Genuine interest regarding the 2-5% figure for serious injury / death:
Does this figure take into account suicide and / or self-mutilation that occurs as a result of abuse?
If it doesn't, I think it's a bit misleading.
All statistics are misleading. Luckily the 2-5% statistic isn't being used to minimize abuse, but to show just how erroneous people's notions of size and gender are as they relate to abusive relationships.
Those things matter in a fight where the outcome is determined by what the participants are capable of, not in an abusive relationship where the outcome is determined by what the participants are willing to do.
All statistics are misleading. Luckily the 2-5% statistic isn't being used to minimize abuse, but to show just how erroneous people's notions of size and gender are as they relate to abusive relationships.
Well, someone in the thread used the statistics to dismiss the physical harm done by abuse as 'no worse than a decent rugby match', which is ridiculous after you take self mutilation and / or suicide into account.
EDIT: And not 'all' statistics are misleading. Just poorly collected statistics.
All statistics are misleading. Luckily the 2-5% statistic isn't being used to minimize abuse, but to show just how erroneous people's notions of size and gender are as they relate to abusive relationships.
Well, someone in the thread used the statistics to dismiss the physical harm done by abuse as 'no worse than a decent rugby match', which is ridiculous after you take self mutilation and / or suicide into account.
EDIT: And not 'all' statistics are misleading. Just poorly collected statistics.
Yeah, that was me. The point being that most injuries from abuse are leagues away from life-threatening, but that doesn't mean it isn't deadly serious. I think you overestimate the rates of self-mutilation and suicide compared to the rates of abusive relationships. If I have time I'll try digging up whatever data I can find.
"More fish for Kunta!"
--LeVar Burton
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I have a single data point of knowledge, also known as someone I know. She was in an abusive relationship, very much abuse cycle. Then apparently after her husband "fell down the stairs." twice. She stopped being abused. Now I'm not sure if the abuse circle is reversed or if it was stopped, but it is interesting. I was forbidden by one of my other female friends from asking more pointed queries in the interests of science.
Genuine interest regarding the 2-5% figure for serious injury / death:
Does this figure take into account suicide and / or self-mutilation that occurs as a result of abuse?
If it doesn't, I think it's a bit misleading.
I'm home now so I have access to my files. This is from Kimmel, Michael S. (2002). ‘Gender symmetry’ in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, Special Issue: Women’s Use of Violence in Intimate Relationships, Part 1. 8(11), November.
As surprising as it may be to see such high levels of violence, the most surprising finding from Family Conflict Studies has been the gender symmetry in the use of violence to resolve family conflicts, that, as Fiebert writes, “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships” (Fiebert, 1997, p. 273). These studies also find much lower rates of injury from domestic violence, typically about 3% (Stets and Straus, 1990).
And later:
For example, in a British study that found equal rates of reporting, there were
no injuries at all reported in the 59% of incidents that involved pushing, shoving and
grabbing (these are the behaviors more typically reported by women than by men). In
Crime Victimization Studies, half the number of men than women (4.4% of men and
8.1% of women) said their partner threw something at them, and three times as many
women (18.1% of women and 5.4% of men) said their partner pushed or grabbed or
shoved them, or that their partner slapped or hit them (16.0% of women and 5.5% of
men). But over ten times as many women (8.5% of women and .6% of men) reported
that their partner “beat them up” (Tjaden and Thonnes, 1998, p.7).
The consequences of violence range from minor to fatal, and these are significant in
understanding domestic violence in general and its gendered patterns. Far more men than
women murder their spouses (and, of course, “couples” in which one spouse murdered
the other could not participate in the CTS studies since both partners must be cohabiting
at the time of the study). And rates of murders of ex-spouses are even more gender
asymmetrical. According to the FBI, female victims represent about 70% of all intimate
murder victims. About one-third of all female murder victims were killed by an intimate
compared with 4% of male murder victims (see, for example, Kellerman and Mercy,
1992; Bachman and Saltzman, 1995). (What this suggests, of course, is that both women
and men are more likely to be murdered by a man; efforts to end all types of violence
ought to properly focus on the association of masculinity and violence, the legitimacy of
violence to men, and men’s sense of entitlement to use violence.) In the United States,
the number of men murdered by intimates has dropped by 69% since 1976. The number
of women killed by intimates was relatively stable until 1993, when it too began to drop,
but only by about 15% (US Department of Justice)
Gender symmetry tends to be clustered entirely at the lower end of violence (Dobash, et
al., 1998, p. 382). According to some data, women are six times more likely to require
medical care for injuries sustained by family violence (Kaufman Kantor and Straus, 1987;
Stets and Straus, 1990). Straus also reports that in family conflict studies the injury
rate for assaults by men is about seven times greater than the injury rate for assaults by
women (Stets and Straus, 1990).
Fuck it if I'm going to clean up those line breaks.
This is a meta-analysis, so I'm not looking at the source data directly, but it seems pretty clear to me that they're not including self-inflicted injuries or suicides (or drug or alcohol overdoses due to substance abuse comorbid with victimization) in those numbers.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
Does this figure take into account suicide and / or self-mutilation that occurs as a result of abuse?
If it doesn't, I think it's a bit misleading.
All statistics are misleading. Luckily the 2-5% statistic isn't being used to minimize abuse, but to show just how erroneous people's notions of size and gender are as they relate to abusive relationships.
Those things matter in a fight where the outcome is determined by what the participants are capable of, not in an abusive relationship where the outcome is determined by what the participants are willing to do.
--LeVar Burton
Well, someone in the thread used the statistics to dismiss the physical harm done by abuse as 'no worse than a decent rugby match', which is ridiculous after you take self mutilation and / or suicide into account.
EDIT: And not 'all' statistics are misleading. Just poorly collected statistics.
Yeah, that was me. The point being that most injuries from abuse are leagues away from life-threatening, but that doesn't mean it isn't deadly serious. I think you overestimate the rates of self-mutilation and suicide compared to the rates of abusive relationships. If I have time I'll try digging up whatever data I can find.
--LeVar Burton
I'm home now so I have access to my files. This is from Kimmel, Michael S. (2002). ‘Gender symmetry’ in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, Special Issue: Women’s Use of Violence in Intimate Relationships, Part 1. 8(11), November.
And later:
Fuck it if I'm going to clean up those line breaks.
This is a meta-analysis, so I'm not looking at the source data directly, but it seems pretty clear to me that they're not including self-inflicted injuries or suicides (or drug or alcohol overdoses due to substance abuse comorbid with victimization) in those numbers.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.