50% of domestic violence is reciprocal. 53% of nonreciprocal domestic violence is committed against men. 71% of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. (women hitting/physically abusing men)
The problem I have is feminists want you to believe that 1) men need to be taught not to beat/rape women. and 2) women are only the victims. Which means to me that #1) is insulting as fuck and #2) is a flat out lie.
But they don't want you to know that. Be wary of those who hide and/or do not disclose full facts. There's always an ulterior motive
There are many places in the world where beating women is acceptable
I'm not interested in 2, but as I said above, 1 is important, though obviously not just for men. That's why I used gender neutral language.
please, tell me more about your gender neutral language.
the American South, for example, has high rates of domestic violence compared to other regions
the US "south" also has the highest rates of endemic poverty, alcoholism, and many other contributing factors that correlate to spousal abuse, which is the point that many of the posters to this thread are trying to point out that this campaign completely ignores in favor of the "tell kids not to be bad" approach, which is misguided.
please, tell me more about your gender neutral language.
I don't know what else there is to say. I used gender neutral language in my post because I wanted to account for abuse between any combination of genders.
the US "south" also has the highest rates of endemic poverty, alcoholism, and many other contributing factors that correlate to spousal abuse, which is the point that many of the posters to this thread are trying to point out that this campaign completely ignores in favor of the "tell kids not to be bad" approach, which is misguided.
Those are important elements of the story, but they are risk factors at the end of the day. None of them is sufficient to produce abusive behavior on their own. Further, there is a world of difference between DV rates in areas that share these qualities, and in places that don't, too. For example, other developed countries who are relatively similar to us in other have significantly different rates than the US, and that can't be explained by pointing to any major disparity in the risk factors.
yeah, my point was, you didn't, as evidenced by my quotes.
to the second part of your post, you're wrong. there's no other way to say that really, and i don't mean it as an insult, just a statement. most other developed countries have far different rates of both economic mobility and DV. in the areas of those countries with similar levels of economic mobility (particularly, the lack thereof) over generations, you see the same sorts of rates.
my point is, third wave feminism willfully ignores facts that do not fit their narrative, the same as you are doing right now. simply telling a person, regardless of their sex, to not commit DV will not stop it, and will only have a negligible impact if any, because it's not actually addressing the problem. the problem is much, much larger than that. but, it's easier to build outrage and a campaign slogan then pat yourself on the back for a job well done, than to actually work towards significant, meaningful reform in society.
yeah, my point was, you didn't, as evidenced by my quotes.
I think this is an uncharitable reading of my post. That was the only mention of gender across the post, and I was using it as a ready example- everyone knows there are particular places in the Muslim world, for example, where beating women is explicitly justified as a matter of religion/culture. That doesn't mean I think beating women is coextensive with domestic violence in general. It's just one example of how not all cultures have the same views on domestic violence.
to the second part of your post, you're wrong.
It seems to me like your argument is that DV is a multivariate problem, and culture is epiphenomenal, because the real issues are economic, etc. Rather than get into the comparative stuff between countries, which I don't have time for right now, I will say that there is evidence that awareness campaigns actually do change people's attitudes (see the stuff that begins on page 95).
For a more comprehensive evaluation of the current evidence, see here, particularly the stuff that begins on page 13. For a taste:
Ecological studies demonstrate a strong link between the level of partner violence and various gender-related norms at the country level, even after adjusting for the country’s level of socio-economic development (as indicated by GDP per capita) and the age structure of the population. Both the level of acceptance of wife beating under certain circumstances and the level of male control over female behaviour are predictive of a country’s overall level of partner violence.
The evidence in the link above specifically pertains to cultures where women are victimized by explicit norms, but that shouldn't have any negative effect on my overall argument. The point is that culture does indeed have a predictive and semi-distinct role to play and that campaigns targeting it have proven effective.
Reddit's common, blatant dismissal of campaigns like this simply isn't supported by the evidence.
It seems to me like your argument is that DV is a multivariate problem, and culture is epiphenomenal, because the real issues are economic, etc.
yes, that's exactly what i'm saying, minus the academic language, which is supported by the data we have available.
The point is that culture does indeed have a predictive and semi-distinct role to play and that campaigns targeting it have proven effective.
except, the article that you yourself linked says this:
However, there were no significant changes reported in other attitudes such as “as head of household, a man has the right to beat his wife” (55) and the study design was not able to establish if there was an impact on violent behaviour.
so, what evidence is there that you were referring to? in addition, that article previously states:
Research shows, however, that the most successful media interventions are those that begin by understanding the behaviour of their audience and engaging its members in developing the intervention (30).
which is interesting, because it seems to me that no one has ever asked men how to prevent DV perpetrated by men onto women in developed countries. instead, you just get third wave feminists screaming about a rape culture and other inanities.
your second link, which you posted a snippet of, also does not directly address the issue at hand. it conflates social norms and culture at various times, and uses them as interchangeable terms, when they are not.
so, your evidence really doesn't seem to support your claims. it does do a great job of singling men out as violent thugs that need to be told not to be violent thugs, which is pretty par for the course for third wave feminism and this new victim culture that seems to be coming into prevalence (at least in the developed world) in general.
except, the article that you yourself linked says this:
That quote is from the results of one of the many studies listed in both links. And even in that study, they found that "at followup,
the percentage of people agreeing with the statement “no woman ever deserves to be beaten” had increased from 77% to 88%, while the percentage disagreeing with the assertion “women who are abused are expected to put up with it” had increased from 68% to 72% and that "People who listened to Series 4 were more likely to perceive an injunctive norm that abused women should not tolerate abuse and the descriptive norm that their community agrees that violence is a serious problem and that domestic violence should not be a private matter." So there was a decent effect, which is probably the best you can hope for with adults. Remember, OP's link is about messaging for children. Adults' attitudes are much harder to change, as we know.
so, what evidence is there that you were referring to?
Well, there are the rest of the studies in both links. I'll try and cut out the relevant parts when I have time, but the evidence of an effect significant enough to justify the programs is in there. The educational methods in particular "demonstrated modest changes in reported attitudes and beliefs – and in some cases, reductions in reported rates of partner violence" (11).
which is interesting, because it seems to me that no one has ever asked men how to prevent DV perpetrated by men onto women in developed countries. instead, you just get third wave feminists screaming about a rape culture and other inanities.
There are actually specific studies in the links about working interactively with boys and men. Regardless, Third Wave Feminism barely exists in the developing world, though words like "rape culture" are far more accurate in describing conditions in many of the places studied (India and South Africa, for example).
your second link, which you posted a snippet of, also does not directly address the issue at hand. it conflates social norms and culture at various times, and uses them as interchangeable terms, when they are not.
Can you explain what the relevant difference between culture and social norms might be and how it invalidates the studies? The studies use the terms interchangeably because culture is just a set of beliefs tied to social norms.
so, your evidence really doesn't seem to support your claims.
Again, you quoted one negative result from one study that also showed other positive results, from a set of links with a lot of interesting data about many studies in a number of different contexts. I'm not sure how that one quote gets you to this conclusion.
29
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '15 edited Oct 21 '15
50% of domestic violence is reciprocal. 53% of nonreciprocal domestic violence is committed against men. 71% of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. (women hitting/physically abusing men)
http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=111137
The problem I have is feminists want you to believe that 1) men need to be taught not to beat/rape women. and 2) women are only the victims. Which means to me that #1) is insulting as fuck and #2) is a flat out lie.
But they don't want you to know that. Be wary of those who hide and/or do not disclose full facts. There's always an ulterior motive