Stories of abused men...

A collection of experiences from abused men via reddit. Obvious trigger warning:

Male Redditors who have been abused or assaulted (sexually or otherwise) Did you seek help/support and were you able to find it?, [2], [3]

Another link I had floating around is about men suspected to be pedophiles:

Parents/Adults of reddit, why is a guy an instant pedo on sight?, [2]

IAmA former Rape Crisis Advocate who provided support to Male victims of Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence. I worked at one of only two centers nationally who provides shelter to male victims. AMA!

Some people almost get it...

This will be the day of tidbit informations. The relationship between feminism and male DV / rape victims has been problematic. In a piece about privilege, rape culture and nice guys:

The stereotypical images of rapists and batterers hurts victims. If a person’s rapist or batterer doesn’t fit the stereotype, why come forward at all? For this reason, feminists have worked for years to tell the truth. Rapists and batterers often present quite well in public, while committing violence in private.

This just describes the experiences of male victims so well, I had to include this. Now this was not an article about male victims / female perpetrators, but I really wish we as society and of course feminists would take female perpetrators more seriously.

Corporal Punishment

Some studies:

Corporal Punishment of Children in Nine Countries as a Function of Child Gender and Parent Gender - 2010

Background. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a global perspective on corporal punishment by examining differences between mothers' and fathers' use of corporal punishment with daughters and sons in nine countries. Methods. Interviews were conducted with 1398 mothers, 1146 fathers, and 1417 children (age range = 7 to 10 years) in China, Colombia, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, the Philippines, Sweden, Thailand, and the United States. Results. Across the entire sample, 54% of girls and 58% of boys had experienced mild corporal punishment, and 13% of girls and 14% of boys had experienced severe corporal punishment by their parents or someone in their household in the last month. Seventeen percent of parents believed that the use of corporal punishment was necessary to rear the target child. Overall, boys were more frequently punished corporally than were girls, and mothers used corporal punishment more frequently than did fathers. There were significant differences across countries, with reports of corporal punishment use lowest in Sweden and highest in Kenya. Conclusion. This work establishes that the use of corporal punishment is widespread, and efforts to prevent corporal punishment from escalating into physical abuse should be commensurately widespread.

There was considerable variability in proportions of mothers, fathers, and children in China, Colombia, Italy, Kenya, Jordan, the Philippines, Sweden, Thailand, and the United States who reported the use of corporal punishment and believed that the use of corporal punishment is necessary to rear the target child. Overall, mothers reportedly used corporal punishment more frequently than fathers, and sons were reportedly more frequently corporally punished than daughters were. International efforts to eliminate child abuse and promote children’s right to protection will be both challenging and important because of the prevalence of corporal punishment.

Corporal Punishment by American Parents: National Data on Prevalence, Chronicity, Severity, and Duration, in Relation to Child and Family Characteristics - Murray A. Straus, and Julie H. Stewart’ - 1999

We present data on corporal punishment (CP) by a nationally representative sample of 991 American parents interviewed in 1995. Sii types of CP were examined: slaps on the hand or leg, spanking on the buttocks, pinching, shaking, hitting on the buttocks with a belt or paddle, and slapping in the face. The overall prevalence rate (the percentage of parents using any of these types of CP during the previous year) was 35% for infants and reached a peak of 94% at ages 3 and 4. Despite rapid decline after age 5, just over half of American parents hit children at age 12, a third at age 14, and 13% at age 17. Analysis of chronicity found that parents who hit teenage children did so an average of about six times during the year. Severity, as measured by hitting the child with a belt or paddle, was greatest for children age 5-12 (28% of such children). CP was more prevalent among African American and low socioeconomic status parents, in the South, for boys, and by mothers. The pervasiveness of CP reported in this art&, and the harmful side effects of CP shown by recent longitudinal research, indicates a need for psychology and sociology textbooks to reverse the current tendency to almost ignore CP and instead treat it as a major aspect of the socialization experience of American children: and for developmental psychologists to be cognizant of the likelihood that parents are using CP far more often than even advocates of CP recommend, and to inform parents about the risks involved.

Previous research indicates that boys experience more CP than girls at all ages (Day et ai., 1998; Giles-Sims ei al., 1995; Graziano & Namaste, 1990; Straw, 1994a). In view of the movement toward treating boys and girls more similarly, prior findings might not apply to this sample. However, row 5 of Table IV shows that the difference in the percentage of boys and girls who experienced CP during the year of this survey was statistically significant. Parents reported using CP with 65% of boys compared to 58% of girls. As for chronicity, Table Vindicates a significant difference. Of the boys who experienced CP, it occurred an average of 14.3 times, compared to an average of 12.9 times for girls. In addition, Table V shows a significant interaction between gender of child and child’s age. The deviation from the overall pattern was for children ages 2 to 4. At that age there was no difference at all in the chronicity of hitting boys and girls. Perhaps this is a ceiling effect because at
that age, the prevalence rate was 94%.

Intimate Homicides

Some interesting findings on murder via a divorce law study:

Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress - Betsey Stevenson, Justin Wolfers - 2003

Our data on homicide come from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR data are derived using a voluntary police agency-based reporting system. The Supplementary Homicide Reports of the UCR provide incident-level information on criminal homicides,
including data describing the date and location of the incident, as well as a range of information on both the offender and the victim. The particular richness of this data is that it codes the relationship of the victim to the murderer, where known.

In this section we will examine three successively broader definitions of intimate homicide. The narrowest only includes spousal homicide, the next group includes homicides committed by any family member or romantic interest, and finally we expand our treatment group to our broadest categorization, which includes all homicides committed by non-strangers.

Homicide Rates: FBI Count (1968-94) / killed per million in the state each year
             Women Mean  Men Mean  Women/Men
by Spouses          7.3       5.5       1.33
by intimates       14.7      18.4       0.80
by Non-Strangers   21.2      56.9       0.37
All Murders        32.8      92.6       0.35

Start Strong, a teen dating violence survey....

...that slightly disappoints me as there is not breakdown in sex in their results. The last CDC study tell us that about 1/3 of rape victims in that age group are male as are more than half of dating violence victims. What the study tells us, is that there is plenty of violence:

The Start Strong evaluation is one of the few studies looking in-depth at dating violence behaviors and risk factors among 7th-grade students.

75% of students report ever having a boyfriend or girlfriend

More than 1 in 3 (37%) students surveyed report being a victim of psychological dating violence in the last 6 months

Nearly 1 in 6 (15%) students surveyed report being a victim of physical dating violence in the last 6 months

Nearly 1 in 3 (31%) students surveyed report being a victim of electronic dating aggression in the last 6 months

Nearly half (49%) report being a victim of sexual harassment in the past six months, such as being touched, grabbed, or pinched in a sexual way. or that someone made sexual jokes about you.

The reason I cite that study is the next statement where we get data on sex. Does that mean that sexual harassment / violence was roughly equal in their sample? Who knows. Anyhow:

Half of students strongly agreed that it was okay for a girl to hit her boyfriend under certain circumstances, such as a boy who makes his girlfriend jealous on purpose.

7% of students strongly agreed that it was okay for a boy to hit his girlfriend under certain circumstances, such as a girl who makes her boyfriend jealous on purpose.

Is it fair to say that violence against boys is normalized? Well maybe compared to violence against girls.

Maybe we get a better breakdown on the data once the other waves of date get analyzed. Here is the mainpage btw.

The differences of DV studies in a few numbers

As seen here:

Between 600,000 and 6 million women are victims of domestic violence each year, and between 100,000 and 6 million men, depending on the type of survey used to obtain the data.
(Rennison, C. (2003, Feb). Intimate partner violence. Us. Dpt. of Justice/Office of Justice Programs. NXJ 197838.
Straus, M. & Gelles, R. (1990). Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence. National Institute of Justice, NCJ 181867.)

The surveys with the low incident numbers are likely crime surveys while the surveys with the high numbers are likely family violence surveys. Note the difference in incidence numbers and the difference in gender ratio. Family violence surveys find 10 times as many victims and have a ration of 1:1 while crime surveys have a ratio of 6:1. Both kind of studies measure different things. It is dishonest to use both of the statistics together in a way like this: 6 Million women have been victims of DV this year (family violence survey), while 85% of DV victims are women (crime survey).

That is all.

Men: Are you a victim of domestic violence? (from Reddit)

There is not much I can say about that one. Just a collection of experiences.

A Closer Look at Men Who Sustain Intimate Terrorism by Women

I cited that study in a study by Straus (Yo dawg!) already, but here it is in total. The topic, intimate terrorism:

A Closer Look at Men Who Sustain Intimate Terrorism by Women - Denise A. Hines, PhD and Emily M. Douglas, PhD - 2010

The present study is an in-depth, descriptive examination of 302 men who sustained severe IPV from their women partners within the previous year and sought help. We present information on their demographics, overall mental health, and the types and frequency of various forms of physical and psychological IPV they sustained. We also provide both quantitative and qualitative information about their last physical argument and their reasons for staying in the relationship. It is concluded that, contrary to many assumptions about these men, the IPV they sustain is quite severe and both mentally and physically damaging; their most frequent response to their partner's IPV is to get away from her; and they are often blocked in their efforts to leave, sometimes physically, but more often because of strong psychological and emotional ties to their partners and especially their children. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for policy and practice.

The summary surrounding the term intimate terrorism was quite good:

Although increasingly more researchers have been investigating women's use of intimate partner violence (IPV) (e.g., Carney, Buttell, & Dutton, 2007; Carney & Buttell, 2004; Dowd, Leisring, & Rosenbaum, 2005; Henning & Feder, 2004; Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2003; Swan, Gambone, Caldwell, Sullivan, & Snow, 2008; Swan, Gambone, Fields, Sullivan, & Snow, 2005; Swan & Snow, 2006) and thus acknowledging that men can sustain IPV from their women partners, little systematic research has documented the experiences of men who sustain IPV from their women partners. What has been done has been limited primarily to case studies (Cook, 2009; Migliaccio, 2001), with only one larger-scale study of men seeking help because they sustained IPV (Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007). One reason for this lack of research has been attributed to the controversial nature of this topic (Hines & Douglas, 2009): Despite decades of research showing that women use IPV against their men partners (Catalano, 2007; Gelles, 1974; Straus & Gelles, 1988; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) at rates and frequencies that often equal that of their men partners (Archer, 2000), there are some who argue that men do not sustain IPV from their women partners, unless it is because their partners are acting in self-defense or retaliation (Belknap & Melton, 2005; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992; Loseke & Kurz, 2005; Saunders, 1988). These authors typically argue that, because IPV is an issue of men maintaining power and control over their women partners, it is not possible for women to be perpetrators of IPV.
Johnson (1995, 2006) attempted to resolve this controversy by theorizing that there are two distinct types of IPV: common couple violence (CCV) and intimate terrorism (IT). CCV, Johnson argued, was seen primarily in population-based and community surveys that showed that women and men used IPV equally. This type of IPV consists of conflicts that “get out of hand” and result in men and women using low levels of violence (e.g., pushing, shoving, or slapping) toward one another. The central feature of IT is that the violence is one tactic in a general pattern of control of the male partner over the female partner. The IPV occurs frequently and is severe, occurring at least monthly; it is not likely to be mutual, and it is likely to involve serious injury and emotional abuse of the female partner as well. Johnson argues that IT can be explained by patriarchal theory and is the sole domain of men. The primary shortcoming of Johnson's research is that he used only shelter samples of battered women, and men mandated into batterer treatment programs, to come to this conclusion.

In a previous article on the data set used in the current study (Hines & Douglas, in press), we established that, as a whole, the men in our sample were the victims of IT by their women partners and that the violence the men used against their women partners was characteristic of violent resistance. Violent resistance, as described by Johnson, is characterized by the victim sometimes reacting to the partner's IT with violence but not within a general pattern of trying to control the partner (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). The purpose of the present article is to more closely examine the men who sustain IT and to evaluate some prevailing assumptions about who they are and what they experience. Specifically, we will provide data on their demographics, the nature of their relationships, what types of abuse they experience, and what prevents them from leaving.

What follows is some myth-bustering on some myths we always hear. Women are always acting in self defense

As mentioned, one well-noted assumption about women who use IPV against their men partners is that they are acting solely in self-defense or retaliation against their presumably violent men partners (Belknap & Melton, 2005; Dobash et al., 1992; Loseke & Kurz, 2005; Saunders, 1988). This assumption, held by a few researchers, has been refuted by studies assessing women's motives for IPV, which show that, although some women report self-defense or retaliation as a motive, most do not (see Hines & Malley-Morrison, 2001; Medeiros & Straus, 2006, for reviews). In a previous article (Hines & Douglas, in press), we provided evidence that refuted that assumption as well.

That violence against men is harmless

Another assumption concerning woman-to-man violence held by some researchers (e.g., Pagelow, 1985) focuses on the relative size difference between most men and women. Because, on average, men are physically bigger and stronger than their women partners, some authors have argued that men would strike back or restrain a woman partner who becomes violent and that men presumably also have the ability to leave the premises without being forcibly restrained by their women partners (Pagelow, 1985). Some researchers who forward this assumption conclude that, because men can easily fight back, restrain their partners, and/or leave the premises, women's violence against men is trivial, humorous, or annoying (Currie, 1998; Pagelow, 1985; Saunders, 1988), and violence by women toward men has no social or psychological effects on the men who sustain it (Mills, 1984). Several anecdotal accounts (Cook, 2009; Migliaccio, 2001) and one larger-scale study (Hines et al., 2007) of men who sustain IPV from women partners indicate that women's violence can induce fear in men partners and is not viewed as trivial, humorous, or annoying, but as distressing. Many men report that they cannot and will not hit back, both because of moral objections to hitting a woman and because of fear that, if he hits her back, he may set himself up to be arrested and/or lose custody of his children (Cook, 2009; Migliaccio, 2001). Men victims are injured less frequently than women victims, but, men do, nonetheless, sustain injuries, which are sometimes very severe (Hines & Douglas, in press; McNeely, Cook, & Torres, 2001), and suffer socially and psychologically from their partner's aggression (e.g., Cook, 2009; Hines, 2007; Stets & Straus, 1990).

That men can always leave

A related assumption is that men who sustain IPV from their women partners can leave their partners. Some researchers argue that men are not economically trapped in marriage or romantic relationships like women, because their incomes and occupational statuses tend to be higher (Saunders, 1988); they are not physically or economically constrained from leaving (Pagelow, 1985), nor are they as psychologically invested in the children or household (Loseke & Kurz, 2005). Researchers who support this line of reasoning focus on concrete resources that are often available to men such as physical strength, employment, and transportation. Nonetheless, case studies show that men who sustain IPV often focus on these and other barriers to leaving an abusive relationship, including a commitment to marriage, lack of financial resources, and concern for their children. In such circumstances, men often worry that their women partners will obtain custody of their children. They have substantial concerns about leaving their children with a violent parent; if they stay in the household, they at least feel that they can protect the children (e.g., Cook, 2009; Steinmetz, 1977–1978). In our previous research on the sample in the current study, we also found that men encounter serious barriers to obtaining help from the social service system and from police when they seek such support, such as not being believed, being laughed at, and/or being accused of (or being arrested for) being the “real abuser” in the relationship (Douglas & Hines, 2009). Such barriers to seeking help from a system that is designed to help IPV victims creates further barriers to leaving an abusive woman partner.

As for the study and the results, excerpts:

Almost 80% of men participants reported that they were injured by their women partners, with 77.5% stating they sustained a minor injury and 35.1% sustaining a severe injury in the previous year. Moreover, within just the men participants who did sustain injuries, the men participants reported that they were injured 11.68 times in the previous year (9.73 minor injuries and 4.64 severe injuries). [...] The most prevalent severe physical aggression items were punching/hitting him with something that could hurt, sustained by 84.4% of the sample at a rate of 6.08 acts in the previous year, and kicking, sustained by 56.3% of the sample at a rate of 3.08 acts in the previous year. Notably, 40.1% of the sample said they had been beaten up in the previous year, at an average of 2.68 times. This included 10 men (3.3%) who reported being beaten up 11 to 20 times in the previous year and 14 men (4.6%) who reported being beaten up more than 20 times in the previous year. In addition, 20.5% of men said their partners used a knife or gun on them in the previous year, which includes 9 men (3.0%) who said this happened 3 to 5 times, 2 men (0.7%) who said it happened 6 to 10 times, and 1 man (0.3%) who said this happened more than 20 times in the previous year. Almost 17% of the men reported being choked, which included 14 men (4.6%) who were choked 3 to 5 times, 2 men (0.7%) who were choked 6 to 10 times, and 3 men (1.0%) who were choked more than 20 times in the previous year.

The most common types of injury were having a sprain, bruise, or small cut, sustained by 69.5% of men on an average of 4.05 times in the previous year. Of the severe injuries, 29.1% of men said that they needed to see a doctor but did not in the previous year, and 14.2% actually did see a doctor. Over 5% of men reported sustaining a broken bone or passing out, with 15 men (5.0%) sustaining one broken bone, 1 man (0.3%) sustaining two broken bones, 2 men (0.7%) sustaining three to five broken bones, 10 men (3.3%) passing out once, 5 men (1.7%) passing out twice, 1 man (0.3%) passing out 3 to 5 times, and 1 man (0.3%) passing out 11 to 20 times in the previous year.
Finally, we asked the men about other behaviors that their women partners might have used that could be considered psychologically aggressive. Specifically, 67.2% reported that their partner falsely accused them of hitting or beating her; 38.7% reported that she filed a restraining order against him under false pretenses; 48.9% of the men with children reported that their partners falsely accused them of physically abusing the children, and 15.4% reported that they were falsely accused by their partners of sexually abusing the children. [...]

Of 189 men who reported that they had not left their partners yet, 178 (94.2%) reported that they have seriously considered leaving. The issues that prevent them from leaving are presented in Table 7. As shown, commitment to the children and marriage, for those men who have children and/or are married, are the primary reasons they remain in the relationship. The third most common reason is love, followed by a fear that they may never see their children again. Over half of the men also reported that they think that their partners will change, they do not have enough money to leave, they have no place to go, and that they are embarrassed that others will find out that their partner abuses them. Just under 50% reported that they did not want to take the children away from their partners (presumably the children's mothers), and around 25% stated that the partner threatened suicide if they left and that they feared she might kill them or someone they love if they leave. [...]

When the woman partner hit first, the most common reaction that the participants reported was to get away from the partner or go to another room; the least endorsed reaction was to hit/grab/shove/push back. Thus, the men do seem to be able to leave the argument and violence if they want. However, there is also evidence that some are blocked in their efforts to leave, either through further violence or having their access to transportation blocked. In addition, they do not strike back in large numbers: 12 of the 59 men (20.3%) who reported that they hit/grabbed/shoved/pushed back stated in their qualitative accounts that it was to restrain her or defend himself. Thus, at most, 16.7% of the men reported striking back in retaliation, which is congruent with previous qualitative research that shows that men victims of IPV are reluctant to hit back either because of moral objections to hitting a woman or because of fear that if he hits her back, he may set himself up to be arrested and/or lose custody of his children (Cook, 2009; Migliaccio, 2001).

Moreover, there is evidence that the harm to children who witness IPV by their mothers is as strong as the harm they experience when witnessing IPV by their fathers (Holden, Geffner, & Jouriles, 1998; Moretti, Obsuth, Odgers, & Reebye, 2006; Straus, 1991). [...]

Over 90% sustained severe physical aggression (aggression that had a high likelihood of causing an injury), and over 50% sustained very severe physical aggression (aggression that could be considered life-threatening), which included being beaten up, having a knife or gun used on him, and being choked. Finally, the IPV they sustained was not inconsequential: 78.5% sustained an injury in the past year and were injured, on average, about once a month; these injuries included broken bones and passing out from being hit on the head.

In addition to the IPV mentioned above, over half of the men reported that their women partners made false accusations against them, which included that he hit or beat her, that a restraining order was filed against him under false pretenses, or that he physically and/or sexually abused the children. These findings are congruent with a previous study that showed that approximately 50% of men victims of IPV stated that their partners gave false information to the court system in order to gain custody of the children or to obtain a restraining order (Hines et al., 2007). These findings are also consistent with a study of families undergoing custody disputes in the courts (Johnston, Lee, Olesen, & Walters, 2005), which showed that 21% of women made allegations of physical child abuse against their husbands, 23% of sexual child abuse, and 55% of IPV. Only 6%, 6%, and 41% of the accusations, respectively, were substantiated by the courts. (This study also showed similar rates of accusations and substantiations by men against their wives.) Such findings show that men who fear false accusations are justified in having such fears.

Moreover, it is possible that the mental health of the men in this sample may have suffered as a result of being involved in their relationship. Almost a quarter of the men had been diagnosed with a mental illness, and about 40% of these mental illnesses were diagnosed since being involved with their women partners. [...]

Our final analyses provided data on why the men chose to stay in their relationships. Some researchers have argued that, in comparison to battered women, it is not difficult for men to leave their relationships, because they have the financial and occupational resources to leave (Pagelow, 1985; Saunders, 1988), and they are not as psychologically invested in their family (Loseke & Kurz, 2005). However, our study casts doubt on these assumptions. The overwhelming reason they chose to stay in the relationships typically involved their commitment to the marriage and their children. They stated that, when they married, it was for life and that they are concerned about their children–results that are congruent with a previous qualitative study that showed that men's primary reason for not leaving was a strong objection to what they perceived as abdicating their responsibilities to their marriage and children (Cook, 2009) but not congruent with researchers who argue that men are not that psychologically invested in their families.

In addition, the vast majority (71%) of men indicated that they stayed in the relationship because of love. Most of the literature on battered women focuses on external barriers to leaving, such as economic and housing needs and fears that their partners will escalate his abuse if they leave, with a deemphasis on more internal constraints, such as strong emotional attachments to one's partner (see Griffing et al., 2002, for a discussion). However, studies of battered women that do consider love/emotional attachment as a possible constraint to leaving or returning to an abusive partner are consistent with our findings that the majority of victims cite this as a main reason for not leaving, with far fewer victims citing external constraints (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003; Griffing et al., 2002; Torres, 1987). Thus, love should not be overlooked or underemphasized as a real barrier for both men and women leaving abusive relationships, because by not acknowledging it, we may undermine our efforts to help women and men who may want to leave but feel emotionally tied to their abusers. Some researchers have discussed the bond that forms between battered women and their abusers as a form of traumatic bonding, in which the cycles of battering and reconciliation lead to a strong attachment that is difficult to break (Dutton & Painter, 1981; Walker, 2000). This bond seems to be strongest in the context of a relationship in which one partner is more powerful and when physical punishment and loving reconciliation are intermittently and alternately administered; this bond has been found in studies of prisoners and prison guards, captors and hostages, child abuse victims and parents, and battered women and their batterers (see Dutton & Painter, 1981, for a discussion). It is likely that many of the men in our study had this same type of bonding with their women partners. In addition, it provides further evidence that men's psychological investment in their families is a substantial barrier to leaving.

Also indicative of their psychological investment in their families are the fears that men indicated that they may never see their children again if they left, and they also discussed, in their qualitative accounts, their need to stay to protect their children. They expressed their fears that they will lose custody of their children, because women predominantly gain custody of children when families divorce or sep arate (Cancian & Meyer, 1998) and/or because of their women partners’ threats to make false accusations against them so that they would have no possibility of getting custody. Half of the men in our study reported that such accusations had already been made against them.
Additionally, more than half of the men indicated that they did not leave because they had no place to go and did not have enough money to leave, results that do not support the assertion that men have enough resources to leave if they wish (Pagelow, 1985; Saunders, 1988). Other men, in their qualitative accounts, discussed the possible negative financial and professional repercussions of leaving through such issues as having their private life made public and/or having their women partners make false accusations against them that could ruin them. Overall, the men in our sample report substantial barriers to leaving.

False Allegation - Divorce edition

The data is not rock solid, but here is what I got. From some reports SAVE offered, there was an interesting factoid in the "Cost of false allegations" one:

In about 70% of cases, the allegation is deemed to be unnecessary or false. Source: Johnston J et al. Allegations and substantiations of abuse in custody-disputing families. Family Court Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2005. & Foster BP. Analyzing the cost and effectiveness of governmental policies. Cost Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2008. 10, 11

I could not find the data via google scholar but instead found this part:

CUSTODY DISPUTES INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: TOWARD A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO PARENTING PLANS - Peter G. Jaffe, Janet R. Johnston, Claire V. Crooks, Nicholas Bala - 2008

Multiple, serious conflicting allegations of child maltreatment, domestic violence, and parental abuse of drugs and alcohol are commonly raised in high-conflict custody-litigating postseparation families. Substantiation of claims can be difficult, which poses great challenges for professionals involved in making parenting plans. With regard to substantiation of those claims, published research is limited, and studies are mostly of small and nonrandomly drawn samples, but findings from the few studies that exist indicate a significant proportion of domestic violence allegations (50–75%) and child abuse allegations (22–52%) in family law matters can be subsequently substantiated in some manner (Bala, Mitnick, Trocmé, & Houston, in press; Bala & Schuman, 1999; Brown, 2003; Johnston,
Lee, Olesen, & Walters, 2005; Shaffer & Bala, 2003; Thoennes & Tjaden, 1990).

It took me a while to understand that paragraph. This means that about 25-50% of DV allegations and 48-78% of child abuse allegations can NOT be substantiated. That is a whole lot if you ask me. But again, data is not rock solid.

Corporal punishment.....

Via cotwa:

Boys are the recipients of corporal punishment at rates more than four times that of girls. In a projection for 2006, the Department of Education Civil Rights Data Collection (http://ocrdata.ed.gov/) estimated that boys were the recipients of corporal punishment over 80 percent of the time. See here: http://ocrdata.ed.gov/downloads/projections/2006/2006-nation-projection.xls That's not to mention suspensions and expulsions.

"Using spanking as a method of discipline for kids who have a genetic predisposition to aggressive behavior likely makes them even more aggressive, especially boys, new research suggests." http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/03/16/with-spanking-nature-and-nurture-create-more-aggression-study-suggests

Men not reporting and experiences from hotline callers

Some titdbits I found and wanted to save, so why not make a collective post:

37% of female victims of DV called the police only 15% of men did (Family violence in Canada - 2003)

17% of male victims of DV seeked helped with "formal social agencies" compared to 48% of female victims (Canadian General Social Survey - 1999)

Female victims are 9-time as likely to call the police and 5-time as likely to talk to a relative or friend than male victims (National family Violence Survey - 1985)

8% of male victims called the police compared to 22% of female victims (British Crime Survey - 1996)

47% Of female victims and 16% of male victims called the police. Only 39% of male victims defined their expierience as domestic violence but 77% of women did. (Scottish Crime Survey - 2000)

Often victimised men are not taken serious by the police (Farrell - 1993 | Wilkinson - Children and divorce - 1981) and often that leads to men not reporting their victimisation (Steinmetz - The battered husband syndrome - 1980 | Machietto - Aspects of male victimisation and female aggression - 1992)

Women are more likely to report minor cases to officials: Only 25% of all cases reported by women were severe cases compared to 86% of cases reported by men. Men were injured in most of this cases and most of this cases also involved weapons (most often knives) (McLeod - Women against men: An examination of domestic violence based on an analysis of official data and national victimization data - 1984)

How many know that survey research suggest that women who are assaulted are 9 times more likely to report to police and 5 times more likely to tell a friend/relative than men who are assaulted by their wives. (Stets, J. & Straus, M. A., 1990) In general only about 8-10% of women who are assaulted and 1-2% of men who are assaulted report the assault to an agency/authority. (Fontes, 1998) This is likely why archival data indicates more female victims.
(Information on Male Victims of Domestic Violence by David L. Fontes, Psy.D., CEAP)

I also found another survey by DAHM:

Best Practices: Service Provisions for Male Victims of Domestic Abuse Presented at the 9th International Family Violence Research Conference July 13, 2005 - Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men

Participants for the current study were 434 callers who called DAHM and STV between March 2004 to June 2005 for whom data was collected by seven of the ten volunteers at DAHM and STV (although jointly the two helpline's averaged 450 calls per month during that time period only complete1 self reports e.g. men reporting intimate partner violence (IPV) by their partners were included). Others who called the helpline such as female victims, friends, family members and agencies concerned about female or male victims were not included in this study.

[...]

16% of callers were in need of or seeking shelter.
53% indicated they were in need and/or seeking some type of support group.
89% of callers indicated that they were in need and/or seeking legal assistance.
13% indicated that they were in need and/or seeking financial assistance.
79% of callers indicated that they were being or have been physically abused by their intimate partners.
97% of callers indicated that they were being or have been psychologically/emotionally abused by their intimate partners.
31% of callers indicated that their intimate partners threaten to call the police and have them arrested on false domestic violence charges and/or file false protection from abuse orders as a means of keeping their intimate partners under their control and in the relationship. Also included in this statistic are callers who stated that their abusive females partners followed through on those threats once the partner left the relationship.
20% of callers indicated that their partners controlled the money in the relationship.
87% of callers indicated that they were being abused in multiple ways.
19% of callers indicated that along with physical and emotional abuse their intimate partners had used a weapon such as a knife, gun, and/or motor vehicle etc. against them.
59% of callers indicated that there were young children living in the household.
22% of callers indicated that they had requested services and support from police/domestic violence programs/family courts and services were denied them.
22% of callers indicated that they requested and received services from police/domestic violence programs/family courts.
55% of callers indicated that they didn't know where to go for help or were too embarrassed to ask for assistance from police/domestic violence programs/family courts.
88% of callers reported that they were calling regarding a girlfriend or wife.
4% of callers reported that they were immigrants and that their partners had threatened to have them deported in order to control them.

[...]

thirty percent (30%) of callers in this study were unemployed or disabled and living on a limited income and twenty
percent (20%) reported that their partners controlled the finances in the relationship. Combining those two scenarios and adding "imminent danger" to the equation e.g. being physically abused and/or having death threats made against them make the chances of these men needing safe housing or transitional housing services more likely.
Over half the callers had need of a support group. In Maine 1600 women attended support groups at domestic violence shelter programs throughout the state. (2003) No such groups were offered to men through these shelter programs.

[...]

nearly one-quarter of the callers to DAHM and STV reported that when they sought services as male victims of IPV by women they were either denied the same services available to females, not believed, referred to batterer's intervention programs and/or ridiculed for allowing a woman to "beat them up." And over half of the callers in this study didn't know where to seek help (believing that women's shelter programs were only for women and children) or were too embarrassed to ask. Some believed that they were the only ones suffering abuse at the hands of their female intimate partners.

Overall our data indicates that male victims have similar needs to their female counterparts.

Nothing to see here.

What is the beef with VAWA

The mainstream perception of domestic violence also impacts the resources that are available to battered men. For example, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women, the only national toll-free hot line that specializes in helping male victims of domestic violence, has faced numerous roadblocks in its search for funding. In Maine, where the helpline is based, the surest route to funding is through membership in the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence. But, according to Helpline director Jan Brown, the Coalition refused to even issue the program an application for membership, effectively denying it access to funding. Today, 45 Helpline volunteers field 550 calls per month, 80% of which are from men or people who are looking for help on behalf of a man. Operating with a yearly budget of less than $15,000, it provides intensive training to its workers and offers victims housing, food, bus tickets and a host of other services. The Helpline's sheltering services are informal and ad hoc, largely because its lack of access to funding makes a shelter financially impossible. In fact, of the estimated 1,200 to 1,800 shelters in the U.S., only one -- the Valley Oasis shelter in Antelope Valley, Calif. -- provides a full range of shelter services to men. And, on average, less than 10% of OVW funds allocated to fight domestic violence are used to help men. The next step is to admit that domestic violence is not a male or female problem, but rather a human problem, and that a lasting solution must address the cruelty -- and suffering -- of both sexes. -> http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/01/30/a-hidden-crime-domestic-violence-against-men-is-a-growing-probl/

Almost all violence prevention and treatment programs are based on the assumption that partner assault is almost exclusively a male crime. [...] Program providers are committed to the idea that men are almost always the only violent partner, and that male dominance is the problem rather than the dominance of one partner regardless of whether it is the male or female partner, as was found as long ago as the 1975 National Family Violence Survey (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). They remain committed to the belief that “patriarchy” is the overwhelming cause of partner violence rather than just one of many causes. Consequently, they are unwilling to create gender-inclusive programs that can be studied. Some states, such as Colorado, prohibit joint treatment, even though numerous studies (some cited earlier) have found that both parties are typically violent. Violence is most often a family system characteristic, and joint treatment is usually needed to treat systemic problems. At the national legislative level, the Violence Against Women Act effectively blocks funding gender-inclusive services that could be studied. [...] The politically based blockage of gender-inclusive programs will eventually change, and the research community needs to be ready to begin empirical investigation of the new prevention and treatment modalities as soon as they begin to emerge. The change will come about by the same political processes that enabled the women’s movement to create a national recognition of wife beating as a major problem and to create services for battered women. There is a small but increasingly influential men’s movement starting to change the political climate. For example, they have lobbied members of Congress to make the renewed Violence Against Women Act gender inclusive. In New Hampshire, the legislature created a committee on the status of men. There is a hotline for male victims and another that is explicitly gender-inclusive. Both have been refused funding under the Violence Against Women Act; however, legal action is being taken to reverse that, just as legal action was crucial in the effort to force police and prosecutors to treat violence against women as the crime that it is. -> http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V69%20special%20issue%20edited%203.pdf

Several themes arise from these data on callers to the only hotline in the United States devoted to male victims of IPV. [...] Many of the men were victims of their spouses using the system, which is designed to aide female victims of domestic violence, to their advantage. The female abusers were able to successfully get restraining orders under false pretenses, and thus labeled the male victim as the abuser. Female abusers with children were able to threaten to take the children away from the male victim or even threaten to hurt the children so that their husbands would comply with their abuse. These women probably knew that they could behave in this manner because the system is designed to help not only female victims of domestic violence, but mothers as well. Because male victimization is not widely recognized or accepted as a serious form of victimization (Steinmetz, 1977; Straus, 1997), these women were able to use the system to their advantage so that the women were viewed as victims, not the men. [...] In addition, these data gave some information regarding some of these men’s experiences with the system, the same system that their female abusers’ have sometimes used against them. Several men, before finding the DAHM, were turned away and/or laughed at by other hotlines designed to help victims of IPV. Moreover, a few men who experienced severe violence from their abusers reported that they either were forced to enter a batterers’ program or were referred to batterers’ programs. What these results show is that a system that has been set up to help victims of IPV is unavailable to half of the population. Male victims, unless they come upon the DAHM, may be unable to find resources to help them change or leave their abusive situation, and in many ways, they are revictimized by the system. This situation has occurred because the current system that has been developed to deal with victims of IPV is heavily influenced by the prevailing feminist perspective on domestic violence, which states that victims are women and perpetrators are men, and that any violence by women is solely in self-defense. The results from these male victims of IPV show otherwise: males can be victimized by females, and thus, the system that is currently in place to help IPV victims is inadequate because it at best ignores and at worst revictimizes many of those victims. -> http://dahmw.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/characteristicsofcallers.pdf

Section 304, which governs the treatment of sexual violence charges on college and university campuses, requires that cases involving allegations of violence or stalking provide for "prompt and equitable investigation and resolution." What's worrisome about this language? Will Creeley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) points out that "prompt and equitable" is a term of art under federal anti-discrimination law. It's construed by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to require a low standard of proof ("preponderance of the evidence") in sexual misconduct cases. This standard was explicitly mandated in an earlier version of the VAWA reauthorization bill, and it was adopted by the Department of Education in a controversial April 2011 directive. It is practically a presumption of guilt. As former DOE official Hans Bader has explained, it means that "if school thinks there is as little as a 50.001% chance that the accused is guilty, the accused must be disciplined." And, as I noted here, it means that the students may be suspended -- or expelled -- and exposed to civil and criminal liability on the basis of an inquiry that affords them little due process. Moreover, if an accused student is not found guilty, even under this very low standard of proof, his or her accuser may be afforded a right to appeal (under section 304) exposing the accused to double jeopardy. [...] These low standards of proof, together with the appeals provisions, reflect the tendency of victim advocates, including Obama Administration officials, to err on the side of presuming guilt in sexual misconduct cases. Some have unabashed contempt for the rights of the accused: Boston attorney Wendy Murphy writes disdainfully of "lawyers for men accused of rape (who) injected themselves into college disciplinary proceedings demanding 'due process' and arguing that accused students have a constitutional liberty interest at stake." The accused have no constitutional claim to due process, she writes approvingly, but "student victims of sexual assault" do, "because sexual assault is a form of gender discrimination." Perhaps. But if violence against women is a form of gender discrimination, so is the systematic denial of due process to "men accused of rape." It is also a prescription for false convictions. -> http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with-the-violence-against-women-act/254678/

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization this year and Congressman Ted Poe, Texas Republican and long time I-VAWA supporter, says he would now support re-writing the legislation as gender neutral. [...] VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits. For starters, the law's title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words "and men" should be added to those 60 sections. Congressman Poe, a member of the House Judiciary committee, argues that men can still apply for the same services women apply for under the current law, but said: "I certainly agree with equal protection under the law. And maybe a name change is in order." He added, "Certainly, I think that’s something that we could consider, because the law applies equally between men and women under the act already even though the name says only women. So I’m open to changing the name. Domestic Violence Act. I like that phrase." Mr. Poe also supports replacing the word “woman” in the legislation to a non-gender specific term like “person” or “men and women” or “men or women.” “The Constitution uses ‘person.’ They thought of it long before we did, so 'person' is an appropriate term,” he noted. -> http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/jul/21/picket-vawa-supporter-capitol-hill-looks-have-law-/

About Patricia Overberg:

From 1990 to 1998, Patricia directed the Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council in Lancaster, California, also known as the "Valley Oasis" shelter. After realizing male victims had no place to go, she courageously changed her women-only policy by setting aside one of her shelters for male victims and their children, and in rare cases of overflow she would obtain consent from residents in another one of her shelters to mix the sexes, which, she says, never created a problem. Nonetheless, Patricia was mistreated by other shelter directors who insisted services should only be for women. The mistreatment became so severe that she filed a complaint with the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. In 2004 Patricia encouraged NCFM to file a lawsuit to end the discrimination against male victims and their children. NCFM filed the lawsuit in 2005 and in 2008 won a landmark appellate victory that held it is unconstitutional for the State of California to exclude male victims from the state laws that fund domestic violence services. The case is David Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 658 and can be read at http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2008/c056072/

Or take this report -> http://ebookbrowse.com/save-vawa-discriminates-against-males-pdf-d101304657

A new addition via NSWATM commenter Schadrach:

“(A) Nondiscrimination.–No person in the United States shall on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual orientation, or disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law 106-386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109-162; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011, and any other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women.”

Because I’m pretty sure that clearly qualifies that VAWA funds cannot be used in a way that discriminates one the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. Oh, wait there was another paragraph right after that…

“(B) Exception.–If gender segregation or gender-specific programming is necessary to the essential operation of a program, nothing in this paragraph shall prevent any such program or activity from consideration of an individual’s gender. In such circumstances, alternative reasonable accommodations are sufficient to meet the requirements of this paragraph.”

…unless they are discriminating against males (or trans folk, what with that actual or perceived bit), then it’s OK so long as they claim that it’s needed and provide a “separate but reasonable” alternative. There’s one important thing missing here: define reasonable. It’s certainly a lower standard than “equal”, but where exactly does it lie?

A closer look at crime surveys

I did take part in some discussions on DV on r/SRSDiscussion out of all places and wanted to collect some of the data I was posting. We start with the recent US Crime Survey:

NCVS 2010 Violent victimizations, by type of crime
and victim-offender relationship, 2010 (Table 5 / Intimates)

                            Women      Men   Men%
------------------------------------------------------------
All Crime                 407,700  101,530   20 about 1/5
Rape/Sexual Assault        29,010       --   --
Robbery                    36,540   22,110   38 about 1/3
Aggravated Assault         71,640   29,290   29 about 1/3
Simple Assault            270,510   50,140   19 about 1/5

A closer look at the items of that table.

Simple vs aggravated assault, or why 1/5 of all simple assault victims and 1/3 of all aggravated assault victims are men. Simply put, men do underreport more than women do. Crime surveys frame the survey questions in a "have you been victim of a crime" kind of way. Victims of DV do not necessarily see themselves as a victim of crime which means we get more serious cases, because it is more likely to be seen as a crime when one gut hurt. This is not always the case with simple assault. As to why we see more women reporting, we have a higher acceptance of minor violence against men:

just over half of U.S. male and female students agreed that there are circumstances where they could approve of a wife slapping her husband, compared to 18% of males and 16% of females who approved of a husband slapping his wife. The much smaller percent approving slapping by a husband than by a wife may reflect the long standing norm about “never hitting a girl,” or an understanding that the consequences of male violence are often more severe than those of female violence (Greenblat, 1983). It may also reflect efforts by the battered women’s movement to stop male partner violence. However, that 18% of male students continue to think that slapping a wife may be justified is one of many indicators that feminist effort to end violence against women is not yet completed. Moreover, the 52% of U.S. students who agreed that they could think of a situation when they would approve of a wife slapping her husband suggests the need to expand the effort to end domestic violence to perpetration by women, not only because it is wrong, but also because women’s own violence increases her risk of victimization by a partner (Feld & Straus, 1989; Straus, 2005, 2007a; Straus & Scott, In press). - Future Research on Gender Symmetry in Physical Assaults on Partners -
Murray A. Straus - 2006

And women also do report more minor violent cases:

Women are more likely to report minor cases to officials: Only 25% of all cases reported by women were severe cases compared to 86% of cases reported by men. Men were injured in most of this cases and most of this cases also involved weapons (most often knives) (McLeod - Women against men: An examination of domestic violence based on an analysis of official data and national victimization data - 1984)

Which kind of explains the higher aggravated assault rate. She hurt me, so it was a crime. Same is true with robbery where we see an even higher rate "do not steal my stuff!".

As for rape/sexual assault, again those reflect the most serious cases as many victims do not label their experience as rape, especially when the perpetrator is your current partner. This is even more true for men especially with female perpetrators. I wrote a lot about this in the recent CDC study. In short, an almost equal amount of men report being raped / being made to penetrate (both items include attempts and drug induced cases).

Here is what I found about male rape myths:

College students (157 men and 158 women; predominantly white middle class) from psychology courses at a midwestern university rated their agreement with statements reflecting myths that male rape cannot happen, involves victim blame, and is not traumatic to men. Statements varied by whether the rape perpetrator was a man or woman. Results showed that a majority of subjects disagreed with all myth statements, but most strongly with trauma myths. Percentages of disagreement with myths for subject groups ranged from 51% to 98%. Women were significantly more rejecting of rape myths than were men. Subjects were more likely to accept myths in which the rape perpetrator was female rather than male. Subjects' past victim experience with sexual coercion was not related to rape myth acceptance. Results are discussed in terms of societal attitudes toward rape and sex role stereotypes. - Acceptance of male rape myths among college men and women by Cindy Struckman-Johnson and David Struckman-Johnson

The above study cited here:
Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (1992) reported that approximately 18% of women and 22% of men believed that it is impossible to rape a man - regardless of perpetrator sex. The authors also reported that some subjects believed that men did not experience trauma due to a sexual assault by a woman (35% of men and 22% of women). The authors concluded that male rape myths were more likely to be accepted if the perpetrator was a woman. Thus, the use of pressure tactics or force by a woman could be seen as a method of foreplay and not aggression. From Deviance to Normalcy: Women as Sexual Aggressors - Anderson, Melson - 2002

we found sizable proportions of men and women who agreed with the myths. Most notably, 26% of men and 16% of women agreed that a man would not be very upset after being raped by a woman, and 25% of men and nearly 10% of women agreed that a man is blameworthy for not escaping a woman.Male Rape Myths - The Role of Gender, Violence, and Sexism - Chapleau, Oswald, Russell - 2008

I have reported the injury rate several times by now. Straus usually says that about 33% of injured DV victims are men, Archers meta analysis pointed to 38% so we are not that far off with the 1/3 for aggravated assault here, as the crime surveys often represent the more severe cases.

Some more infos here. What I found interesting is the difference in numbers for assaults by ex-partners. Straus explains that here:

Another similar process probably accounts for the extremely high rate of assaults by former partners in crime studies. That is, one of the circumstance leading a respondent in crime studies to report an assault by a partner is if the attack is by a former spouse. That makes it a "real crime" because a former spouse "has no right to do that." Even with the revisions intended to avoid this problem, the NCVS found 25 times more assaults by former partners in the previous 12-month period than by current partners (Bachman & Saltzman, 1995). Given the vastly greater time exposure to current spouses during the 12-month referent period, that ratio does not seem plausible. In summary, assaults by a partner are most likely to be experienced as a crime if the attacks result in injury or if it is an attack by a former partner. To the extent that this is correct, it helps explain the drastically lower prevalence rate for intimate partner assaults in crime studies because those circumstances are relatively rare. - The Controversy over DV by women - Straus - 1999

And while we are at it, for those that do not believe that men can be raped:

The belief that it is impossible for males to respond sexually when subjected to sexual molestation by women is contradicted. Previous research indicating that male sex response can occur in a variety of emotional states, including anger and terror, are corroborated. Eleven cases of male sexual molestation by females are classified and described. A post-trauma reaction occurs in which sexual function and psychological state are affected. The men were all personally interviewed. Recognition of this phenomenon should lead to increased identification of male victims as well as to better medical, psychological, and legal services for them. - Sexual molestation of men by women. -
Sarrel PM, Masters WH. - 1982

Slight physical stimulation of the genitals, a general in-crease in stress and body tension and generalised emotional situations can create erections even though nospecific sexual stimulation is present. There is a long list of stimuli that can bring about erections in pre-adoles-cent boys including punishment, fear of punishment,boxing and wrestling, being scared, anger, harsh words,being yelled at and fear of big boys. Because of the extensive stimuli that could cause erections in young males Kinsey et al.'s interpretation was that pre adolescent boys erect indiscriminately to a whole array of emotional response (anger, fright, pain, etc.) but that by their late teens they have normally become conditioned by experience to respond only to direct physical genital stimulation or to psychic stimulation of sexual content.Thus boys subjected to enforced or non-consensual sexual stimuli either because of force or fear will become erect especially if they are frightened by the scenario. Sarrel and Masters collected a case series where adult males molested by women who used forced assaults, physical restraint or believable threats of physical violence, responded sexually with an erection and were forced to undertake coital activity. More recently Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson gave a questionnaire to 204 college men who were predominantly heterosexual asking about pressured or forced sexual touch or intercourse since age 16. Some 34% had experienced coercive sexual contact, 24% from women and 4% from men. This was achieved in 88% of the reported incidents either by persuasion, bribery, intoxication, threat of love withdrawal or by force (12%). Interviews with 10 of the respondents revealed that the fear of telling others about the event was a problem. A laboratory study showed that anxiety-inducing threats of an electric shock actually enhanced erectile responses to erotic stimuli. It is clear that both young and adult males can have maintained erections not only to non-consensual sexual stimulation but even to such stimulation when they are exposed to fearsome scenarios - Sexual arousal and orgasm in subjects who experience forced or non-consensual sexual stimulation – a review - Roy J. Levin, Willy van Berlo - 2003

Intimate Terrorism - Straus edition

So much stuff going on....time to work on the stack. Straus on Intimate terrorism. Stop, before we start, wiki on different types of DV:

The dynamics between the couple may include:
Situational couple violence, which arises out of conflicts that escalate to arguments and then to violence, is not connected to a general pattern of control, generally infrequent, and likely the most common type of intimate partner violence. Women are as likely as men to be abusers, however, women are more likely to be physically injured, require police intervention and become fearful of their mates.

Intimate terrorism (IT), involves a pattern of ongoing control using emotional, physical and other forms of domestic violence and is what generally leads victims, who are usually women, to women's shelters. It is what was traditionally the definition of domestic violence and is generally illustrated with the "Power and Control Wheel" to illustrate the different and inter-related forms of abuse.

Violent resistance (VR), or "self-defense", is violence perpetrated by victims against their abusive partners.[13] It is generally used infrequently because men are usually able to physically overpower women. Michael Johnson finds that "Most women who resist violently soon turn to other means of coping with their abuse."

Common couple violence, where both partners are engaged in domestic violence actions.[14]
Mutual violent control (MVC) is a rare type of intimate partner violence that occurs when both partners act in a violent manner, battling for control.[15]

Intimate terrorism is sort of the holy grail of DV, as in it is used for proponents of the asymmetrical view of DV (= DV means men hit women) to explain surveys that find equal rates of DV. By the description alone you can see that the author of the wiki article sees it the same way.

So what did Straus find:

This article re-conceptualizes "Intimate Terrorism" to more fully reflect the fact that violence between partners is inherently a dyadic phenomenon. The methodological objective is to provide procedures for using the Conflict Tactics Scales to identify Intimate Terrorism. This study reports data on 13,877 university students which found that, among those in physically violent relationships, 20% of men and 26% of women met Johnson's criteria for Intimate Terrorism. Bi-directional violence was associated with the highest probability of injury. Results are consistent with other studies using Johnson's procedures on general population samples. Programs to reduce PV, including reducing violence against women, should address violence and coercive control by both partners.

U-huh!

A review of empirical studies of Intimate Terrorism raised questions about Johnson’s conclusion that Intimate Terrorism is a characteristic that rarely occurs in the general population and that it is “perpetrated almost exclusively by men” (Johnson, 2006). Consequently, the objectives of our study included investigating the prevalence of Intimate Terrorism in a nonclinical sample and testing Johnson's assertion that Intimate Terrorism is perpetrated almost entirely by men.

I am writing this as I read through that study. Especially the summary of other data is interesting and gives us data on self-defence and the gender difference in injury and lethal attacks (both 1/3 - 2/3), but let us not get carried away here. Intimate terrorism some findings from other surveys:

Four studies of general population samples do provide data on the percent of men and women classified as Intimate Terrorists. In a second study by Graham-Kevan and Archer (2004). They analyzed data on 1,339 staff and students at a university in England and found that 13% of women and 9% of men were categorized as Intimate Terrorists using one mode of analysis and 23% of women and 7% of men using a second mode of analysis. Thus, both analyses found more female than male Intimate Terrorists. (The difference between analyses occurs because the percent classified as Intimate Terrorist depends on the cutting point used to identify high control.) Prospero (2006) studied 609 university students. He did not report the percent of men and women categorized as Intimate Terrorists, presumably because he found no gender 10 differences in the percent of men and women in that category. Analysis of a Canadian national sample by Laroche (2005) found that 26% of women and 19% of men were categorized as Intimate Terrorists. Hines (2010) studied a community sample of 520 men. The men completed a measure of coercive control about their own behavior and about the behavior of their partner. The scores for 20% of the female partners were in the high controlling category (the crux of the
Intimate Terrorist classification according to Johnson), compared to 12% of the men.

So some solid data here. I skipped the survey methods in that report and jumped right to the conclusion:

The concept of Intimate Terrorism is intriguing because the name evokes PV that is horrifying, likely to be unilateral, and likely to result in injury. It therefore deserves high priority as a focus of research that can aid prevention and treatment.

[...]The study approximated the procedures developed by Johnson (2005) (Johnson personal communication, 2006) and found that, of the sub-group of relationships in which either or both partners were physically violent, 27% involved Intimate Terrorism by one or both partners. This is similar to the 35% found by Johnson and Leone (2005). These high prevalence rates pose a problem because Johnson intended the concept of Intimate Terrorism to identify a type of PV that rarely occurs in the general population and could therefore help explain the discrepancy between the symmetry in PV found by general population studies and the male-predominance found by studies of criminal justice and shelter samples.

The hypothesis that Intimate Terrorists are almost exclusively men was not supported. We found that, using Johnson's methodology, about the same percent of women as men were classified as Intimate Terrorists. The approximately equal percent of male and female Intimate Terrorists obtained using Johnson's methodology is consistent with all previous studies of general population samples (see review section). Moreover, according to both the men and women in this study, in three quarters of the relationships involving Intimate Terrorism, violence was mutual.

[...]the rate of injury inflicted by women was high, but not as high as that of injuries inflicted by the male students in this study. Mutual violence, regardless of whether it was Situational Violence or Intimate Terrorism was associated with the highest rate of both minor injury and severe injury. This is consistent with all previous studies that have investigated the issue (Whitaker, et al., 2007).

[...]The finding that in at least three quarters of the relationships with Intimate Terrorism were mutual is startling because a central aspect of
the concept of Johnson’s conceptualization of Intimate Terrorism is that it is unilateral. The high percentage of mutual Intimate Terrorism is consistent with the studies reviewed earlier which, without exception, found that mutuality occurred in over a third of general population samples
and typically about 60% of dating couple samples. Yet, research is needed on why the percentage may be even higher for a type of PV that was identified by Johnson as male-only violence. One of the processes which might be operating is assortative mating, i.e., the tendency of persons with antisocial and violent tendencies to establish relationships with a similar partner (Kim & Capaldi, 2004). A second possibility is self-defense. However, because the review of empirical studies earlier in this paper found low rates of self-defense as a proximate motive for women as well as men, this may not be a large part of the explanation. Third, retaliation may be a large part of the explanation (Carrado, et al., 1996; Hettrich & O'leary, 2007). The intersection of these three processes could explain the prevalence of mutual violence in the studies reviewed, and may be even more important for Intimate Terrorism.

He offers critic of the definition of intimate terrorists (only unilateral, sever violence and frequent violence should be counted). What he said about treatment was also interesting:

A new paradigm is needed. We suggest that it requires treatment programs to change from an exclusive focus on male perpetration and
male coercive control to one which recognizes the predominance of bi-directional violence and female as well as male coercive control. Treatment for PV should begin with determining if both partners have been physically violent, and if so (as will usually be the case) the treatment needs
to involve both partners, either in individual or couple treatment, or both. Given the evidence from this and many other studies that mutual violence is the predominant pattern and that mutual violence is most likely to result in injury to women, recognizing and treating violence by
both partners is likely to make a major contribution to the safety and health of women. Partner violence prevention efforts have been directed almost exclusively to boys and men, even though study after study, such as the national Youth Risk Behavior Surveys of the Centers For Disease Control (Eaton, et al., 2006) have repeatedly shown that in relationships among teen-agers and young adults, girls and women perpetrate and initiate PV violence more often than boys and men. Instead, the programs are based on the belief that the cure lies in ending male dominance in the family and society, and that the required intervention consists of reeducating men to abandon patriarchal beliefs and behaviors. As already noted, we and other critics of the current approach agree that equality between partners is extremely important, but we disagree because we believe it is essential to recognize the research evidence showing women engage in violence and coercive control as much or more than men. The design of
prevention and treatment efforts must take that into account (Straus, 2009a). However, despite the growing instance on "evidence based" treatment (American Psychological Association Council of Representatives, 2005), the ideological commitment to "patriarchy" as the primary cause of PV is so strong that treatments for which there is solid evidence, such as programs to improve anger management skills are avoided, often denounced, and sometimes prohibited. For example, Maiuro and Eberle (2008) cite the West Virginia regulation that “ ‘Anger management’ theory and methods are never appropriate for use in batterer intervention services." Their survey of state regulations found that 68% of the states explicitly prohibit any type of couple sessions or therapy in court referred treatment.

And another pointless sentence from me at the end. Stop reading, the article is over.

What we need....

Some exposure for male DV victims in the dailymail. This man speaks the truth:

'I can completely understand why some men will feel embarrassed speaking out - men generally don’t like talking about their feelings.

'But the bigger issue is that lots of men don’t know where to go for help and there’s a lot of gender bias.

'The massive problem is that men are not seen as victims.

'We need a gender neutral awareness campaign, or even a male-specific one.'

Despite his experience, Ian isn’t put off having a relationship again.

'It’s going to be difficult when I meet someone who doesn’t know what I’ve been through,' said Ian.

'They will no doubt ask about my scars, and I’m not going to lie.

'My fear is that they will wonder what I did to deserve it.'

CDC once again, this time DV

Something not so usual happened as I skimmed through my emails, which I really do not do that often. Well reddit was down, so that is probably why. It is a good thing though. I am opposed to SOPA and PIPA as every thinking human should be and so their protest is a good thing. Anyhow, while skimming through my mails, one friendly fellow forwarded me his summary of the data of the "2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey". And while I can not praise the site they are representing (due to affiliation with NOMAS among others). This was a pretty good post. You can read it here. A look at the data shows me there is much about DV we already know, but some interesting tidbits. Time to use my Ascii skills again:

2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
---------------------------------------------------------
                             Last Year %      Lifetime %
Type                         Men   Women      Men   Women
---------------------------------------------------------
Rape / Made to penetrate     1.1     1.1      6.2    18.3 
- by intimate partner        0.5     0.6      2.2     9.4

Violence by intimate partner:
Physical violence            4.5     3.6     25.7    30.3
Severe violence              2.0     2.7     13.8    24.3
Psychological violence      18.1    13.9     48.8    48.4
----------------------------------------------------------

Other than that, stalking is mostly something women experience with mostly male perpetrators while for men the rate between the sexes was more equal. Also, as for the more violent items of severe violence, it is more women who suffer from it, which is something we already knew (well you knew, if you read my summary). What surprised me at first was that the intimate partner rape in the last year was almost equal as well. Even though one could have figured that out via the equal overall rate, I didn't make that mental connection yet.

Recent DV data from the CDC Survey

I didn't really look at the DV data in the recent CDC study. Luckily someone else did. God, I am lazy. Via Glenn Sacks:

within the past year, 6.5% of men and 6.3% of women said they were victims of violence at the hands of an intimate partner. Another 18% of men and only 14% of women reported themselves the victims of “psychological aggression.” And when it came to being a victim of “coercive control” by an intimate partner, males outnumbered females by almost a 3:2 margin, 15.2% to 10.7%.

That last is significant of course because the entire DV industry has for years told us that DV is all about power and control. So isn’t it interesting that women do that far more than do men.

When it comes to lifetime violence (as defined by the survey), women do indeed report greater victimization, but the gap between men and women isn’t great. For example, lifetime figures for physical violence victimization by an intimate partner are 32.9% for women and 28.2% for men.

Two famous DV victims

Who would have thought Lincoln and Hawking were abuse by there spouses:

Abraham Lincoln's wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, physically abused him routinely, pelting her husband with potatoes and books and whacking him with firewood, according to a new biography.

Michael Burlingame, a historian at Connecticut College, argues in "The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln," due next month from the University of Illinois Press, that the 16th president was a classic victim of spousal abuse.

"She threw coffee in his face and chased him with a knife," Burlingame said.

- from here

A nurse who cared for Professor Stephen Hawking claimed last night that she saw his wife abusing and mistreating him.

Elaine Hawking called her disabled 62-year-old husband a cripple, bathed him in water that was too hot and allowed him to wet himself, it was alleged.

The nurse was reported as saying: "She gets angry and has thrown him on the bed where he kicks his limbs or hurts himself. She allowed him to slip down low in the bath so the water goes in the hole in his throat.

"She has left him in the garden without his computer mouse so he cannot talk and call for anyone. She gives him lots of verbal abuse and calls him a cripple and an invalid, which depresses him.

"She would withhold the bottle he used to go to the toilet so he wet himself, which he does not like because he is a very dignified person and a very private person. The verbal abuse is unbelievable. Her mouth is like a sewer. We (his nurses) got so used to it we forgot it was not normal behaviour.

"She throws things around the kitchen to frighten people and has temper tantrums.

"During one visit to hospital she was asked to leave because she was throwing things around."

[...] Professor Hawking's 24-year-old son by his first wife Jane said yesterday he felt certain his stepmother was behind a string of alleged assaults on the academic.

Tim Hawking described his father's alleged abuse as "completely despicable and unacceptable".

He added: "I believe quite strongly that it's true, based on what I have been privy to in the past.

"It makes me feel sick, as I'm sure anyone would be in my position. I feel completely helpless. He denies it every time I speak to him and I would hope he would respect me enough to tell me the truth."

Tim's mother Jane said: "The situation is far worse than any of us imagined."

Cambridgeshire Police confirmed they will be speaking to a nurse about allegations of assault on the academic.

- from here

It can happen to everyone.

Some NOMAS citations

As recently seen on reddit, some citations from their site:

NOMAS joined an amicus curiae brief prepared by the California Women’s Law Center, Queens’ Bench Bar Association of the San Francisco Bay Area, California Alliance Against Domestic Violence and several other California organizations in support of the shelters that addresses why it is important for women’s physical and psychological well-being that they have available domestic violence shelters that do not permit adult men.

-from here

There is a disturbing national trend toward laws mandating joint custody [...] Furthermore, court mandated joint custody is not in the best interests of mothers.

-from here

How can a dad – unemployed or working outside the home – be a good father? Not by fighting for custody or demanding “shared parenting” after divorce or breakup. The best way a dad can be a good father is by providing support to the mother of his children, including both financial and emotional support. [...] If dad wants to make sure his children thrive he must do whatever he can to ensure that their mother is thriving. Stop fighting for “shared parenting” or sole custody if you are in court. [...] So dads, the message is clear. If you want your children to grow up to be happy and healthy adults, the best thing you can do for them is to make sure that their mother is comfortable, healthy, and happy.

-from here

After years of exploring a wide range of batterer program models, the National Council of NOMAS has given its full support to the New York Model for Batterer Programs (www.nymbp.org). This model was determined to be most in keeping with NOMAS principles and beliefs about sexism, domestic violence and batterer programs.

[From the nymbp site which can also be linked to several NOMAS / Pro-feminists]

Women can be mean, abusive and violent toward their intimate partners. The perspective we share on this issue, however, is systemic and not individual. History and culture point to the pervasiveness of men’s entitlements, across the globe, to control women’s lives. This is the backdrop in which domestic violence became a social norm. This is fully borne out by statistics, no matter what reporting flaws are conceded. Another point is that typically, male domestic violence offenders control, dominate and terrorize their partners. Also typically, women who abuse are defending, fighting back, retaliating and rarely causing fear or disturbing the flow of their partner’s lives. It is noteworthy that the systemic supports of men’s domestic abuse are exposed by the harsh differential in punishment women get when tried for similar crimes.

-from here and here

Talk about disconnect from reality... Also recently from Reddit (hattip to Kill_the_rich), apparently Barry Goldstein who is co-chair of the NOMAS Task Group on Child Custody lost his law degree for lying on a child custody case. Oh my.

Male victims of 'intimate terrorism' can experience damaging psychological effects

I wasn't even sure if I should blog this one as it seems to be common sense. Anyhow....some science:

[R]esearchers looked at two independent sample groups totaling 822 men between the ages of 18 and 59. The first sample was composed of 302 men who had sought professional help after being violently abused by their female partners. The authors called this "intimate terrorism," characterized by much violence and controlling behavior.

The second sample was composed of 520 men randomly recruited to participate in a national phone survey in which they were asked questions about their relationship. Of this general community, 16 percent said they had sustained minor acts of violent and psychological abuse during arguments with their female partners. This type of abuse was referred to in the research as "common couple violence," in which both partners lashed out physically at each other.

The researchers found that in both groups of men, there were associations between abuse and post-traumatic stress symptoms. However, the "intimate terror victims" who had sought professional help were at a much greater risk of developing PTSD than the men from the general community group who said they had engaged in more minor acts of violence with their partners, according to the researchers.

"This is the first study to show that PTSD is a major concern among men who sustain partner violence and seek help," said Hines.

Research has shown severe underreporting of spousal or partner abuse of men, according to Randle. For example, men are not as likely to report serious injuries due to abuse, and psychological or less violent abuse is more likely to go unreported to authorities. In addition, police are less likely to arrest female suspects accused of violence than male suspects, according to another study cited by Randle.

The lack of reliable data has led to some confusion in the literature on domestic violence effects on men, the researchers said. They suggest more rigorous research focusing specifically on male victims.

And there is nothing more to say...