Studies shatter myth about abuse

[3rdEye]

Studies shatter myth about abuse
By Karen S. Peterson, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — It is not just men who hit women. Women hit men, too. And the latest research shows that ignoring the role women play in domestic violence does both women and men a disservice.

There is little doubt that women get hurt more than men. She may slap him. But then he may hit her harder or more often.

By not understanding the mutual role they often play, women are at great risk for injury, new studies show.

Still, the newest findings challenge the feminist belief that "it is men only who cause violence," says psychologist Deborah Capaldi of the Oregon Social Learning Center. "That is a myth."

The number of women who hit first or hit back is "much greater than has been generally assumed," Capaldi says. She says she is surprised by the frequency of aggressive acts by women and by the number of men who are afraid of partners who assault them.

Capaldi and two other female researchers call for a re-evaluation of treatment programs nationwide. Such programs focus on men and ignore women. Men are court-ordered into some type of rehabilitation, and their women are told in support groups or shelters that they had nothing to do with the violence, Capaldi says.

"Prevention and treatment should focus on managing conflict and aggression for both young men and women," Capaldi says. Each needs to understand the role both play while still putting a "special responsibility" on the man, who can inflict greater injury.

The three women did different studies but presented them as a team recently to a conference sponsored by the Society for Prevention Research. The National Institutes of Health sponsored much of the work.

The researchers emphasize they are not blaming women. "We are not saying anybody is at fault," says psychologist Miriam Ehrensaft of Columbia University. "But new data is emerging that says women are also involved in aggression. If we do not tell women that, we put them at risk."

Rita Smith of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence is not convinced that men are afraid of abusive women. "That fear is a critical factor in any domestic violence situation. And the abuse is part of an ongoing pattern to control someone else's behavior."

Murray Straus, co-director of the Family Research Lab at the University of New Hampshire, has found both men and women are involved in physical aggression, but he emphasizes injury rates are not the same. "The likelihood of an injury to a woman requiring medical attention is much greater. Men cause more damage."

HOW INFO GATHERED
The studies presented to the Society for Prevention Research are "community based," meaning they deal with a general population, one not in treatment or in trouble with the law. Data are based on:

Oregon Youth Study. Deborah Capaldi of the Oregon Social Learning Center is looking at 200 men and their romantic partners, collecting data at four stages, from ages 17 to 27. The men are from an "at risk" neighborhood in an Oregon city but include those who are thriving, she says. They and their various partners fill out questionnaires, are interviewed and are videotaped while interacting, frequently with pinches or slaps. Capaldi concludes, in part, that "young women were more likely to initiate physical aggression than young men," and "young men were injured as well as young women" and were sometimes afraid of their partners.

Marriage and Family Development Project. Erika Lawrence's team interviewed 172 newlywed couples recruited from marriage license records. The University of Iowa team checked in every six months for four years. Lawrence found that one-third of couples used physical aggression, including pushing, slapping, shoving and hitting with an object. Her earlier studies show that one-half of engaged or married women and one-third of men are physically aggressive.

Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. This 30-year study draws on young adults followed from birth in New Zealand. Researchers say study results are applicable to the USA. Miriam Ehrensaft of Columbia University worked with data on almost 1,000 people; 9% were in relationships with abuse that resulted in injury or attention from agencies such as the police. Men and women participated. However, this type of abuse required a very aggressive male and resulted in injuries requiring treatment for more women than men. In less dramatic instances, the "perpetrators were primarily women."

By Karen S. Peterson

The little-talked-about involvement of women in mutual aggression with men is "the third rail of the domestic violence field," says Richard Gelles, dean of the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work. "Touch it and you get electrocuted." Both he and Straus have done studies that caused fiery controversies.

Gelles says the lifetime risk of a woman being struck by a male intimate partner is about 28%. And "depending upon who is doing the survey and how you measure it, you could get numbers of up to 50%." But he says a man's lifetime risk of being struck by a woman is also about 28%.

Many researchers' findings in earlier, government-financed studies emphasize the man's role.

Patricia Tjaden's study for the non-profit Center for Policy Research, sponsored by two government agencies, questioned 8,000 men and 8,000 women. She found women three times as likely to be assaulted in some way over a lifetime by a male partner than the reverse, and seven to 14 times as likely to be attacked, including beaten, choked or threatened with a gun.

Different research tools and methods pick up on different kinds of intimate partner violence, Tjaden says. But still, she says, she has "always had trouble with the mutual-abuse argument. Where are all the male victims?" It is women, she says, who are subjected to "systematic terrorism."

The young are particularly prone to aggression. Erika Lawrence of the University of Iowa told the prevention conference that one-third of newlywed women and one-quarter of newlywed men engage in physical aggression.

The subject of partner violence is a minefield. Even defining it is controversial. Some call verbal abuse a form of battering. And all sorts of studies are done in all sorts of ways. Those based on crime statistics and reports from women's shelters tend to show dramatic aggression by men against women. (Gelles cautions that some men may not realize or admit they have been assaulted by a woman and may not report it as a crime or seek treatment.)

"Family conflict" studies may reflect a broader population, Straus says, and take into account lesser types of aggression that don't lead to arrests or broken limbs. These studies show about the same rates of aggression by men and women.

It is clear that women suffer physically more at the hands of men than the reverse, says Faye Wattleton of the Center for the Advancement of Women. But still she says it is good to bring new research to public attention. "I applaud the women who had the courage to present these findings. We don't make progress by suppressing the evidence."

USATODAY.com - Studies shatter myth about abuse

[Gromoljut]

Excellent post - there is really not much to add.
I always say that the one who strikes is no more guilty than the one who provoked him. Men and women both should act more responsibly.

[Marcus Marulus]

There is very often verbal violence practiced by women on men.

[Susi]

To be honest I would have gone with Marulus more that "verbal" or "emotional" or "mental" violence is much more common from women than from men and I have seen some of my acquaintances use such manipulative tactics with their boyfriends/fiancés/etc.

[Menydh]

Psychological violence is the most practiced form of abuse practiced by women in relationships. I've seen men as you can get them, totally psychologically destroyed beyond words.

I won't excuse physical violence. I haven't seen it in my family and I don't understand it. But if there are psychological side effects to physical abuse, the sequels of direct psychological abuse are not "side effects", but deep and longer lasting. If they are curable at all.

I am always very open about it, when I hear of such cases. First thing I suggest is to start realizing that she is only going to go to worse. Smile, don't let her suspect. Take pictures, voice recordings, tape it on video as many times as you can. Put as much of your belongings onto the name of your closest relative, your father or your mother, or a brother or sister. Hell! I'd rather trust a friend than having for sure that she's going to get it. Sell what you don't need and make the money unreachable to her. Be sure that you do everything legal. Take legal advice. When the time comes, she will try to leave you in the indigency.

[Pirate]

Who the deleted my post? I didn't promote violence, I was making a point. I even pointed out that I'm not promoting it, to avoid my post being deleted.

Anyway, to repeat my point again, what Mynydd wrote about leads to violence in relationships. That's the reason for violence in relationships and you have to fight with this problem instead of just writting that you're against violence.

[Bridie]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

But if there are psychological side effects to physical abuse, the sequels of direct psychological abuse are not "side effects", but deep and longer lasting. If they are curable at all.

There are always psychological consequences of physical abuse, often more extreme than the consequences linked to purely psychological abuse in my opinion... and when one considers that physical abuse is almost non-existent without some form of direct emotional/psychological abuse, it becomes obvious which is worse. Not to mention that physical violence often threatens one's very life and can end up causing permanent injury such brain damage.

Nevertheless, no one should never put up with any abuse at all. But "shoulds" quickly become irrelevant where children are involved.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by M.R.

Anyway, to repeat my point again, what Mynydd wrote about leads to violence in relationships. That's the reason for violence in relationships and you have to fight with this problem instead of just writting that you're against violence.

What did you want to say? That verbal and/or emotional violence of women against men induces the latter to resort physical violence, once they get fed up with the psychical abuse practiced by women against them?

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Marulus

What did you want to say? That verbal and/or emotional violence of women against men induces the latter to resort physical violence, once they get fed up with the psychical abuse practiced by women against them?

Yes.

[Bridie]

Originally Posted by M.R.

Yes.

The problem with that theory MR, is that it seems to excuse physically abusive men from taking responsibility for their own actions.

You do realise that in the case of a father abusing his wife, it is not only the wife that suffers? It is the children too... and its probably more irreparably damaging to these vulnerable and innocent little souls than it could ever be for the adult woman.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Bridie

The problem with that theory MR, is that it seems to excuse physically abusive men from taking responsibility for their own actions.

It doesn't really, I'm just talking about reasons for that violence.

You do realise that in the case of a father abusing his wife, it is not only the wife that suffers? It is the children too... and its probably more irreparably damaging to these vulnerable and innocent little souls than it could ever be for the adult woman.

Of course verbal violence does the same.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Bridie

There are always psychological consequences of physical abuse, often more extreme than the consequences linked to purely psychological abuse in my opinion...

In your biased opinion, in my humblest opinion.

Also, do take into account that if a woman goes to a court accussing a man of abuse, for a start the man is not even going to get the basic legal right of in dubio pro reo, because he will be politically guilty even before being legally guilty.

Whereas a man who goes to a court, is likely to see his case dismissed.

It works both ways and none is better (or worse) than the other. Or justifiable.

[Marcus Marulus]

In today's public and stereotypical view of this issue, the man is by default always seen as guilty. It is always evil men mistreating poor and blameless women. A somehow Manichean outlook.

Both sides should be warned to abstain from abuse: women not to emotionally, psychically and verbally irritate and abuse men; men not to resort to physical violence, under any circumstances.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by Bridie

The problem with that theory MR, is that it seems to excuse physically abusive men from taking responsibility for their own actions.

You do realise that in the case of a father abusing his wife, it is not only the wife that suffers? It is the children too... and its probably more irreparably damaging to these vulnerable and innocent little souls than it could ever be for the adult woman.

Abuse is just damaging to everyone in general; there are indeed degrees of abuse, but to say that the children would be more damaged than the actual sufferer of abuse is frankly absurd. Or is a broken jaw and a broken mind not as damaging as emotional stress?

Like has been said, both men and women are guilty, but in society the woman is regarded as somehow less guilty.

[Bridie]

Originally Posted by MR

It doesn't really, I'm just talking about reasons for that violence.

The problem arises when reasons become excuses. And for some, this is often quick progression.

Originally Posted by MR

Of course verbal violence does the same.

Yes it does. But verbal violence is not worse than physical.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Also, do take into account that if a woman goes to a court accussing a man of abuse, for a start the man is not even going to get the basic legal right of in dubio pro reo, because he will be politically guilty even before being legally guilty.

Whereas a man who goes to a court, is likely to see his case dismissed.

It works both ways and none is better (or worse) than the other. Or justifiable.

Well I wasn't talking about justice or law at all, I was simply referring to the psychological repercussions of different forms of abuse. You stated that purely psychological abuse is worse than physical abuse (the latte of which actually always and necessarily involves psychological abuse), and I disagreed.

Both sides should be warned to abstain from abuse: women not to emotionally, psychically and verbally irritate and abuse men; men not to resort to physical violence, under any circumstances.

The problem with that, is that physical abuse is clear cut, whereas emotional or psychological abuse is not.

A person put in hospital due to getting a beating is surely going to have more evidence against their attacker than some who has been called names or manipulated.

Originally Posted by Susi

Abuse is just damaging to everyone in general; there are indeed degrees of abuse, but to say that the children would be more damaged than the actual sufferer of abuse is frankly absurd. Or is a broken jaw and a broken mind not as damaging as emotional stress?

The important variable being that children, as opposed to adults, are still mentally, emotionally and behaviourally immature. Their characters and their brains are still developing, thus they are more at risk of developing longterm, possibly irreversible, psychological harm - including mental illness. Clinical depression, borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder etc are common enough among adults who came from homes within which there was domestic abuse. Yet, I've never heard a mentally well adult all of a sudden developing a mental illness due to getting a beating.

And on a personal note, I can tell you that if ever I've suffered physical abuse from my children's father and my children have witnessed it, the look on their faces tell me that they are suffering more than I.