Did you know that recent academic studies have found that women not only commit but initiate domestic violence almost as much as men do.

Sociological research, on the other hand, consistently shows that women are just as violent as men in relationships and that men sustain one-third of the injuries. California State University Professor Martin Fiebert summarizes over 200 of these studies in his online bibliography at www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Harvard Medical School just announced a nationwide survey that found half of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships is reciprocal and that women initiate most of the reciprocal and 71% of the non-reciprocal violence, while both sexes suffered significant injuries. http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d

The University of New Hampshire recently performed 32-nation study that found women are as violent and controlling as men in dating relationships worldwide. http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male

Interesting links, IndyKat. I found this quote from the patienteducationcenter to be compelling:

"The survey did not cover the use of knives, guns, choking, or burning, and it was not concerned with the kind of situation that can drive a woman to seek shelter outside the home. The view of the authors is that most intimate partner violence should not be equated with severe battering."

Seems like that's a lot of stuff not to cover in a survey.

And back to the topic of murder.
I wonder why worldwide more women are not murdering their partners? I mean if women are indeed just as violent? And especially for the US, I mean with US gun laws being what they are...

For the US: In 2002, 388 male homicide victims (3.1%) and 1,202 female homicide victims (31.9%) were killed by an intimate partner.

(source: The National Crime Victimization Survey)

So where does that leave us? Most female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner or family member. This is not true for males. So there is indeed more to the story.

Just for the record: I agree that we need to understand more about the dynamics of intimate partner violence. And I'm all for services and shelters for male victims.

given the fact that most of the women that were attacked were in low income areas, do you think the violence is part of a larger problem? what i mean is, do you feel that the violence is taking place due to stress of not being able to pay the bills?

This is very interesting that the people noted in this article were not white. However, what I am not shocked about is the fact that the woman in the twenties usually get mugged because we are the most not aware of what is going on.

Domestic violence is not 50-50. While close to 200 studies have found mutual violence, there are 1000s of studies and evidence (use of shelters, ER and police) that paint a more accurate picture - women have the greatest burder of IPV.

The studies that find mutual violence typically rely on self-report (often the Conflict Tactic Scale-CTS). Women tend to admit their violence (even low level violence). Men tend to deny it. These studies dont include more severe forms of violence. In sum, they're useful but they can not be used to paint an accurate or overall picture of IVP. Further, the authors of these studies typically admit the same.

Men's Rights groups sued Minnesota for discrimination. The judge ruled against them.
1- They could not provide evidence of the need for men's shelters (typically when a man leaves the home, the danger is over; not so for women)
2-Despite the 50-50 data, women could provide testimonials and stats indicating the burden fell heaviest on women
3-With limited resources, it was found the money should indeed go to help women & children.

These guys have sued shelters directly too.

This is not the way diversity is perceived everywhere. In societies in which immigration lies at the heart of national identity, such as the US, Canada and Australia, diversity has been far more widely regarded as a source of potential opportunity and advantage. The private sector evolved the idea that there was a ‘business case for diversity’ where diverse teams of people brought new skills and aptitudes, which broadened a company’s business offer and which in combination might produce new process and product innovations which would advance competitiveness.

The idea emerged that a more heterogeneous city or nation is better equipped than homogeneous ones to weather the storms of the global economy and adapt to change. Such a charge, for example, has been levelled against Japan and Germany as they have fallen behind the economic performance of more diverse G8 member states. It is argued too that success at the level of local and regional economics will also be influenced by the extent to which cities can offer an open, tolerant and diverse milieu to attract and hold mobile wealth creators.41 Such thinking has made fewer inroads into many European countries, especially those where even ethnic cleansing emerged after the break-up of the communist bloc, such as the former Yugoslavia.