Perhaps you didn’t say it, but it comes across that way.
Any woman that continues to live with a man that hits her is a victim, and will continue to be untill she moves out. Either do something about it or continue to be assaulted- can’t have it both ways.
BTW, I was a victim of abuse in a long term relationship. The only reason I didn’t realise it at the time was that it was mental, rather than physical. When I did understand what was happening, I moved out, even though at 35 I lost everything, and had to start again from scratch.
Second, the implication of the claim is that there’s some sort of parity between the two parties if one of them regularly slaps the other and the other one regularly beats the living daylights out of the first. Obviously the level of violence is important.
But I don’t even accept the first part of your claim. Rather it sounds like the end result of a game of misogynist telephone.
…that’s quite the non sequitur. “Bob is stabbed by his wife, who broke his arm with a hammer, which wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t come out of the kitchen”?
It helps the mocker if the mockee is able to understand why he’s being mocked, so lemme break it down: the claim that the victim of domestic violence is “in most violent relationships” equally culpable appears to be an absurd claim, so when you’re treating it as valid, you’re going to be mocked.
I’m not sure you actually understood my post, the whole point was that the notion of a victim is, in most cases of domestic violence, misguided. Sometimes there’s a victim, ut the claim being made was that once you’ve been hit you’re a victim and will stay one until you leave, which is not the case. The most likely scenario is that you are also violent, although there are other scenarios whereby a repeat of the violence is unlikely, too. Only you have imagined a situation where there is a cowering victim being horribly beaten and now being blamed for it. The fact, which I was representing, is that in most violent relationships there is no victim, only an exchange of blows, which can be a one-off, or rare, or frequent, and can be very violent or rather minor. The doctrinaire “patriarchal terrorism” model favoured by several in this thread is horribly outdated, sexist and discredited.
Hardly a remarkable claim, it’s the result of many years of studies being done, and other than feminists whoo refuse to see the facts it is universally accepted.
Which is why studies have included the level of violence for many years, and the number of injuries sustained, and the severity of injuries sustained, and who actually initiated the violence by striking first, and whether weapons were used, and suchlike.
And it’s always found that in abbout half of all violent relationships both parties use violence in a symetrical manner, and cases of self-defence are excluded from the figure. Acts of violence are also categorised into severe and not-severe, and again symmetry arises.
Again, see the link above.
Women are a significant majority of those perpetrating violence in relationships where only one partner is violent.
I’m very surprised about that study. Though I suppose it sort of holds true for really low-level violence - throwing plates (not aiming to hit the partner), shoving etc.
However, I’m seeing the opposite of your claim that symmetry arises, when I go to the actual study cited, and not the bit of correspondence you quoted:
Your claim that “Actually in most violent relationships both parties are violent and initiate violence” also appears to be nonsense, unless by “most” you mean “slightly less than half.”
Still, though, I plan to look into these claims more.
It’s certainly true that women are both more likely to use weapons, as well as just as likely to use “severe” violence, and more likely to suffer injury. Women tend, on average, to be significantly smaller than their intimate partners, to have thinner bones, less muscle mass, less strength and so on, and are also more likely to seek medical attention for injuries (which is one of the criteria for “severe injury”). In spousal homicide cases, though, women are about 40% of defendants.
I don’t think it’s that surprising that more women than men are violent to their partners, as it’s less socially unacceptable for a woman to hit a man (or for that matter another woman) than a man to hit a woman.
This is another situation where actual equality is necessary - that is, both victims and perpetrators are treated the same way regardless of gender, and regardless of the proportion of attacks based on gender.
ETA I will note that all those studies focussed on violent assault, not sexual assault, within partnerships. I suspect if they were included the proportions would be very different.
BS!
What is more important is that victims ( of either gender ) realise that a violent partner is not going to change, and get out of the relationship BEFORE having children to inflict pain and suffering on.
The dynamics of abusive relationships are well understood at this point, and victims simply do not leave the nanosecond violence begins, and yes, children are born into violent relationships.
You seem to believe that if we abandon victims of abuse because they don’t leave the very instant you think they ought to, they will be shamed into doing so, and that if they don’t leave, they deserve what happens to them.
You are disconnected from reality, because you prefer your self-righteous satisfaction over the safety and health of other human beings.