On the Need to Revise the Gender as well as the Gender Symmetry Paradigm and Establishing DV as a Mostly female precipitated phenomenon!
Domestic and intimate-partner violence (DV and IPV) is not simply non-gendered but largely and seemingly in essence female–precipitated!
The concept of domestic violence as a unique male-perpetrated crime against innocent female victims is not a scientific-based paradigm but a conglomerate of cognitive-dissonance mixed up with a political mindset, a Marxist perverted view of reality and is rooted in traditional superstition against man and misandrist hate. Against all the distortion, the misleading data and information war led by feminists and Marxists, this ‘gender paradigm’ has been completely debunked by many researchers among the Murray Strauss, Donald Dutton and Dr. Tonia Nicholls that I have mentioned in the previous collection. Supposed highly sex-differential injury rates, male unilaterality of perpetration, female self-defense, male ‘control’, male intimate terrorism, the intrinsically violent and demonic nature of men, toxic masculinity, female especial fear, and many other feminist concepts are now exposed for what there are namely an academic, intellectual as well as personal fallacy and lack of integrity rather constituting and legitimate research discipline.
Thus, domestic or Intimate-partner violence [DV or IPV], especially in the groundbreaking work of Dutton, Nicholls, and others and portrayed as a ‘gendered’ phenomenon of male perpetration and female victimization is a now comprehensively discredited and wholly exposed as anti or dismal science which, again, exposes it as an extreme sext with the gender paradigm serving as it cult. However, while science moved from the gender paradigm, towards the paradigm of gender symmetry, the new evidence now reveals that domestic and intimate partner violence is marked by or is by its nature a female predominated phenomenon in perpetration so that in all of the most important respects this is mainly female. In other words, the recent and the modern profound research into IPV shows that it is, in essence, being a phenomenon of specifically female perpetration. The distortion of this reality as its inverse had been through a series of bogus studies and interpretations recycling the notion of supposed patriarchy. As Dutton stated the central dogma of the gender paradigm is that intimate partner violence (IPV) is not only male-precipitated in order to suppress not only a wife or girlfriend but, in fact, all women as a group are oppressed by all men as a collective and with the aim at maintaining the patriarchy, the male oppression, subjugation, and exploitation of women.
This is now exposed as one of the greatest fallacies a human mind has invented. With the scientific research into domestic as well as intimate-partner violence [DV and IPV] for many years now comprehensively showing that the ideologically-driven (feminist) understanding of the phenomenon is entirely deceptive in its positing exclusively or predominantly male perpetration / female victimhood (very many studies and many reviews, perhaps most influentially by Archer (2000), and more recently, by Dutton as well as Tonia Nicholls, IPV as well as DV has for some decades has been considered true the studies of Murray Strauss as not ‘gendered or sex-symmetrical. Yet, being presented with new evidence and data a new revision of this scientific mindset is requires and is calling for the establishment of a new paradigm namely of domestic violence as a mostly female precipitated phenomenon. The data and all lines of evidence (as is here outlined) converge on the conclusion that perpetration is greater by females, and in important respects is distinctively female; not merely that it is similar to that by males.
Albeit being revolutionary at the time of its establishment, the gender symmetry paradigm is now exposing now the traits of political correctness and reminds us of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes", where it finally requires a child to call out the ignorant masses and the king pointing to the fact that the king isn't wearing anything at all. When the gender symmetry/equal perpetration/victimization researchers are talking they use terms which typically states or position that female IPV perpetration is ‘at least as much as’ or ‘similar if not greater than’ or ‘as much or more than’ male. This is political correctness because much of the raw data reveals that female perpetration is higher and often significantly higher than the male one. In that sense, ‘Non-gendered’ seems to be at least in part a ‘refugee": an attempt not to be shown or perceived as "extreme". It is partly done to avoid and extreme-feminist rhetorical ire and confrontation without being obliged to deny greater female perpetration. This is the second collection of studies and a review of scientific statistical data that will prove the assumption and the need for a new paradigm in DV and IPV namely that which show that IPV and DV are mainly female perpetrated.!
1. Female domestic violence accounts for more than 70% while the only male perpetrated domestic violence accounts for 15% only. Reciprocal violence (SCV) found to be most common (50%), of which 70% is initiated by women, followed by unilateral female violence (32%), followed by unilateral male violence (15%). (Whittaker et al.’s (2007) national survey).
2. This replicates previous studies/reviews of a sex-differential in unilateral IPV of at least twofold (Williams et al. 2001, Anderson 2002, Ehrensaft and Vivian 1999), rising with the seriousness of the violence to fully threefold (Stets and Straus 1990) or sixfold (Magdol et al. 1997).
3. Women are three times more likely to hit a partner in a hypothetical provocation scenario (30% of the female participants in the study compared with 10% of the males). Furthermore, the great majority of women would expect no disapproval in doing so (96%, compared to just 24% of men) (Bartholomew et al. 2013).
4. Couples reported incidents of reciprocal violence (matched for level of severity) in 39% of the cases; 8% of the cases reported a wife battering pattern (male severe violence against a non-violent or minimally violent female); and 16% reported husband battering (female severe violence against a non-violent or minimally violent male), (US National survey, Stets, and Straus (1989=92)
5. The greater relative frequency of female-to-male severe IPV perpetration is even more pronounced in cohabiting heterosexual couples (20% vs. 8.5%) and in dating couples (26% vs. 5%)/ (These data, first published in 1989 (by Stets & Straus) Grandin and Lupri’s (1997) analysis of the 1985 U.S. National Family Violence Survey)
6. On eight physical violence items on the Conflict Tactics Scale, more American women engaged in multiple acts of IPV, compared to men on five items, including the severe violence items, ‘‘kicked, bit or hit partner with an object’’ and ‘‘threatened with a knife or a gun.’’ (Grandin and Lupri’s (1997) analysis of the 1985 U.S. National Family Violence Survey)
7. Males and females are equally likely to combine the use of physical violence with emotionally abusive and controlling behaviors, the core dynamic of CCV (Cano, Avery-Leaf, Cascardi, & O’Leary, 1998; Hines & Saudino, 2003)
8. Dominance scores are roughly equal across gender and dominance behavior by females increases the risk of severe female-only and mutual IPV more so than does male dominance (Straus (2006).
9. Men arrested for domestic violence and mandated to a batterer intervention program, one-third of the physical violence was perpetrated by the female partner (legally deemed the ‘‘victim’’), (Stacey, Hazelwood, and Shupe (1994).
10. Equivalent rates of injury-causing physical violence among couples dually arrested for domestic violence, with men somewhat more likely to engage in isolation behaviors and women somewhat more likely to engage in verbal abuse Feder & Henning (2005).
11. Comparable levels of controlling and emotionally abusive behaviors were observed by male and female clients court-mandated to batterer intervention programs across California (Hamel, Graham-Kevan, and Prospero (2008)
12. Women Survey (NVAWS) with a sample of over 15,000 currently married or formerly married adults found that:
(a) men and women are equally controlling
(b) women are more jealous of their partners (Vawa)
(c) the relationship between use of control=jealousy1 and physical violence exists equally for both male and female respondents;
(d) ‘‘intimate terrorists’’ can be either male or female.
(Felson & Outlaw, 2007)
13. Caution: it should be pointed out that the NVAWS was designed, conducted, and analyzed by feminist researchers, who sought to prove that violence against female intimate partners is much more serious than violence against male intimate partners.
14. Among male respondents who reported abuse victimization, 79% reported fearing for their lives when their female partner used intimate terrorism (compared to 72% of women victims of male IT), (Canadian General Social Survey (CSS).
15. Of these men, 65% reported having been injured (compared to 67% of female victims), (Canadian General Social Survey (CSS).
Caution: Thus, contrary to Johnson’s formulation, coercive terroristic abuse victimization was reported by comparable numbers of women and men in the general population (Canadian General Social Survey (CSS).
16. Repeat, severe violence is perpetrated more or less equally across gender, as found in Grandin and Lupri’s (1997) analysis of the 1985 U.S. National Family Violence Survey (n¼4,032 men and women), and the Canadian National Family Life Survey (n¼1,123 men and women).
17. Regarding the extent to which men and women engage in ‘‘intimate terrorism,’’ both husbands and wives who are controlling are more likely to produce injury and engage in repeated violence; ‘‘in troubled marriages, men and women differ in their methods of control rather than their overall desire to control’’ (p. 404)/ (Felson and Outlaw).
18. Emotionally abused men evidence symptoms of PTSD and problem drinking (Hines & Malley-Morrison, 2001)
19. Emotionally abused men evidence depression (Simonelli & Ingram, 1998).
20. Both male and female subjects reported economic abuse, threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, and isolation behaviors to have more negative mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, hostility, and somatic symptoms) than physical abuse (in Prospero’s (2009) dating survey)
21. Female and male IPV victims who experienced isolation, intimidation, threats, economic abuse, insults, humiliation, and degradation were significantly more likely to report high levels of psychological distress, such as anxiety, PTSD, and depression than those who only experienced physical aggression (dating sample (Harned, 2001)
22. The evidence about female caregiver risk to children is similarly clear and highlights the problem of underestimating female violence in child custody assessments. Compared to biological fathers, biological mothers were found more likely to perpetrate child physical abuse (47% vs. 42%), neglect their children (86% vs. 33%), engage in emotional maltreatment (61% vs. 55%), and contribute to multiple categories (66% vs. 36%). Biological fathers are more likely perpetrators of child sexual abuse (15% vs. 5%)/ (child maltreatment investigations conducted by Health Canada, and published by the National Clearing House on Family Violence).
23. Women are 58% of the child abuse perpetrators were upwards of 1.3 times more likely to abuse their children than were men. When acting alone, biological mothers were twice as likely to abuse their children as were biological fathers, and biological mothers were the main perpetrators of child homicide (the United States Administration for Children and Families (Gaudioisi, 2006) and reported that, in 2005)
24. The risks of child exposure to violence were 2.5 times higher for female (mother)-perpetrated violence than male (father) violence McDonald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Miler, et al. (2006)
Caution: Thus, again, the best research data, from the largest and most rigorous studies ( 135,573 to 718,948 participants) tell a very different story from that related by Jaffe et al. (2008) and J. B. Kelly and Johnson (2008). Again, contrary to gender paradigm lore, but in line with the best available research data, family court personnel considering risks to family function and safety, will serve their clientele better with an open, balanced, impartial attitude toward specific evidence presented in each evaluation and hearing, rather than relying on preconceptions about the patriarchal nature of family violence and its effects on children thus exposed or targeted.
Source: The Gender Paradigm in Family Court Processes: Re-balancing the Scales of Justice from Biased Social Science (Donald Dutton - University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada, John Hamel - Private Practice, San Rafael, California, and Jon Aaronson - Private Practice, Madison, Wisconsin)