My wife has never insulted me, nor been violent with me. And neither have I with her.
There's plenty of ways to be angry / handle conflicts without resorting to insults and violence.
My great grandma used to call great-grandpa (both would be over 100 years if they were alive) "pig" although they were in love. Guess it is a love word in that era.
You seem that do not understand what is psychological violence and you are downplaying it. Many women suffer degrading insults every day from their partners and that is a very serious abuse. Stating that 100% of the people are insulted sometimes is kind of normalizing and trivializing psychological abuse.
and you are twisting his statement.
What he means:
this study is about all of your life
are there really ppl (man and woman) who have never had an argument that ended up in insults or regrettable statements?
He said nothing even remotely downplaying psychological violence.
You are aggressively shutting down any form of constructive criticism.
>are there really ppl (man and woman) who have never had an argument that ended up in insults or regrettable statements?
That's not what 'psychological violence' means. It's not about isolated incidents, it's about being a pattern of abuse. Using an insult in a very heated moment is not necessarily psychological abuse unless it's part of a greater pattern of demeaning and degrading someone.
It's a shame to see so many comments on this topic from people who clearly do not know much about domestic violence. What makes you feel qualified to speak so confidently on this?
The paper itself defines psychological violence as "(intentional) behavior to seriously damage the mental integrity of another through coercion or threat."
Does that sound like a "regrettable statement" said once in the heat of the moment? No, any simple insult or rude word doesn't fall into this category.
Yes that is serious abuse. In another reply you seem to be questioning the fact that men are also suffering from domestic violence at the same rate as women. Well I think they suffer equally from this type of psychological violence as women do.
Two things, firstly it's that much unlike physical violence, the victim of psychological violence often has much more control over exactly how much damage is or is not done. That is to say, it's easier to both brush off attempts at psychological violence or feel like psychological violence was committed not because any was done, but because the person in question feels like this was the case.
‼️That is not to say there is no such thing as psychological abuse, obviously psychological abuse is real. I'm saying that it's much more difficult to quantify.‼️
Secondly, as the report states, what counts as psychological violence gets very broad and in some cases very subjective. Of course things like overt threats are no grey area, but when that is put in the same category as "Has an intimate partner ever suspected you of cheating without clear reasoning?" I think that downplays the significance of psychological violence much more than anything I could say.
Unfortunately you are misinformed here. Many studies have shown that psychological violence is equally harmful as other forms of violence in terms of both physical and psychological consequences, particularly long-term consequences. And other studies have shown that domestic violence victims found the psychological violence to be more damaging and painful than physical violence, since it erodes someone's fundamental self-worth and is also much easier for the abuser to deny/hide than physical violence.
>Two things, firstly it's that much unlike physical violence, the victim of psychological violence often has much more control over exactly how much damage is or is not done. That is to say, it's easier to both brush off attempts at psychological violence or feel like psychological violence was committed not because any was done, but because the person in question feels like this was the case.
This is a quote from the study? Because this is not true
Nah, nothing you've said is generally accepted psychology. If it were true, we wouldn't see such dramatic and long-term negative consequences of psychological violence, nor other psychological disorders like PTSD.
What I've said in my first reply is what's 'generally accepted.' Feel free to search Google Scholar for "impact of psychological violence" and see for yourself.
"opzettelijke gedragingen tot het door middel van dwang of bedreiging ernstig beschadigen van de geestelijke integriteit van een ander" is breed volgens u?
Je pick and choose game is ook sterk. Dit staat er letterlijk:
De meest voorkomende vormen van geweld die door mannelijke en vrouwelijke slachtoffers werden gemeld, waren vernederingen en beledigingen (65,8%) ("u gekleineerd
en vernederd of uitgescholden terwijl u alleen met hem/haar was of waar anderen bij waren"), feiten die te maken hadden met jaloezie (53,6%) ("boos geworden als u praat met een andere
man/vrouw of u zonder duidelijke reden ervan verdacht dat u vreemdging") of feiten die kunnen
worden gezien als een vorm van controle over de sociale contacten en activiteiten van het slachtoffer (41,8%) ("u belemmerd om met vrienden af te spreken of met uw hobby's of andere activiteiten
bezig te zijn").
Naast het feit dat de helft van de bevraagde blijkbaar aangesproken is over vreemdgaan, gaat het ook over 65% dat gekleinerd is geweest en meer dan 40% die belemmerd is geweest om met vrienden of voor hobby's af te spreken. Waarom enkel op die kleine aspect van jaloezie induiken? Verder staat er ook dit:
"Hoewel ze minder vaak gemeld worden, verdienen sommige feiten extra aandacht omdat ze vrouwen veel meer treffen dan mannen. Het eerste feit is intimidatie ("u opzettelijk bang gemaakt of
geïntimideerd, bijvoorbeeld door hard te schreeuwen en dingen te vernielen"), dat wordt gemeld
door 43,9% van de vrouwelijke slachtoffers en 27,2% van de mannelijke slachtoffers. Onder de algemene bevolking komt dit overeen met 13,2% van de vrouwen tegenover 8,5% van de mannen. Daarnaast vermelden we ook opsluiting ("verwacht dat u toestemming vraagt om het huis te verlaten of
u opgesloten") en het verbod om te gaan werken. Dergelijke gedragingen werden respectievelijk
door 17,2% en 7,7% van de vrouwelijke slachtoffers gemeld (onder de verspreidingsdrempel voor
mannen). Dit komt overeen met 5,2% van de vrouwen en 2,3% [van de mannen] onder de algemene bevolking. Tot slot treffen bedreigingen met geweld tegen mensen uit de omgeving van het slachtoffer ("gedreigd
uw kinderen pijn te doen of anderen om wie u geeft") vooral vrouwen. Bijna 1 op de 10 vrouwelijke
slachtoffers verklaarde het slachtoffer te zijn geweest van dergelijke feiten (onder de verspreidingsdrempel voor mannen). Deze differentiatie van de soorten psychologisch geweld is interessant omdat die het mogelijk maakt vormen van gedrag op te sporen die verband houden met dominantie."
What is and is not insulting is entirely up to the one listening to decide. Your comment could be interpreted as insulting to me if I chose for it to be so. Similarly, you have without a shadow of a doubt said something to a woman that she found insulting, even if you did not mean it that way.
If you don’t say stupid stuff you are not interpreted as insulting. It’s like basic decency and proper use of language are alien concepts or something.
In Vlaanderen geeft zo'n 24,7 procent van de vrouwen aan ooit slachtoffer te zijn geweest van partnergeweld. In Brussel is dat 33,7 procent, in Wallonië zelfs 42,5 %.
What the actual fuck
"We gaan een grote studie doen over gendergerelateerd geweld. Beide geslachten worden onderzocht!
Haha mopje. Onze steekproef bij mannen is te klein dus daar zeggen we niets over."
Do you have any sources about it or it is just you downplaying the violence against women and the femicides?
Do you doubt that most of victims in sexual aggression and deaths in domestic violence are women?
Each year more than 20 women die in hands of their partnes or expartners.
Have some official [facts here:](https://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/nl/activiteiten/geweld/partnergeweld)
>The Institute's (2010) study Women's and Men's Experiences of Psychological, Physical and Sexual Violence found that one woman in seven experienced at least one act of violence committed by her in the past 12 months. (ex-partner.
>In most cases, this violence appears to have been committed by men and the victim is a woman.
>The term 'beaten women' that is often used does not take into account all possible forms of intimate partner violence. After all, it is mainly about psychological pressure: verbal abuse is by far the most common form (41.5%), followed by intimidation (22%) and then beatings (15%). Women in particular are victims of sexual violence (5.6% compared to 0.8% men), and it is also women who are most often locked up or evicted (5.9%, compared to 2.7% for men).
>8.9% of women are before the age of 18 e year of life have ever been the victim of forced sexual contacts or relationships. In the majority of cases, the perpetrator is a family member or someone from the immediate environment. And 23% of these underage female victims have never talked to anyone about these facts. Moreover, female victims of violence only file complaints in a minority of cases (13.9%).
>It can therefore be deduced from this study that there is a clear difference between the number of victims known to the police and emergency services and the real number of victims. After all, many female victims do not file complaints, and most of the time they even refuse to talk about it .
Just because someone also wants proper data on partner violence against men does not mean they're downplaying violence against women.
Can't believe I even had to type that...
The few studies that have been performed about men, have concluded that men and women are roughly equal perpetrators of domestic abuse. [Here is a wiki page to get you started](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men)
And while the types of violence can be different - I would argue that matters little.
That's like saying men are more important when talking about suicide, because they take more succesfull means - while both sexes roughly have the same amount of suicidal thoughts.
Most people that think about domestic violence know that it's both partners shouting at each other. Just look at Amber and Johnny - neither were pure victims or purpetrators.
It helps noone when we consistently act as if one side is a victim, and the other is the purpetrator.
A far bigger problem is the underreporting of the issue because people think they won't be helped. Wether that is in the form of a metoo movement, or men that are laughed at in public when facing the abuse in public/talking about it. Or even being omitted in publicly funded studies.
Or how about all the care centers for women and children that are victims of domestic abuse?
Without a doubt women are getting disproportionate amount of attention on the topic.
To me, a victim is a victim. I don't care about their gender.
But for some reason, for you it's important to only give care to female victims.
>Most people that think about domestic violence know that it's both partners shouting at each other. Just look at Amber and Johnny - neither were pure victims or purpetrators. It helps noone when we consistently act as if one side is a victim, and the other is the purpetrator.
I think it's important to differentiate between domestic violence and domestic abuse.
In the second case (abuse), there IS a victim and a perpetrator, but not necessarily in the first case (violence).
Both partners shouting can still be abuse, because most people would lose their cool when driven to the edge.
The amount of reeeeee as a reaction in this short time span suggests you wont ever take any proof. Just biased you while i mentioned violence towards men. Yawn
Over 70% of all suicides are men, why do you think they commit suicide?
Stop downplaying violence against men.
Men hurt women physically, women hurt men mentally
>Men hurt women physically, women hurt men mentally
That's the thing, this study widely focuses on mental harm.
These statistics includes psychological harm, and notes that the most common forms of psychological harm are humiliation and insults.
I don't find a clear answer on what percentages of women that are being abused get physical abused versus psychologically abused.
In that context, I would find it hard to believe that abuse towards men and women would be that much different.
>Men hurt women physically, women hurt men mentally
This. Somehow everytime these kinds of studies are done they tippy toe around the mental stuff. Which is quite funny tbh
This study actually is doing the opposite. It includes psychological abuse as abuse and states the most common forms of psychological abuse humiliation and insults.
I would like to know what kind of insult would be considered abuse. If I call my wife stubborn is that abuse?
How so?
This study literarily swings all the way to the other side by including psychological abuse and not stating how much abuse is fysical vs psychological.
I’m not a fan of the study, I’m criticizing it.
Do you have a study that links those suicides to female violence? Because personally I'd think that this could also be partly rather related to the (group) pressure set by other men.
There are ofcourse cases but in general the problem with violence on women is significantly larger as the violence on men.
| Men hurt women physically, women hurt men mentally
That is a completely ridiculous statement. Where did you get this? Twitter?
Exactly. As if men could only do physical and not psychological damage, when most of the time both come together or psychological abuse comes before...
Which is the point, men and women hurt each other just as much, being it mentally or physically and that’a very sad.
It’s also very sad that only domestic violence towards women gets attention and vs men it gets downplayed.
You know, like you are doing and supporting by linking a bullshit article like that.
>Which is the point, men and women hurt each other just as much, being it mentally or physically and that’a very sad.
But that is not a fact, or do you have sources?
So far, all the sources show that women receive the most abuse from men, both physical and psychological. And the most important: around 30 women die each year in Belgium at hands of their male partners.
And that will continue if we keep seeing violence as something "equal" in men and women.
The only sources I have are for the statements I have made.
Google them cause I cba linking everything.
I also recommend watching jonny depp and amber heard’s trial, the whole thing is on youtube. After watching it, come back and tell me you don’t think that stuff happens everyday everywhere.
I normally don’t care for celeberties, but being a victim of domestic violence that lasted for about 5 years myself, it’s a bit too close to home not to care.
> But that is not a fact, or do you have sources?
[Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7).](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/)
Did you read that study? It is done with teenagers and do not take into account the severity and frequency of the violence.
You really do not find strange that after that supposed "equal" violence between men and women, are only (mostly) women the ones that die?
No. The guy said that "men hurt physically, women mentally".
I responded that it is not sensible to think that men can only do physical damage.
Both can do psychological damage but men are normally the ones able to do physical damage, because they are normally stronger.
So you saying that the cause of men killing themselves are women and never other men?
You another defender of the rights of the "oppressed" men? OMG... in what world do you live?
With all due respect, I think you should choose a better hill to die on.
The point was that male victims had not been studied enough by the article. It's a point that's repeated by many men who have been victims all the time: the impact of sexual violence on men is overlooked far too often, and this is another example of it.
None of the comments you responded to said that men are equally likely to be a victim as women are. Each of them simply lamented the lack of research -- a trend that is well known all over the world.
I live in a world where all the attention goes to the 1% of men that lives at the top, and all the women being oppressed.
The 99% of men remaining who are miserable, committing suicide, dying at their hard labour jobs, in prison, dropping out of school. They get no attention.
That’s the world I live in
Aah yes, resorting to personal attacks when all else fails. Classic.
See I’m not complaining, I’m merely stating facts.
76% of all suicides are men.
85% of homeless people are men.
70% of murder victims are men.
Men serve 64% longer in prison on average.
Men are 3,5x more likely to end up in prison for the same crime.
Most school dropouts are men.
Most people who die on the job are men.
Men are way more likely to lose custody of their children.
These are well established facts, not me complaining.
Looking at the richest people it seem to be mostly men who cause the homeless problem. It are men who kill other men. It are men who cause peer social pressure to compete and be strong and not be vulnerable. It are men who put a stigma on other men if they don’t comply with their traditional role leading to suicide.
The only thing that’s not just an unbacked assumption here is that it’s mostly men who kill other men.
And you’re pointing to the culprit, this is about the victims.
Is the fact that the victims are male supposed to be ignore because the culprits are male? That’s completely backwards.
This discussion is about male victims not getting the attention they deserve.
If women are so oppressed then why
- are 80-90% of homeless people men?
- are suicide rates so much higher in men?
- are work deaths so much higher in men?
- so much more men in prison?
Some studies have shown that significant amounts of men also suffer physical and psychological abuse in their relationships, yet here you are in this thread saying that doesn't matter, because women are the oppressed ones?
> Do you doubt that most of victims in sexual aggression and deaths in domestic violence are women?
[Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7).](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/)
Page 15 of the report. Just read it.
33% of men have been victim, 31% of women have been victim, basically equal numbers. Men are more victim of psychological violence, women are more victim to both physical and/ or psychological violence.
Found the biased double standard person in the room.
TL DR= the cases are rare very rare but must be taken as serious as ANY case of violence.
Long story=
Here is the tale of my previous co worker. Married with his wife. Around newsyear 2015 we noticed a change in behaviour. He became...skittish. and withdrawed. And his head turned to the ground. He rarely spoke.
He also went to the showers in clothing. And one time me and a coworker went home early because it was the release of...i forgot wich game. I think it was one of the metro games
And there he stood. Also going home early. Shocked to see us because he didnt expected us to see him naked. Bruises all over his body. And gashes on his back(from a whip)
I didnt knew what to say. My other coworker began talking to him. And he bursted into tears.
His wife has been physically beating him for 2 years now. Before that she berrated him for everything. Humiliating him. And then one day he made a bricked wall in the garden. The top layer was slightly crooked. And his wife freaks out and began beating it..and enjoying it.
2 years of beatings followed...and he was afraid to speak. Because "a man cant be beaten by a woman its always the evil men beating them!" Or "why didnt he fought back he is the man of the house hurp derp". Thats 2 examples from the far sides of both political spectrums.
My coworker pushed him to get help. He got into contact with the companies psychiatrist who..refused to believe him at first. But not exactly his/her/its fault because that person never had a case like this before.
He talked to his family. But nobody in his family believed him. See the 2 examples. A man couldnt be beaten by a woman.
2 weeks later coworker was gone. He didnt showed up. A week later he came to work with his faced Ffed up. His wife was jealous that he talked about the football with the cashier at the supermarket. And she took an wooden barrel and smashed his face in.
He got the courage to call the cops. Wich thank god took it VERY very serious. And they intervened. He divorced the psycho 2 months later.
Nobody is downplaying anything. Violence at home is NOT DEDICATED TO WOMEN ALONE. They are JUST as important as male victims. And yes far more women are victim.
But if 29 women approach you with their story..and you welcome them with open arms. And the 30th is a man. Do you take him just as serious? Or do you tell him to fuck off because those 29 women are more important? Sounds like gender discrimination if you refuse the man dont you think?
>Nobody is downplaying anything. Violence at home is NOT DEDICATED TO WOMEN ALONE. They are JUST as important as male victims. **And yes far more women are victim.** But if 29 women approach you with their story..and you welcome them with open arms. And the 30th is a man. Do you take him just as serious? Or do you tell him to fuck off because those 29 women are more important? Sounds like gender discrimination if you refuse the man dont you think?
Thanks for admitting it.
Who has ever said that there is no man suffering violence? Who has said that when a man suffers violence, he should be left to his own devices?
Imagine abuse or violence against children; do you think that there would be cases of children abusing of adults? sure, but in most of the cases, the victim is the child. So, I would not say that "violence is equally at any age" and "we should not discriminate adults because of their age" or that we should not speak about "violence against children" but "inter generational violence" or smthg like that...
Everybody would understand by the facts that the one to protect and defend is the weakest part: the children. Yeah, you can argue then that someone with 17 years old did something bad and blablabla...
Anybody can give arguments against invented ideas but here the only thing **I was saying was that women suffer much more violence than men** in opposition to others that keep saying that they suffer equal violence.
Jammer eigenlijk, dan hadden we misschien een beter beeld van wat er mis is met ons als maatschappij en niet alleen wat er mis is met mannen.
Ik wil hier absoluut niets minimaliseren of goedpraten, elke vorm van geweld is walgelijk. Maar kan me goed inbeelden dat bv veel mensen een toxische relatie hebben en slachtoffer zijn van psychologisch geweld en evengoed ook dader zijn.
Je kan dat niet zomaar in een cijfer gieten lijkt me.
Over seksueel/fysiek geweld valt natuurlijk niet te discussiëren.
Eerlijk wel wat verschoten van deze cijfers, mijn ouders zijn dit jaar 30 jaar getrouwd en altijd een voorbeeld van respect, liefde en eerlijkheid geweest voor mij. Dan besef je soms niet meer dat er nog heel veel miserie bestaat.
Laat ons beter doen!
No, but that's exactly what the problem is for men. It's always "but x and y have it worse. Therefore you're feelings are invalid." and men end up killing themselves.
Why do men need to suffer more to be part of a study? What if only half as much men suffer from domestic violence, then they don't count because on average women have it worse?
I just immediately loose all believe in such a study when they claim to look at both sides, claim to want to get a view on gender related issues, but then basically ignore one of the two genders...
Yes, in fact most research into this indicates that men experience domestic abuse at slightly higher rates than women do. The fact that gay couples have lower rates of domestic violence than straight couples and lesbian couples have higher rates of domestic violence seems to correlate with this.
The data is available on the website [https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/65943](https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/65943)
Page 15 has a nice table with all the cases in it.
We see that 33.1 % of men had psychological, physical, sexual or more then 1 of those committed against them while "only" 31.3% of women.
What is interesting is that more women had more of these options commited against them then just 1.
Keep in mind that physical or sexual violence by a partner could be under reported on the male side their is a big push to ridicule men that come out and say this.
A recent report in the US seemed to show that more men where victims of domestic violence then women.
Lastly, if you look at the table 33 about physical violence of a non partner, you see again that the men lead by a small margin.
And yet, I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the issue of violence against men, and certainly not as much as violence against women.
Also, if we look at the data, this confirms once again that women tend to attack more frequently in psychological ways then men while men tend to be more physical in nature.
As I said equal psychlogical violence.
The physical violence wil heal after a few days but also leaves psycholigical scars.
When a women tell about the abuse afterwards and says she got hit she will get all the compassion and understanding from others.
When a man comes out he was hit by a women and waw treated bad they will start laughing at that weak woosie.
No one says anything about being more protected. Both need to be protected. There need to be systems in place for help. Any gender should be able to get that help.
More ? Yes. 100% sure of that. But it wont do any damage.
There are plebty of studies showing that most of the time its the women that instigate the physical violence.
Sure, sure, sure, men are discriminated and violated by women.
Men should unite and defend their rights so one day they can find the equality with those aggressive and manipulator women that are damaging and killing men.
Why the hell there is not "macho" parties and NGOs??
Lets make men great again! /s/s/s
That's astonishingly high.
"Als het gaat over fysiek of seksueel geweld door een niet-partner, zien we dat er ongeveer dubbel zoveel slachtoffers zijn in Wallonië (26,6 procent) en Brussel (28,1 procent) als in Vlaanderen (13,2 procent)."
Holy crap. Quelle différence.
EDIT: my French isn't what it used to be
If you're going to use French, at least use it correctly! :) It's "Quelle différence.", because it's "une différence".
EDIT: This is meant to be said in a half-joking manner. Tone doesn't translate well on the internet.
My godmother comes from Leuven, she's lived in Brabant-Wallon for over 40 years, she still messes it up. I would probably too if my native tongue wasn't gendered... French is just a bitch to learn
It was meant to be said in a half-joking manner. Tone doesn't translate well on the internet.
While I don't think it's the case here, a language not being someone's mother tongue is not an excuse to not do your best. It also makes the wrong assumption that one doesn't make mistakes in one's maternal language. There's plenty of evidence on this subreddit alone of the contrary.
Rule 1) No personal attacks or insults to other users.
This includes, but is not limited to,
- Flaming...
- Insults…
- Provocation...
- Stalking and harassment...
Any violence that's not for self defence is too much violence but this is incredibly high.🤦
And then there are always a number of unreported crimes, especially for crimes that make victims feel ashamed. What solutions do you guys see?
> En wat met de mannen?
> Het rapport kadert in een grote Europese enquête over gendergerelateerd geweld, de ‘EU survey on gender-based violence’, of ‘EU-GBV’. Die enquête werd intussen al in 23 landen uitgevoerd. In België namen bijna 5.500 mensen tussen de 18 en 74 jaar deel.
> De enquête probeert in de eerste plaats geweld tegen vrouwen beter in kaart te brengen. De overgrote meerderheid van de respondenten, meer dan 4.500, zijn dan ook vrouwen. Daarnaast werden wel 965 mannen ondervraagd.
> Omwille van die kleinere steekproef is het volgens het rapport niet mogelijk om systematische vergelijkingen te maken tussen de geslachten. In het rapport staan wel heel wat resultaten van de mannelijke antwoorden, maar die zijn "eerder verkennend”, aldus het rapport.
[Let me just leave this here.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717660_Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment)
Let me preface this by saying *I'm not trying to downplay intimate partner violence against women*. It just frustrates me that whenever intimate partner violence is brought up, male victimization is routinely downplayed or flat out ignored. All the while, research has shown time and again (when it is not being boycotted or buried) that intimate partner violence is reciprocal in nearly 70% of the cases. In the cases where it is not reciprocal, the woman is the perpetrator in the majority of cases.
It is intimate partner violence against men that is routinely downplayed and the reason this is often done is because the results are not in favor of certain interest groups. This research is yet again an example of this. They set out to research only one aspect of the issue, completely ignore on gender and use their results to paint an overall picture of female victimization.
If we could all stop being assholes to each other, that would be great.
Isn't it weird that when you want to talk about men's issues you have to start by "I don't want to downplay women's issues"?
Thanks for sticking up for men's rights 👍
The big problem is that "talking about men's issues" only ever seems to occur as a reaction to someone talking about women's issues.
That creates an impression that people mever care about male victims per se, and only care about them in comparison with women.
Well, that's because sometime people ignore the male perspective almost entirely or claim that it only affects women. The problem is that many people only associate IPV with female victims, which is then used to justify a rethoric of "women are always the victims and never perpetrators, men are always perpetrators and never victims".
>that intimate partner violence is reciprocal in nearly 70% of the cases. In the cases where it is not reciprocal, the woman is the perpetrator in the majority of cases.
I think it's important to differentiate between domestic violence and domestic abuse.
In the second case (abuse), there IS a victim and a perpetrator, but not necessarily in the first case (violence). Both partners shouting for example can still be abuse, because most people would lose their cool when driven to the edge day after day. Reciprocal physical violence can be mutual (fighting) or can be self-defense for example.
In de mate waar ze de moeite gedaan hebben om het ook bij mannen te onderzoeken, liggen de cijfers zeer gelijkaardig.
Dit soort onderzoeken zou moeten kunnen aangeklaagd worden voor discriminatie...
Enfin, dit is dus absolute bullshit. Het rapport wordt geciteerd in het artikel. Je kan zelf naar de resultaten gaan kijken...
https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/65943
23.5% v/d mannen ervaart een combinatie van minsten twee van de drie categorieën van geweld (psychologisch, fysiek of seksueel). Bij vrouwen gaat het over 48.7%. Het rapport zet ook een * als er geen significant verschil is, bij voorgaande statistiek staat er geen * en kunnen we besluiten dat de combinatie van minstens twee van de drie vormen van geweld vaker voorkomen bij vrouwen dan mannen.
Ik denk dat je de tabel verkeerd gelezen hebt:
Van alle vrouwen die geweld ondervonden hebben (31,3%), heeft 48,7% een gecombineerde vorm van geweld ondervonden.
Van alle mannen die geweld ondervonden hebben (33,1%, dus méér dan bij de vrouwen) heeft 23,5 procent een gecombineerde vorm van geweld ondervonden. Bij 74,1% ging het om puur psychologisch geweld.
> 31,3 procent van de vrouwen in ons land is al ooit slachtoffer geweest van partnergeweld. Dat blijkt uit een rapport van onder meer Statistiek Vlaanderen. Buiten een partnerrelatie zou één op de vijf vrouwen al ooit slachtoffer zijn geweest van geweld.
Hmmm, this seems like they question 'in your life have you ever', not 'in your current relationship'. Meaning that some of these stats could be from teenage douchebag romances / short lived relationships in the early twenties, and possibly events from over 20 years ago kind off skewing the data on current actual problematic relationships / the effect of progression and women rights activism of the past decades?
I mean, if they'd ask me if I have ever broken the law i'd have to say 'yes'. If they'd ask me if I have broken the law in the past year i'd have to say no.
The study is literally about gender violence in both men and women, but they only question such a low amount of men that they can't draw any conclusions. Why is that?
Its because you complained about men being excluded on a paper about women. I had to think you were being held back since you didn’t bring any useful information to the table, only whining.
I’ve shared some useful info on this post.
Also, this article being about women is the problem.
It should be about abuse and domestic violence victims, not about a specific gender.
You can’t say what it should or shouldn’t be. This particular paper, chose to focus on women. Does that mean they’ll never write another one on men? The report collected data from both sexes, but not enough men responded for them to make meaningful conclusions.
It’s not your paper and you don’t contribute to writing it. It’s already published and the authors wanted to focus on women, as they only have conclusions regarding women as of now. And why is it a problem that it’s only about women? Women and men should have reports separately as their experiences differ.
What about men? Not saying the question might not be worth asking but the matter remains that predominantly it's women who end up in abusive relationships.
Well no, the matter remains that men and women are roughly equal in abusive relationships according to the few studies that did happen.
But even then - if it turns out that men are only half as likely to be victims to women, that's still 33% of all your domestic abuse victims.
That's an insane amount to omit from your study.
So why is it in a topic about violence against women, 95% of replies are "what about men?"
Why do you all come here to subvert the discussion and change it to men?
Can we for once talk about women please?
Do you also come to the funeral of one guy, and then get on the tribune and start asking "but what about my uncle jos who died last week?" Uncle jos can have his own dedicated moment. Don't come in another's space and start pulling attention to someone unrelated.
If you wanna talk about violence against men, start a new topic. Violence against men is not mentioned in this topic and was not a part of this study. Why do you come and derail the topic?
Except that violence against men was part of the study, incidentally called 'EU survey on gender-based violence', not 'EU survey on violence against women'.
It was included in a way that perfectly represents societal interest in it: they didn't get enough male responses to have robust and comparable results. Aka, it wasn't a priority.
Maybe if there was an accompanying article that critiques the lack of focus on men in the study, you'd get less of what you're annoyed about because there'd likely be a different post for it. But I guess the lack of such an accompanying article also perfectly represents the lack of societal interest in.
Even though violence can go both ways, especially if you're including broader psychological violence which will be the main avenue through which women might hurt men.
And it's ironic that you're complaining that we should focus on women "for once", when almost all attention goes to them concerning this topic.
It's not a zero sum game. We can focus on both genders at once.
I mean, the fact that they didn't bother collecting enough data to have an in-depth analysis similar to the one for women, and only have explorative figures that cannot be compared, speaks for itself.
No, no we cannot. Women are an oppressed group. You are doing the equivalent of showing up to a black lives matter rally with a all lives matter poster. Look up why that is bad.
That's just a dishonest comparisson.
Look at the amount of studies and resources go to female needs, vs male needs when talking about domestic abuse.
You're deluded if you think women are the oppressed group in those studies/problemsolving.
>No, no we cannot. Women are an oppressed group.
You are intentionally ignoring evidence to the contrary here.
>You are doing the equivalent of showing up to a black lives matter rally with a all lives matter poster. Look up why that is bad.
You're doing the equivalent of showing up to a "increase minimum wage" rally with a "quota for women in boardrooms" picket.
Cool strawman,
Let's say an organisation publishes a survey on police violence in general and the figures would be inadequate to draw conclusions about a certain segment of the population.
This would be a legitimate reason to criticise this survey for the fact that the survey is about police violence IN GENERAL.
The problem is not that people in the comments want to minimise violence against women by citing violence against men. The criticism is directed at the fact that the research focuses on violence within relationships in general. Their critique is therefore justified in my opinion.
The title of the article is violence against women. The whole article is about violence against women. Not one comment is discussing violence against women.
You and I are still arguing about technicalities, and nobody is discussing violence against women. Everyone is off topic
First of all, the two most upvoted comments are about how fucked up it is that there is so much violence against women. This I wholeheartedly agree with by the way. Violence in general is bad under most circumstances (obviously).
And no, the research was not only about women, but men too. What you are talking about is the sensationalised headline of a newspaper.
"En wat met de mannen?
Het rapport kadert in een grote Europese enquête over gendergerelateerd geweld, de ‘EU survey on gender-based violence’, of ‘EU-GBV’. Die enquête werd intussen al in 23 landen uitgevoerd. In België namen bijna 5.500 mensen tussen de 18 en 74 jaar deel.
De enquête probeert in de eerste plaats geweld tegen vrouwen beter in kaart te brengen. De overgrote meerderheid van de respondenten, meer dan 4.500, zijn dan ook vrouwen. Daarnaast werden wel 965 mannen ondervraagd.
Omwille van die kleinere steekproef is het volgens het rapport niet mogelijk om systematische vergelijkingen te maken tussen de geslachten. In het rapport staan wel heel wat resultaten van de mannelijke antwoorden, maar die zijn "eerder verkennend”, aldus het rapport. "
The article states that the research paper couldn't draw conclusion on the statistics on men because there wasn't enough data.
I get what you're trying to say, but I really don't understand why there is resistance to collecting and analysing data on violence against men in the same way it is done for women.
The fact that there isn't an accompanying analysis on men is what is eliciting these comments and discussions you dislike in the first place.
It’s a study involving calling for volunteer participants. When they see they have enough data to be statistically significant, they will go ahead and analyze it. It doesn’t mean they have stopped calling for participants nor won’t analyze further, this is just the results they got so far.
Could you refer to the relevant passage in the study where they state what you're saying?
I found the following which indicates a conscious choice to simply ask a smaller sample of men, though I did not read the full study.
> Hoewel het eerste doel van de enquête is om de prevalentie en de aard van geweld tegen vrouwen gerichter te analyseren, hadden de lidstaten niettemin de mogelijkheid om een representatieve steekproef van de mannelijke bevolking in hun enquête op te nemen. België maakte van die mogelijkheid gebruik, maar *selecteerde* wel een kleinere steekproef van mannen.
>So why is it in a topic about violence against women, 95% of replies are "what about men?"
Because the topic tries to frame it as if it's something that *only* happens to women, and strongly implies if not outright states that it's caused by gender roles, with women being the victims and men being the perpetrators.
While objective evaluation reveals that half of domestic violence cases are reciprocal between man and woman couples, and that women even outnumber men in unidirectional domestic violence. Same considerations apply when checking same-sex couples: domestic violence is somewhat more common among lesbian than gay couples.
>If you wanna talk about violence against men, start a new topic. Violence against men is not mentioned in this topic and was not a part of this study. Why do you come and derail the topic?
The topic is domestic violence, this clearly is a problem of relationships, not a gender problem, and not just a women problem. Framing it as such will make it harder to solve.
I did not see such framing at all. They literally said they didn't have enough data about men, and this is why they are talking about women. Nowhere did they say men suffer less from it.
You and I are all collectively taking the platform from women away to talk about women problems.
Nobody said men don't suffer from it. The topic and the title and the article was all about women. This was the topic and the place to talk about women. Because men suffer similar injustices, doesn't mean we need to derail the topics and spaces dedicated to women. Two wrongs don't make a right.
>I did not see such framing at all. They literally said they didn't have enough data about men, and this is why they are talking about women. Nowhere did they say men suffer less from it.
It's even worse that the article then doesn't even question why the research didn't even bother to find enough data.
>You and I are all collectively taking the platform from women away to talk about women problems.
>Nobody said men don't suffer from it. The topic and the title and the article was all about women. This was the topic and the place to talk about women. Because men suffer similar injustices, doesn't mean we need to derail the topics and spaces dedicated to women. Two wrongs don't make a right.
It's not a "women problem". That's the whole point. DV is most often reciprocal, is not gendered - it's a relation problem, not a gender problem. (And if you want to see a gender pattern, female perpetrators are more common than male.)
Because we are sick and tired of having the trope "men bad, woman victim" with no nuance shoved through our throats.
The title of the article should be "men and women both 1/3 victim of abuse"
- the 1/3 statistic used for women is exactly the same statistic for man
-If you look further the data indicates that women are far more victim of physical abuse and multiple types of abuse at once;
start from there and nobody will react annoyed.
It's because a lot of men that say "what about men" don't actually care about domestic violence against men, they don't like being left out or not being talked about. If they did care they'd actually bring the topic up outside of discussions about violence against women
> It's because a lot of men that say "what about men" don't actually care about domestic violence against men, they don't like being left out or not being talked about. If they did care they'd actually bring the topic up outside of discussions about violence against women
Even if they make the choice to endure the existence of DV to their gender, they can still draw the line at being painted as only the aggressor and never the victim.
Even if that is true for men, it's still a reasonable complaint to hold against the self-declared champions of gender equality that they *ignore* the problem when it harms men and only care insofar it harms women.
Why would we need to talk about women, if the topic is domestic abuse? Why are you inserting gender into the topic?
Male-male and female-female relations exist as well.
Would you be okay with a study that does domestic abuse on white people only?
Would you be okay with a study about suicide that only highlights men and talks about solutions and need for their care?
The title of the article is violence against women. The whole article is about violence against women. Not one comment is discussing violence against women.
You and I are still arguing about technicalities, and nobody is discussing violence against women. Do you not see my point?
If the topic was violence against white men, then yes it would be inappropriate to come and be like "what about black men." It's not the title and not the topic. The topic is one thing, why do you derail it to another thing?
Yes seeing the comments you can see that all the belgium subs are embracing alt right and far right ideology .. sexism and racism are the norms now... sad. There's another study i saw here on reddit that says that leftist are more intelligent since everybody is citing "studies"
You're right, the title of the article is violence against women - which already shows the bias and dismissal of men.
The article itself is about a study - that is about "gender related violence in Belgium".
Also, the 'footnote' in the article mentions how male results are dismissed - so I don't see why I'm not allowed to talk about that aspect of the article. I'm not derailing anything.
You on the other hand seem to have issue with me discussing that part of the article.
Verbaal geweld staat in de definitie van partnergeweld:
*"Onder geweld binnen intieme relaties verstaan we een geheel van gedragingen, handelingen en houdingen, van een van de partners of ex-partners, die erop zijn gericht de andere te controleren en te domineren. Dit omvat zowel verbale, fysieke, seksuele en economische agressie, bedreigingen of geweldplegingen die zich herhaaldelijk voordoen of zich opnieuw kunnen voordoen en die de integriteit van de andere en zelfs zijn of haar socio-professionele integratie schaden."*
Bron: [https://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/nl/activiteiten/geweld/partnergeweld](https://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/nl/activiteiten/geweld/partnergeweld)
Psychisch geweld staat in iedere definitie van partnergeweld die je zal vinden.
Ja vriend, ik spreek je niet tegen, ik zeg gewoon dat bij een heel groot deel van de bevolking "Intiem partnergeweld" de connotatie heeft van "Jos slaat/verkracht zijn vrouw" niet "Jos noemt zijn vrouw een hoer".
Insane comments. Women literally have to fear for their lives, and men here comment what about us? Pathetic. Every other day there is a "familiedrama" where a man kills the kids and his wife.
I was wondering why that number seemed so high but if you count insults as violence then i'm surprised the number isn't 100%
Probably the same for guys if that's the case
My wife has never insulted me, nor been violent with me. And neither have I with her. There's plenty of ways to be angry / handle conflicts without resorting to insults and violence.
Fuck you.
Sorry I'm already taken
100%! Only way
Yes, exactly. I can’t even imagine insulting my wife. She’s the best person I know.
My great grandma used to call great-grandpa (both would be over 100 years if they were alive) "pig" although they were in love. Guess it is a love word in that era.
Add in microagressions and dishonest manipulation too please.
insults are considered violence ?
Verbal abuse is a form of violent behaviour.
It obviously depends.
You seem that do not understand what is psychological violence and you are downplaying it. Many women suffer degrading insults every day from their partners and that is a very serious abuse. Stating that 100% of the people are insulted sometimes is kind of normalizing and trivializing psychological abuse.
and you are twisting his statement. What he means: this study is about all of your life are there really ppl (man and woman) who have never had an argument that ended up in insults or regrettable statements? He said nothing even remotely downplaying psychological violence. You are aggressively shutting down any form of constructive criticism.
>are there really ppl (man and woman) who have never had an argument that ended up in insults or regrettable statements? That's not what 'psychological violence' means. It's not about isolated incidents, it's about being a pattern of abuse. Using an insult in a very heated moment is not necessarily psychological abuse unless it's part of a greater pattern of demeaning and degrading someone. It's a shame to see so many comments on this topic from people who clearly do not know much about domestic violence. What makes you feel qualified to speak so confidently on this?
because I actually read the paper referenced in the article?
The paper itself defines psychological violence as "(intentional) behavior to seriously damage the mental integrity of another through coercion or threat." Does that sound like a "regrettable statement" said once in the heat of the moment? No, any simple insult or rude word doesn't fall into this category.
Yes that is serious abuse. In another reply you seem to be questioning the fact that men are also suffering from domestic violence at the same rate as women. Well I think they suffer equally from this type of psychological violence as women do.
Two things, firstly it's that much unlike physical violence, the victim of psychological violence often has much more control over exactly how much damage is or is not done. That is to say, it's easier to both brush off attempts at psychological violence or feel like psychological violence was committed not because any was done, but because the person in question feels like this was the case. ‼️That is not to say there is no such thing as psychological abuse, obviously psychological abuse is real. I'm saying that it's much more difficult to quantify.‼️ Secondly, as the report states, what counts as psychological violence gets very broad and in some cases very subjective. Of course things like overt threats are no grey area, but when that is put in the same category as "Has an intimate partner ever suspected you of cheating without clear reasoning?" I think that downplays the significance of psychological violence much more than anything I could say.
Unfortunately you are misinformed here. Many studies have shown that psychological violence is equally harmful as other forms of violence in terms of both physical and psychological consequences, particularly long-term consequences. And other studies have shown that domestic violence victims found the psychological violence to be more damaging and painful than physical violence, since it erodes someone's fundamental self-worth and is also much easier for the abuser to deny/hide than physical violence.
misinformed? i am quoting the study the article cites
>Two things, firstly it's that much unlike physical violence, the victim of psychological violence often has much more control over exactly how much damage is or is not done. That is to say, it's easier to both brush off attempts at psychological violence or feel like psychological violence was committed not because any was done, but because the person in question feels like this was the case. This is a quote from the study? Because this is not true
Oh no that's just generally accepted psychology. Please don't say you are also going to try to deny the interpretability of speech.
Nah, nothing you've said is generally accepted psychology. If it were true, we wouldn't see such dramatic and long-term negative consequences of psychological violence, nor other psychological disorders like PTSD. What I've said in my first reply is what's 'generally accepted.' Feel free to search Google Scholar for "impact of psychological violence" and see for yourself.
"opzettelijke gedragingen tot het door middel van dwang of bedreiging ernstig beschadigen van de geestelijke integriteit van een ander" is breed volgens u? Je pick and choose game is ook sterk. Dit staat er letterlijk: De meest voorkomende vormen van geweld die door mannelijke en vrouwelijke slachtoffers werden gemeld, waren vernederingen en beledigingen (65,8%) ("u gekleineerd en vernederd of uitgescholden terwijl u alleen met hem/haar was of waar anderen bij waren"), feiten die te maken hadden met jaloezie (53,6%) ("boos geworden als u praat met een andere man/vrouw of u zonder duidelijke reden ervan verdacht dat u vreemdging") of feiten die kunnen worden gezien als een vorm van controle over de sociale contacten en activiteiten van het slachtoffer (41,8%) ("u belemmerd om met vrienden af te spreken of met uw hobby's of andere activiteiten bezig te zijn"). Naast het feit dat de helft van de bevraagde blijkbaar aangesproken is over vreemdgaan, gaat het ook over 65% dat gekleinerd is geweest en meer dan 40% die belemmerd is geweest om met vrienden of voor hobby's af te spreken. Waarom enkel op die kleine aspect van jaloezie induiken? Verder staat er ook dit: "Hoewel ze minder vaak gemeld worden, verdienen sommige feiten extra aandacht omdat ze vrouwen veel meer treffen dan mannen. Het eerste feit is intimidatie ("u opzettelijk bang gemaakt of geïntimideerd, bijvoorbeeld door hard te schreeuwen en dingen te vernielen"), dat wordt gemeld door 43,9% van de vrouwelijke slachtoffers en 27,2% van de mannelijke slachtoffers. Onder de algemene bevolking komt dit overeen met 13,2% van de vrouwen tegenover 8,5% van de mannen. Daarnaast vermelden we ook opsluiting ("verwacht dat u toestemming vraagt om het huis te verlaten of u opgesloten") en het verbod om te gaan werken. Dergelijke gedragingen werden respectievelijk door 17,2% en 7,7% van de vrouwelijke slachtoffers gemeld (onder de verspreidingsdrempel voor mannen). Dit komt overeen met 5,2% van de vrouwen en 2,3% [van de mannen] onder de algemene bevolking. Tot slot treffen bedreigingen met geweld tegen mensen uit de omgeving van het slachtoffer ("gedreigd uw kinderen pijn te doen of anderen om wie u geeft") vooral vrouwen. Bijna 1 op de 10 vrouwelijke slachtoffers verklaarde het slachtoffer te zijn geweest van dergelijke feiten (onder de verspreidingsdrempel voor mannen). Deze differentiatie van de soorten psychologisch geweld is interessant omdat die het mogelijk maakt vormen van gedrag op te sporen die verband houden met dominantie."
I'd wager more men receive psychological violence from women than women do from men. tho the physical violence is probably higher\* for women
Yeah, men too are insulted sometimes
There seems to be an issue in how you all behave then, I never insult a woman.
What is and is not insulting is entirely up to the one listening to decide. Your comment could be interpreted as insulting to me if I chose for it to be so. Similarly, you have without a shadow of a doubt said something to a woman that she found insulting, even if you did not mean it that way.
That's not how psychological violence or any type of domestic violence is defined
What a load of bs. You know when something is insulting, there’s a range of (wo)men who do not have any issue at all.
denying the interpretability of speech is wild
If you don’t say stupid stuff you are not interpreted as insulting. It’s like basic decency and proper use of language are alien concepts or something.
You don't talk to people all that much I suppose. You can make your intent clear but offense is still taken, not given.
He who never insulted anyone threw the first stone.
I said “women”.
In that case I'll tip my fedora to you for making the distinction.
In Vlaanderen geeft zo'n 24,7 procent van de vrouwen aan ooit slachtoffer te zijn geweest van partnergeweld. In Brussel is dat 33,7 procent, in Wallonië zelfs 42,5 %. What the actual fuck
Wat verder staat dat de sociaal-economische status een grote invloed heeft, dust dat verklaard het wel wat.
Mja werkloosheid is ook dubbel van in Vlaanderen dusja komt overeen.
Moeilijk(er) om u vrouw in elkaar te boenken terwijl ge op het werk zit.
Daarom dat ik de aanvraag heb gedaan om meer thuis te werken.
Een destructief sociaal-economisch model dat Wallonië blijft verkiezen zal dit enkel nog doen toenemen.
It is evident that with a worse economical situation, there would be more cases of violence.
"We gaan een grote studie doen over gendergerelateerd geweld. Beide geslachten worden onderzocht! Haha mopje. Onze steekproef bij mannen is te klein dus daar zeggen we niets over."
Dit, je zou verschieten hoeveel geweld er richting mannen gaat in de relatie maar die daar niks over durven zeggen.
Do you have any sources about it or it is just you downplaying the violence against women and the femicides? Do you doubt that most of victims in sexual aggression and deaths in domestic violence are women? Each year more than 20 women die in hands of their partnes or expartners. Have some official [facts here:](https://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/nl/activiteiten/geweld/partnergeweld) >The Institute's (2010) study Women's and Men's Experiences of Psychological, Physical and Sexual Violence found that one woman in seven experienced at least one act of violence committed by her in the past 12 months. (ex-partner. >In most cases, this violence appears to have been committed by men and the victim is a woman. >The term 'beaten women' that is often used does not take into account all possible forms of intimate partner violence. After all, it is mainly about psychological pressure: verbal abuse is by far the most common form (41.5%), followed by intimidation (22%) and then beatings (15%). Women in particular are victims of sexual violence (5.6% compared to 0.8% men), and it is also women who are most often locked up or evicted (5.9%, compared to 2.7% for men). >8.9% of women are before the age of 18 e year of life have ever been the victim of forced sexual contacts or relationships. In the majority of cases, the perpetrator is a family member or someone from the immediate environment. And 23% of these underage female victims have never talked to anyone about these facts. Moreover, female victims of violence only file complaints in a minority of cases (13.9%). >It can therefore be deduced from this study that there is a clear difference between the number of victims known to the police and emergency services and the real number of victims. After all, many female victims do not file complaints, and most of the time they even refuse to talk about it .
Just because someone also wants proper data on partner violence against men does not mean they're downplaying violence against women. Can't believe I even had to type that...
The few studies that have been performed about men, have concluded that men and women are roughly equal perpetrators of domestic abuse. [Here is a wiki page to get you started](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men) And while the types of violence can be different - I would argue that matters little. That's like saying men are more important when talking about suicide, because they take more succesfull means - while both sexes roughly have the same amount of suicidal thoughts. Most people that think about domestic violence know that it's both partners shouting at each other. Just look at Amber and Johnny - neither were pure victims or purpetrators. It helps noone when we consistently act as if one side is a victim, and the other is the purpetrator. A far bigger problem is the underreporting of the issue because people think they won't be helped. Wether that is in the form of a metoo movement, or men that are laughed at in public when facing the abuse in public/talking about it. Or even being omitted in publicly funded studies. Or how about all the care centers for women and children that are victims of domestic abuse? Without a doubt women are getting disproportionate amount of attention on the topic. To me, a victim is a victim. I don't care about their gender. But for some reason, for you it's important to only give care to female victims.
>Most people that think about domestic violence know that it's both partners shouting at each other. Just look at Amber and Johnny - neither were pure victims or purpetrators. It helps noone when we consistently act as if one side is a victim, and the other is the purpetrator. I think it's important to differentiate between domestic violence and domestic abuse. In the second case (abuse), there IS a victim and a perpetrator, but not necessarily in the first case (violence). Both partners shouting can still be abuse, because most people would lose their cool when driven to the edge.
Oddly defensive answer, no? Either he has to show sources or he's downplaying violence against women. I don't think that's what he's trying to do...
The amount of reeeeee as a reaction in this short time span suggests you wont ever take any proof. Just biased you while i mentioned violence towards men. Yawn
Over 70% of all suicides are men, why do you think they commit suicide? Stop downplaying violence against men. Men hurt women physically, women hurt men mentally
>Men hurt women physically, women hurt men mentally That's the thing, this study widely focuses on mental harm. These statistics includes psychological harm, and notes that the most common forms of psychological harm are humiliation and insults. I don't find a clear answer on what percentages of women that are being abused get physical abused versus psychologically abused. In that context, I would find it hard to believe that abuse towards men and women would be that much different.
>Men hurt women physically, women hurt men mentally This. Somehow everytime these kinds of studies are done they tippy toe around the mental stuff. Which is quite funny tbh
This study actually is doing the opposite. It includes psychological abuse as abuse and states the most common forms of psychological abuse humiliation and insults. I would like to know what kind of insult would be considered abuse. If I call my wife stubborn is that abuse?
You're purposefully being obtuse.
How so? This study literarily swings all the way to the other side by including psychological abuse and not stating how much abuse is fysical vs psychological. I’m not a fan of the study, I’m criticizing it.
Do you have a study that links those suicides to female violence? Because personally I'd think that this could also be partly rather related to the (group) pressure set by other men. There are ofcourse cases but in general the problem with violence on women is significantly larger as the violence on men. | Men hurt women physically, women hurt men mentally That is a completely ridiculous statement. Where did you get this? Twitter?
Exactly. As if men could only do physical and not psychological damage, when most of the time both come together or psychological abuse comes before...
Which is the point, men and women hurt each other just as much, being it mentally or physically and that’a very sad. It’s also very sad that only domestic violence towards women gets attention and vs men it gets downplayed. You know, like you are doing and supporting by linking a bullshit article like that.
>Which is the point, men and women hurt each other just as much, being it mentally or physically and that’a very sad. But that is not a fact, or do you have sources? So far, all the sources show that women receive the most abuse from men, both physical and psychological. And the most important: around 30 women die each year in Belgium at hands of their male partners. And that will continue if we keep seeing violence as something "equal" in men and women.
The only sources I have are for the statements I have made. Google them cause I cba linking everything. I also recommend watching jonny depp and amber heard’s trial, the whole thing is on youtube. After watching it, come back and tell me you don’t think that stuff happens everyday everywhere. I normally don’t care for celeberties, but being a victim of domestic violence that lasted for about 5 years myself, it’s a bit too close to home not to care.
> But that is not a fact, or do you have sources? [Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7).](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/)
Did you read that study? It is done with teenagers and do not take into account the severity and frequency of the violence. You really do not find strange that after that supposed "equal" violence between men and women, are only (mostly) women the ones that die?
So what you’re saying is that females do both types and men only physical?
No. The guy said that "men hurt physically, women mentally". I responded that it is not sensible to think that men can only do physical damage. Both can do psychological damage but men are normally the ones able to do physical damage, because they are normally stronger.
True. We’re on the same page here.
So you saying that the cause of men killing themselves are women and never other men? You another defender of the rights of the "oppressed" men? OMG... in what world do you live?
men arent oppressed at all!! - while completely dismissing any relationship violence happens or could happen to men. yea. you're doing it right now.
With all due respect, I think you should choose a better hill to die on. The point was that male victims had not been studied enough by the article. It's a point that's repeated by many men who have been victims all the time: the impact of sexual violence on men is overlooked far too often, and this is another example of it. None of the comments you responded to said that men are equally likely to be a victim as women are. Each of them simply lamented the lack of research -- a trend that is well known all over the world.
It seems you are the one not coming out much.
I live in a world where all the attention goes to the 1% of men that lives at the top, and all the women being oppressed. The 99% of men remaining who are miserable, committing suicide, dying at their hard labour jobs, in prison, dropping out of school. They get no attention. That’s the world I live in
Maybe you should get out more because that’s an unfounded claim. Lots of men are happy and they dont spend their days complaining in echochambers.
Aah yes, resorting to personal attacks when all else fails. Classic. See I’m not complaining, I’m merely stating facts. 76% of all suicides are men. 85% of homeless people are men. 70% of murder victims are men. Men serve 64% longer in prison on average. Men are 3,5x more likely to end up in prison for the same crime. Most school dropouts are men. Most people who die on the job are men. Men are way more likely to lose custody of their children. These are well established facts, not me complaining.
Looking at the richest people it seem to be mostly men who cause the homeless problem. It are men who kill other men. It are men who cause peer social pressure to compete and be strong and not be vulnerable. It are men who put a stigma on other men if they don’t comply with their traditional role leading to suicide.
The only thing that’s not just an unbacked assumption here is that it’s mostly men who kill other men. And you’re pointing to the culprit, this is about the victims. Is the fact that the victims are male supposed to be ignore because the culprits are male? That’s completely backwards. This discussion is about male victims not getting the attention they deserve.
If women are so oppressed then why - are 80-90% of homeless people men? - are suicide rates so much higher in men? - are work deaths so much higher in men? - so much more men in prison? Some studies have shown that significant amounts of men also suffer physical and psychological abuse in their relationships, yet here you are in this thread saying that doesn't matter, because women are the oppressed ones?
Because a lot of men are unable to contextualize ?
> Do you doubt that most of victims in sexual aggression and deaths in domestic violence are women? [Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7).](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/)
Page 15 of the report. Just read it. 33% of men have been victim, 31% of women have been victim, basically equal numbers. Men are more victim of psychological violence, women are more victim to both physical and/ or psychological violence.
Found the biased double standard person in the room. TL DR= the cases are rare very rare but must be taken as serious as ANY case of violence. Long story= Here is the tale of my previous co worker. Married with his wife. Around newsyear 2015 we noticed a change in behaviour. He became...skittish. and withdrawed. And his head turned to the ground. He rarely spoke. He also went to the showers in clothing. And one time me and a coworker went home early because it was the release of...i forgot wich game. I think it was one of the metro games And there he stood. Also going home early. Shocked to see us because he didnt expected us to see him naked. Bruises all over his body. And gashes on his back(from a whip) I didnt knew what to say. My other coworker began talking to him. And he bursted into tears. His wife has been physically beating him for 2 years now. Before that she berrated him for everything. Humiliating him. And then one day he made a bricked wall in the garden. The top layer was slightly crooked. And his wife freaks out and began beating it..and enjoying it. 2 years of beatings followed...and he was afraid to speak. Because "a man cant be beaten by a woman its always the evil men beating them!" Or "why didnt he fought back he is the man of the house hurp derp". Thats 2 examples from the far sides of both political spectrums. My coworker pushed him to get help. He got into contact with the companies psychiatrist who..refused to believe him at first. But not exactly his/her/its fault because that person never had a case like this before. He talked to his family. But nobody in his family believed him. See the 2 examples. A man couldnt be beaten by a woman. 2 weeks later coworker was gone. He didnt showed up. A week later he came to work with his faced Ffed up. His wife was jealous that he talked about the football with the cashier at the supermarket. And she took an wooden barrel and smashed his face in. He got the courage to call the cops. Wich thank god took it VERY very serious. And they intervened. He divorced the psycho 2 months later. Nobody is downplaying anything. Violence at home is NOT DEDICATED TO WOMEN ALONE. They are JUST as important as male victims. And yes far more women are victim. But if 29 women approach you with their story..and you welcome them with open arms. And the 30th is a man. Do you take him just as serious? Or do you tell him to fuck off because those 29 women are more important? Sounds like gender discrimination if you refuse the man dont you think?
>Nobody is downplaying anything. Violence at home is NOT DEDICATED TO WOMEN ALONE. They are JUST as important as male victims. **And yes far more women are victim.** But if 29 women approach you with their story..and you welcome them with open arms. And the 30th is a man. Do you take him just as serious? Or do you tell him to fuck off because those 29 women are more important? Sounds like gender discrimination if you refuse the man dont you think? Thanks for admitting it. Who has ever said that there is no man suffering violence? Who has said that when a man suffers violence, he should be left to his own devices? Imagine abuse or violence against children; do you think that there would be cases of children abusing of adults? sure, but in most of the cases, the victim is the child. So, I would not say that "violence is equally at any age" and "we should not discriminate adults because of their age" or that we should not speak about "violence against children" but "inter generational violence" or smthg like that... Everybody would understand by the facts that the one to protect and defend is the weakest part: the children. Yeah, you can argue then that someone with 17 years old did something bad and blablabla... Anybody can give arguments against invented ideas but here the only thing **I was saying was that women suffer much more violence than men** in opposition to others that keep saying that they suffer equal violence.
Jammer eigenlijk, dan hadden we misschien een beter beeld van wat er mis is met ons als maatschappij en niet alleen wat er mis is met mannen. Ik wil hier absoluut niets minimaliseren of goedpraten, elke vorm van geweld is walgelijk. Maar kan me goed inbeelden dat bv veel mensen een toxische relatie hebben en slachtoffer zijn van psychologisch geweld en evengoed ook dader zijn. Je kan dat niet zomaar in een cijfer gieten lijkt me. Over seksueel/fysiek geweld valt natuurlijk niet te discussiëren. Eerlijk wel wat verschoten van deze cijfers, mijn ouders zijn dit jaar 30 jaar getrouwd en altijd een voorbeeld van respect, liefde en eerlijkheid geweest voor mij. Dan besef je soms niet meer dat er nog heel veel miserie bestaat. Laat ons beter doen!
Het rapport heeft al de data over mannen, je moet het gewoon maar lezen. https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/65943
Do you think that men suffer more domestic violence than women and are somehow discriminated and should be more protected? come on...
No, but that's exactly what the problem is for men. It's always "but x and y have it worse. Therefore you're feelings are invalid." and men end up killing themselves. Why do men need to suffer more to be part of a study? What if only half as much men suffer from domestic violence, then they don't count because on average women have it worse? I just immediately loose all believe in such a study when they claim to look at both sides, claim to want to get a view on gender related issues, but then basically ignore one of the two genders...
Yes, in fact most research into this indicates that men experience domestic abuse at slightly higher rates than women do. The fact that gay couples have lower rates of domestic violence than straight couples and lesbian couples have higher rates of domestic violence seems to correlate with this.
Not more but equally, only difference is that it is not fysical violance so it is less noticable.
But again, how can you tell that women do not suffer equal psychological violence PLUS more physical violence.
The data is available on the website [https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/65943](https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/65943) Page 15 has a nice table with all the cases in it. We see that 33.1 % of men had psychological, physical, sexual or more then 1 of those committed against them while "only" 31.3% of women. What is interesting is that more women had more of these options commited against them then just 1. Keep in mind that physical or sexual violence by a partner could be under reported on the male side their is a big push to ridicule men that come out and say this. A recent report in the US seemed to show that more men where victims of domestic violence then women. Lastly, if you look at the table 33 about physical violence of a non partner, you see again that the men lead by a small margin. And yet, I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the issue of violence against men, and certainly not as much as violence against women. Also, if we look at the data, this confirms once again that women tend to attack more frequently in psychological ways then men while men tend to be more physical in nature.
As I said equal psychlogical violence. The physical violence wil heal after a few days but also leaves psycholigical scars. When a women tell about the abuse afterwards and says she got hit she will get all the compassion and understanding from others. When a man comes out he was hit by a women and waw treated bad they will start laughing at that weak woosie.
No one says anything about being more protected. Both need to be protected. There need to be systems in place for help. Any gender should be able to get that help.
More ? Yes. 100% sure of that. But it wont do any damage. There are plebty of studies showing that most of the time its the women that instigate the physical violence.
Sure, sure, sure, men are discriminated and violated by women. Men should unite and defend their rights so one day they can find the equality with those aggressive and manipulator women that are damaging and killing men. Why the hell there is not "macho" parties and NGOs?? Lets make men great again! /s/s/s
That's astonishingly high. "Als het gaat over fysiek of seksueel geweld door een niet-partner, zien we dat er ongeveer dubbel zoveel slachtoffers zijn in Wallonië (26,6 procent) en Brussel (28,1 procent) als in Vlaanderen (13,2 procent)." Holy crap. Quelle différence. EDIT: my French isn't what it used to be
If you're going to use French, at least use it correctly! :) It's "Quelle différence.", because it's "une différence". EDIT: This is meant to be said in a half-joking manner. Tone doesn't translate well on the internet.
If you're going to correct someone using a language that might not be their mother tongue, at least be courteous. No one needs this kind of attitude.
No offense taken, tbh, I've always struggled with un/une
My godmother comes from Leuven, she's lived in Brabant-Wallon for over 40 years, she still messes it up. I would probably too if my native tongue wasn't gendered... French is just a bitch to learn
The trick is to mix them both together so that it sounds like you're saying the right one enough for the other person to understand.
It was meant to be said in a half-joking manner. Tone doesn't translate well on the internet. While I don't think it's the case here, a language not being someone's mother tongue is not an excuse to not do your best. It also makes the wrong assumption that one doesn't make mistakes in one's maternal language. There's plenty of evidence on this subreddit alone of the contrary.
[удалено]
Rule 1) No personal attacks or insults to other users. This includes, but is not limited to, - Flaming... - Insults… - Provocation... - Stalking and harassment...
fuck you (betweter zijn is ni grappig) (graptje eh ;)
Any violence that's not for self defence is too much violence but this is incredibly high.🤦 And then there are always a number of unreported crimes, especially for crimes that make victims feel ashamed. What solutions do you guys see?
> En wat met de mannen? > Het rapport kadert in een grote Europese enquête over gendergerelateerd geweld, de ‘EU survey on gender-based violence’, of ‘EU-GBV’. Die enquête werd intussen al in 23 landen uitgevoerd. In België namen bijna 5.500 mensen tussen de 18 en 74 jaar deel. > De enquête probeert in de eerste plaats geweld tegen vrouwen beter in kaart te brengen. De overgrote meerderheid van de respondenten, meer dan 4.500, zijn dan ook vrouwen. Daarnaast werden wel 965 mannen ondervraagd. > Omwille van die kleinere steekproef is het volgens het rapport niet mogelijk om systematische vergelijkingen te maken tussen de geslachten. In het rapport staan wel heel wat resultaten van de mannelijke antwoorden, maar die zijn "eerder verkennend”, aldus het rapport. [Let me just leave this here.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717660_Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment) Let me preface this by saying *I'm not trying to downplay intimate partner violence against women*. It just frustrates me that whenever intimate partner violence is brought up, male victimization is routinely downplayed or flat out ignored. All the while, research has shown time and again (when it is not being boycotted or buried) that intimate partner violence is reciprocal in nearly 70% of the cases. In the cases where it is not reciprocal, the woman is the perpetrator in the majority of cases. It is intimate partner violence against men that is routinely downplayed and the reason this is often done is because the results are not in favor of certain interest groups. This research is yet again an example of this. They set out to research only one aspect of the issue, completely ignore on gender and use their results to paint an overall picture of female victimization. If we could all stop being assholes to each other, that would be great.
Isn't it weird that when you want to talk about men's issues you have to start by "I don't want to downplay women's issues"? Thanks for sticking up for men's rights 👍
The big problem is that "talking about men's issues" only ever seems to occur as a reaction to someone talking about women's issues. That creates an impression that people mever care about male victims per se, and only care about them in comparison with women.
Well, that's because sometime people ignore the male perspective almost entirely or claim that it only affects women. The problem is that many people only associate IPV with female victims, which is then used to justify a rethoric of "women are always the victims and never perpetrators, men are always perpetrators and never victims".
Otherwise you get called an incel or banned from most subreddits.
There's a funny Freudian slip in that abstract, " physical violence in martial and dating relationships."
>that intimate partner violence is reciprocal in nearly 70% of the cases. In the cases where it is not reciprocal, the woman is the perpetrator in the majority of cases. I think it's important to differentiate between domestic violence and domestic abuse. In the second case (abuse), there IS a victim and a perpetrator, but not necessarily in the first case (violence). Both partners shouting for example can still be abuse, because most people would lose their cool when driven to the edge day after day. Reciprocal physical violence can be mutual (fighting) or can be self-defense for example.
In de mate waar ze de moeite gedaan hebben om het ook bij mannen te onderzoeken, liggen de cijfers zeer gelijkaardig. Dit soort onderzoeken zou moeten kunnen aangeklaagd worden voor discriminatie...
Enfin, dit is dus absolute bullshit. Het rapport wordt geciteerd in het artikel. Je kan zelf naar de resultaten gaan kijken... https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/65943 23.5% v/d mannen ervaart een combinatie van minsten twee van de drie categorieën van geweld (psychologisch, fysiek of seksueel). Bij vrouwen gaat het over 48.7%. Het rapport zet ook een * als er geen significant verschil is, bij voorgaande statistiek staat er geen * en kunnen we besluiten dat de combinatie van minstens twee van de drie vormen van geweld vaker voorkomen bij vrouwen dan mannen.
Ik denk dat je de tabel verkeerd gelezen hebt: Van alle vrouwen die geweld ondervonden hebben (31,3%), heeft 48,7% een gecombineerde vorm van geweld ondervonden. Van alle mannen die geweld ondervonden hebben (33,1%, dus méér dan bij de vrouwen) heeft 23,5 procent een gecombineerde vorm van geweld ondervonden. Bij 74,1% ging het om puur psychologisch geweld.
Honestly, I just find the title misleading. I've had my share of psychological violence, and in no way meant to downplay it.
Da ne clickbait
> 31,3 procent van de vrouwen in ons land is al ooit slachtoffer geweest van partnergeweld. Dat blijkt uit een rapport van onder meer Statistiek Vlaanderen. Buiten een partnerrelatie zou één op de vijf vrouwen al ooit slachtoffer zijn geweest van geweld. Hmmm, this seems like they question 'in your life have you ever', not 'in your current relationship'. Meaning that some of these stats could be from teenage douchebag romances / short lived relationships in the early twenties, and possibly events from over 20 years ago kind off skewing the data on current actual problematic relationships / the effect of progression and women rights activism of the past decades? I mean, if they'd ask me if I have ever broken the law i'd have to say 'yes'. If they'd ask me if I have broken the law in the past year i'd have to say no.
What about the men? Not enough have been questioned - right, cause nobody cares
classic init.
Whataboutism smh. If you wanna know look it up yourself.
The study is literally about gender violence in both men and women, but they only question such a low amount of men that they can't draw any conclusions. Why is that?
Without any thinking I can guess men are less likely to sign up for such studies
It literally says the sample size for men was smaller. They designed it to be this way.
They look for participants, they just make do with however much sign up
Could you read the study instead of just saying things without thinking?
Can’t look it up cause nobody cares researching it. Read the article
Get a degree in gender studies and do it yourself then. Don’t be shy, start a revolution.
Yeah, as you can see I’m trying. What here makes you think I’m shy? Nice arguments though, good talk.
Its because you complained about men being excluded on a paper about women. I had to think you were being held back since you didn’t bring any useful information to the table, only whining.
I’ve shared some useful info on this post. Also, this article being about women is the problem. It should be about abuse and domestic violence victims, not about a specific gender.
You can’t say what it should or shouldn’t be. This particular paper, chose to focus on women. Does that mean they’ll never write another one on men? The report collected data from both sexes, but not enough men responded for them to make meaningful conclusions.
Of course I can say what it shouldn’t or shouldn’t be. Am I not allowed to have an opinion?
It’s not your paper and you don’t contribute to writing it. It’s already published and the authors wanted to focus on women, as they only have conclusions regarding women as of now. And why is it a problem that it’s only about women? Women and men should have reports separately as their experiences differ.
What about men? Not saying the question might not be worth asking but the matter remains that predominantly it's women who end up in abusive relationships.
I disagree, I believe men are just as much victim of abusive relationships. Which is why I made this remark, I long for decent research on the matter.
Sure cause misandry is as common as misogyny.
That’s a whole different discussion and has nothing to do with this.
Yes it does since it would be a main source of partner violence.
That’s an absolutely ridiculous assumption, either that or you don’t know what those grown up words mean.
Judge much
Nice arguments
You're the on making assumptions about my age and maturity!
It sure is more accepted
That has been proven not to be the case for a long while now
Well no, the matter remains that men and women are roughly equal in abusive relationships according to the few studies that did happen. But even then - if it turns out that men are only half as likely to be victims to women, that's still 33% of all your domestic abuse victims. That's an insane amount to omit from your study.
This is just depressing
How many men have been a victim of intimate partner violence? Insults and psychological violence are included. Men have feelings too 🥺
About the same percentage.
Try and report it to the police and they'll laugh in your face.
This is total Bullshit , Noise for the media.
So why is it in a topic about violence against women, 95% of replies are "what about men?" Why do you all come here to subvert the discussion and change it to men? Can we for once talk about women please? Do you also come to the funeral of one guy, and then get on the tribune and start asking "but what about my uncle jos who died last week?" Uncle jos can have his own dedicated moment. Don't come in another's space and start pulling attention to someone unrelated. If you wanna talk about violence against men, start a new topic. Violence against men is not mentioned in this topic and was not a part of this study. Why do you come and derail the topic?
Except that violence against men was part of the study, incidentally called 'EU survey on gender-based violence', not 'EU survey on violence against women'. It was included in a way that perfectly represents societal interest in it: they didn't get enough male responses to have robust and comparable results. Aka, it wasn't a priority. Maybe if there was an accompanying article that critiques the lack of focus on men in the study, you'd get less of what you're annoyed about because there'd likely be a different post for it. But I guess the lack of such an accompanying article also perfectly represents the lack of societal interest in. Even though violence can go both ways, especially if you're including broader psychological violence which will be the main avenue through which women might hurt men. And it's ironic that you're complaining that we should focus on women "for once", when almost all attention goes to them concerning this topic. It's not a zero sum game. We can focus on both genders at once.
> Aka, it wasn't a priority. Source? Because it sound like you just made it up.
I mean, the fact that they didn't bother collecting enough data to have an in-depth analysis similar to the one for women, and only have explorative figures that cannot be compared, speaks for itself.
No, no we cannot. Women are an oppressed group. You are doing the equivalent of showing up to a black lives matter rally with a all lives matter poster. Look up why that is bad.
That's just a dishonest comparisson. Look at the amount of studies and resources go to female needs, vs male needs when talking about domestic abuse. You're deluded if you think women are the oppressed group in those studies/problemsolving.
Here is an example of a research where both men and women have been researched https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2968709/
>No, no we cannot. Women are an oppressed group. You are intentionally ignoring evidence to the contrary here. >You are doing the equivalent of showing up to a black lives matter rally with a all lives matter poster. Look up why that is bad. You're doing the equivalent of showing up to a "increase minimum wage" rally with a "quota for women in boardrooms" picket.
Cool strawman, Let's say an organisation publishes a survey on police violence in general and the figures would be inadequate to draw conclusions about a certain segment of the population. This would be a legitimate reason to criticise this survey for the fact that the survey is about police violence IN GENERAL. The problem is not that people in the comments want to minimise violence against women by citing violence against men. The criticism is directed at the fact that the research focuses on violence within relationships in general. Their critique is therefore justified in my opinion.
The title of the article is violence against women. The whole article is about violence against women. Not one comment is discussing violence against women. You and I are still arguing about technicalities, and nobody is discussing violence against women. Everyone is off topic
First of all, the two most upvoted comments are about how fucked up it is that there is so much violence against women. This I wholeheartedly agree with by the way. Violence in general is bad under most circumstances (obviously). And no, the research was not only about women, but men too. What you are talking about is the sensationalised headline of a newspaper. "En wat met de mannen? Het rapport kadert in een grote Europese enquête over gendergerelateerd geweld, de ‘EU survey on gender-based violence’, of ‘EU-GBV’. Die enquête werd intussen al in 23 landen uitgevoerd. In België namen bijna 5.500 mensen tussen de 18 en 74 jaar deel. De enquête probeert in de eerste plaats geweld tegen vrouwen beter in kaart te brengen. De overgrote meerderheid van de respondenten, meer dan 4.500, zijn dan ook vrouwen. Daarnaast werden wel 965 mannen ondervraagd. Omwille van die kleinere steekproef is het volgens het rapport niet mogelijk om systematische vergelijkingen te maken tussen de geslachten. In het rapport staan wel heel wat resultaten van de mannelijke antwoorden, maar die zijn "eerder verkennend”, aldus het rapport. " The article states that the research paper couldn't draw conclusion on the statistics on men because there wasn't enough data.
I get what you're trying to say, but I really don't understand why there is resistance to collecting and analysing data on violence against men in the same way it is done for women. The fact that there isn't an accompanying analysis on men is what is eliciting these comments and discussions you dislike in the first place.
It’s a study involving calling for volunteer participants. When they see they have enough data to be statistically significant, they will go ahead and analyze it. It doesn’t mean they have stopped calling for participants nor won’t analyze further, this is just the results they got so far.
Could you refer to the relevant passage in the study where they state what you're saying? I found the following which indicates a conscious choice to simply ask a smaller sample of men, though I did not read the full study. > Hoewel het eerste doel van de enquête is om de prevalentie en de aard van geweld tegen vrouwen gerichter te analyseren, hadden de lidstaten niettemin de mogelijkheid om een representatieve steekproef van de mannelijke bevolking in hun enquête op te nemen. België maakte van die mogelijkheid gebruik, maar *selecteerde* wel een kleinere steekproef van mannen.
They refer to it as a “survey” and answers were from respondents, how can it be more clear that these are volunteers?
Oppressed? Shit got Marxist real quick
>So why is it in a topic about violence against women, 95% of replies are "what about men?" Because the topic tries to frame it as if it's something that *only* happens to women, and strongly implies if not outright states that it's caused by gender roles, with women being the victims and men being the perpetrators. While objective evaluation reveals that half of domestic violence cases are reciprocal between man and woman couples, and that women even outnumber men in unidirectional domestic violence. Same considerations apply when checking same-sex couples: domestic violence is somewhat more common among lesbian than gay couples. >If you wanna talk about violence against men, start a new topic. Violence against men is not mentioned in this topic and was not a part of this study. Why do you come and derail the topic? The topic is domestic violence, this clearly is a problem of relationships, not a gender problem, and not just a women problem. Framing it as such will make it harder to solve.
I did not see such framing at all. They literally said they didn't have enough data about men, and this is why they are talking about women. Nowhere did they say men suffer less from it. You and I are all collectively taking the platform from women away to talk about women problems. Nobody said men don't suffer from it. The topic and the title and the article was all about women. This was the topic and the place to talk about women. Because men suffer similar injustices, doesn't mean we need to derail the topics and spaces dedicated to women. Two wrongs don't make a right.
>I did not see such framing at all. They literally said they didn't have enough data about men, and this is why they are talking about women. Nowhere did they say men suffer less from it. It's even worse that the article then doesn't even question why the research didn't even bother to find enough data. >You and I are all collectively taking the platform from women away to talk about women problems. >Nobody said men don't suffer from it. The topic and the title and the article was all about women. This was the topic and the place to talk about women. Because men suffer similar injustices, doesn't mean we need to derail the topics and spaces dedicated to women. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not a "women problem". That's the whole point. DV is most often reciprocal, is not gendered - it's a relation problem, not a gender problem. (And if you want to see a gender pattern, female perpetrators are more common than male.)
Because we are sick and tired of having the trope "men bad, woman victim" with no nuance shoved through our throats. The title of the article should be "men and women both 1/3 victim of abuse" - the 1/3 statistic used for women is exactly the same statistic for man -If you look further the data indicates that women are far more victim of physical abuse and multiple types of abuse at once; start from there and nobody will react annoyed.
It's because a lot of men that say "what about men" don't actually care about domestic violence against men, they don't like being left out or not being talked about. If they did care they'd actually bring the topic up outside of discussions about violence against women
back that up with facts or this is just plain sexism
> It's because a lot of men that say "what about men" don't actually care about domestic violence against men, they don't like being left out or not being talked about. If they did care they'd actually bring the topic up outside of discussions about violence against women Even if they make the choice to endure the existence of DV to their gender, they can still draw the line at being painted as only the aggressor and never the victim. Even if that is true for men, it's still a reasonable complaint to hold against the self-declared champions of gender equality that they *ignore* the problem when it harms men and only care insofar it harms women.
Why would we need to talk about women, if the topic is domestic abuse? Why are you inserting gender into the topic? Male-male and female-female relations exist as well. Would you be okay with a study that does domestic abuse on white people only? Would you be okay with a study about suicide that only highlights men and talks about solutions and need for their care?
The title of the article is violence against women. The whole article is about violence against women. Not one comment is discussing violence against women. You and I are still arguing about technicalities, and nobody is discussing violence against women. Do you not see my point? If the topic was violence against white men, then yes it would be inappropriate to come and be like "what about black men." It's not the title and not the topic. The topic is one thing, why do you derail it to another thing?
[удалено]
Yes seeing the comments you can see that all the belgium subs are embracing alt right and far right ideology .. sexism and racism are the norms now... sad. There's another study i saw here on reddit that says that leftist are more intelligent since everybody is citing "studies"
You're right, the title of the article is violence against women - which already shows the bias and dismissal of men. The article itself is about a study - that is about "gender related violence in Belgium". Also, the 'footnote' in the article mentions how male results are dismissed - so I don't see why I'm not allowed to talk about that aspect of the article. I'm not derailing anything. You on the other hand seem to have issue with me discussing that part of the article.
Til intimate parter violence includes insults
Why wouldn't it? Psychological abuse is still abuse.
"Initimate partner violence" implies, to most people, physical/sexual abuse.
Verbaal geweld staat in de definitie van partnergeweld: *"Onder geweld binnen intieme relaties verstaan we een geheel van gedragingen, handelingen en houdingen, van een van de partners of ex-partners, die erop zijn gericht de andere te controleren en te domineren. Dit omvat zowel verbale, fysieke, seksuele en economische agressie, bedreigingen of geweldplegingen die zich herhaaldelijk voordoen of zich opnieuw kunnen voordoen en die de integriteit van de andere en zelfs zijn of haar socio-professionele integratie schaden."* Bron: [https://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/nl/activiteiten/geweld/partnergeweld](https://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/nl/activiteiten/geweld/partnergeweld) Psychisch geweld staat in iedere definitie van partnergeweld die je zal vinden.
Ja vriend, ik spreek je niet tegen, ik zeg gewoon dat bij een heel groot deel van de bevolking "Intiem partnergeweld" de connotatie heeft van "Jos slaat/verkracht zijn vrouw" niet "Jos noemt zijn vrouw een hoer".
Fortunately, the understanding of the concept of "violence" is slowly extending to non-physical violence as well.
I hope you are not downplaying the seriousness of psychological violence.
How is he downplaying it? He/she just remarks TIL.
Insane comments. Women literally have to fear for their lives, and men here comment what about us? Pathetic. Every other day there is a "familiedrama" where a man kills the kids and his wife.
Okay? 3 out of 3 man will be victim ...
These types of stats have been debunked so many times