16 Dec 2014

Science Vs. Feminism - Intimate Partner Violence Worldwide

By Non Controversy: Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) or Domestic Violence (DV) refers to the physical, psychological and sexual maltreatment of a partner or spouse.
In this article, we will look at both social science and social history to gauge the nature and extent of such conflicts.
 
1. Facts and Statistics
The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK) lead by John Hamel, is the largest and most comprehensive IPV/DV research database available. The PASK team has reviewed over 2000 studies investigating partner violence in 89 countries. The data has been organized into tables published with free online access in 5 consecutive special issues of the Partner Abuse journal.[1][2][3][4][5]
The International Dating Violence Study (IDVS) lead by Murray Straus, sought to investigate partner conflicts among university students in 32 countries. The now well-known IDVS has been published with free online access in the Children and Youth Services Review journal.[6] The study is included in the PASK database but will be specifically mentioned where necessary.
The following are summarized lists of facts and statistics obtained from 8 PASK manuscripts.

List of Countries

1.1. Prevalence of Physical IPV/DV Victimization

PASK review #1: Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 1: Rates of male and female victimization.[7][8] 543 reports reviewed.
  • Overall, 24% of individuals were victimized by physical IPV/DV at least once in their lifetime
    • 23% of women and 19.3% of men victimized by physical IPV/DV
      • Higher victimization for male high school students
      • Higher lifetime victimization rates for women
      • Higher past-year victimization rates for men

1.2. Prevalence of Physical IPV/DV Perpetration

PASK review #2: Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 2: Rates of male and female perpetration.[9][10] 272 reports reviewed.
  • Overall, 25.3% of individuals have perpetrated physical IPV/DV
    • 28.3% of women and 21.6% of men perpetrated physical IPV/DV
  • Wide range in rates due to variety of samples and definitions
    • 2.4%–68.9% for women and 1.0%–61.6% for men

1.3. Prevalence of Emotional and Control IPV/DV

PASK review #5: Prevalence of partner abuse: Rates of emotional abuse and control.[11][12] 204 reports reviewed.
  • Overall, 80% of individuals have perpetrated psychological IPV/DV
    • Expressive abuse (in response to a provocation)
      • 40% of women and 32% of men reported expressive abuse
    • Coercive abuse (intended to monitor, control and/or threaten)
      • 41% of women and 43% of men reported coercive abuse
    • Stalking
      • 4.1%–8% of women and 0.5%–2% of men reported at least one lifetime incident of stalking
    • Sexual coercion
      • 4.5% of women and 0.2% of men reported sexual coercion

1.4. Bidirectional versus Unidirectional IPV/DV

PASK review #3: Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review.[13][14] 50 reports reviewed.
  • Large population and community samples
    • 57.9% was bidirectional IPV/DV
    • 28.3% was female-to-male and 13.8% was male-to-female unidirectional IPV/DV
  • School and college samples
    • 51.9% was bidirectional IPV/DV
    • 31.9% was female-to-male and 16.2% was male-to-female unidirectional IPV/DV
  • Female-oriented legal/clinical/treatment samples (non-military)
    • 72.3% was bidirectional IPV/DV
    • 14.4% was female-to-male and 13.3% was male-to-female unidirectional IPV/DV
  • Military and male treatment samples
    • 39% of was bidirectional IPV/DV
    • 17.3% was female-to-male and 43.4% was male-to-female unidirectional IPV/DV
  • Extent of bidirectionality in IPV/DV comparable between heterosexual and LGBT populations

1.5. IPV/DV Worldwide (85 Countries)

PASK review #14: Partner abuse worldwide.[15][16] 200 reports reviewed.
  • Physical IPV/DV (117 comparisons)
    • Higher rates of female perpetration/male victimization in 73 comparisons (62%)
    • Higher rates of physical injury for female victims
  • Psychological/control IPV/DV (54 comparisons)
    • Higher rates of female perpetration/male victimization in 36 comparisons (67%)
      • IDVS ‘dominance’ scores (32 nations)
        • Womens’ scores explained 47% of female IPV/DV
        • Mens’ scores not predictive of male IPV/DV
    • Human Development Index (HDI) not a predictor of either male or female IPV/DV
    • Gender Inequality Index (GII) not a predictor of either male or female IPV/DV
  • Sexual coercion (19 comparisons)
    • Higher rates of female perpetration/male victimization in 7 comparisons (37%)

1.6. Motivations for IPV/DV Perpetration

PASK review #10: Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration.[17][18] 75 reports reviewed.
  • Power/control motives (9 comparisons)
    • 3 reported no differences
    • 1 reported mixed findings
    • 1 reported women had higher power/control motives
    • 3 reported men had higher power/control motives (with only weak ‘gender effects’)
  • Anger/negative emotional motives
    • 2 reported women were more likely to be motivated by anger
    • None reported men were more likely
  • Self-defense motives (10 comparisons)
    • Endorsed only by a minority of men and women
      • 4 reported no differences
      • 5 reported women were more likely to report self-defense motives
      • 1 reported men were more likely
    • Non-perpetrator samples
      • Wide range in rates from 5%–35% for women and 0%–21% for men
        • Men highly reluctant to report self-defense motives
    • Perpetrator samples (who may have reasons to overestimate)
      • 65.4% of women and 50% of men

1.7. Risk Factors for IPV/DV

PASK review #4: A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence.[19][20] 228 reports reviewed.
  • Married couples at lower risk than dating couples
    • Higher risk for separated women
  • With few exceptions, risk factors the same for men and women
    • Depression more strongly associated with female IPV/DV
    • Alcohol use more strongly associated with female IPV/DV

1.8. Judicial Decision-Making in IPV/DV Cases

PASK review #12: Gender and racial/ethnic differences in criminal justice decision making in intimate partner violence cases.[21][22] 97 reports reviewed.
  • Women more likely than men to be cited rather than be taken into custody
  • Men more likely than women to be convicted
    • Men more likely than women to be given harsher sentences
  • Protective orders far more likely to be granted to women than to men
    • Even in cases involving minor partner conflicts
  • Mock juries more likely to assign blame responsibility to men than to women
    • Even when presented with identical scenarios
  • Dual arrests more likely in same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples
“Males were consistently treated more severely at every stage of the prosecution process, particularly regarding the decision to prosecute, even when controlling for other variables (e.g., the presence of physical injuries) and when examined under different conditions.”

2. The Feminization of Violence

The social science establishment conducted the first empirical studies of domestic violence in the 1970s. These initiatives were meant to assist administrative officials to better understand IPV/DV as a social issue and to implement effective treatment programs.
Unfortunately, their noble intentions were quickly hijacked by feminist activists, disguised as scholars, who re-framed IPV/DV as a “women’s issue” to exploit on the political stage. No other significant public or social issue has been subject to the kind of corruption seen in IPV/DV.

2.1. Does the “Patriarchy” Cause Violence?

At the heart of this corruption, “activist-researchers” have extended the feminist ‘patriarchal dominance’ theory to IPV/DV as the clearest example of how men supposedly have ‘power’ over women in society. Through this lens, violence is seen as a means by which men affirm this ‘power’ over women, while the ‘power’-less women only use violence in response to men’s violence or as a result of involuntary and uncontrollable factors.
Surely, if such a cross-sex ‘power relation’ does exist, it will show up consistently in comparisons of motivations between the sexes.
  • Power/control motives compared reveal no meaningful ‘gender effects’. Interestingly, women, but not men, were motivated by anger and negative emotions (1.6). No sex-related differences were found in reports of expressive abuse and coercive abuse (1.3). However, in the IDVS, women’s ‘dominance’ scores in 32 nations predicted their violence but men’s scores did not. Neither the Human Development Index nor the Gender Inequality Index of nations predicted male or female IPV/DV (1.5).
  • Self-defense motives were endorsed only by a minority of both men and women. Both sexes cited self-defense at similar rates. Importantly, men are found to be highly reluctant to report self-defense motives, while women often try to pass off their own violence as that by their victims (1.6).
There is no evidence here for internal factors specific to men or external factors specific to women. Even large-scale cross-national comparisons fail to find a ‘patriarchal’ ‘power relation’ underlying violence among couples. Ultimately, both men and women had similar motivations for engaging in conflicts with their partners — primarily to get back at a partner for emotionally hurting them, because of stress, jealousy, anger or other feelings that they could not communicate and to get their partner’s attention.
The ‘patriarchal dominance’ theory is not just fallacious — it’s junk science. The complete lack of evidence for the feminist model is not unexpected, considering that the feminist concept of ‘power’ is never properly explained in feminist theory and is thoroughly bogus — but the fatal blow to the feminist model is the irrefutable fact that most IPV/DV is actually perpetrated by women.

2.2. Are Women “Inherently Non-Violent”?

PASK’s reviews not only nullify feminist theory but reverses it: women are as aggressive as men (or more aggressive) towards their spouses or partners (1.2).
Simple comparisons of IPV/DV prevalence find similar overall rates for both men and women, but this is misleading! When we take into account the directionality of violence — i.e. whether it’s mutual or not — we find that most (about two-thirds) non-mutual violence is perpetrated by women (1.4). If we look at the use of violence by one sex against the other as a proportion of all the violence they engage in, only a small fraction of violent acts by men are against women but women are violent towards men at twice the rate than they are to other women. If activists insist that IPV/DV is a ‘gender’ issue, then yes, IPV/DV is indeed ‘gendered’ because it’s the most common mode of violence by women, but the least common by men.
To get around these facts, it is claimed that women are “inherently non-violent” followed by active denial, trivialization and even justification of their use of violence in a variety of morally-reprehensible ways.. This is, of course, the other extreme of the ‘patriarchal dominance’ coin and can be found in the form of ridiculous inventions like “delayed self-defense” or “diminished responsibility”.
Presented below is a historical overview of women’s use of violence in domestic and intimate environments.
Violence Against Men
Women’s violence against their husbands is by no means a recent discovery in society. Many legal, clerical and other written records of “husband-beating” from the 15th–19th centuries can be found in France, England and neighbouring parts of Europe.[23][24][25][26][27] These beaten men were associated with the term “skimmington”, derived from the skimming ladle used by women for making cheese and depicted as a weapon to assault husbands with. The skimmingtons were paraded facing backwards on a donkey or horse in ‘charivari’ processions which involved a lot of noise, mockery and public humiliation. Researcher Malcolm George has published comprehensive reviews of the “riding skimmington”, revealing how common incidents of husband-beating were.[28]
A wide variety of other historical artifacts including plates, illustrations and caricatures depicting skimmington scenes can be found in various publications from these periods, some of which originate from the 12th century.[29][30] The Great House of Montacute, built in the late 16th century in Somerset, has an original plaster facade in the Great Hall depicting a woman hitting her husband and then a procession with the husband ‘riding’.[31] The image of the victimized “skimmington” husband survived as dark humour in cartoons, postcards and stand-up comics[32] well after the custom was declared unlawful in the late 19th century.[33]
→ Incidents of women’s violence against men were commonly featured in 19th–20th century newspapers, legal documents and other publications. Many of these cases involved severe acts of violence from the use of weapons ranging from axes, hammers, hatchets, knives, leashes, razors, shovels, umbrellas and whips, to guns and chemicals such as poison and acid. The use of acid is a cruel mode of violence. → The victims of these “acid queens” were not only disfigured horribly, but often sustained permanent damage to other parts of their body, especially their eyes, resulting in loss of eyesight. These also feature cases involving torture. When only severe IPV/DV is considered, women are overwhelmingly the perpetrators with a three-fold or higher rate of perpetration.[34][35][36]
However, we’ve restricted our inquiry so far to mostly non-lethal incidents.
The killing of husbands was commonplace across cultures since the ancient times. There existed laws specifically designed to put a stop to these crimes. An example of this is the 2000-year-old Hindoo Sati or Suttee, where, upon the death of the husband, the widow had to set herself on fire to join him in the afterlife. Feminist lore portrays this as an example of “oppressive male violence” but in reality, → Sati was introduced as a last resort by the Brahmins — the pious upper class scholars of India — to combat the wide-spread poisoning of men where even the smallest quarrel between a married couple cost the husband his life. The use of poison is the female signature style of killing. These murders are fully planned often weeks, even months, in advance. The Chambers’s Journal of Popular Literature, Science and Arts[37] offers us the following insight into the poisoning of husbands:
“The first dose, administered in wine or tea or some other liquid by the flattering traitress, produced but a scarcely noticeable effect; the husband became a little out of sorts, felt weak and languid, so little indisposed that he would scarce call in a medical man; but if he did, it was only to be told it was a mere nothing, which a draught or two would put to rights. After the second dose of poison, this weakness and languor became more pronounced, and the doctor would begin to think that, after all, the patient required to be put on a course of diet and rest. The beautiful Medea who expressed so ranch anxiety for her husband’s indisposition would scarcely be an object of suspicion, and perhaps would prepare her husband’s food, as prescribed by the doctor, with her own fair hands. In this way the third drop would be administered, and would prostrate even the most vigorous man. The doctor would be completely puzzled to see that the apparently simple ailment did not surrender to his drugs, and while he would be still in the dark as to its nature, other doses would be given, until at length death would claim the victim for his own.
Then, when too late, the dreadful word “poison” would be uttered; upon which, of course, to save her fair fame, the wife would demand a postmortem examination. Result, nothing; except that the woman was able to pose as a slandered innocent, and then it would be remembered that her husband died without either pain, inflammation, fever, or spasms. If, after this, the woman within a year or two formed a new connection, nobody could blame her; for, everything considered, it would be a sore trial for her to continue to bear the name of a man whose relatives had accused her of poisoning him.”
The poisoning of husbands became a female industry. → Entire ‘sisterhoods’ specialized in supplying wives with poison to kill their husbands with. The most famous of these is perhaps the ‘Roman Sisterhood of Death’ who operated in the early 1600s. The women who lead this twisted club confessed to having supplied poison for over 700 murders.
Between 16th–19th century in England, there was a three-fold higher murder rate of husbands by wives. Here too, wives were found committing planned murders whilst men often killed in a drunken rage.[38][39] In the 20th century, newspapers commonly featured articles such as → “Why Are So Many Wives Killing Their Husbands?” (1911) and → “Chicago’s Reign of Terror …” (1913). Besides poisoning, there are many cases here of women who used knives, pistols, various blunt objects to strike fatal blows to the head and of course, → murder by proxy, in which mothers coaxed their own children to do the killing. At the extremes of mariticide, there are the “black widows” — women who murder two or more husbands. → These serial killers can be found across cultures and throughout history. There are also → cases involving cannibalism.
In recent years, it has also become evident that IPV/DV-related suicides are disproportionately high among men. When all relevant data is properly taken into account, IPV/DV-related deaths continue to be higher for men even in the 21st century.[40] PASK’s seminal reviews have extended what has already been evident in recorded history.
Violence Against Women
Violence by women against other women is the most overlooked category in aggression research. Women who identify themselves as homosexual make up only 2% of the population[41] and so it was assumed that IPV/DV was not a significant problem among them. However, in the last decade, social scientists who have directed their efforts towards LGBT populations have found that homosexual couples actually have higher rates of IPV/DV compared to heterosexual couples. A full review of the literature can be found in PASK (#6): Partner abuse in ethnic minority and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender populations.[42][43] Among lesbian couples, the incidence of both physical and sexual partner violence is significantly higher compared to their male counterparts.[44]
Restricting our inquiry to this small demographic can be very misleading. Female-perpetrated violence, especially female–female violence, extends into the larger domestic environment.
For example, in early modern England, household staff were commonly subject to bullying and physical abuse by their mistresses. The victims of these “ladies of the house” were usually young girls who were employed as maids or domestic servants.[45][46] There are some well-known cases of these incidents, some of which involved physical and sexual torture which often escalated to murder. → One such case is that of Elizabeth Branch and her daughter Mary, who mercilessly tortured and murdered teenage servant girls.
Most female–female aggression is relational aggression (also called “social aggression”) which involves attacking their target’s physical appearance, spreading rumours about her sexual infidelity and social exclusion.[47][48][49][50] This form of aggression can and do sometimes escalate into very violent crimes. For example, → female–female acid attacks are a means to “destroy the beauty” of one’s rivals.
Violence by proxy also plays a key role in female aggression. By accusing their targets of violating social conduct, women insist others to take action. In most cases, their proxies are husbands or other male relatives and members of the community. → At other times, they are daughters, other female relatives or acquaintances. Extreme examples of this can be found in the “Witch-Hunts” of the Middle Ages. Alleged witches were accused of maleficia mainly by other women.[51][52][53][54] The accusers claimed to having been “bewitched” by the accused.[55] The first Englishwoman tried under the Elizabethan statute was Elizabeth Lowys who was accused mainly by women.[56] The last witch to stand trial was Jane Wenham who was accused by another woman and herself implicated three other women.[57][58] It would seem that roasting one’s rivals at the stake was a popular strategy of the time and probably the real reason why it was mainly women who were tried for witchcraft.
Suffice it to say, female–female violence is a significant part of all violence perpetrated against women.
Violence Against Children
The elephant in the room here is the other signature female offense: women are the predominant perpetrators in nearly all known cases of extreme cruelty towards their own children, step-children and other children in their care.
You’ll find several hundreds of historical cases tagged under → ‘Violence by Women’. While most cases listed are from the 18th–20th centuries, there are notable incidents from much older periods in history. In the United States, following the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1988, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has been publishing Child Maltreatment reports on a yearly basis. → DHHS data collected from 1999–2012 show that 70.1% of the children abused by one parent, were abused by their mothers and 69.8% of children killed by one parent, were killed by their mothers. Furthermore, mothers have been the predominant abusers and killers of children throughout this entire period of 14 years.
The maltreatment of children, being a very important topic, requires its own dedicated article and will be examined in greater detail in the near future.
It’s quite clear from historical records that, even in extreme cases, women’s violence were premeditated and not the result of involuntary and uncontrollable factors. It is very foolish to claim that these are impoverished, desperate or “oppressed” women striking out because the majority of cases sampled here involve women of status or position in society.

2.3. How Feminists Manufacture IPV/DV Hysteria

In spite of all this, IPV/DV remains a platform frequently exploited by women’s organizations and advocacy groups. Activist-researchers disguise the nature and extent of IPV/DV through a pattern of astonishing academic dishonesty and fraud. The bogus statistics are then disseminated through the media in order to create a climate of fear and panic.
Here are the strategies used by feminists to manufacture public hysteria to fuel their self-serving agendas.
Distortion
  • Obtain data only on male–female violence. Female participants are asked about attacks by their male partners but not about their own violence and when male participants are present, they are asked about their own violence but not whether they had been attacked by their female partners.
    • Statistics Canada conducted a National Violence Against Women survey in 1995. The study deliberately omitted asking questions about perpetration by the female participants against their partners.[59]
    • The Department of Justice (DoJ) in the United States attempted to use the same strategy for their National Violence Against Women survey in 2000.[60] The Center for Disease Control (CDC) intervened and added a sample of men to the study.
    • The World Health Organization (WHO) published results from an international survey on domestic violence in 2005. This commonly cited study completely ignores female–perpetrated aggression.[61]
  • Cite only studies that show male perpetration. Feminist researchers selectively cite only those studies, such as the aforementioned examples, that claim male predominance. They often take advantage of statistics from crime surveys because men are far less likely to report an assault by a woman as a crime.[62]
    • The U.S DoJ almost always cites only the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).[63] An attempt was made to correct this bias, but it was only partially successful.[64] More than a decade later, the DoJ continues to engage in this fraud, ignoring even the more accurate studies sponsored by the DoJ itself.
    • In the United Kingdom, the British Crime Survey (BCS) is used to claim male predominance in a variety of domestic crimes that are actually perpetrated predominantly by women or at equal rates by both sexes. In the last decade, however, men have been less reluctant in reporting violence by their female partners in BCS measures.
  • Misrepresent findings from prior research. Older research is cited as supporting a particular argument even when they do not. Some activist-researchers go as far as to misrepresent their own work in service of their ideological commitment. Faulty generalizations are drawn using reports from self-selected groups and from single/isolated incidents of violence.
    • The WHO’s widely publicized 2002 world report on violence claims that, “Where violence by women occurs, it is more likely to be in the form of self-defense”.[65] None of the 3 studies cited support this statement. Instead, they show the opposite:
      • Study #32 shows that two-thirds of female perpetrated IPV/DV was not in self-defense.[66]
      • Study #37 found that only 7% of women reported self-defense motives.[67]
      • Study #38 is a review paper which cites #32 and #37, neither of which supports the claim.[68]
    • Researcher Poco Kernsmith claims that, “Males and females were found to differ in their motivations for using violence in relationships” in her previous research[69] but her study actually shows the opposite of what she states as her finding.
    • Women’s organizations frequently collect reports from self-selected groups, such as female residents in abuse shelters, and then present their results as indicative of violence against women in the entire community.
  • Use of vague and distorted definitions. Using buzzwords like “battering” to refer to both physical and non-physical conflict, reports of verbal disagreements are mixed in to inflate the numbers. This is then presented in the results as indicative of physical violence. In some studies, activist-researchers have attempted to create false distinctions classifying male—female aggression as a unique form of very serious violence dubbed “intimate terrorism”.
    • Michael Johnson and Janel Leone investigated the prevalence of “intimate terrorists” among the participants in the U.S National Violence Against Women survey in 2000. They used only the data on male perpetrators to guarantee that there would be no female intimate terrorists.[70] Furthermore, various population studies have found that “intimate terrorism” is no more commonly perpetrated by men than it is by women.[71][72][73]
    • In the previously mentioned Kernsmith study, women had higher scores on a factor labelled “striking back” with which the author goes on to claim, “… female violence may be more related to maintaining personal liberty in a relationship than gaining power”.[74] However, this factor contains only one question on self-defense, whereas all the other questions are about anger and coercion. The author deliberately misleads the reader by naming the factor after self-defense motives.
Using these methods of distortion, it will be concluded that the results support feminist beliefs when they clearly do not, creating “evidence by citation” or the “woozle effect”.[75] As sociologist Straus explains, “A woozle effect occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence mislead us into thinking there is evidence. But because these are citations of an article in a scientific journal and a respected international organization, readers of the subsequent article will accept it as a fact. Thus, fiction is converted into scientific evidence that will be cited over and over.”[76]
Of course, the proper social science establishment put up resistance.[77][78] Some researchers, like psychologist Martin Fiebert, have compiled an annotated bibliography of all studies comparing male and female IPV/DV — instead of a cherry-picked subset — showing sex-symmetry or female predominance.[79]
Suppression
When the feminist community realized that they were playing a losing game, they first sought to censor studies published by genuine investigators. When this wasn’t effective enough, they went after the researchers.
Will post my final thoughts when the remaining parts of this post are published.
For the most part, the conclusions to be drawn should be self-evident from the data presented here.

References

  1. Hamel J et al. (2012) The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Part 1. Partner Abuse, 3(2):131–139. ↲
  2. Hamel J et al. (2012) The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Part 2. Partner Abuse, 3(3):283–285. ↲
  3. Hamel J et al. (2012) The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Part 3. Partner Abuse, 3(4):403–405. ↲
  4. Hamel J et al. (2013) The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Part 4. Partner Abuse, 4(1):3–5. ↲
  5. Hamel J et al. (2013) The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Part 5. Partner Abuse, 4(2):171–174. ↲
  6. Straus MA. (2008) Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30:252–275. ↲
  7. Desmarais SL et al. (2012) Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships, Part 1: Rates of Male and Female Victimization. Partner Abuse, 3(2):140-169. ↲
  8. Desmarais SL et al. (2012) [Tables & summary] Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 1: Rates of male and female victimization. Partner Abuse, 3(2):1-6. ↲
  9. Desmarais SL et al. (2012) Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, part 2: Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner Abuse, 3(2):170–198. ↲
  10. Desmarais SL et al. (2012) [Tables & summary] Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, part 2: Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner Abuse, 3(2):1–10. ↲
  11. Carney MM & Barner JR. (2012) Prevalence of partner abuse: Rates of emotional abuse and control. Partner Abuse, 3(3):286–335. ↲
  12. Carney MM & Barner JR. (2012) [Tables & summary] Prevalence of partner abuse: Rates of emotional abuse and control. Partner Abuse, 3(3):1–48. ↲
  13. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J et al. (2012) Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(2):199–230. ↲
  14. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J et al. (2012) [Tables & summary] Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(2):1–2. ↲
  15. Esquivel-Santoveña EE et al. (2013) Partner abuse worldwide. Partner Abuse, 4(1):6–75. ↲
  16. Esquivel-Santoveña EE et al. (2013) [Tables and summary] Partner abuse worldwide. Partner Abuse, 4(1):1–8. ↲
  17. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J et al. (2012) Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(4):429–468. ↲
  18. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J et al. (2012) [Tables & summary] Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(4):1–33. ↲
  19. Capaldi D et al. (2012) A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2):231–280. ↲
  20. Capaldi D et al. (2012) [Tables & summary] A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2):1–27. ↲
  21. Shernock S & Russell B. (2012) Gender and racial/ethnic differences in criminal justice decision making in intimate partner violence cases. Partner Abuse, 3(4):501–530. ↲
  22. Shernock S & Russell B. (2012) [Tables & summary] Gender and racial/ethnic differences in criminal justice decision making in intimate partner violence cases. Partner Abuse, 3(4):1–10. ↲
  23. Ingram M. (1984) Ridings, rough music and the “reform of popular culture” in early modern England. Past and Present, 105:79–11. ↲
  24. Bates F. (1981) A plea for the battered husband. Family Law, 11:92–94. ↲
  25. Cockburn JS. (1977) Crime in England 1550–1800, pp. 49–71. London: Meuthen. ↲
  26. Davis NZ (1971). The reasons of misrule: Youth groups and charivaris in sixteenth century France. Past and Present, 50:41–75. ↲
  27. Barrett CRB. (1895) Riding Skimmington and Riding the Stang. Journal of the British Archeological Association, 1:58–68. ↲
  28. George MJ. (2002) Skimmington Revisited. Journal of Men’s Studies, 10(2):111–127. ↲
  29. George MJ, 2002. ↲
  30. Ingram M, 1984. ↲
  31. Rogers M. (1991) Montacute House (Somerset). The National Trust, UK. ↲
  32. Saenger G. (1963) “Male and female relationships in American comic strips.” In White DM & Abel R (Eds.) The funnies, an American idiom, pp. 219–231. Illinois: The Free Press. ↲
  33. Firor RA. (1968) Folkways in Thomas Hardy. New York: Russell and Russell. ↲
  34. Felson RB & Cares AC. (2005) Gender and the seriousness of assaults on intimate partners and other victims. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5):1182–1195. ↲
  35. Magdol L et al. (1997) Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21 year olds: Bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65:68–78. ↲
  36. Stets JE & Straus MA. (1989) “Gender differences in reporting of marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences.” In Straus MA & Gelles R (Eds.) Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families, pp. 151–166. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. ↲
  37. Chambers W & Chambers R. (1890) Chambers’s Journal of Popular Literature, Science and Arts, pp. 236–238. Harvard University. ↲
  38. Cockburn JS, 1977, p. 57. ↲
  39. Beattie JM. (1975) The criminality of women in eighteenth century England. Journal of Social History, 8:80–116. ↲
  40. Davis RL. (2010) Domestic violence-related deaths. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 2(2):44–52. ↲
  41. Ward BW et al. (2014) Sexual orientation and health among U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey 2013. Division of Health Interview Statistics, National Health Statistics Reports, 77. ↲
  42. West CM. (2012) Partner abuse in ethnic minority and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender populations. Partner Abuse, 3(3):336–357. ↲
  43. West CM. (2012) [Tables & summary] Partner abuse in ethnic minority and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender populations. Partner Abuse, 3(3):1–8. ↲
  44. Girshick LB. (2002) Woman-to-Woman Sexual Violence: Does She Call It Rape? Northeastern. ↲
  45. Cockburn JS, 1977, p. 57. ↲
  46. Beattie JM, 1975. ↲
  47. Österman K, et al. (1998) Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 24:1–8. ↲
  48. Björkqvist K. (1994) Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: a review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30:177–188. ↲
  49. Björkqvist K, et al. (1992) Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18:117–127. ↲
  50. Lagerspetz KMJ, et al. (1988) Is indirect aggression typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14:403–414. ↲
  51. van Creveld M. (2013) The Privileged Sex, Chapter 1.3: “The Great Witch Hunt.” CreateSpace Publishing. ↲
  52. MacFarlane A. (2002) Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England, p. 160. New York: Routledge. ↲
  53. Willis D. (1995) Malevolent Nurture: Witch-Hunting and Maternal Power in Early Modern England, pp. 13, 97. Cornell University Press. ↲
  54. de Waardt H. (1991) “At bottom a family affair: Feuds and witchcraft in Nijkerk in 1550.” In Gijswijt-Hofstra M & Frijhoff W (Eds.) Witchcraft in the Netherlands: From the fourteenth to the twentieth century, p. 137. Universitaire Pers Rotterdam. ↲
  55. Geis G. (1992) “Lord Hale, witches and rape.” In Levack BD (Ed.) Witchcraft in England, pp. 54–57. New York: Garland. ↲
  56. Young AR. (1992) “Elizabeth Lowys: Witch and social victim, 1564.” In Levack BD (Ed.) Witchcraft in England, pp. 79-86. New York: Garland ↲
  57. Bostridge I. (1997) Witchcraft and its Transformations c. 1650–1750, pp. 132–134. Oxford University Press. ↲
  58. Guskin PJ. (1992) “The context of Witchcraft: The case of Jane Wenham.” In Levack BD (Ed.) Witchcraft in England, pp. 94-117. New York: Garland. ↲
  59. Johnson H & Sacco VF. (1995) Researching violence against women: Statistics Canada’s national survey. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 281–304. ↲
  60. Tjaden P & Thoennes N. (2000) Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the national violence against women survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, NCJ 183781. ↲
  61. Garcia-Moreno C, et al. (2005) WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women. World Health Organization. ↲
  62. Straus MA & Gelles RJ. (1992) How violent are American families? In Straus MA & Gelles R (Eds.) Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families, pp. 95–108. Transaction Publishers. ↲
  63. Durose MR, et al. (2005) Family violence statistics including statistics on strangers and acquaintances. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 207846. ↲
  64. Straus MA. (1999) The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In Arriaga X & Oskamp S (Eds.) Violence in Intimate Relationships, pp. 17–44. California: Sage. ↲
  65. Krug EG, et al. (2002) World Report on Violence and Health. World Health Organization. ↲
  66. Saunders DG. (1986) When battered women use violence: Husband-abuse or self~defense? Violence and Victims, 1(1):47–60. ↲
  67. DeKeseredy WS, et al. (1997) The meanings and motives for women’s use of violence in Canadian college dating relationships: Results from a National Survey. Sociological Spectrum, 17:199–222. ↲
  68. Johnson MP & Ferraro KJ. (2000) Research on domestic violence in the 1990’s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4):948–963. ↲
  69. Kernsmith P. (2005) Exerting power or striking back: A gendered comparison of motivations for domestic violence perpetration. Victims and Violence, 20(2):173–185. ↲
  70. Johnson MP & Leone JM. (2005) The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence – findings from the national violence against women survey. Journal Of Family Issues, 26(3), 322–349. ↲
  71. Hines DA & Douglas EM. (2010) Intimate terrorism by women towards men: Does it exist? Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 2(3):36–56. ↲
  72. Laroche D. (2005) Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic violence — Situational couple violence and intimate terrorism in Canada in 1999. Quebec: Institut de la statistique du Quebec. ↲
  73. Ehrensaft MK et al. (2004) Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: Men’s and women’s participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(2):258–271. ↲
  74. Kernsmith P, 2005. ↲
  75. Gelles 1980 ↲
  76. Straus MA. (2007) Processes explaining the concealment and distortion of evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 13:227–232. ↲
  77. Bates F, 1981. ↲
  78. Steinmetz SK. (1977-78) The Battered Husband Syndrome. Victimology, 2:499–509. ↲
  79. Fiebert MS. (2014) References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An updated annotated bibliography. Sexuality & Culture, 18(2):405–467. ↲

    Source
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)