Battered Statistics
Batter All Victims
Author: Richard L. Davis © 2003

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." .... F. Scott Fitzgerald

The author and educator Sidney Sugarman writes, "Teach the young people how to think, not what to think." It is not the intent of this paper to have the readers believe what the author believes. The intent is to provide the readers with research that will allow the readers to reach their own conclusions. Too often, too many of us simply parrot conclusions reached by others.

If you are not reading the electronic version of this document you should. You may go to www.rhiannon3.net/cs for an interactive version. That version provides you with the ability to go directly online to view much of the research.

Following in the footsteps of Sugarman, this author expects that any reasonable and prudent person must read unbiased research before deciding what is right and what is wrong concerning domestic violence public policy. To truly understand domestic violence demands the ability to suspend final judgment until a conclusion is reached based on valid, unbiased and reliable information.

The Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Domestic Violence website is typical of most public policy and private websites http://www.state.ma.us/gcdv/dv.htm. It states that, "While domestic violence occurs in all types of relationships it is overwhelmingly a problem of violence perpetrated by men against women." In an attempt to document that to be true, the commission presents a summary of statewide sources and its vision of what it claims is relevant data concerning domestic violence http://www.state.ma.us/ccj/download/dvdata.pdf.

The website claims that, "This report provides a summary of data sources in Massachusetts that provides significant information on the nature and scope of domestic violence," and "This summary is intended to assist program planners, policy analysts, researchers, the media, and others who need to locate data sources that might be able to address their questions about domestic violence." And, "The data sources listed in this report provide a wealth of information on a variety of topics relating to domestic violence." Emphasis has been added by this author and data will demonstrate that the commission excludes as much information as it includes.

The summary notes that 21% of female high school students in 12th grade reported being hurt physically or sexually by a date. The report excludes information from that same source that 28% of high school students who report being hurt physically or sexually by a date are male. The summary reports that 1,341 female victims of violence related weapon injuries and that 21% were inflicted by an intimate partner. Information concerning male victims is at the very same source and the summary again excludes the number of male victims. The reader might ask for what purpose does this summary purposely exclude any and all information concerning a single male victim?

The summary notes that, "Accurate, consistent and complete [emphasis added] information on the nature and scope of domestic violence is crucial to targeting resources, refining policies, and evaluating programs." However, this report similar to the vast majority of domestic violence website's, has as its goal the exclusion of any information that men can be victims and women offenders. While the summary is neither accurate nor complete, it is consistent. The only mention of males in the summary is the fact that in Massachusetts 2,000 men are placed in Batterer Intervention Programs a year. This author asks that the reader conclude what the goal of this commission is.

This summary, similar to the majority of domestic violence websites conceals rather than reveals the truth. The commission includes and excludes information when and where it suits their goal. The commission believes and also wants the public to believe that domestic violence is overwhelmingly a problem of violence perpetrated by men against women. The information on their website is presented to purposefully mislead and they do not seem to understand how it impedes not ensures proper progress.

The Truth is Under Lock and Key

The term fundamental feminism is used to distinguish that movement from progressive feminism. Progressive feminists favor the Equal Rights Amendment http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm; equal pay for equal work, equal educational opportunities, equity in behavior between the genders, etc.

In contrast to progressive feminists, fundamental feminists do not seek gender equity. Their goal is gender superiority and authority. There is no question that women and men now live in a more gender equitable world than the one this author was born into. As a father of three daughters and two sons this author expects and demands equity of behavior and equal opportunity for all five of his children. Most of the credit for this contemporary view of gender equity must be given to progressive feminism.

Fundamental feminists loathe whoever they do not have the power to control. At a conference in 1979 they screamed and howled at Murray Straus, a researcher and leading authority concerning domestic violence http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ . Straus, until that moment, was their hero because of his innovative studies concerning domestic violence.

They shrieked so loudly that Straus was forced to end his presentation. They refused to listen simply because Straus dared suggest something no reasonable and prudent person will deny. All that Straus proffered was that men could be victimized and women can be as violent as men in relationships.

In that instant Straus went from hero to zero. In that moment the future of fundamental feminism concerning civility and freedom of speech, presented itself. The gauntlet laid down at that conference by fundamental feminism is, if you are not one hundred percent for them, you must be one hundred percent against them. They leave no middle ground.

In fact, Murray Straus and his colleagues, Susanne Steinmetz and Richard Gilles, were threatened with physical harm and then excommunicated as feminists by fundamental feminism. Their excommunication by fundamental feminists does not mean that they do not continue to believe in equal pay for equal work, equal educational opportunities, or equity in behavior between the genders.

A Good Idea Gone Bad

In the November 17, 2002 issue of the New York Times is an article titled, "Fierce Entanglements" http://www.webprowire.com/summaries/310744.html written by Deborah Sontag. Sontag sums up what contemporary domestic violence public policy is guided by. She writes of a domestic violence incident that, "It was a complex situation, murkier than the black-and-white portrayal of domestic violence that currently guides public policy. In that view, there's a batterer and a victim; the batterer is an ogre molded -- misshapen -- by patriarchal society; the victim, a mouse made helpless by it. There is only one happy ending: the batterer is punished, the victim liberated." It is not that simple http://www.nnfr.org/research/pv/pv_execsumm.html.

Twenty-first century domestic violence public policy remains based on discredited 1970s fundamental feminist philosophy. In fact, that myopic ideological philosophy [blame everything that is wrong with society on men] makes little sense to many women who initially formed and lead both the feminist movement and founded domestic violence shelters for women http://www.familytx.org/research/articles/PizzyLetter.html.

Why the majority of our public policy makers, along with the print and electronic media, continue to support this myopic ideology concerning the enigmatic issue of domestic violence is difficult to understand. Why people abuse those they profess to love is a complex, sometimes confounding, and multifaceted issue. There is no question that some men do beat some women. However, the issue is much more complex than that. The idea of unequal power in families or familial styled relationships is present in child, sibling, spousal, intimate partner, and elder abuse.

The first lesson the majority of children learn from parents or other adult caretakers is that "might makes right." Women who are victimized in both childhood and adolescence and display aggressive behavior as adults, sometimes called "double victims" often report they were beaten by their mothers as children http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/189160.pdf. Data documents that this "might makes right - power and control -" lesson is not the exclusive domain of males. It is taught to children both males and females by both males and females http://search.nap.edu/nap-cgi/napsearch.cgi?term=Violence+in+Families. Children learn the lesson that aggressive behavior can pay short term dividends.

The fundamental feminist simplistic version of domestic violence remains public policy because of an unbelievable, bizarre and almost unexplainable concordant that took place between liberal "due process" fundamental feminists and the "lock them up and throw away the key "crime control" neo conservative politicians. Most politicians love simple answers for complex problems, they got one and then acted on it. And a lesson lost on both fundamental feminists and neo conservatives is that there is no "lock them up and throw away the key" intervention policy.

The fundamental feminists pulled the "patriarchy makes them do it" out of thin air. This theory requires that one must accept as fact that men must be the demonic guilty offenders while women must be their innocent angelic victims. Neither the fundamental feminists, nor the neo conservatives seem to care there are no scientific controlled studies that document the patriarchal theory is true http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s3.htm. Neither fundamental feminists or neo conservatives seems to understand or want to understand that because there may be a correlation between two events does not prove one event causes the other event to occur.

The fundamental feminists also told the politicians that the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/,the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, proved "mandatory arrest" was the answer. Just lock the offenders (using the patriarchy theory this means that the offender must be a man) up and these abusers will not use their violence against women anymore. Then, only then, will the victims be safe from their abusers. And the politicians swallowed both these theories hook, line, and sinker.

The truth is that there is often a danger in this process. Some studies document the willingness of prosecutors' offices to take cases of protection order violation are associated with increases in homicides of white married intimates, black unmarried intimates, and white unmarried females http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/186193.pdf.

Further, the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment documents no such result. The truth is that the architect of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, Lawrence Sherman, opposes mandatory arrest. An extensive review of the Minneapolis study and the five replication studies produced three major implications that are relevant to the criminal justice system http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/188199.pdf.

The use of arrest was only occasionally associated with a statistically significant reduction of repeat offenders. A Massachusetts Department of Probation study, Serial Batterers documents that the most violent and chronic offenders do not stop offending, these chronic offenders simply move on to a new victim. Second, further research is needed to accurately predict methods of protecting victims. And third, the majority of offenders stopped their violence without an arrest.

Women and Children First Only

It is time for everyone who is truly concerned about domestic violence to question what fundamental feminists expect to gain by presenting implausibly high numbers of women who they claim are "abused and battered" and scoff at the "supposed" dilemma their philosophy has created for male victims. Their philosophy seems to be that male domestic violence victims are so rare, why care.

Using what they must clearly understand are inflated numbers, fundamental feminists continue to claim that the statistics they present document the number of women who are being battered, beaten and abused by their husbands and/or boyfriends.
Katherine Greene, Jane Doe's (a domestic violence advocacy program in Massachusetts) public affairs director, said, in an October 28, 2002 Boston Globe article "A Search of Equality," that cases of battered men - true victims of one-sided abuse - are too rare to warrant a massive change in the domestic violence agenda. ''Sometimes it snows in Florida,'' she said, quoting a Jane Doe board member's comment on male victims at an annual board meeting last week. '' We can't ignore it, but we don't make public policy around it.''
It is also time to question why the electronic and print media present many of these unsubstantiated claims by fundamental feminists as fact. This media intellectual meltdown has caused fiction to become fact in the minds of, the general public, politicians, other public policy makers and domestic violence advocates.

The Fundamental Feminism Lens

Fundamental feminists often self righteously believe that they are morally and intellectually superior and all that is wrong in the world is the fault of men. Marilyn French is one of the country's leading feminist philosophers and theorists. She writes on page 19 of her book, The War Against Women, "Men's need to dominate women may be based in their own sense of marginality or emptiness." She believes men are only marginally significant to women and that men are simply empty creatures. The war against women by men, that French believes is very real, would soon be altered by fundamental feminists to become violence against women.

Fundamental feminists and many domestic violence advocates are the only people, professional or otherwise, who continue to claim, despite reams of data, research and many reports from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service to the contrary, http://virlib.ncjrs.org/vict.asp?category=50&subcategory=105 that between 95% to 98% of "domestic violence" victims are women. This "fact" is not a "fact" and yet it is repeated over and over again by the vast majority of domestic violence agencies.

Harvey Wallace in his book Family Violence: Legal, Medical, and Social Perspectives asks:
"How does on accurately study or research a phenomenon if a definition cannot be agreed on because the definition of any act both sets limits and focuses research within certain boundaries?" When "violence" morphs into or is replaced with "insults, being talked down to, or somehow mistreated," how indeed?

Fundamental feminists believe that women are the victims of domestic violence because the patriarchy has caused men in general to be sexist misogynists. They believe men use violence against women to oppress and subjugate them.

On page 14 of her feminist classic, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, Susan Brownmiller writes of rape, "It is nothing more than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of war." The emphasis on all is by Brownmiller, not this author. It appears that both French and Brownmiller, are two of the founders of fundamental feminist thought. If one reads their books they will understand that French and Brownmiller believe they are right and they are proud of it. And it appears they have no intention of letting facts get in the way of their philosophy.

The majority of domestic violence advocates have accepted and adopted this fundamental feminist ideological belief. They believe that domestic violence "is" violence against women and that the violence is singularly or primarily caused by patriarchal sexism and the power and control men want to exhibit over women. What goes unreported by both the print and electronic media is the fact that there are few, if any, professionals, other than fundamental feminists and many domestic violence advocates http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/171683.pdf that accept this fundamental feminist ideological premise as the reason for domestic violence.

Once an individual or agency believes that ideology, that patriarchy is the cause of domestic violence, and/or that patriarchy is the single or a primary cause of domestic violence, that philosophic belief demands that the individual or agency must also believe women are the only victims. Hence men must always be the offenders. To believe that domestic violence is only or primarily caused by sexism and the power and control men want to exhibit over women, demands an individual or agency must believe that women are not and can not be domestic violence offenders. Once an individual or agency accepts either belief the other must necessarily precede or follow http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/crimdom.pdf.

Holding these myopic fundamental feminist ideologies causes many domestic violence advocates, who honestly attempt to view domestic violence though an unbiased lens, to have their preconceived perception of what is supposed to be reality, "men are offenders and women their victims," not to be able to accept the reality of a male victim. Simply stated, their assumption of what is supposed to be real, becomes their reality.

This myopic, the-patriarchy-makes-them-do-it theory, is clearly not accepted as the only or primary theory by the majority of physicians, nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, family counselors, educators, social workers, attorneys, judges, or those in the criminal justice system who are not fundamental feminists. Why then does this myopic philosophy remain the engine that drives public policy?

The vast majority of domestic violence agencies continue to claim that their intervention and programs are not sexist. They profess their interventions and programs are gender neutral. However, few if any, deny that their individual or agencies central and core belief is that domestic violence is caused by patriarchy, sexism and the desire of men to subjugate and dominate women. Accepting this as the truth then causes the advocate not to believe or at least become reluctant to believe the male victim. Thus this fundamental feminist ideology, in reality, renders the fallacious claim of gender neutrality inconsequential. This can include those who honestly attempt to be gender neutral.

Hence holding that fundamental feminist ideological belief makes it almost impossible for any advocate to believe men can be victims and women offenders. What the majority of advocates actually believe, regardless of their claims of neutrality when presented with a male victim, is that somehow - someway, these men must be pretending to be victims and that they actually must be offenders in sheep's clothing. Thus the male victim of domestic violence becomes their snow in Florida.

One man tried calling numerous battered women's shelters to ask where to find help for his father. As a child, he had experienced domestic abuse from his mother and had seen his mother regularly kick and hit his father. Many shelters suggested he contact Emerge, the nation's oldest batterer intervention program. He was not informed that Emerge is a program exclusively for abusive men and the suggestion that he call them was an implied accusation. He called and spoke with one of the cofounders, who listened while he described what he observed and experienced during his childhood. The cofounder, who is used regularly across the country as an "expert" on domestic violence and is regularly quoted in the media, explained that there were no services available for men. The cofounder explained that there are no services available to men because the problem of male victims of spousal abuse simply does not exist. Gender neutrality indeed!

Given the mountains of raw data, not statistics, but rather contemporary scientific empirical raw data that acknowledges the fact that females do hit and abuse males the issue of self defense is, only recently, given as a reason for female violence. It is vital to the existence of programs similar Emerge, to remain in business, that women must always be the victim.

Needing another theory to explain who some women abuse, the Fundamentalist feminists and many domestic violence advocates began the claim that the vast majority of women who do use violence in relationships do so only because they act in "self defense." This theory has not a single scientific study to document it is valid.

Similar to the patriarchy-makes-them-do-it theory it was pulled out of thin air. Searching for a single thread of validity it is claimed that women who do use violence have, prior to their abusive behavior, been abused themselves. They are striking first to prevent future and further abuse. However, as the authors of, Family Abuse: Consequences, Theories and Responses, and in fact almost all college texts document, the line between victimization and perpetrations of abuse is not always as clear as we would like it to be.

This "self-defense- makes-them-do-it" theory now accompanies the patriarchy-makes-them-do-it theory. It remains fundamental to the fundamentalist doctrine that domestic violence must always be the fault of the man.

There is no doubt that fundamental feminists ignore the plight of one gender in favor of another. This is something they claim men have historically been guilty of, and they may be right. Fundamental feminists crave, more than anything else, the political power to control the mores, norms, and legislative laws of contemporary society. This is something they claim men have historically been guilty of and they may be right. Fundamental feminists believe they alone should decide what is right and what is wrong for society. This is something they claim men have historically been guilty of and they may be right. However, this author was taught many years ago by his grandmother that two wrongs (nor three) do not make a right.

Fundamental feminists are amazed that the vast majority of women and men do not agree with their single minded ideology. They believe, without a doubt, they are right and everyone else must be wrong. They seem astounded that others can not believe what they believe. They seem shocked, surprised and chagrined that the vast majority of Americans do not agree with their belief of female oppression. Their beliefs often isolate them from many of their friends and colleagues. To retain their beliefs many must remain in a constant state of denying reality.

Equally distressing is that fundamental feminists can not or do not understand that they have actually abandoned feminism and placed their radical ideological beliefs before the desires, hopes and needs of many victims of domestic violence.

Domestic Violence researchers Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes write on page 61 of the Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf, that "America's medical community should receive comprehensive training about the medical needs of female [emphasis added] victims of rape and physical assault."

They estimate about 1.9 million women and 3.2 million men are physically assaulted annually in the United States. Their own data documents that approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States. In an earlier report the Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf they estimate that 4.8 million women and 2.9 million men will suffer from a rape or physical assault by an intimate partner. Ignoring their own data, the authors call for training concerning female victims only. They, similar to many other domestic violence advocates, are simply unable to see or accept that men are victims because of the single minded ideological beliefs they hold.

Ignoring their own findings, perhaps because of their inability to see the reality that their own data documents, in the policy implications of the Final Report study they purposely choose to paint the 835,000, 2.9, or 3.2 million male victims, victims their own data document are victims, invisible. Not once in the policy implications section do they mention that male victims may have needs http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf. What does this say about their beliefs concerning gender equity?

Ironically and inexplicably, fundamental feminists seem incapable of understanding that they now exhibit an extraordinary lack of compassion for male victims, as was once the case for female victims. They exhibit the same lust for power and control that they accuse men of historically exhibiting. They do not seem to understand that they exhibit the very same behavior they claim to loathe.

The Numbers Game

There are many people who experience family conflict abuse and in some incidences that abusive behavior can become sexually and physically violent. However, what number is the correct number of women who are battered? Is it 188,000, 876,340, 1.3 million, 1.8 million, 4.8 million, 18 million, 27 million, 60 million or 2 billion?

There should be little doubt that many people, both women and men, wonder who is telling the truth? These wildly differing and conflicting numbers are presented as real numbers and presented by real people. And as strange as it may seem, many people believe these numbers and they expect that others should believe them also.

The 188,000 and 1.8 million are from the 1975 National Family Violence Survey http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/issr/da/index/techinfo/m0541.htm, authored by Murray Straus and Richard Gelles and sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health. That landmark study estimates that 84% of American families are not violent and that 16% do engage in some form of physical assault against each other. The 188,000 is the number of women who are injured severely enough to seek medical attention. The 1.8 million are women who suffer from violent behavior such as kicking, punching, or are assaulted by some type of a weapon.

The 876,340 number is reported by Callie Marie Rennison and Sarah Welchans in the Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Intimate Partner Violence of May 2000 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf. This data is from a study of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/NCVS/. The survey estimates that about 1 million violent crimes were committed against people by their current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. About 85% of the victims who reported they were assaulted were women and 15% were men.

Concerning data from the NCVS, a recent article in the March 2003 issue of Criminology & Public Policy, Domestic Violence Legislation: Exploring its Impact on the Likelihood of Domestic Violence, Police Involvement, and Arrest, documents a number this author has never seen reported, until this study, in the media mix. The author Laura Dugan, reports that of the 529,829 households that were interviewed, 2,873 reported at least one incident of domestic violence between January 1992 and June 1998. While the National Family Violence Survey documents violence in 16% of American homes, the NCVS number is 0.5%. In fact the number of families that reported an incident of spousal abuse is 0.18%.

It also should be noted here, that the 95% to 5% data that continues to be presented by fundamental feminists as coming from the National Institute of Justice is not verified by the NIJ. It is simply not true and they know it. That number is also offered by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCDV) http://www.ncadv.org/ and is used by many domestic violence advocates for women.

Many domestic violence organizations, on their websites, claim that 95% number comes from the U.S. Department of Justice http://www.usdoj.gov/ , however, the recent Rennison and Welchans report documents that the Department of Justice makes no such claim.

Both the 1.3 million and the 4.8 million come from Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes in the findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey and their numbers vary depending on which of their two reports you read. The Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, November 2000, reports the 1.3 million number. The 4.8 million is from the Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000.

The 18 million number is attributed to the NCDV who estimate that annually more than one third of all married women are being "battered." The 27 million is another estimate by NCDV that more than half of all married women will experience "violence" during their marriage. These numbers are often reported by domestic violence advocates and repeated, without question, by the electronic and print media.

However, it seems as if these numbers may have been pulled out of thin air. NCDV, when asked where these numbers came from, stated that they were estimates based on what NCDV "hears" from battered women's shelters and others. Most people would agree that this type of guesstimate lacks the validity of an empirical scientific study. However, at least they are mathematically possible.

A Miami talk show host, Pat Stevens, conjured up the 60 million number. Stevens appeared on CNN's "Crossfire" show and made the claim that all the numbers concerning battered women are incorrect and in fact, Stevens claimed, when the real numbers are adjusted for underreporting, the true number for battered women is 60 million. Not a single person on the show disputed Mr. Stevens. No one bothered to inform Mr. Stevens that his "guesstimate" is more than all of the women in the United States who are married or living with a man in some form of spousal relationship. Never the less, this number went undisputed on that respectable and nationally televised show.

The 2 billion number can be attributed to the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the Center for Health and Gender Equity report, Ending Violence Against Women http://www.jhuccp.org/pr/l11edsum.shtml. The authors of this report claim that one of ever three women worldwide has been beaten, raped or somehow mistreated. Somewhere between 22 percent and 70 percent of the women interviewed claim they had never told anyone about the abuse they suffer. However, any reasonable and prudent person must agree the term "somehow mistreated" is more than ambiguous in nature and fact.

Do These Numbers Help or Hinder?

It is difficult to understand what those who produce numbers such as the Johns Hopkins study are thinking. Fundamental feminists and others who produce numbers that appear to be pulled out of the air do not understand that in the long run this misinformation can hinder the cause of domestic violence. Constantly and consistently producing numbers that lack authenticity has caused the majority of Americans, both women and men, to become skeptical concerning any and all numbers concerning women who are actually battered.

James Ptacek http://www.cas.suffolk.edu/sociology/ptacek.html is a Professor of Sociology at Suffolk University in Massachusetts and the author of Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of the Judicial Responses. His argues in his book that by painting millions of women as being equally at risk of domestic violence has marginalized many battered women particularly those at the lower end of the socioeconomic educational ladder. It is these women who lack family support that often suffer the most. The "equal risk" theory proffered by fundamental feminism ignores reality. There is a dramatic difference between someone who is "beaten" and "battered" and someone who is insulted, talked down to, or "somehow" been mistreated.

And, of course given the name of his book, Ptacek not once mentions that a male can suffer from family violence and be again mistreated by the court system. That reminds this author of an old adage his Grandmother used to repeat to him: If you don't look for it, you can't see it. However, although the book is incomplete, (it only concerns itself with the abuse of women and ignores men) it is an excellent book and it should mandatory reading for judges that hear domestic violence cases.

How or why do fundamental feminists expect more men to become involved with and concerned about domestic violence when they constantly paint all men, with a broad brush, as demonic males who beat and bash angelic innocent women with impunity? How or why do fundamental feminists expect more men to become involved with and concerned about domestic violence when they refuse to move beyond their myopic, dated and sexist beliefs concerning the behavior of men?

The Johns Hopkins researchers collected data from 2,000 domestic violence studies. The number 2 billion places the approximate number of women they claim are abused against the world population, 6 billion. The Johns Hopkins study claims one third of all women world wide are victims of abuse. Hence the 2 billion number of women being abused. And in keeping with contemporary domestic violence intervention the researchers did not note a single male victim out of 2 billion victims of domestic violence anywhere in the world.

The 2 billion or 60 million or in fact any number for the United States that seem unbelievable, are often just that. Sometimes numbers seem to have been pulled out of a hat for effect. Smaller numbers such as 188,000, 1.3 million, 1.8 million, 4.8 million or other numbers that do seem possible are often based on documented data and hence can be presented as real numbers. It is important to remember the axioms that there are lies, greater lies, and then statistics and the greater the lies the greater chance it will be believed.

What accounts for these dramatic numerical differences? Often, with just a little investigation, of the numbers presented by biased researchers, one discovers that the fundamental feminists are neither actually nor factually reporting the number of women who are being systematically "battered" by a man. It should be obvious to anyone, researcher or otherwise, that presenting a women "who has somehow been mistreated or insulted" is not quite the same as someone who has been "battered."

What is Battering Behavior?

Agreement concerning just who is a "battered victim" continues to plague researchers and impede proper intervention. Researchers, professionals, and fundamental feminists have been disputing this definition for years.

How can anyone morally or ethically present an accurate number of victims who have been "battered" or "abused" if there is no agreement on definition? Certainly if we measure a "battered victim" as someone who has ever, once in their lifetime, been hurt, insulted, threatened, or screamed at, these numbers will be astronomical.

Most researchers and professionals agree that a "battered victim" suffers from what can be labeled "family conflict terrorism." Most researchers and professionals agree that a "battered victim" is a victim whose life is thoroughly, extensively, and completely controlled by an intimate partner or other family member. The victim's behavior is purposely altered to suit the batterer's desires while they live in a familial styled relationship. The batterer systematically uses physical violence, economic subordination, threats, isolation, and a variety of other behavioral and controlling tactics to ensure the victim does what the batterer wants.

The problem with the majority of numbers being presented as the number of "battered" victim's is that the vast majority of data that purport to demonstrate the number of "battered victims" do not document the above typology of a battered victim or the batterers behavior.

The Measuring Tools

One measuring tool for "abused women" is called the WAST (Woman Abuse Screening Tool.) It is used in the medical field to measure women who report being abused emotionally or physically by a partner http://comms.uwo.ca/media/archives/releases/2001/jan_apr/jan15.htm. The authors of this tool simply choose to ignore the fact that is would be useful and beneficial for the health and well being of both women and men if these same screening questions, whatever they chose the questions to be, are asked of both females and males.

Another "abused woman" tool is HITS, which is an acronym for hurt, insulted, threatened, screamed http://www.iafp.com/domestic%20violence/literature%20summaries/HITS.htm. This is used in some emergency rooms to screen for women who are abused. Wording of this tool is: In the last year how often did your partner hurt you physically, insult or talk down to you, threaten you with physical harm, scream or curse at you?

It seems to this author that it is difficult for anyone to claim that, regardless of gender, their partner or other family member or in fact themselves have never been guilty of displaying some of the HITS behavior. And again, what is the logic of using this tool for women and not men?

The majority of studies used to measure the number of "battered or abused victim" use some form of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) http://www.fasttrackproject.org/techrept/c/cft/ developed by University of New Hampshire in 1971. Without shame fundamental feminists use this tool when it serves their purpose (to measure the number of women who claim to be battered) and rail against it when it does not (when it can be used to document the number of men who claim to be battered.) People seem to not understand or refuse to comprehend that by twisting this data to suit their needs they have abandoned all ethical and moral behavior.

CTS is the most common measure of non-sexual family violence. It measures three styles of intimate partner conflict in familial styled relationships. It measures, most often through telephone interview, the use of rational verbal agreement and disagreement, the use of verbal and nonverbal aggressive behavior, and the use of physical force or violent behavior. It is not designed to measure in any context the reason or motivation for the behavior of either offender or victim.

Almost all versions of the CTS ask questions such as:

¢ Did you have something thrown towards you that could hurt if it hit you?
¢ Were you grabbed, pushed, or shoved?
¢ Were you slapped, hit, bitten, or kicked?
¢ Were you hit with an object, choked, or beaten up?
¢ Were you threatened with a knife, gun, or other weapon?
¢ Was a knife, gun, or other weapon used against you?

The question begged here is, how many people regardless of gender can claim they have not been guilty of, or a victim of, some form of the behavior described by the CTS scale? How does a single answer in the affirmative to any one of the above questions document that a victim, of what may be a once in a life time isolated event, is a "battered victim" or that the actor is a "batterer?"

CTS includes questions concerning a varied range of behaviors from those considered non-abusive to those considered extremely abusive. Fundamental feminists will, when it suits their purpose, include men who engage in non-abusive conflict tactics as abusive. And just as important is the fact that the motivational dynamic is rarely asked and hence rarely answered when using the CTS scale.

No one, not the most ardent fundamental feminist or male chauvinist, can argue with any degree of reason or certainty that some of this self reported behavior may have been motivated by an isolated argument, anger, jealousy or revenge for some perceived prior behavior and/or fueled by an excessive use of alcohol or drugs.

Information Concerning the Documentation of Numbers

Hugh Barlow and David Kauzlarich note in, Introduction to Criminology, that studies document women are three times more likely than men to feel unsafe in their own neighborhood at night. They note that while elderly women are the most fearful they are the least victimized. Young men are least afraid yet they are victimized most. While men suffer from crime more than women, women report crime more than men http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rcp00.htm. Violent crimes are more likely to be reported if they involve female victims, weapons, or if they result in injury.

The findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey document that women are significantly more likely than men to report being victimized by an intimate partner. The findings also document that the police are significantly more likely to take a report or make an arrest if the victim was female.

Family Conflict Abuse & Battering

Data documents and almost all researchers agree that in violence between men and women, in which the more serious, injurious and sexual assaults are suffered, there is little question that women are the victims more often than men. When police officers respond to a domestic violence call with injurious physical and/or sexual abuse, those with black eyes, bruises, broken teeth, cracked ribs, broken noses, and fractured jaws are most often women. More women than men are killed in an intimate relationship and more women than men suffer long term chronic stalking by their abusers.

However, the National Institute of Justice report, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, documents that most familial assaults are relatively minor and consist of pushing, shoving and slapping. This type of violence is not always the result of a well thought out pattern or long term controlling behavior. This form of violence is often minor and it does not fit the definition of "battering behavior." Family conflict abuse is a common experience and occurs during the lifespan of most American families. It is a fact that many people who are married or those who live in a familial styled relationship will occasionally struggle with personal or family problems. Family conflict, anger, anxiety, grief, drinking or drug use, stress, work issues, depression are problems that few people manage to avoid.

All studies document and almost everyone recognizes there is a universal form of family or intimate partner conflict. Family conflict is not always violent or injurious and does not involve a specific long term pattern of grasping for power and controlling behavior. This type of family conflict evolves from general or specific arguments, economic problems, stress, jealousy that causes rage, frustrations, and spontaneous anger. This behavior includes pushing, shoving, grabbing, slapping, hitting and can escalate to more violent physical assault.

Spontaneous arguments can lead to threats or actual physical assaults and do not always contain specific patterns of behavior. These arguments or family disagreements are not always frequent, and do not specifically and always escalate to more serious and injurious physical assaults. This type of family conflict does not involve a carefully crafted motivation by one person to control or alter the behavior of another.
The majority of domestic violence studies document two facts that many men's and women's rights groups both agree to disagree on (1) women can be as or more aggressive than men in relationships, and (2) women suffer more physically, economically, or psychologically than men because of domestic violence.

Those who claim that women are as equally aggressive as men often direct researchers to the Martin S. Fiebert website. Fiebert a professor of psychology, has a website that documents 138 scholarly investigations that are presented to document women can be as or more aggressive than men http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.
What is rarely noted by those who search these studies to prove only the "equality of aggressiveness" is that the majority of the studies, on the Fiebert website, also document women are more at risk concerning the frequency and seriousness of injury. Perhaps when the men's and women's rights groups will stop the blame and shame game more positive progress will be made for all victims regardless of age or gender.

There is almost always some validity and commonality in most seemingly opposite positions. An unbiased review of most domestic violence research allows for the understanding that many of the seemingly opposite positions are in reality intertwined and linked together. Most seemingly polarized positions often contain as many similar characteristics as contradictions.

Most police officers in this nation honestly agree that the batterer and battered victim are present in every community. Nothing here is an attempt to dispute that fact. Rather, the concern here is quite the opposite. What is proffered here is that the continued and constant attempt by fundamental feminists to inflate the number of victims and to paint all men as batterers and all women equally at risk of being battered has resulted in driving many women and men away from the issue. Most people recognize many of these numbers are false or inflated and do not honestly represent the number of women who are "battered." These constant misrepresentations cause many people not to believe any of the numbers.

The actual victims of "battering", the majority whom are at the lower end of the socioeconomic, educational ladder are sometimes ignored and often marginalized because of the continued claim that all women are equally at risk for battering.

Many families want to seek solutions and solidarity, not only and always punitive criminal sanctions. Much too often civil and criminal court solutions are based on legal precedent that lacks compassion for the victims and display an increasing lack of morality and ethics because of the adversarial nature of the process.

There is no national domestic violence intervention system because of the lack of agreement about what should be done. There is a lack of agreement because the equal rights movement was replaced by women's rights, which in turn has given rise to men's rights. "I", "me," and "we" have replaced "us."

There can be no agreement about what should be done because there is no agreement on just what "domestic violence" is. Some communities have "no drop" policies where each and every case if prosecuted regardless of the circumstances while other communities use civil restraining orders rather than issuing criminal complaints.

The civil and criminal justice system both lack the ability and the resources to properly resolve the numbers of domestic violence disputes that make their appearances on the doorsteps of both the civil and criminal courts. The courts in general and the criminal courts in particular should not be the accepted forum to resolve each and every familial styled dispute.

Fundamental feminists claim, with an absolute absence of any data that the educated and affluent victims often seek private care. They believe the only reason domestic violence appears so low in that strata of society is because educated and affluent woman do not report their abusive incidents to the police.

However, you can not hide domestic violence homicides. Data nationwide documents quite clearly that the vast majority of domestic violence homicides are highly concentrated in lower socioeconomic and educational urban areas. Victims who live at the lower end of the socioeconomic educational ladder and have little family support are at much greater risk of being murdered by an intimate partner who has a history of criminal behavior and abuses alcohol and/or drugs http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/ .

All studies will document quite clearly that the majority of both perpetrators and victims suffer social, economic, and educational deprivation, have few resources, suffer from a variety of behavioral disorders and lack the family support that present them at a greater risk than others. These victims, regardless of gender, are the ones who need help first and foremost and their batterers, regardless of gender need sure, swift, and just interventions and/or sanctions http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/170018.pdf.

The Invisible Victim

All domestic violence abusers or victims are not cut from the same cloth or gender. As difficult as it may be, we must recognize the importance of becoming more understanding concerning abusers. Certainly many feminist criminologists now recognize that concerning female domestic violence offenders. Some of their studies document many are also victims. It is important that is recognized concerning many male offenders. Abusers are, after all, essential concerning our ability to prevent or minimize future and further violence.

In some communities more than one in every four domestic violence abusers arrested are women. These women are now being placed in batterer intervention programs. Professor Jeffrey L. Edleson, a domestic violence intervention researcher, notes - and rightly so - that female abusers should be carefully assessed and then categorized into three distinct groups and placed into programs tailored to fit their needs http://www.mincava.umn.edu/papers/jeffdap.htm. Is it not logical that this assessment process and tailored programs replace contemporary state standards that now mandate the "one size fits all" programs for males?

Many people can not or do not understand that females can be abusers nor do they understand the needs of male victims. This is because of the continued drumbeat by fundamental feminists that has convinced many people that all domestic violence incidents involve men who are demonic violent batterers who beat women in a calculated and carefully constructed manner to control their behavior. They claim all women are helpless, hapless, and hopeless angelic victims that need to be told what to do.

Today, when someone suspects a friend might be displaying either violent or minor forms of abusive behavior towards an intimate partner, many are hesitant to report that behaviors because all acts, regardless of how minor, have now become criminalized. Laura Dugan, a domestic violence researcher from the National Consortium on Violence Research, in the March 2003 issue of Criminology & Public Policy suggests that mandatory arrest laws keep people from calling the police and third parties are significantly less likely to report incidents.

In that same issue on page 280, in an article by Robert Davis, Barbara Smith and Bruce Taylor write that, "But to ignore victims' wishes as an important piece of data in deciding whether to prosecute invites a caseload of unwinnable cases, disgruntled victims, and (potentially) prosecution of innocent defendants. Many families who need and seek solutions are provided with false hopes, broken promises and criminal sanctions. In some communities victims are more fearful of being caught in the fundamental feminist criminal justice "one size fits all" dragnet than are the offenders.

The continued drumbeat by fundamental feminists that all men are demonic violent batterers and all woman helpless angelic victims has caused the majority of men and women in America, who are neither batterers nor victims, to also ignore the plight of many battered victims who lack resources or family support to escape from their abusive relationships.

The findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey documents quite clearly that most forms of domestic violence are minor and the majority of victims, neither female or male, are "battered." The mandatory arrest or preferred arrest laws in all fifty states and the "one size fits all" criminal justice interventions do little to nothing to distinguish between the violent and controlling behavior that is "battering" and other many minor forms of family conflict abuse.

Violence in families or between people who profess to love one another is not a new problem. However, the resolve of many contemporary efforts to define what "domestic violence" is, is central to impeding proper solutions. Contemporary public policy and interventions have, because of fundamental feminism, created a gender war.

The Snow in Florida

In Massachusetts, similar to most states, the Governor's Commission on Domestic Violence website, http://www.state.ma.us/gcdv/index.htm documents, quite clearly, that the commission believes, it is men who are the domestic violence abusers and women and children are their victims. There is no mention on the Governor's Commission website of that annoying snow in Florida problem. The fundamental feminist philosophy has a firm grip on the majority of domestic violence public policies.

The term battered child syndrome was first introduced by Dr. C. Henry Kempe and his colleagues in an attempt to capture the public attention in the hope of providing for their needs. There were programs and interventions put in place concerning the behavior of all involved. There was no attempt by Dr. Kempe, other professionals or society in general to blame only one gender as the offender. This collaborative effort has been joined by everyone, regardless of gender, and much progress is being made.

A conference concerning family violence, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice, and the American Medical Association was held was held March 11-13, 1994. The conference noted that statistics document that there is an epidemic of family violence in the United States. The conference highlights reveal an annual incidence of abuse by family members that is conservatively estimated at 2-4 million for children, nearly 4 million for women, and 1-2 million for older adults. It appears these professionals believe men are never victims and that it never snows in Florida. Is it possible that no one at this conference, not a single person from the NIJ, nor any of the other professionals at the conference, have ever read any NIJ data concerning male victims?

The conference highlights note that concerning a collaborative approach to family violence, "Many health, justice, and social service professionals believe that the remaining barriers dividing those who work to protect families and communities against violence and abuse must be overcome" http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/redfam.pdf. Perhaps one of the "barriers" left to overcome is the fact that the 400 professionals and 80 national experts at this conference, not one mention's a man can be a victim, not one male victim, despite reams of NIJ data to the contrary.

Most recently the problem of child sexual abuse has been exposed in the Catholic Church. The vast majority of the victims are boys. The effort to expose and end this sexual abuse, led by the Boston Globe, has been a collaborative effort. There is no attempt to claim that because young boys are victims far more often than girls that we should be declare that boys are the primary victims and that intervention should be provided first and foremost for boys.

The same can not be said for the majority of domestic violence agencies. The executive summary of the findings from the Violence Against Women Survey reports the issue of violence both inside and outside our homes is a very serious for both men and women. However, the authors of two NVAW reports, similar to the majority of domestic violence agencies nationwide, claim that women are the primary victims of intimate partner violence and intervention should be provided first and foremost for women. Their eyes, ears, and mouth remain covered. They seemed dedicated to ignoring reality as long as they retain power to control public policy.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

Project Sanctuary is a domestic violence organization in California. That agency proclaims, as have some domestic violence intervention programs over the last few years, that it provides services to prevent and lessen the effects of violence against women, men and children. However, the director is guided by what she calls the "feminine perspective." It is this perspective that causes her agency, intentionally or not, to misrepresent the truth?

In an article celebrating the Project Sanctuary's 25th year of service, the agency proclaims in capital letters, perhaps to ensure that no one misses their point, that: EVERY 15 SECONDS THE CRIME OF BATTERING OCCURS. There is little doubt that Project Sanctuary wants the reader to believe that every 15 seconds a woman is "battered." Project Sanctuary, as do all the other domestic violence websites, know that is not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

All domestic violence agencies are aware that the use the CTS will allow anyone to document that a man is abused by his intimate female partner approximately every 15 seconds. They do not believe that to be true for an instant! Do Project Sanctuary and the fundamental feminist movement expect that society thinks that Project Sanctuary believes that all female offenders of "domestic violence" are "batterers" and that the males are victims of "battering?" What Project Sanctuary and other agencies do, without shame, is to use CTS when it suits their purpose and then rail against it when it does not.

Few, if anyone, outside the fundamental feminist movement believes that one out of every three women in America, as the John Hopkins survey alludes to, are being "beaten" and "battered." Few believe the fundamental feminists claim, with no scientific empirical data to document it, that 50% of all married women are "beaten" and "battered?"

This misinformation hinders, not helps, all victims as it breeds mistrust concerning the "real" number concerning domestic violence, intimate partner abuse, and battering behavior. This misinformation impedes not ensures a collective collaborative response by embellishing and exaggerating the abuse suffered by one gender and ignoring and or dismissing the abuse suffered by the other as inconsequential. Ironically, fundamental feminists fail to understand that now they have attained political power and control concerning domestic violence they are misusing it as badly as they claim men do.

Why do fundamental feminists and many domestic violence advocates purposely mislead society concerning the number of women who are "battered?." Everyone, regardless of what percentage of victimization they represent, deserves access to services and funding. Do not all victims, regardless of age or gender, deserve our sympathy and compassion? Why has the Violence Against Women Act, (politicians proclaim the act is gender neutral) yet to spend a single penny for a specific heterosexual male domestic violence program?

Is it not time for our public policy makers, the media, and society in general to demand and receive answers to these questions?

Richard L. Davis
www.rhiannon3.net/cs/
www.Familynonviolence.org