Talk:Domestic violence/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Comment

Hobsons Bay Women's Referral Service is located in Victoria, Australia, as a referral service and link to welfare agencies and legal services for victims of family violence. The new term for domestic violence is Family Violence. This term is used in the field by workers, by law enforcement officers and the courts. Family violence covers a range of issues and is not gender specific and is inter-generational. It has become more common for children to abuse their parents particularly in the case of the elderly or in single parent households. Australia is a multi-cultural society and some forms of family violence are tolerated by different cultures - this is an extremely complex situation but there is no excuse for the oppression of another using violence or bullying.

Violent Men in Media

" Men control the content and masculine ideology infuses the communication process, pandering to the relevant market niches and their prejudices to maximise sales revenues. Thus, themes of violent behavior are often portrayed in an uncritical style which reinforces stereotypes and may appear to condone the use of violence in certain specific situations." This whole section seems to be totally POV. Where are the facts backing up this 'Men control". It is written as if it is a known, undisputable fact. If we are going to discuss violence in the media, why stop here? We should discuss all of it. Music, TV, movies... There is a fair bit concerning violence against men (both physical and emotional) that could easily be included here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhkelly (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

In the media whether be film or news reports there's always negative press centred towards a male figure. I thought both races were equal and that violence, especially domestic violence occurs against males as well as females. Friggit 18:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Treatment of abusive partners

I think a section should be added regarding treatment of people who are abusive but want to change.

Removal of ref. to Female Privilege

I work in the field of domestic violence and have no reference to the privilege of female gender roles as being a common contributory cause for domestic violence. I'm not a priori against claims of "female privilege" in individual cases, but my beliefs are not at issue, without a citation tying those gender roles to domestic violence, there's no place for this claim in this entry. My mistake here. I should have discussed this in advance. My intention was to balance the POV that is mistakenly all too commom which is that male privilege exists with no countering female privilege. Wives and mothers often use a backhanded form of female privilege by claiming (falsely) to be victim-saints with NO responsibility for their contribution to DV disputes and mothers often use motherhood as privilege because it is taboo to challenge the false idea of the always nice, selfless, loving martyr mother. I suggest a glance at Relational Aggression, and Parental Alienation to see my concerns here. My intent is to show both male and female forms of privilege so that 'mad' men (see Bullies in the Family/Female Violence in the external links) become heard as well. I excuse NO violence here but I insist that we call female Psychological violence what it is too. There has been far too much of this 'cute' claim that all men are monsters and all women are saints. The reality is far more balanced and far more complex. Please suggest ways we can include these corresponding privileges here in NPOV. Anacapa 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

loneranger4justice 12 September 2006 (UTC). Anacapa is correct. Domestic violence typically portrayed from a feminist POV to vilify and profile men as abusers and women as innocent victems. This article on domestic violence should include more analysis of the widespread false claims of domestic violence used as a tactic in child custody and divorce proceedings. ie: Though advertised as a measure to protect women, its provisions are more likely to be used as weapons in divorce and custody battles. As Thomas Kasper writes in the current Illinois Bar Journal, domestic violence measures funded by VAWA readily “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

Wholesale copying from CDC =

The first four parts of the now six-part list of types of domestic violence are taken from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvoverview.htm. I presume this information is in the PD, but it does explain some of the odd punctuation.

Cause Section

I added some material on the possible causes of male domestic violence. To me, motivations of power and control, while no doubt valid in all forms for human violence, are much too general for this form of abuse. I also see no theories here that explain why women commit domestic abuse in same-sex, and opposite-sex homes against women and men. Last, I see confusion here between HOW people commit DV and WHY they do it. Since this section is a discussion of causeuality, I suggest we tighten this discussion to focus on root causes and maybe place the cycle of violence ideas in a separate section that explains the process and HOW's of DV. To me, this Cause section is highly relevant because it will help us eliminate DV at its source and hopefully eliminate all the political and legal battles backed by mere speculation. Please comment on this and or offer suggestions. Anacapa 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely needs cleanup; language fixing, citations, balancing, the works. I just have too many other things going at the moment. --DanielCD 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I will do what I can here soon. Can you point me to sources, balanced POV's etc.

Anacapa 06:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we please remove the "Poverty" section from Causes? Poverty does not cause domestic violence. Furthermore, nothing in the section supports the idea that poverty causes domestic violence. The information, if it is be presented in the article, belongs somewhere else, like under a "Classism and domestic violence" section. Dkreisst 05:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
amended as per feedback. my expertise in the field of "Classism and domestic violence" comes from watching Judge_Judy so from my POV Classism is THE cause of domestic violence. please edit as required. 202.0.106.130 09:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the lightning-fast response. I think the section is better now. However, though classism certainly is violent and causes violence (including domestic violence), I'm still not sure that a discussion of classism or poverty best belongs under the "Cause" section at all.
If the section is not removed: what is written seems to lean toward "Responses to classism in common discussions of causes of domestic violence." It is a bit long, but it would accurately reflect what we are writing about. It would also allow the text to contextualized into something that is relevant to the "Cause" section in which it is written.
Maybe I should just do it instead of writing about it. Dkreisst 09:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well-known individuals involved in documented reports of domestic violence

Seriously, this cheapens the article quite a bit; I removed it. Put it back if you must have it, but it'll likely be removed or amended if this makes the AID. If this makes it through the AID drive, hopefully this will get cleaned up. --DanielCD 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, just as seriously, how does this cheapen the article in any way? Putting some well known names into the article puts human faces that people know on the problem. I put the list there when I wrote the article the current one is based off of, and every one of them involved individuals with documented reports of domestic violence -- not just loose allegations. Those are the reasons the list was put there, so what are your reasons that the list cheapens the article, and what are your reasons for assuming it would be removed by others -- User:Blain, 12 Dec 2006
I'm not really concerned with this article at this time. My edits were many months ago. Do with it what you like. --DanielCD 02:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image

RE:Image:Violence_against_women_burney.jpg

Per some sleuthing, the image needs to be removed at this time.

Sorry. We'll try to find another if this one doesn't work out. --DanielCD 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Domestic violence in same-sex relationships

"Several studies have indicated that partner abuse among same-sex couples (both female and male) is relatively similar in both prevalence and dynamics to that among heterosexual couples."

Would it be possible to get sources for these "several studies"?

(With no intention to appear snide,) Have you tried Google? I know that NPR reported just such a study quite a few years (a decade?) ago, showing the rate of violence in lesbian relationships paralleled the rate of violence in straight relationships, so I know that at least one such study exists.

I've provided a citation to a summary report on studies in this area prepared by the DOJ in association with the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. This article references several studies and summarizes their findings, supporting the conclusion currently included in the article - John724

Atlant 16:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of PTSD section

I have removed the PTSD section from this article completely. This reflects several concerns.

1. The section was organized under "cause", as in "causes of DV". This seems to be backward.

2. The content of the description of PTSD is far inferior to the PTSD page itsef.

3. The section does not textually link PTSD to domestic violence.

4. Much of the section may have been taken from another site as listed above, alternatively, the other site could have ripped the text from Wikipedia. (http://www.actabuse.com/RTS.html)

I'd be for a section that describes the effects of DV on survivors, but think that references to PTSD might be best left to the PTSD article save where there are important things that are specific to the DV-PTSD connection. --Joe Decker 02:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

These are all reasons for INCLUDING a section on PTSD and then linking to the PTSD page itself. 202.0.106.130 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Unwanted advice?

Under the "Gender" section, there currently reads:

"There are women and men who seek to put forward the disturbing and sick idea, that abusive men are in their warped and disturbed view sexy. This can be shown in the media with the tedious genre of bad boy romance novels. This promotes a sick culture of supporting abusive men, and of even seeing good men as somehow missing something for not being horrible. This is a problem that society should tackle. It is a big cause of women looking for abusive men. Abuse wrecks lives, and is not sexy or funny or exciting to decent people, it is traumatic and miserable."

Need I explain this one? This is unreferenced story telling. Plenty of value-loaded interpretation here. Stick to facts, yes? --Thomi 09:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree: There article right now has several places, that included, that need more of a starting-from-scratch approach than I'm able to provide right now, POV issues all over the place. --Joe Decker 22:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

Anacapa: I'm afraid that I see the quantity, quality and placements of your changes, which I see as attempting to deconstruct and redefine domestic violence in non-traditional terms, to be damaging to the content and NPOV discussion of the issue. I do believe there is a place for critiques of the label "domestic violence", although I would not be likely to agree with many of those critiques. I believe that those critiques would be best served by a separate section or article, I see little need to begin their critique in the first or second paragraph while the term itself is still being defined, it confuses matters greatly, although that is not my only criticism of those changes.

And, for the record, I have grave doubts about my own ability to bring a neutral point of view to this subject by myself. --Joe Decker 08:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Specific wording issues, paragraph 2:

Domestic violence can include physical, psychological, sexual and/or social forms of aggression as shown below.

I don't think "as shown below" adds value to this, but that's not a POV issue.

However, broad definitions of the term "domestic violence" have been criticized for conflating mere speech and thought with actual acts of violence to create overbroad classifications for political purposes. There also has been little acknowledgement in the domestic violence industry about the insidious, covert, and psychological so-called 'female' forms of domestic violence that also occur within homes. Instead, the easily visible, overt, and physical forms of so-called 'male' domestic violence are often falsely, seen as the entire scope of domestic violence when in fact, there are often, but not always, other types of violence going on behind the scenes that are just as vile but that are unacknowledged.

POV issue: Adding signficantly more rebuttal to the definition of the concept than description of the concept itself.

POV issue: loaded words "mere"

POV issue: loaded phrase "domestic violence industry"

redundant: insidious with covert

POV issue: phrase "so-called"

POV issue: the assignment of genders to types of domestic violence

punctuation: comma between falsely and seen

POV issue: "often seen as" vs. "when in fact"

POV issue: "just as vile"

POV issue: Presumption that there's a pattern of violence on one side, and covert issues on the other

POV issue: mindset...allowed perpretrator to continue acting violently

POV issue: activism...has lead to a better understanding of the scope and effect of domestic violence

With the prior two, I would think it would have been better stated that, basically, modern culture has a different point of view about the treatment of domestic violence, that previously the interpretation was the "family issue" while the modern treatment is "community issue."

I find this to be clearly biased, as I for one prefer the "family issue." I have heard many a wife who did not like legal intervention, these were alleged victims who did NOT want outside help--not because of fear, but because they had chosen that life for themselves and actually preferred it--as hard to imagine as that may be. Also, since even just (say) smashing a remote control during a ballgame not going your way actually qualifies for domestic violence, many women have found their husbands arrested for simply breaking a $10 remote during a basketball game; no actual violence had occured, and the wives were outraged at an outside law enforcement agency making such matters their business which lead to, basically, a solution being offered to a problem that didn't in fact exist.

I find that this section of this article ignores this possibility, that it focuses solely on the aspect of women scared to speak up for themselves at the total exclusion of actual scenarios such as these were the "community issue" treatment is clearly the wrong way to go.

Larry
Joe, I acknowledge and will work with you to meet your concerns here. Please note this content is from more than one editor. I was trying to balance what I thought were easily misunderstood statements made by someone previously. Here is a response to your points above.
    1. The first 'However...' statement is not mine. I am not sure what the original editor intended here. To me, all forms of intimate aggression belong in this definition otherwise we can become sexist and miss contributing causes to the so-called cycle of violence. I am open to whatever makes sense with where and how this content is handled and I tend to agree that there is a better place for rebuttals than here in a paragraph defining the articles subject.
    2. In all the books I have read about domestic violence from those who are engaged directly with it, I have never seen covert forms of female aggression mentioned. I have no problem with using another term here than 'domestic violence industry' as long as it broadly includes all those in the constellations of people who work directly with domestic violence as opposed to academics, movement ideologues, or politicians. You might suggest other terms that seem less POV to you here.
    3. 'covert' and 'insidious' are distinct and different ideas. One can be insidious with overt tactics too if they are clever.
    4. I need further explanation of the POV issue with often seen etc. I will say again that females are often falsely seen as the totally innocent victim-saints in domestic violence situations. When I read some domestic violence books written for women by men I sometimes want to puke because there is no acknowledgement of the so-called 'female' forms of violence or vice that contribute to legitimate male madness (google the UK's Bullies in the Family website). I suggest a glance at relational aggression links or Parental Alienation or a google of the way both sexes uses Erotic Rage and Sexualized Feelings to take power. My issue here is that women cannot have it both ways. If one form of psychological aggression is DV than so are all the other forms both overt and covert. Some brave feminist authors have begun to write about this in a few places in a very vague way but the psychologists therapists are way ahead with specific content.
    5. Just as vile is a judgement that all DV violence is vile. I will be glad to choose another word. Please suggest.
    6. NO presumption here. I said often, but not always there is violence on both sides although insidious and covert psychological forms of female (or male) violence are rarely recognized as violence by the legal system. That does not mean they are any less violent however, it's just the form violence is different and much more difficult to detect, and deal with. To imagine women as innocent, morally superior, victim-saints is to infantilize women and to fall back on false social steoreotypes that give women a form of false female priviledge. Many feminist critical of victim-feminism have weighed in on this. My intent was to try to bring some NPOV balance to this article which seems to have a somewhat 'victim'-feminist scope.

I also have doubts about anyone's ability, including mine, to bring NPOV balance to this topic as it is so loaded with social steoreotypes, sexist politics, and questionable science. However, I will work with you and other editors to do the best we can with what we have. I suspect that just calling possible POV as you did is a great place to begin to see all POV's so we can create NPOV balance here that includes all POV's.

I welcome all comments/suggestions you might have as to how to proceed. In the meantime, I will try a few things to address some of your concerns above. I also welcome further discussion on points where we misunderstand each other. Anacapa 06:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the part of this section that is in bold type needs to be said; I think something like that needs to be placed prominently in this article. Barkmoss 00:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to better structure article

I have attempted to impose a better structure, have added some material and deleted some (mainly for NPOV). -- Paul foord 12:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the size of the article some thought to creating sub articles would help get this to a more managable size. One possibility would be Domestic violence and gender -- Paul foord 02:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The structure of the German article looks useful. (Allowing for problems with Google translation)

Table of contents
  • 1 Definitions
  • 2 Forms of domestic violence
  • 3 Victim and author of domestic violence
    • 3.1 Violence in partnerships
      • 3.1.1 Female victims
      • 3.1.2 Male victims
      • 3.1.3 Indirect victims: the children
    • 3.2 Violence between adults opposite children
    • 3.3 Violence between brothers and sisters
    • 3.4 Violence against older humans
  • 4 Political and legal situation in <different jurisdictions> <Victim protection> <Violence prevention>
    • 4.1 European union
    • 4.2 US
    • 4.3 etc
  • 5 Public bringing up for discussion of domestic violence
  • 6 Problem of the investigation and data acquisition
    • 6.1 Criminal statistics
    • 6.2 Conviction statistics
    • 6.3 Statistics of the victim assistance
    • 6.4 Empirical research
    • 6.5 Problem of the determination of the dark field numbers to partner Violence
    • 6.6 The Conflict Tactic Scale method
  • 7 Problem of the not provable reproaches
  • 8 Data situation and political interpretations
  • 9 External links
  • 10 References

Paul foord 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Gender-neutral, non-sexist, balanced NPOV?

I added a number of forms of psychological violence or vice that females often prefer to use against males to the well-known and extensively politicized forms of male violence against females already in this article. I in no way want to minimize or discount male-female violence. However, on the other hand it is clear that women are rarely the innocent victim-saints that second-wave feminist would like to have us all believe they are, so that they, as an entire gender, can escape accountability for their often covert, and insidious psychological contributions to the cycle of domestic violence. Is this going to be a NPOV article or is it going to shamelessly pander to false gender-focused feminist POV at the expense of NPOV?

To me the gender-focused feminists rightly included psychological violence as DV here. But since fair is fair, THEIR forms of psychological violence have got to be shown here too because aggression is aggression IMHO whatever its ugly form. I insist on acknowledgement of female aggression here just as it is NOW shown in rape and incest. I note according to a highly credible Health and Human Services data, that mothers commit the majority of child abuse ahead of fathers who commit the majority of known child sexual abuse (see link on Child Abuse). We have to go beyond false politically inspired steoreotypes here to have a NPOV article. Please comment or suggest ways to define domestic violence in the opening PP's that is welcomes complete, balanced, NPOV content below. Anacapa 06:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


  • In the U.S. section, there is a quote from Southern Conneticut State University, "In 95% of family violence cases..." and so forth. Some of it seems awfully lurid, and somewhat questionable, such as the contention that domestic violence is the number one cause of injury to women, before motor vehicle accidents, even. This might be true, but somehow I doubt it. Cars kill and injure ALOT of people every year. Now maybe it's okay to have this quote in here because its a quote, I haven't been over every inch of the NPOV policy, but perhaps it is not necessarily supportive of an NPOV, and should be considered for removal. By the way, I'm a long-time member, but I'm on a different computer and can't be bothered to log in.  :p 69.104.228.30 23:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unclear passage - ref Pizzey

From immediately after comment on Erin Pizzey. Can this be said in straight forward English Paul foord 15:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Political balance in light of pressure from the feminist movement has been helped by noting that there are women who were violent with their husbands and partners, and with the realisation that where the prevailing culture ceases to be predominantly patriarchal there is no corresponding lessening in the incidence of domestic violence. Pizzey never claimed that the sample of victims she described is representative of the majority of female victims of violence, only that some erstwhile victims are actually perpetrators or collaborators in violent relationships to which they are addicted.

Body strength

Do not men no longer have more lower body strength than women? --Thomi 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Since men rarely "kick" in a physical confrontation it's irrelevant. Discussing the upper body strength differences between males and females (and ignoring lower body strength differences) is pretty standard in the scientific literature. Not saying that Thomi's point doesn't have some merit...just that the article as worded conforms to scientific standards (which themselves may need changing perhaps).

What on earth are you thinking to include links which include wholly unbased assertions/rhetoric like this?

What???? The link on this page to the "Bullies" article contains rhetoric which not only isn't neutral, but is downright misogynistic: This passage in particular:

"Serial bullies can be male or female - the main difference is that female bullies are more devious, more manipulative, more cunning, more sly, more psychological, more subtle, leave less evidence and will often bully with a smile. Female bullies will often manipulate a male into committing their violence for them."

WHAT???????

Would you provide a link for that quote please? It seems absolutely brilliant to me and I'd like to read the whole article. Also if you put 4 tildes at the end of your post it lets everyone know who you are and when you posted. Barkmoss 00:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree it's a bit lurid and overblown, but it's true. When females bully, it's rarely physical. 69.104.228.30 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal needed

This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

CRITICISM

I think some evidence is required for this section (if any exists).

I think something needs to be said about the trite and frivolous usage of the terms domestic violence and abuse. In addition, I think something needs to be said about the terrorizing of men with false, petty and hackneyed charges of domestic violence and abuse. I think domestic violence has become an industry that is rife with misuse and abuse and that has somehow managed to corrupt our criminal justice system. Without mentioning that in the article it does seem to be extremely P.O.V. I would suggest a section on criticism in the article. Barkmoss 00:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a page for Allegations_of_domestic_violence which covers some of these issues- I see no reason not to link this page somewhere in the article as the two are plainly related. I agree that including a section for criticism is important for this article to be considered NPOV. --John724 04:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has a unbalanced POV that does portrays men as perpetrators and woman as victems. The neutrality of the article is not compromised by criticisms, and it is necessary to point out the abuse and misuse of domestic violence restraining orders just as it is necessary to point out the absurdity or injustice by NAZI's or communists to adequately describe them. David Letterman recieved a domestic violence injunction from a woman 2000 miles away for sending her 'subliminal' messages over the TV airways, millions of men recieve similar injunctions for absurd reasons that do not involve any actual physical violence, usually in the context of divorce for the woman to automatically win sole custody of the children and possession of the home and marital assets. This article needs an unbiased POV that will allow criticims and point out false allegations. --User:loneranger4justice\loneranger4justice 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Break this topic into multiple articles

The topic of domestic violence is broad enough to have multiple articles. Having multiple articles would allow controversial topics to be discusses separately without spilling over into discussions of less controversial topics. This does not require a portal. Examples of other articles that have been broken into sub-articles include Monogamy and Attachment theory. Kelly 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncited tag

I added this tag because though there is a bibliography at the end, there are no citations inside the article that state where each fact is brought from. This has the credibility of a high-school paper for that reason. In order to defend or attack specific points (especially when the neutrality is under question) there needs to be specific citations for specific areas. You can do this using <ref>(Author's last name p. x)</ref>

Then use <references /> to automatically list and link the references in a section at the bottom.

KV(Talk) 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue of spousal and child abuse, has been corrupted in North America and involves a great many half-truths, false assumptions, and manipulation of logic.

According to Dr. Bernes "Games People Play" (1870's) there are many different games...one is called "rapo", and this game provokes the other to a response. In SOME cases violence is a reaction to other forms of abuse. In SOME cases violence is the initial abuse.

So this entire spectrum of family violence, or more correctly family abuse, must be examined with a critical mind.


The current models involves half-truths and as Alfred Whitehead has been quoted as saying...playing with the devil.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yall Ought To Take A Look.

There's been created an entry Domestic Violence Against Men, yall who edit this may want to take it as a merge. Or a redirect. Or leave it and do that "take a stub from an article and make it a section here with the 'this is just a stub, for the full article, click here'" thing. Whichever. Just figured yall'd want to know, and I figure it's important for the editors of the Domestic Violence entry to take a look at an article about a type of domestic violence. The Literate Engineer 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest merging into domestic violence. This article's subsection, domestic violence#Violence Against Men, could use some work anyway. –Gunslinger47 19:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
If we do the merge, I suggest reviewing the entire article(s), preferably by a professional. In particular, I would recommend making gender-neutral links more prominant so that people will be able to identify which resources can help rather than having to wade through links that only provide help to a subset of victims. --32.60.78.135 11:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This Article is Messy

This article is really unfocussed due to all the controversy. I think this article would be better if it were semi-protected.

The Section on Religion

Let it not go unnoticed that section on religious ideas supposedly supporting or forbidding violence are biased. From the references included, for instance between Christianity and Hinduism, one might interpret these "scriptures" in either direction. There is no direct reference to back up the claim that Christianity forbids domestic violence, and clearly from statistics alone the conclusion may be drawn that DV occurs in the same numbers across the board. It could also be concluded from the references given that both religions are patriarchial by nature, although this would be a gross overgeneralization. Hinduism is divided into many different followings. While the Bhagavad Gita is a so-called "scripture" for the Vaishnavas, it would not suffice for a Shakti. Any attempt to assess the fundamental beliefs of any religion and their relationship to a social problem should include more detail than these meagerly paragraphs. They should be revoked until further research can be conducted.

My bias: I am a victim of psychological abuse raised in a fundamentalist Christian family. I have not renounced my religion, but I have a great deal of insight into the fundamentals of what causes abuse in the mind of the Christian householder. I will be happy to append if it is the only action I can take to level the playing field.


"There is no direct reference to back up the claim that Christianity forbids domestic violence ............. While the Bhagavad Gita is a so-called "scripture" for the Vaishnavas, it would not suffice for a Shakti."

Thank you for the important POV issues you have raised. 202.0.106.130 05:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Turn_the_other_cheek If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

John 8:4-5 8:7 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?” ........ They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!”

Bhagavad_Gita A minority of Hindus, belonging to some Saivite sects, reject the Gita's authority. A spokesman for this point of view was the late Saivite guru Subramuniyaswami

Neutrality Questioned

Ive just spent a half hour re-formatting entries in the links and further reading sections which were highlighted in bold. My concern arose when I realised that only the selected links pointing to violence against man were highlighted. [Please see my recent editing where Ive noted each action]

If Wiki wants to keep its articles neutral then allowing obvious bias and personal POV to be used to spread propaganda is not the way to go about it. Ive tidied up the links sections as best I can to give more balanced view.

Gamete 19:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK to remove the "neutrality questioned" banner from the front of the article, or is its neutrality still disputed? --Coppertwig 19:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Section on Religion

I have added a direct reference to back up the claim that Christianity forbids government intervention into the family: "The two are united into one. Since they are no longer two but one let no one split apart that which God has joined together." The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Chapter 10. Sections 8-9 http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/mar010.htm


-- One bible verse does in no way justify the claim that all Christians believe government intervention into the family is sin. The bible has many contradictory verses. Furthermore, the verse you have quoted doesn't really support this conclusion at all. The verse is against divorce, not against any intervention in a family. Also, it is verses 8-9, NOT sections. This error would seem to demonstate a lack of even basic understanding of christianity or the bible, --

The Violence Against Men Section - Broken Link

"Although traditionally not reported in domestic violence studies, violence against a male partner does happen in a relationship. Erin Pizzey, the founder of England's first domestic shelter for battered women, noted in her book Prone to Violence, that women often went from one violent relationship to another.

According to the Nov. 2000 Domestic Violence Report, men accounted for approximately 35% of the amount of total victims of domestic violence. Further, this discrepancy is also cited that men were less likely to report violence by women, as they do not view it as a crime.

full report can be read here.

Domestic Abuse Helpline For Men And Women.

Stop Abuse For Everyone or S.A.F.E.

Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project."


the link no longer works, please update.

I couldn't agree more. It seems a lot of people seem to forget there's another gender that does receive violence, males. It's rarely reported but saying it does not happen is quite daft and stupid. Unfortunately it seems like some goose has merged the article, yet for some strange reason kept the violence against women article active. I thought we're all equals here. Friggit 18:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Allegations" section

The "allegations of domestic violence" section and allegations of domestic violence have a misogynistic bias and were clearly written by "mens rights" activists who want to be able to commit domestic violence with impugnity and label every woman who accuses a man of domestic violence a liar without even pretending to check if she's telling the truth.

Christianity

Previous content and quoted references:

WIKI: "Abuse by either gender is condemned by the Christian scriptures. Relational offenses are to be resolved by the scriptural guidelines given in Mt 18:15-17, 1Cor6:1-7 by confronting the person individually first then by the church." REFERENCE[Mt 18:15-17]: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." [| King James Version: Matthew Chapter 18. Sections 15, 16, 17] REFERENCE[1Cor6:1-7]: "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?" [| King James Version: 1 Corinthians. Chapter 6. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

What a bunch of bible babble. Gender is false label fascist feminists use not a biblical term. To imagine that churches will protect people from violence, vice or sex crimes against children is absurd to say the least given what we know about many churches now.


WIKI: "The church has a responsibility to protect those who are victims of violence. Christians who persist in abuse and fail to demonstrate love in their relationships risk censure by the community of faith (Mt 18:17). REFERENCE[Mt 18:17]: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican" [| King James Version: Matthew. Chapter 18. Section 17]



Specific references RE domestic violence:


"Wives submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord. For a husband has authority over his wife as Christ has authority over the Church. Wives must submit themselves completely to their husbands just as the Church submits itself to Christ."

[| The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians. Chapter 5. Sections 22, 23, 24 ]


"The two are united into one. Since they are no longer two but one let no one split apart that which God has joined together."

[| The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Chapter 10. Sections 8-9]


"First remove the defect from your own eye. Then you will be able to see clearly before you cast out the defect from your brothers eye."

[| The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Chapter 7. Section 5] [| The Gospel According to Saint Luke. Chapter 6. Section 42.]

Culture and Religion

Please respect the section on Culture and Religion is just that NOT a forum for promoting current government policies.

Christianity

"While some might see potential justification for abusive or oppressive behavior in certain teachings (e.g., "wives, submit yourselves to your husbands..."), most christians would view such interpetations as a misapplication of the christian scriptures. Christians are to model the love of God, and this is particularly so in the marital relationship"

Christianity is inherently hostile to women and to any man who can think for himself. Follow bible commands to the letter and I guarantee you that you will perpetrate violence against women. Religion and religious ideas need to be confronted where they are violent or mysogynist. You might check out Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation or Thomas Paine's Age of Reason to see how religion is indeed oppressive to women and to men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.96.53 (talk • contribs) .

Desperate Housewives vs NPOV balance

Every week we are treated to examples of Domestic Vice and many other forms of female domestic use and abuse on (the far from desperate) Desperate Housewives show. We see a woman lift the sheet of an unconcious male patient, to take a peek at his 'equipment', make a tongue in cheek comment and get away with demeaning his dignity as business as usual. If the sexes (yes I did and I will use "sexes' rather than 'genders'...boys and girls and men and women) were reversed here we would have seen absolute outrage about this scene from fascist (female-gender) gender-focused feminists.

I have come to expect one-sided male bashing from those misandrous, fascist and deadheaded feminists who control what is Politically Correct vis a vis sex, violence and abuse. However, to males who know better I ask for a fairminded article here. To those male pansies who pander to women in the domestic violence 'business' I ask you to see how you are being used for purely political purposes to perpetuate a one-sided power play. To those women who are also human beings I ask for a little genuine thought here. To make all men into mere brutes and all women into shameless saints is a bit much for me.

To me this article will be NPOV when it includes the VICE-VIOLENCE cycle, shows how female 'use' and abuse as well as male abuse and 'use', and shows how the pyschological agression women use that mirrors the physical aggression that men use. The hellcow who raised me is, in retrospect, no less loathsome than the horror-bull who raised me was hideous. I suffered terrible trauma from being forced to participate as a child in their terrible and ongoing dance to the death.

I've got to wonder about my male brothers who 'counsel' men with no distinctions in the domestic violence field. Does it occur to those who 'treat' violent men that there might be genuine causes for male rage that women SOMETIMES earn the old fashioned way. When will we face female violence, female vice and female sex crimes as no less serious than male domestic crimes despite their covert, cunning and care-less nature. (a drop in editor)

Types

this section has been vandalised/deleted

This article is not good

It appears from reading the article that a struggle is going on between those who want to write a traditional domestic violence by men against women article, and those who want the article to include domestic violence by women against men. The combination of the two viewpoints has not been done smoothly. Instead, the article jarringly shifts back and forth from one viewpoint to the other, as if two separate articles were shuffled together. These two sides would need to work together to produce a decent article. (And, I'm just pointing all of this out, I have no intention of fixing anything myself, chances are I'll probably never make my way back to this talk page or article again) --Xyzzyplugh 02:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

if 'the article jarringly shifts back and forth from one viewpoint to the other' that means 'these two sides' ARE (in the process of) 'producing a decent article'????????????


The article, like the field of study is still young

I think this article is still cooking.

I think we need to recognize that the study of DV is still in its infancy and that it is a controversial issue. Maybe the article could have a “controversy” section?


American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

“…here is no single definition of domestic violence that satisfies medical, social, and criminal justice purposes…”

http://www.medem.com/search/article_display.cfm?path=n:&mstr=/ZZZA7UBXMFC.html&soc=ACOG&srch_typ=NAV_SERCH


I prefer medical and social definitions to legal ones. Idaho law requires physical injury, for example. Next, I think it is important to note that there is increasing recognition that while in popular language “domestic violence” means physical violence against intimates or family members, that there is increasing recognition that DV is not necessarily about being physically hurt.

Kelsey Hegarty, et-al. MJA 2000; 173: 363-367

“Domestic violence is a complex pattern of behaviours that may include, in addition to physical acts of violence, sexual abuse and emotional abuse.”

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_07_021000/hegarty/hegarty.html

I think when we discuss DV from a medical or social viewpoint that we are clear that assault and battery is not the defining or even a necessary component of domestic violence.

As Scott Peck pointed out in his book "People of the Lie" it is perfectly possible to destroy a person without “harming a hair on their head.” Marie France Hirigoyen gives a good treatment of that idea in her book "Stalking the Soul," and of course Patricia Evans beats the point into the ground in "The Verbally Abusive Relationship."

Shouldn't definitions come first?

U.S. Section

Just wanted to point out that I deleted the following language due to its clearly misleading nature: "The county's family judges are retrained to ignore due process in domestic violence petitions. Federal programs like Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) fund this training (Bleemer, New Jersey Law Review, 1995)." First, the proper cite was to the New Jersey Law Journal, not the New Jersey Law Review. Second, the article cited discusses a state-mandated training session for New Jersey judges and never mentions federal funding or the violence against women act. Finally, the article is a discussion of one training session in one county in New Jersey and is hardly representative of the state of domestic violence jurisprudence throughout the country.

This article clearly needs a LOT of work. I'd love to see someone who actually works in the field take the time to provide some more realistic assessments of domestic violence. The vast majority of the evidence points to a greater impact of domestic violence on women and children than on men. But regardless, the disgusting thing about people who turn this into an anti-feminist tirade is that they are taking the discussion away from the central issue - that domestic violence is a terrible problem affecting millions of people. If the real concern was that violence against men doesn't get enough attention, that could be discussed in a succinct paragraph or two. The fact that this whole article is peppered with blurbs trying to "disprove" that women are more often victims of domestic violence instead of simply discussing domestic violence as a phenomenon is an indication to me that the people inserting those blurbs care very little about domestic violence, but care very much about how threatened they are by women's advocacy and rights groups championing this issue. The fact is, we should all be glad that womens' groups talk about this, because it opens up the discussion about how it affects everyone in our society. Loafsta 01:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that women's groups talk about this as if it was a one-sided issue. And I'm not even going to talk about male on female or female on male, I'm going to talk that it is all the abuser's fault. The problem is with both people in the relationship, the "abuser" and the "abusee" (and, often, both members of the relationship are each at various times). Even in a one sided abuse relationship, the abusee accepts the violent relationship and does not leave. Even when the abusee does leave the relationship, that person's next relationship is often with an abuser as well. Also, even if the violence is one-sided, often the abuse is not, as the "abusee" will perform emotional abuse to the "abuser" to provoke a violent responce.

Until we start recognizing the contributions of both genders and both sides of the relationship to creating the abusive relationship, we will never solve the problem.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.194.224 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 February 2007.

I'd go for a leaner, more gender neutral approach

I think I am more-or-less with you Loafsat.

It is hard to create a brief treatment of domestic violence. It is a controversial field of study, and gender politics muddies it up even more.

As a male survivor of domestic violence I can understand why men are touchy about this subject--particularly men who have been victimized or who have been falsely accused. But I want this article to be a great article; emotionality based on gender politics from either side is not going to help this article.

I think it would be alright to mention that there is controversy about just who are the victims and perpetrators, but that should perhaps be a separate article. The subject matter also branches into the the subject of "child abuse."

I would like the article to be more about the phenomenology and consequences of domestic violence. I notice that the article doesn't really work with the concept of "abusive relationship."

I am also missing discussion of "signs of a battering personality," or the "cycle of violence."

And maybe I'm missing it, but haven't seen any mention of "Battered Syndrome."

Cyclopiano 02:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Again I couldn't agree more there should be a violence against males page or stronger references in the article or even making the article neutral, but I doubt we have any support despite us trying to reflect that violence against males DOES indeed happen and that we are trying to be equal. Friggit 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Domestic violence against men

Maybe I missed the discussion on this, but there has been a merge tag with Domestic violence against men on the page since Oct. 11th. I do not see the point in having a spinout article, so I agree the articles should be merged. I also feel that article is unsourced, and otherwise problematic. I propose redirecting that page here, and working up the "...men" section in this article using sources and such.--Andrew c 02:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tbhere's no point to the spinout article because its a povfork.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.94.228.142 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 8 November 2006.
If you do not see the point of having a spinoff page I suggest you merge the violence against women page as well, in the interest of equality and fairness. Friggit 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Signs Of A Battering Personality

  • Quick involvement and pressure to commit to the abuser
  • Unrealistic expectations of the woman and the relationship
  • Isolation from friends and family
  • Blaming others for their problems
  • Jealousy
  • Emotional abuse (name calling, etc.)
  • Controlling
  • Cruelty to animals
  • Use of force during sex
  • Belief in rigid sexual roles
  • Past abuse to other partners
  • Using force during an argument

Genesis House Inc.

New Jersey Law Journal. April 24, 1995

Since the Legislature has made domestic violence a top priority, municipal court judges are instructed that they can do their part by issuing temporary restraining orders pronto.


"Throw him out on the street," said trainer and municipal court judge Richard Russell at a similar seminar a year ago, 'give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, 'See ya' around.'"


At the same time, even former and current municipal and Superior Court judges who are have words of admiration for the candor of trainers Russell, Somerset County Superior Court Judge Graham Ross and Nancy Kessler, chief of juvenile and family services for the AOC. One municipal court judge says that while the statements reflect an incorrect approach, "I wouldn't be real keen to inhibit the trainers at these sessions from exhibiting their honest opinions."


Judges who have seen the training presentation say that if anyone objects, they keep it to themselves. Russell says that sometimes "those with no background express disbelief, until we explain the intent of the legislation."


"If I had one message to give you today, it is that your job is not to weigh the parties' rights as you might be inclined to do as having been private practitioners," Russell told the judges. "Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order.


Moreover, Russell says there is nothing wrong with the teaching approach. Abuse victims, he says, may apply and relinquish TROs repeatedly before they finally do something about breaking away. Once they do so, he says, the Legislature's prevention goal has been met.


Russell continues: "So when you say to me, am I doing something wrong telling these judges they have to ignore the constitutional protections most people have, I don't think so. The Legislature described the problem and how to address it, [and] I am doing my job properly by teaching other judges to follow the legislative mandate."


Gruccio, who says he is familiar with the work of Russell and Ross on the bench and that both are top notch judges, strongly disagrees with the approach. "My view is that you just can't say, 'Forget about the defendant's rights.' You can't say that. It is wrong to say that. It is wrong to train people that constitutional rights aren't important."


Gruccio, a professor at Widener University Law School in Wilmington, Del., and director of its judicial administration program, concludes "I think what has happened is, for emphasis purposes, somebody has lost their way."


Siting judges interviewed for this article readily agree with Gruccio. Says one: "The constitution is being ignored in order to satisfy a particular legislative objective. And if the judiciary should feel that it is obliged to close its eyes to constitutional considerations in order to assist the Legislature in attaining a currently popular objective.


Melanie Griffin, executive director of the Commission to Study Sex Discrimination in the Statutes, a legislative commission that drafted much of the 1991 law, says that for every individual who files a false report, "there are 100 women who don't come in at all and stay there and get beaten."


New Jersey Law Journal April 24, 1995


Comment to this point - I assume this was added in response to my removal of the section citing to it. I would like to point out that if you read my comment above, you will seen that I did not remove the language solely because it was inappropriately cited (which it was at the time), but because it was grossly misleading. The language I removed implied (i) that judges are generally trained to ignore constitutional concerns when dealing with domestic violence cases and (ii) that this was related to the violence against women act and tied to federal funding. The article, on the other hand, clearly describes training for judges in a single county in New Jersey in 1995, and makes no mention of the violence against women act. As the article generally addresses domestic violence on a national or international scale, rather than domestic violence in New Jersey (in 1995), I felt the language should be pulled and I did so.Loafsta 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

problems with this article

Part 1

Here is part one of my review of this article. I am writings this while reading, so it may make more sense if you try to follow along with the article from top to bottom.

  • There is a whole lot of unsourced material, as noted by the tag at the top of the article.
  • The reference style is not consistent, and I would propose converting everything over to inline cite.php style citations with proper <ref> tags.
  • I would get rid of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the intro. The 5th paragraph is misleading. While what it says may be important, we should also say what sort of people are statistically more likely to be victims. I think the unordered list in the intro is not a good idea, and should be made concise and summarized in prose form. The 2nd to last paragraph is also problematic. I feel that perhaps some of the information from the 3rd, 2nd to last and last paragraphs could be combined to have a section on the Men's rights movement's take on DV, make sure to substantiate and qualify all statements, and avoiding NPOV undue weight.
  • I think it is redundent to have a table of contents, then an unordered list of the types of DV, then detailed description of the types. I'm not a big fan of the quoted blocks of text after the psychological types (also, the italic type doesn't help.) The economic and spiritual abuse need sourcing.
  • The article lacks overall cohersion. The sections do not really follow a logical order, and there isn't much connectivity between the sections, or within the article as a whole.
  • Violence against children is just 2 statistics. Obviously, this section needs expansion and probably a complete rewrite (should there be a main link to the Child abuse article?)
  • The "World Health Organisation Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women 2005" section seems misplaced. Was it part of a stub merger? Maybe there could be a section on history or law that this could be included in?
  • "Violence Against Men" is problematic because it is not only very poorly formatted, but also poorly written. There are random external links and a weird list of italicized (what appear to be) organizations. I think this section should also contextualize the abuse by comparing it statistically to DV against women (as the 2000 DoJ study does).
  • The Allegations section is ok, but the David Letterman example seems anecdotal at best (off topic at worst). The third-party abuse sentence doesn't make sense, and this section seems too sypathetic. This isn't about "false allegations", so we should discuss actual instances of DV in divoce cases. Having some statistics (if they exist) may help this section as well. The fault may also be in the parent article. If we are simply summarizing content from there, and the content is poor to begin with, we may not have much to work with. (I'm trying to review this article first, not that one).
  • "Causes" is decent, but like the rest of the article, needs sourcing/citations. There are some random things thrown in that seem a little ackward.
    • "As with many phenomena..."
    • "resentment toward men misandry" Seems like it was added just to counter ballance misogyny, and lacks proper puncuation.
    • "This does not necessarily confirm that domestic violence..." seems overly skeptical for no reason. (citation may help, or combining with the previous sentence)
    • The whole poverty section seems to be giving undue weight to a minority position that some hypothetical prevelance of upper class DV is secretly going unreported. A citation may help, but this section seems weighed poorly from a NPOV stance.
    • "Modes of abuse are thought by some" weasel word. This claim needs substantiation. The whole sex and gender section doesn't seem like it belongs under "causes"
    • "Unless or until more men identify themselves..." this sentence is misplaced, and almost reads as advice. It is loaded and has a large number of very controversial assumptions underlying it.
    • The Power wheel section could use some work.
    • The "Drug Abuse and Alcoholism" is good, but could probably be improved by citing more sources than just 2.
    • The "Bullying" section seems out of place. Maybe it could be merged as an intro to the causes section? Or does it need its own subsection and perhaps expansion?
  • The "Statistics" section seems to overemphisize the conflict in data. (something the CDC and DoJ do not do in their literature about DV). And I feel that this is giving undue weight to a minority view (which is that men are secretly equally as much victims as women). Furthermore, I feel a good analysis of the CTS (such as Kimmel's) and where and how it is a good tool, and its failings, criticism should also be included (and I think it is an overstatement to unqualifiedly state that CTS finds that men and women are equally as violent, because that simply is not true. )
    • The US section seems to be padded strongly with pro-male-as-victim bias (undue weight). I'm not saying this stuff isn't important, but the manner in which it is treated currently is problematic. I suggest creating a section for this POV and represent it in a NPOV manner, or qualify and substantiate and make much more concise to avoid undue weight.
    • Cost seems misplaced.
  • Wow, the "Gender differences" is a mess. more later.--Andrew c 03:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Part 2

  • "Gender differences" what is with the "so-called male" and "female" business?
  • Erin Pizzey's view is the view of one individual, and a minority view at that. Why is it given so much weight?
  • "See external links" is not a proper citation.
  • "Men or women as violent" frames the whole debate in light of a minority POV. "What is often missing" "There continues to be discussion" "This can overwhelm any other issues" are all loaded statements.
  • This section needs a rewrite that is more NPOV, better sourced, and less sympathetic to POVs. There are paragraph after paragraph trying to rationalize that women are equally aggressive as men, even if this doesn't show up in the hospital and police records, and even though this isn't true for any other crime besides DV. Why is this section arguing so strongly for gender symmetry when the majority of professionals in the field acknowledge gender asymmetry. This isn't the sort of debate that should take up this much space. Users are not trying to read about this when they are researching DV. Maybe this topic deserves a spinout article? But I feel it could be made more concise and neutral.
  • "Same-sex" section is an important topic to cover, but the "so it appears to be gender independent." seems like POV commentary. There isn't enough info on male same-sex relationships.
  • "Response..." section starts off ok, but of course needs citation. The last sentence of the first paragraph is a bit odd.
  • The quote from "Richard Russell" seems out of place. It doesn't follow from the previous paragraph. At the very least it needs contextualizing, but sure the point (if there was one) could be summarized, instead of quoted in full. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of quotes.
  • "The Hope Card Project" seems like an ad. Why describe this one specific organization here? I'd cut that paragraph.
  • I wish there were a little more meat to the "The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project", but not too much because there is a spinout article. I also feel the controversy needs to be qualified to say how significant it really is (is it just a couple of websites being critical, or do most scholarly sources talk negatively about the project?)
  • "Treatment and support" the first sentence starts off completely argumentative. Why are we rehashing this POV again in this section? This article isn't "Why minority POVs feel women on men DV is secretly much more significant and important than the authorities lead people to believe". We should discuss "treatment and support" in the "treatment and support" section, right? Not rehash the 'gender differences' argument again. The last paragraph is much better (if it had citations), though the term "Men's behaviour change programs" seems a bit odd to me.
  • The police section is ok, but maybe should include more than just the UK police.
  • "Bias against men in service provision" like I've said before. I don't feel this article should be so argumentative. This isn't a debate, it is an encyclopedia. I feel that we should have one section dealing with these similar POV, instead of having commentary throughout the whole article, and sections that are just argumentative in tone. To be continued..--Andrew c 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Part 3

  • "Abusive men in the news media" appears well cited, but seems a little off topic. It is more like a feminist critique of the media/popular culture. I'd like if it were a little more focused and dealt more specifically with domestic violence.
  • "In Film" having a list like this isn't really helpful. Maybe if there were brief descriptions of how they relate to the topic at hand.
  • "Cultural and Religious Teachings" the intro to this section is poor, and I don't see how it relates to DV.
  • "Christianity" this section only consists of bible quotes. We should have encyclopedic commentary explaining I guess Christianity's view on DV. The second two quotes seem off topic, and the first one should be cut shorter.
  • "Hinduism" again, we should contextualize the quotes, and explain in more detail the Hindu view.
  • "Islam" this section is much better than the previous two. However, since there is a spinout article dealing with this topic, perhaps we could make the section more concise. And it looks like it needs some formatting help as well.
  • "Accepted behavior" doesn't seem to fit in this section that well, but it is written fairly well, and it is sourced.
  • "References and further reading" is a mess. The two concepts shouldn't be combined. Furthermore, because of the many different conflicting citing notations used, and the fact that some content probably dates back to a time when wikipedia did not require inline citation, weeding through this section is going to be very hard. Some sources may be used somewhere in the article, but we won't have any idea where. Furthermore, technically, these references aren't formatted in the same manner. We should choose a citation style and stick with it (converting the necessary references to the proper style).
  • The external links are surprisingly not a mess. The list is not bloated, the seperation is decent, and the links seem mostly relevent per WP:EL guidelines, although there are a couple that seem misplaced (such as the one with the quote).--Andrew c 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Section on Types

has been vandalised "deleted sexist content linked to website"

However "In 95% of family violence cases the victims are women beaten by male partners. In 1% of the cases the reverse is true."

Southern Connecticut State University

If you disagree with Wiki content please note your concerns on the discussion page rather than deleting existing content..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.0.106.130 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 6 November 2006.

Treatment and Support

i have a removed the following content which features a link to: "Journeys In Fatherhood, Self Help for men Buy your copy"

Work with men who use violence and abuse toward family members can be seen in Victoria, Australia where a unique combination of voluntary and mandated (court or police referred) programs exist as well as a statewide telephone counselling, information and referral service for men exists. See: No To Violence (NTV) the Male Family Violence Prevention Association. However, there are no equivalent services in Victoria for women who use violence or abuse, nor any support services at all for abused men. The absence of such services leads to circular claims that no such services are required, and to similarly circular claims that the available services represent proof that violence is exclusively 'male'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.0.106.130 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 November 2006.

Organizations

The organization "Jennifer Ann's Group" was deleted. As this is the only listed organization whose focus is on teenage relationships, its inclusion is important and necessary. Studies of abuse in teenage relationships estimate that between 10% - 30% of all teenage relationships are classified as "abusive."

This information is not well-known or disseminated. The primary focus of this organization is to educate teenagers, teachers, counselors and parents about the prevalance of this abuse. As part of this education process "Jennifer Ann's Group" has established a list of TEN WARNING SIGNS as well as a list of how to BE PREPARED.

The inclusion of this organization within the Domestic Violence category is appropriate. The rationale for its removal is not clear.

Below is the listing that was deleted:

Below is the message sent to my "Talk" page regarding this deletion: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Drew30319 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations of Conflict Tactics Scale?

In the "Statistics" section, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, it says: "... on the prevalence of family violence in the and other countries" which doesn't parse grammatically. The best fix perhaps would be to expand it by adding references to use of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) in various countries. A quick search on [1] for "Conflict Tactics Scale Australia" yields this, for example -- [2] which might or might not be relevant to mention in this section -- a quick scan suggests it might only be talking about violence against women; also they've used a modifed form of the CTS. Maybe someone could take the time to do some more searching. --Coppertwig 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation of Young, 2005

In the section "US", the link to (Young, Independent Women’s Forum, 2005) went to the home page of an organization. I searched around on that website and found an article by Young in that year, so presumably it's the article that's meant, and I've made it a more specific link so readers don't have to search around for it. The article is rather long, is called " Domestic Violence: An In-Depth Analysis" and has a longer pdf version directly accessible from the same page. It may be a useful source of other statistics to help further improve the article. I haven't verified whether it contains the 85% statistic mentioned in the article. I think I'll also add it to the "references and further reading" section. --Coppertwig 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahimsa??

This sentence in the subsection "Men or Women As Violent" needs to be improved: (3rd paragraph 1st sentence) "The statistics cited by Women's Aid and Ahimsa are that violence by women against men is a tiny proportion of all domestic violence is rejected by advocates for male victims of domestic violence." It is not grammatical, having two main verbs. It needs a more specific citation: Are "Women's Aid" and "Ahimsa" two separate citations, and where exactly are the original publications? Here are some statistics from Women's Aid but I don't see anything there about a "tiny fraction". A citation of the advocates for male victims would also be nice though not as vital here IMO. --Coppertwig 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but the statistic from Women's Aid about the number of incidents against women and against men seem to contradict the following, which I believe is a report on the same survey referred to: Walby & Allen, 2004

Is MyNation an organization?

I reverted the following edit:

06:25, 19 November 2006 Andrew c (Talk | contribs) (rv link that isn't an organization)

I followed the link ("Biased Indian Domestic Violence Act") in the list of Organizations in the article. It appears to me to be the website of an organization called My Nation and also links to a website about Save India Society which appears to be a larger organization which includes My Nation and other groups. Therefore it seems that the reason given in the edit history for removing this link was not justified. There may be other grounds for reducing the number of organizations listed. --Coppertwig 11:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have linked to the parent organization. Maybe we should instead move this to internal links and Save Indian Family? --Andrew c 16:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page Save Indian Family has a link to the MyNation website. Your suggestion sounds fine to me. --Coppertwig 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

i have added quotes as per Wives Submit To Their Husbands which also offers interpretations of the quoted material —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.154.16.31 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Could an IMPARTIAL editor please review & hopefully revert:

01:44, 5 December 2006 Andrew c (Talk | contribs) (rv quotes. please keep in mind WP:NOT)

Wait, how am I partial? What does adding 4 bible quotes add to this article that isn't already explained in prose form? This article is extremely long as is, and as a top tier article, should only summarize fringe content. Explaining the verses in a sentence or two is much more concise and enyclopedic than listing quotes. On top of that, how do those quotes relate to the topic at hand? --Andrew c 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
amended as per feedback........ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.154.16.30 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm sorry to revert you again, but I still do not believe a collection of quotes is the best thing for this article. Here is a suggestion, you could research some reliable sources that discuss the Christian position on domestic violence, and summarize that information here. Prose is better than copying and pasting bible verses. Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a collection of quotes. We have wikisource and wikiquote for that. I honestly am not trying to offend you, or put you off by reverting your edits. I'm just trying to keep up a high encyclopedic standard so this article doesn't get even worse than it already is. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 05:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)



Is the applicable wiki policy "reliable sources?"

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

  • Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
  • Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
  • Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
  • Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
  • Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues
in view of the exceptionally controversial nature of this content i would like to include three quotes from the source - an editted version of the existing quote, one additional quote from Paul and a quote from Peter. The aim is to explain Christian teachings in respect of domestic violence and to put these teachings into some sort of context:

"Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing..... .For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."

|The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians. Chapter 5. Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33.


"Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands...........Likewise, husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel...... be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous"

|The First Epistle General of Peter. Chapter 3. Sections 1, 7, 8


"Teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands."

|The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Titus. Chapter 2. Sections 4, 5


137.154.16.31 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


I would not object to replacing the current quotes with the ones mentioned above. HOWEVER (a big however), I'd much, much rather see actual prose explaining the Christian position, instead of simply quotes. Wikipedia should not be a collection of quotes, nor a primary source (see wikiquote and wikisource for those projects). Instead, we should summarize the sources that talk about the issues (in this case, Domestic violence and Christianity). It is much better to write about this topic instead of simply quoting from the bible. Finally, I would ask that instead of external links to "sacred-texts.com", that we use template:bibleverse instead.--Andrew c 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

done. how do i include the actual (long) book name rather than the abbreviated book name? also is there a similar facility for Hindu or Muslim texts? 137.154.16.31 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, to my knowledge, there is no template for sourcing Hindu or Muslim texts. As for the bibleverse use, check out Template:bibleverse-nb. This creates just the chapter/verse numbers as a link, so you can write whatever text you want before that (for example, an internal wikilink to the book in questions) For example Gospel of Matthew 1:1.--Andrew c 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If I may jump in to the conversation, I agree with Andrew c's comment above, suggesting that it would be better to write actual prose about this topic instead of having a collection of quotes. According to 137.154.16.31 above, the quotes are there "to explain Christian teachings in respect of domestic violence and to put these teachings into some sort of context." However, I don't really see the connection to domestic violence - or, rather, I see too many potential connections, all of which are my own personal, and entirely unscholarly, interpretations. It would be wonderful to have some explanation of those verses - for instance, how they are interpreted by modern clergy, if they are quoted in any texts on domestic violence, etc. I'm honestly not sure if they're there to preach, to condemn, or (what I hope is the case) to simply add NPOV information that, at the moment, just needs some more elaboration and less quotation. I hope what I said made sense, and I look forward to reading more. Thanks! - Tapir Terrific 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Tapir i have put your question to the most senior theologian i know & await his reply. In the meantime how about if YOU write your interpretation of the quoted verses & then the 3 wise men will take a look at your interpretation. Also whats your take on New Jersey Law Journal April 24, 1995?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.0.106.130 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Hi there, 202.0.106.130 - Unfortunately, anything I would write on the quote verses would violate the NPOV policy and have no encyclopedic value whatsoever, so I'll have to decline your suggestion. As I said, I'm not sure how they're being employed in this article or in the real world. Are the being used to condemn DV, by telling couples to love each other and think of themselves as united? Are they being used to excuse DV, by emphasizing that wives must be submissive? I'm not being coy here, I honestly don't know what their original intention was, what their current interpretation is, and how people might use or misuse them in reality.
As for the article you asked me to read, TROs are definitely problematic, no question about it. Does that relate to the discussion at hand, though? If not, perhaps you should start another thread.
By the way, are you the same person as 137.154.16.31, just so I have some idea who I'm talking to? Thanks! - Tapir Terrific 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If a man really has authority over his wife that means he is there to SERVE his wife. A man who is selfish and egotistical has no authority over anyone much less his own flesh and blood. 202.0.106.130 01:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Violence against men needs it's own page

I think that the time has come for Violence against men to have it's own page seeing the amount of information that is available and that it is being passed through the House of Commons in the UK, please can someone create it? Winstonchurchill2nd 13th, December 2006. 18:51 GMT.

Do you have any more information on this? Doesn't seem that notable. I searched around google news, and the parliment.uk website and couldn't find this information. I still think it is best to focus on creating a single article about domestic violence. If we make an article about male victims (the minority group) but not an article about female victims, we are giving undue weight. One article for both should do. You may want to review Wikipedia:Content forking to help understand our guidelines for these matters.--Andrew c 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a violence against women page, I can't see the reason why there should not be a violence against men page. It would be nice to have some equality and fairness. There's often a lot of bias in the media towards males, especially with regards to domestic violence or gaining custody of a child after an incident of domestic violence. To say that domestic violence does not occur against males is completely ignorant. No culture, no race, no gender is immune to this, especially males. Friggit 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing matters. A) You first say there should be a "violence against men" page because there is a "violence against women page", you next say bring up "domestic violence". These are two different issues. We do not have a "Domestic violence against women" article. No one is saying that domestic violence doesn't occur agaist males. Just read this article, there is a whole lot of space given to the domestic violence against males. Per our content forking policy, I do not believe we are at a point where we need to fork the content. Having one article about domestic violence seems good enough for now. Are there specifics about this article you'd like to address or change before discussing other hypothetical articles?-Andrew c 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

explanation of revert

Someone reverted anon's contributions regarding bible quotes. This was discussed on talk. I'd encourage Winhunter to join that discussion above, instead of reverting non-vandalism using popups. Winstonchurchill2nd's edits were problematic. Under the child abuse section, the word "men" and "fathers" was added to a section that was referencing an article called “On the Relationship Between Wife Beating and Child Abuse.” I think it is obvious why putting words in the mouth of our cited sources is wrong. Also, Winston added that violence against men was always from wives and girlfriends, ignoring that the vast majority of DV against men (as reported by the big 2000 Tjaden and Thoennes study) is committed by other men. Finally, all new information needs citation. Such as In 2006, more and more organsiations and groups are being set up for men-only and are available on the high street and the internet. Also in 2006 an order is being passed in America and in the UK House or Commons making 'Violence against men' an act under common law. This information is helpful, if properly sourced. I urge Winston to read WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS to get a grasp on what content is acceptable, what sources are acceptable, and how we cite our sources. I'd be glad to help out if there are more questions, but we need to watch out for inserting our own POV and opinions in the article, and instead summarize reliable, verifiable sources. --Andrew c 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I placed CN tags next to the new content in question and restored a verify tag that was removed out of process. I changed the wording of Wife, Girlfriend or Fiancee (which has obvious capitalization issues) to the more inclusive "intimate partner". I removed The assumption that woman cannot be physically violent towards men has been 'alleged' for many years, and until now men have 'shyed away' from the fact that they can be victims of domestic violence or even rape by their Wife, Girlfriend or Fiancee. because that is saying the exact same thing as the next paragraph, only in less encyclopedic terms and what is with the "until now" business? Finally, I removed "by being beaten by their Wives or Girlfriends." because it is not only gramatically incorrect in the sentence, but because it is ignoring same sex violence against men. Hope these changes are ok. Thanks.--Andrew c 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

relationships

"The New Testament in places describes relationships:" Intimate_relationship "An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship with a great deal of physical and/or emotional intimacy. It is usually characterized by romantic or passionate love and attachment. Sexuality may or may not be involved."

The New Testament in places describes life-long marriage characterized by romantic or passionate love and attachment. 137.154.16.30 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

However Types_of_marriages does not recognise any such concept as "life-long" marriage? there is no such thing? why not?????????????

Titus 2:5 quote amended as per footnote. 137.154.16.30 01:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

restraining orders

New research shows bias in restraining orders "Provisions include removal from one’s own home......removing all legal and physical custodial rights to his children, also extends the no-contact provisions to those children." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.154.16.30 (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Christian Teachings in Respect of Domestic Violence

This section could be written one line at a time. If you are unable to contribute content you may contribute to a list of reliable sources which could be the springboard for the content......

The Meaning of Life according to 500 small business owners in the USA

Ladies Against Feminism meaning of life from a conservative POV

Wives Submit To Their Husbands from a commercial (for profit) reseller of Christian literature

Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License legal argument from a Christian preacher in the USA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.0.106.130 (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

US Department of Justice: Office on Violence Against Woman

About Stalking

Stalking can be defined as a pattern of repeated and unwanted attention, harassment, contact, or any other course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear.

It is a course of conduct that can include:

  • Repeated, unwanted, intrusive, and frightening communications from the perpetrator by phone, mail, and/or email
  • Repeatedly leaving or sending victim unwanted items, presents, or flowers
  • Following or laying in wait for the victim at places such as home, school, work, or recreation place
  • Making direct or indirect threats to harm the victim, the victim’s children, relatives, friends, or pets.
  • Damaging or threatening to damage the victim’s property
  • Harassing victim through the internet
  • Posting information or spreading rumors about the victim on the internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth
  • Obtaining personal information about the victim by accessing public records, using internet search services, hiring private investigators, going through the victim’s garbage, following the victim, contacting victim’s friends, family work, or neighbors, etc.

Deterioration of Relationships

I read the article hoping to find some examination of the process where two people in love can eventually end up hitting each other. Maybe an expert in these matters would care to contribute. EdX20 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this article, POV, etc

Howdy. None of you know me, but I wrote the basic article that was here several years ago. I replaced the existing article that was short, lacking in formation, and swirling on itself due to the Gender War. What I left addressed both sides of the Gender War without taking one. I can still see some traces of that article in the new one, but y'all have added a lot of stuff since then, carefully removing all of the balancing stuff I put in to avoid taking sides in the Gender War. Thus, it has become a Gender War battleground again, and that detracts from the article substantially. The article I left had a space left for statistics on DV for those who feel a need for it, and that seems to have rather taken over the article, to its detriment. What I had was a general discussion that included definitions, terminology and concepts that would be useful to those who are in abusive situations, those who know people in abusive situations, with a focus on what to do about it. What is here now is more of a finger-pointing exercise to show who is not to blame for abuse.

If anybody wants to see anything like NPOV, I would propose restricting all Gender War material to one section of the article, probably one about statistics, with an introduction that explains some of the difficulty in interpreting these statistics and studies with regard to methodoligies and the difficulty in getting people in abusive situations to tell the truth about their experiences due to safety concerns and concerns about how they will be seen by others. Beyond that, have sections that discuss the various permutations of abuse based on gender, age, and relationship, each discussing its own perks and quirks, but that don't feel the need to argue that this is the most important kind of abuse, or that the others are over-reported or politically motivated. For anybody actually in an abusive situation, it does them no good at all to think that their experience represents 1% of other abusive situations or 99% of abusive situations, or any number in between. But, there's my bias -- I value the ability to help people in abusive situations over any other use of this article, because, aside from that, it's just another Wikipedia article. Others value different things. I get that. The current article is useful to somebody who wants to write a nice, sanitary report where they can talk about different elements of the problem and some of the controvercies surrounding it, without having much reason to see if it might pertain to them or someone they know. Someone in an abusive situation looking for help isn't going to get much use from it as it stands.

Once we can set some kind of consensus point of view for the article, it needs to be edited with an eye toward comprehensibility. This is a conceptual mish-mash, with some god-awful sentences created when someone wanted to tweak an existing sentence or paragraph for a reason other than actually making sense.

Wordy, but, then, I am. -- Blain 18 Dec 2006

family court

DrZuckerman states that Family court is not within the scope of this article. Accordingly i have removed the following content:

Beating of women was accepted in western culture for centuries. For example, the English writer and churchman, Thomas Fuller (1608-1661) said, "A woman, a dog and a walnut tree, the more you beat them, the better they be." [3] This accepted behaviour continued in English and British Commonwealth countries until at least the 1950s, and was finally removed from tacit acceptance in Australia only on the enactment of the Family Law Act 1975 and establishment of the Family Court of Australia in 1975.

If Family court IS within the scope of this article than please revert my edit. 210.87.18.77 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity - explaining Christian teachings

Christianity instructs that wives are to honour & obey their husbands. The material below could be helpful in further articulating this POV. 210.87.18.77 05:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/

  • Scripture is clear: as you do to others, you are asking it to be done to you.
  • Choose High Quality Associations
  • Develop Your Talents
  • Look After the Body God Has Given You
  • Learn One Spiritual Principle Each Day
  • Live A Selfless LIfe in Serving Others


http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?885

  • It is the submission of a woman created by God in his own image, who is equal to her husband in dignity and value
  • It is a submission which resists the errors of both chauvinism and feminism
  • It is a submission that images the relation between Jesus and his church
  • It is a submission to a woman's husband, not to all men
  • It is not a submission to everything a husband tells a wife to do
  • True submission is complete, from the heart, voluntary, it proceeds from love and so it is tender and wise
Archive 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.