how rare abuse of males must be, if one believes that women can "really" abuse males in a patriarchy, or given *average* physical disparities, at all. I have seen the "why doesn't the man simply get out of the relationship" (ignoring the nightmare of divorce, alimony, custody and child support for many men) and "man twice her size" rhetoric on this site, just this week. That is unkind to "real" male victims, to say the least, and feminists would NOT accept such blaming or incredulity of female victims. An atmosphere of fear, is an atmosphere of fear, no matter who the abuser or victim is. There are even cases of (non adult) children abusing parents, though I have never seen it discussed seriously in the US. Have you seen many cases of woman or man being abused by violent teenaged son or daughter? I know it happens in my community. These families have needs, too.

"Interesting that as younger people get, apparently the smaller the difference becomes between men and women." lyndorr

Not a surprise at all. Women sometimes acting out in more aggressive or violent ways such as lashing out at strangers online, is part of dropping traditional gender roles. The next step is managing it if it is considered a problem.

"And I've got to point out that I know researchers are educated and know what they're doing but we questioned the anthropologist from an earlier post, right? I naturally want to know where numbers in an article come from. Doesn't mean I'm minimizing the problem, actually in this case seeing the questionnaire and results is making me take these results even more seriously."

I am glad to see that people are willing to look into the whys and hows of statistics (I love that aspect) instead of simply accepting or rejecting them out of hand according to their own views. I have had to question or change my views on issues a number of times (as well as choose my sources with care - I commonly google sources to read criticisms of them, their methods, or personal agenda, eg, who or what work is "antifeminist"), despite those views or changes working against women or men in a move toward equality or equity.

"do you think that maybe there's a difference culturally what is actually reported, people can lie, deny, on surveys." neonvillage

Undoubtedly, better constructed questions and more indepth study will produce more useful responses and reveal definite differences between gender, race/ethnicity, culture, religion, and a number of other factors. (I have had experience with this in marketing and statistics.)

For example, I will not look into this study in detail myself to see their wording, but if one were to ask a Japanese national woman (NOT "Japanese-American" whose roots in the US may go back 140 years, and be within the bounds of mainstream white American culture) if she was ever "raped" by her husband; based on definitions set forth by Japanese law and legal precedent, she would honestly say "no." If you were to ask her if her husband ever "forced himself" on her, she, if she is one of many Japanese women, particularly the older generation who considers sex a "duty" of the wife, she is also likely to say "no." Why? Because there is no marital rape in Japan, and legal precedent declares a woman cannot deny her husband sex.

"Not only in criminal cases but also in divorce cases, courts have endorsed the legitimacy of marital rape. In 1986 in a district court in the Tokyo area, there was a case in which a wife sued for divorce on the grounds that her husband had frequently raped her. In refusing her claim, the judge determined that because she had refused to have sex with him, the man had a right to force sexual intercourse because as a healthy man in his forties, he was still sexually active. It was determined that she was at fault for not assuming her "legal duty" as a wife, and he was not to be blamed for forcing sex."

"A poll conducted by a men's weekly magazine asked men if they had compelled their wives to have sex against their will. Seventy percent of the respondents said "YES"."

Sexual Harassment and Domestic Violence in Japan
by: Yukiko Tsunoda, Attorney at Law

http://www.tuj.ac.jp/newsite/main/law/lawresources/TUJonline/SexualDiscrimination/tsunodasexualharrassment.html

Aside from the fact the survey was conducted by a "men's magazine" as opposed to a reputable university or government agency (I will still not contest the findings), you will never ever hear 70% of married women in Japan saying they were "raped" by their husbands, or this 70% of men admitting to being "rapists." There is no recognition, legal or otherwise, of marital rape in Japan (at least at the time of that writing).

Also, rape in Japan is legally defined as intercourse (penis in vagina), forcibly or under threat. Operating under that understanding of rape, a drunk Japanese student in the US who did not resist her boyfriend putting his penis in her mouth though she did not want it, would not report she was "raped." Despite feeling violated, she may not even consider herself a rape victim. (Even Americans continue to have a problem with the concept of "grey rape" as "real" rape which should be reported and prosecuted.) Other than being attacked by a train groper on an almost daily basis (and accepting it) and once by a molester in a movie theater, my wife does not recognize herself as a victim of multiple sexual assaults and rapes at all, as when she describes a cousin molesting her at the age of nine (she did not resist), as "losing her virginity." Her acquaintances raping her - college classmate with girlfriend, coworker, married former boss, etc. were considered sexual experience, and the men her lovers. Gag. In truth, by her description and reaction (always fun), I am the first sex "partner" my wife ever had.

Huh. Also interesting:

[start quote]

Last, and perhaps most surprising, we found that Japanese women assigned more blame to victims of marital rape and minimized the incident more than did Japanese men. These gender findings are in the opposite direction of those reported by other researchers who studied both non-Japanese (e.g., Freetly & Kane, 1995; Jimenez & Abreu, 2003; Monson et al., 2000; Nayak et al., 2003; Simonson & Subich, 1999; White & Kurpius, 2002) and Japanese (Nayak et al., 2003) samples. Indeed, even the American gender differences showed nonsignificant tendencies in the same direction.

Although we confess to be at a loss to explain the discrepancy between our results and those obtained in past research, we do offer a tentative, and we think testable, explanation for our obtained pattern of results. Specifically, it may be that by minimizing incidents of marital rape and blaming its victims, the Japanese women may have been self-protectively denying personal vulnerability to a similar fate (c.f., Lerner, 1980). It has been suggested that women who subscribe to certain rape myths (e.g., only loose, morally licentious women are at risk for being raped) tend also to be buffered from feelings of vulnerability to sexual assault (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995), and it has been found that such women tend not to experience negative feelings after exposure to accounts of rape (Bohner, Siebler & Raaijmakers, 1999). In a related vein, Schimel, Pyszczynski, Greenberg, O'Mahen, and Arndt (2000) found that participants tended to distance themselves from others who displayed characteristics they feared in themselves. Therefore, women who fear that they might 1 day become victims of marital rape themselves may be motivated to distance themselves from the already victimized by blaming them for violating standards of appropriateness and propriety (Abrams et al., 2003).
[omission]

Although the tendencies were greater in Japan, we found that in both cultures studied victims of marital and date rape are relatively likely to be blamed, and their ordeal is relatively likely to be minimized. Research suggests that it is often the case that rape victims are not offered needed support and help when people around them minimize the episode and blame the victims (Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Sefl, & Barnes, 2001). This lack of support, in turn, may seriously hamper the victim's recovery process (Campbell et al., 2001; Davis & Breslau, 1994; Regehr, Cadell, & Jansen, 1999). Unfortunately, the tendencies to blame Japanese women for their own sexual victimization and to minimize its consequences may have particularly negative consequences. The Japanese tend to eschew help from mental health professionals, instead seeking support from family and friends (Lum, 1998; Sue & Sue, 1990), and we have provided some evidence that those individuals may not be particularly sympathetic.

[end quote]

Rape perception differences between Japanese and American college students: on the mediating influence of gender role traditionality
Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, March, 2005 by Niwako Yamawaki, Brian T. Tschanz

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_5-6_52/ai_n15344789/pg_1

Awesome list of references there.

Did you see that? Japanese women are more likely to assign blame to victims than Japanese men, the gender committing said rapes, for women's perceived qualities of "those" women who get raped, and not identifying with female victims (American gender differences were "nonsignificant"). That is ice cold of the women surveyed. Despite the surprise of these researchers, that is exactly my experience working 12 years in Japan in a field where I made my living speaking to people all day, as well as doing considerable reading on my own. Many Japanese consider crime to be someone else's problem, not something that can happen to them, as when Japanese often leave their homes unlocked when out, routinely carry huge amounts of cash as when receiving monthly salaries, yearly bonuses, or to purchase new automobiles, have a cash society as opposed to using credit cards or checks, or may be observed to leave their keys in their cars with the engines running while running errands, even for extended periods while shopping or gambling - and are surprised when they are robbed or cannot find their cars. Someone not sensitive to Japanese culture might consider them idiots, particularly when they often behave in the same manner (and are victimized) when traveling abroad, as often seen in Hawaii.

This is why a better question than "Has your partner ever raped you?" or "Has your partner ever forced sex on you?" would be, "Has your partner ever had sex with you when you did not want to?" preceded by a definition of what "sex" consisted of (Clinton could have used one when declaring he did not have sex with Monica Lewinski).

Based on my own readings, not my gender, I would suggest as devil's advocate that responses by men would tend to overstate the level of violence. The average man does not feel as threatened as the average woman, given the same kind of treatment, because of gender roles, conditioning, and *average* disparities in physical size, strength, social standing and economics. Simple "presence" of violence, as reported by the CDC Whitaker study on IPV/DV, for example, is not the same as an *atmosphere* of fear and violence as discussed regarding this study. My wife once or occasionally striking me in anger (which I would be willing to let pass, despite her size and strength, and duly reporting it on survey), is NOT like me doing the same to her. If my wife (who has been conditioned by a near lifetime of emotional, physical and sexual abuse to accept it) had the psyche of the average American woman, and were average sized (ie, shorter, lighter and weaker than I), she would definitely live in fear (or resentment, abusers should watch their backs) if I abused her. Economically, the *average* man (not I) is less dependent on his partner, than the *average* woman would be, and less inclined to stay with an abuser for simple economic reasons.

That said, the INTENTION behind the violence for man and woman are comparable, and despite the disparity in results (lack or severity of injury or atmosphere of fear) are similar, and need to be addressed when educating the public about IPV/DV and prevention. Female abusers, particularly as parents, should not be ignored. Allocation of resources for victims *harmed* by violence, such as shelters and programs, will naturally be focused on women and children, which is of course understandable.

However, and in general, if you question what appears in an anonymously reported survey (ie, no ridicule, stigma, or retaliation against reporting victim) compiled by the federal government, with data picked out of the same study to be paraded by both feminists and MRAs for their own agenda, may I ask you who or what you believe in on the subject of IPV/DV, and your decision making process in doing so?

"I know I will struggle debating that against the more virulent MRA's who will dismiss this survey." Danica

On the contrary, I believe MRAs will pick up on the female as aggressor, male as victim aspects of this study, just as in other government studies such as the CDC Whitaker study on IPV.

Like this:

"Men who had experienced IPV during their lifetimes had a significantly higher prevalence of the following: use of disability equipment, arthritis, asthma, activity limitations, stroke, risk factors for HIV infection or STDs, smoking, and heavy or binge drinking."

I have seen this scenario of women abusing male partners in poor health, described by MRAs. In one extreme case, a 35 year old woman last month apparently bludgeoned to death her disabled 58 year old husband, and also killed her two young children, one an infant. I am still waiting to hear her justification for her not guilty plea. I had better not hear any mention of woman committing IPV as self defense when a disabled husband AND two children are the dead victims.

Considering how high profile MRA Glenn Sacks himself, despite focusing on the concerns and needs of men and fathers, is willing to be much more balanced and open minded than the vast majority of his posters, much less admins and posters on actual "antimisandry" or "andronist" sites, I propose that this brand of "virulent MRA" you describe not really be considered MRAs, but recognized as simple sexists, misogynists or apologists for aspects of sexism including male on female rape and IPV/DV. Recognizing genuine concerns of men/fathers (such as the right for non-abusive men to have at least partial custody of their children instead of being shut out by ex-spouses and the legal system), or one's own pain as the result of an ugly relationship/divorce, is not an excuse to launch tirades against women and feminists (and "emasculated" males such as myself who support them), as many Sacks posters and "antimisandrists" do.

I would be curious to see the data broken down for same-sex partners and hetero partners. Did they tease this data out anywhere? ...maybe I'm missing something.

"I would be curious to see the data broken down for same-sex partners and hetero partners. Did they tease this data out anywhere? ...maybe I'm missing something."

This is from the Injury Center of the CDC Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance, if one is interested in their definitions or reporting methods:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_surveillance/index.htm

While definitions recognize the existence of same sex violence and rape, I have not seen them differentiate between gender of attacker when reporting (except e.g., in reporting child abuse). Even the report on "intimate partner violence" does not differentiate among nature of relationship, or gender. Husband, ex-husband, girlfriend, violence against women is treated the same. That is strange. The CDC Whitaker study which reports the extent of violence by women, explicity limits itself to hetero couples, for reasons unknown.

Independent search will find you things like this:

[start quote]

Unspeakable - Woman-to-woman rape and sexual assault

The current estimate for woman who report or tell someone about sexual violence is around 1/10 survivors. It is safe to assume, with around 30% (Brand & Kidd, 1986: Duncan, 1990: Walder-Haugrud & Gratch, 1997) of lesbians in studies saying they had been raped by another woman, that the 1/10 estimate for women to women rape brings the perpetration of this crime to undeniable percentages.

[omission]

Let's look at a few of the myths that are held by some lesbian /feminist population
-that lesbian relationships are mutual and none violent
-that most lesbians hold basic feminist belief systems, therefore would not commit rape
-that bringing about awareness to society may cause image problems for a already stigmatised population
-that it is impossible for a woman to rape another woman
-that it is only sexual assault, not rape
-that 9/10 rapes are committed by men
-that lesbian rape does happen, but is only a tiny percentage of over all survivors of sexual assault

These popular beliefs are some of the reasons that survivors rarely, if ever speak out. The is a great need for feminist based services and counsellors to acknowledge these attitudes within their support networks, and understand that the survivor has less options and support within human services.

[end quote]

Rape Crisis Information
Research Pathfinder

http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/

Lesbian domestic violence

"30% of LGBT couples experience domestic violence"

More needs to be done to prevent, report, prosecute violence against women, and to aid victims, but for some reason, the ugly fact that a *minority* of this is female on female, is ignored. As I have read, that coldly ignores a number of victims and offenders who need help. And same sex victims (and male victims in general) find little support from anyone, in any community, gay, lesbian, straight, or feminist.

Women assaulted by women only report one in ten incidents. 30% of lesbians report being raped by other women. That is comparable to claims made against male rapists. Male rapists are considered evil, and I will not contest that. Female rapists are . . . what?

Male rape victims - an overview

"Society is becoming increasingly aware of male rape. However, experts believe that current male rape statistics vastly under-represent the actual number of males age 12 and over who are raped each year. Rape crisis counselors estimate that while only one in 50 raped women report the crime to the police, the rates of under-reporting among men are even higher (Brochman, 1991)."

One in 50 raped women report? Men even more unlikely? I must say, these are the lowest reporting figures I've heard. The "standard" is one in ten, and I've seen research showing rape goes unreported less than that. RAINN reports 59% of "sexual assaults" go unreported to police, from the National Crime Victimization Survey.

"At least 10% of men in our country have suffered from trauma as a result of sexual assault. Like women, men who experience sexual assault may suffer from depression, PTSD, and other emotional problems as a result. However, because men and women have different life experiences due to their different gender roles, emotional symptoms following trauma can look different in men than they do in women."

Ten percent of men or more, victims of sexual assault (other research suggests fully 70% is male on male)? That is certainly news to me as well. Women's groups tell me one in 33, from the CDC.

I haven't read any myself, but try googling gay domestic violence. You will find a lot on it.

Interesting findings from the CDC Injury Fact Book 2006:

"An estimated 1,400 children died from maltreatment" in 2002.
"Infants are at greatest risk of homicide during the first week of infancy, with the risk being highest on the first day of life (Paulozzi 2002)." (page 42)

Not that women's suffering is not important, but that is even more than women killed in IPV/DV. I certainly believe children should be included in women's issues. In health "women and children's" health often goes hand in hand, as when we spend equal time on OB/GYN, then L+D, and additional time in Pediatrics. Shelters for abused women are often called "women and children's" shelters.

"The National Violence Against Women Survey estimates that 302,091 women and 92,748 men were raped in the 12 months prior to the survey. Victims often experience more than one rape. Of those raped in the 12 months preceding the survey, on average, women experienced 2.9 rapes and men experienced 1.9 rapes (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000)." (page 75)

A survey for women reports men were nearly a quarter of rape victims in the preceding year. This is most unexpected. They do not discuss gender of attacker at all, though CDC definition includes same sex perpetrator within sexual assault. I am satisfied with reporting from the Sex Abuse Treatment Center of Hawaii that shows 95% of sex offenders are male.

IPV/DV is on pages 55-59. The publication:

Measuring Intimate Partner Violence
Victimization and Perpetration:
A Compendium of Assessment Tools

makes clear that emotional and sexual abuse explicitly ARE recorded and reported. (page 6):

A1. Abusive Behavior Inventory
30-item scale with 2 subscales that measure the frequency of physical and psychological abusive behaviors. The physical abuse subscale includes 13 items (2 of which assess sexual abuse).

A3. Measure of Wife Abuse
60-item scale with 4 subscales that measure the frequency of physical, sexual, psychological, and verbal abusive behaviors. The physical abuse subscale includes 11 items.

A5. Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS-2)
78-item scale that assesses both victimization and perpetration. The 39-item victimization scale includes 5 subscales that measure the frequency of physical assault, psychological aggression, sexual coercion, negotiation, and injury between partners. The physical assault subscale includes 12 items which can be grouped into 2 categories, minor and severe.

Yes, I know being called a name (it is included) or being called a bad parent (I have done that to my wife, I admit), is not the same as rape, genital focused physical attack, strangling, or USING a knife, gun, or other weapon against a partner, when discussing IPV/DV.

Incidence, Prevalence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States

From the executive summary of the CDC report, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States:

[start quote]

Data about nonfatal IPV victimizations and resulting health care service use were collected through the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), funded by the National Institute of Justice and CDC. Based on NVAWS data, an estimated 5.3 million IPV victimizations occur among U.S. women ages 18 and older each year. This violence results in nearly 2.0 million injuries, more than 550,000 of which require medical attention. In addition, IPV victims also lose a total of nearly 8.0 million days of paid work—the equivalent of more than 32,000 full-time jobs—and nearly 5.6 million days of household productivity as a result of the violence.

Data about IPV homicides were obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports Supplementary Homicide Reports. According to this source, 1,252 women ages 18 and older were killed by an intimate partner in 1995, the same year as incidence data reported in the NVAWS.

Costs of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States

The costs of intimate partner rape, physical assault, and stalking exceed $5.8 billion each year, nearly $4.1 billion of which is for direct medical and mental health care services. The total costs of IPV also include nearly $0.9 billion in lost productivity from paid work and household chores for victims of nonfatal IPV and $0.9 billion in lifetime earnings lost by victims of IPV homicide. The largest proportion of the costs is derived from physical assault victimization because that type of IPV is the most prevalent. The largest component of IPV-related costs is health care, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the total costs.

[omission]

Conclusion

With an estimated economic cost of $5.8 billion, and the untold intangible costs, intimate partner violence against women is a substantial public health problem that must be addressed. Significant resources for research are needed to better understand the magnitude, causes. and risk factors of IPV and to develop and disseminate effective primary prevention strategies. Until we reduce the incidence of IPV in the United States, we will not reduce the economic and social burden of this problem.

[end quote]

Note costs also include cost of mental health care. They include emotional abuse and psychological effects of abuse.

By their own reports, CDC researchers are well aware of the need for improvement. They know they need more data, need more standardization of the definition of IPV, they need to improve quantitative data (much abuse and injury goes unreported, they would like to improve reporting from their sources, and they also seek more sources), they need qualitative data, and naturally, they recognize "A Need for Primary Prevention of Intimate Partner Violence." They aren't just reporters gathering data. They see something needs to be done.

They have clear opportunities to do so in their numerous reports, but the CDC does not appear to be the source of the claim that IPV/DV is the greatest source of injury for women, and strongly suggests 95% of IPV/DV is not male on female. I do not believe the government is the source of such claims. I understand it is not the magnitude that is the real point of the matter, what is reported is quite shocking enough.