Talk:Domestic violence

"Identity Abuse"

I removed this:

Another way abusers gain power and control in a relationship is by leveraging social oppression based on the individual's identity. This can include racist, heterosexist, or xenophobic manipulation. For example, an abuser may threaten to publicly out her lesbian partner to her family if she leaves, or if a couple is composed of undocumented immigrants, the abuser may say convince his/her partner not to go to the police because they could be deported.

Any new contribution needs to cite reliable, verifiable sources. Please feel free to source this section and return it to the article. Thanks.--Andrew c 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WomansLaw.org

The article contains a link to WomensLaw.org which includes http://www.womenslaw.org/safety.htm Following is an edited version of that page intended to add some humour to a serious issue. 202.0.106.130 03:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Safety with an Abuser

• Know things that your abuser can use as a weapon. He may use sharp or heavy objects, like a hammer or an ice pick, to hurt you.
• Figure out "safe places" in your home - places where there aren't weapons. If it looks like your abuser is about to hurt you, try to get to a safe place.
• Don't run to where the children are. Your abuser may hurt them too.
• If there's no way to escape violence, make yourself a small target. Dive into a corner and curl up into a ball.
• If you need help in a public place, yell "FIRE". People respond more quickly to someone yelling "fire" than to any other cry for help.
• Teach your children how to get help.
• Practice how to get out of your house safely. Practice with your children as well.
• Try not to wear scarves or long jewelry. Your abuser could use these things to strangle you.

Wording of Religion opening line

I have a problem with the wording of this phrase: "Human civilisations and religions produce teachings conducive to living honourably and harmoniously." The way it's written, it implies that religious teachings ACTUALLY ARE CONDUCIVE to living honorably & harmoniously. Obviously, that's not true at all -- some Christian teachings can be primitive and divisive and have been used as justification for the oppression of women, gays, etc. It's been referenced several times in this page -- that according to the Bible, women are to be submissive and subservient to men. I believe the phrase should read, "Many human civilizations and religions have produced teachings exhorting people to live honorably and harmoniously". This acknowledges the fact that, at their core, religious should and do condemn abuse, while at the same time it does not claim that religions have been the beacons of spirituality and peace that they certainly have not been. -Daniel Villalobos 20:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I agree. Go for it. Dkreisst 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As i understand the Bible and the Quran, women are to be submissive to men while men are subservient to woman ..... kind of reminds of of the old prayer "God please protect me from your followers." 202.0.106.130 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

DVStats.com and revert explanation

I reverted the recent additions by anon. Those additions were "A significant amount of scholarly and academic research exists which indicates that males are victims of female-perpetrated domestic violence with equal frequency as female victimization, and sometimes greater frequency. See DVstats.com." and "However, there is a large amount of academic research that consistently indicates that men are victimized by physical violence just as often as women (see DVstats.com). These studies frequently rely on self-reports from both female and male batterers." How do we know that the amount is "significant"? The claim that there is gender equality in regards to domestic violence is disputed. While we are allowed to cite reliable sources that hold that POV, and reliable sources that dispute it, we cannot state these claims as facts because that would be taking sides against neutrality in a dispute.

I find it problematic that basically the exact same thing is repeated twice with a link to a website. It seems like anon is using wikipedia as a platform to promote a website. Furthermore, a search engine does not support these claims. All new content must have citations. The content that was removed by anon was supported by the CDC factsheet. It is true that "Few incidents are reported to police, and data is limited." yet this information was removed.-Andrew c 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Causes

As far as i know domestic violence is caused by trauma / ptsd.

This could be trauma in childhood or adult trauma such as war or even the trauma of having one's home invaded by the armed forces (police) and being liberated from one's abusive relationship at gunpoint in the name of woman's rights.

Could someone please modify the causes section to include (and adequately reference) trauma / ptsd as a cause of domestic violence and wiki-link to the ptsd article. 210.87.18.77 07:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

DV can be caused by a past history of trauma...and it can be caused by many other factors; poor anger management skills, negative socilization, etc. etc. DPeterson^talk 13:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

if you could point me to some authoritative references i will summarise these to the best of my ability under the causes section. also could typing in bold font cause domestic violence? 202.0.106.130 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Best source is the DSM-IV-R. Otherwise, any good text will do...such as the DSM-IV casebooks or Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. DPeterson^talk 13:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

a letter in todays Daily Telegraph says irresponsible promotion of alcohol may have something to do with domestic violence as well 137.154.16.30 (AKA 202.0.106.130) 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for including the religion sections

This is a pretty terrible article for a variety of reasons, and I don't see how these sections are helping at all. They're basically a selection of quotes without any readily apparent implications as to the given religion's teachings on domestic violence. At 103 kb, this article doesn't need the bloating. Aesshen 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Why don't you go ahead and delete it, or at least see what other editors think. DPeterson^talk 13:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

we should probably take a vote on this. or discuss further and then take a vote.137.154.16.31 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is taken from my peer review a few topics up:

• "Cultural and Religious Teachings" the intro to this section is poor, and I don't see how it relates to DV.
• "Christianity" this section only consists of bible quotes. We should have encyclopedic commentary explaining I guess Christianity's view on DV. The second two quotes seem off topic, and the first one should be cut shorter.
• "Hinduism" again, we should contextualize the quotes, and explain in more detail the Hindu view.
• "Islam" this section is much better than the previous two. However, since there is a spinout article dealing with this topic, perhaps we could make the section more concise. And it looks like it needs some formatting help as well.

While there is a connection between religion belief and certain specific religious practicies, and domestic violence (or some form of gendered descrimination), I feel that our current section is weak. It would not hurt my feelings if we removed the content for the time being (but it would be better if someone could actually write encyclopedic content dealing with religion and domestic violence).-Andrew c 06:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. What I will do is delete it and move it here for someone to work on. DPeterson^talk

Better. RalphLender^talk 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cultural and Religious Teachings

Human civilisations and religions, if they are to survive, must produce teachings conducive to living honourably and harmoniously. Christianity, Hinduism and Islam have produced teachings exhorting motivations and conduct consistent with the good health of individuals and communities. A few examples are given below:

Christianity

The New Testament describes relationships characterized by romantic and passionate love. This requires wives to honour and obey their husbands and husbands to serve and protect their wives:

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything. For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her ........... A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." Ephesians 5:21–25, 5:31–33

"Wives must accept the authority of your husbands...........In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered. Finally, all of you should be of one mind. Sympathize with each other. Love each other as brothers and sisters. Be tenderhearted, and keep a humble attitude. " 1Peter 3:1, 3:7–8

"Older women must train the younger women to love their husbands and their children, to live wisely and be pure, to care for their homes, to do good, and to be submissive to their husbands." Titus 2:4–5

See also: Eye_for_an_eye

See also: Turn_the_other_cheek

Hinduism

A key teaching of tantric Hinduism is Acceptance. Sexual Ecstasy requires acceptance of all that is good and evil while honouring duties and obligations:

"Eternal family traditions and codes of moral conduct are destroyed with the destruction of the family. And immorality prevails in the family due to the destruction of family traditions. The women of the family become corrupted. The everlasting qualities of social order are ruined by striving to slay our relatives because of greed for the pleasures of the kingdom."

|Bhagavad-Gita. As It Is. Translated by Dr. Ramanand Prasad. Chapter 1. Sections 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

Hindus ‘bring together’ the complements or poles so as to realise their identity through the tantric method of Sublimation. Thus the physical union of man and woman is sublimated into the creative union of Siva-Sakti. [1]

"She must surrender to her husband...........surrender means one has to become confident. The devotee reasons: Krsna will protect me and help me perform devotional service. This is called confidence."

|Bhagavad-Gita. The Nectar of Instruction. As interpreted by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Chapter 3

See also: Tantra

See also: Sati (practice)

See also: Dowry death

See also: Bride burning

Islam

For the sake of running a smooth family system, Islam has put the major responsibility of earning over the man and made man one step dominant over his wife in the house, which should not be confused with women and men equality in Islamic society. Sheikh Muhammad Kamal Mustafa, imam of the mosque of the city of Fuengirola, Costa del Sol, Spain, in his book The Woman in Islam writes, of the status of violence against wives on the part of husbands in Islamic Sharia law, stating that it is permissible in some instances.

"The virtuous women is devoted, careful (in their husbands') absence, as God has cared for them. But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed-chambers and beat them." |The Meaning Of The Glorious Quran by E.H. Palmer. Chapter 4. an-Nisa': Women. Section 38

Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, has advocated "non-painful" beating of wives: "it is permissible for [the husband] to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument that might cause pain and injury."

The wife-beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman]." He adds, "It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused." Similarly, "[the blows] must not be hard." [2] But at any point, if wife thinks that she is being abused, she can ask court of law for divorce on the basis of maltreatment.

Dr. Muhammad Al-Hajj, lecturer on Islamic faith at the University of Jordan (Amman) states:

Hard beatings are those that leave marks on the body or on the face. Thus, beating on the face is prohibited, because the face is a combination of the features of beauty, as it is said. It is forbidden to beat the face, it is forbidden to administer blows that leave fractures or wounds; this is what our sages have said in their books.

Mustafa noted in his book that the aim of the beating was to cause the woman to feel some emotional pain, without humiliating her or harming her physically. According to him, physical blows must be the last resort to which a husband turns in punishing his wife, and is, according to the Qur'an (Chapter 4, Verse 34), the husband's third step when the wife is rebellious: First, he must reprimand her, without anger. Next, he must distance her from the conjugal bed. Only if these two methods fail should the husband turn to beating. Also, understanding of this verse must be in the context of the rest of the Quran, which instructs that a man holds his wife (and all women) in reverance.

"The hypocrites, both men and women, proceed one from another. They enjoin the wrong, and they forbid the right, and they withhold their hands. They forget Allah, so He hath forgotten them." |The Meaning Of The Glorious Quran by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall. Chapter 9. at-Taubah: Repentance. Section 67

While some Muslims interpret the Qur'an to allow the beating of wives, many other Muslims interpret Chapter 4, Verse 34 to say "leave" the wife, not beat her. [3]

"So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them." |The Meaning Of The Glorious Quran by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall. Chapter 4. an-Nisa': Women. Section 34

See also: Rania al-Baz

See also: Rights_and_obligations_of_spouses_in_Islam

Accepted behavior

In many rural areas in developing countries, beating is considered accepted behavior for a man, in order to "teach" his wife to be obedient. In many parts of Latin America, while wife beating is frowned upon, it is considered more or less acceptable for a husband to administer a beating to an unfaithful or disrespectful wife. Men who suspect their wives of adultery have often "executed" their wives by decapitation. An example of such a region is Iran, in which it is perfectly legal for a man to kill his wife if he finds her cheating. "Women are treated as second- class citizens and violence against women is the official policy of the Tehran’s fundamentalist regime. Therefore, Tehran’s regime should be referred to the United Nations Security Council not only for its nuclear weapons program but also for its gross violations of human rights and inflicting systemic violence against women." |Women Welcome Report to UN Security Council

The Zimbabwean government promoted a Domestic Violence Bill in 2006, after many years of campaigning by groups of women. The bill has been controversial, because it defines repeated insults, ridiculing or name-calling, and demonstrations of obsessive possessiveness and jealousy of a partner as domestic violence: critics have said that this definition is excessively vague. The Bill also includes unreasonable denial of conjugal rights as constituting domestic violence.

One Zimbabwean MP, Timothy Mubhawu (MDC, Tafara-Mabvuku) made a strong attack on the "diabolic" Bill in Parliament, insisting that it was against God's principles for men and women to be equal. As a result he was suspended from membership of the MDC.

In my opinion, a quote simply saying that a wife should obey or submit to her husband is not relevant to the topic of domestic violence. If the religion doesn't have any scriptural quotes about domestic violence, then perhaps we could simply say "This religion has no scriptural quotes mentioning domestic violence". If it has quotes about violence in general (i.e. violence between two people, not specifying whether they're in the same household or not) then I would consider those relevant because I would assume they would apply in the domestic situation as well as in other situations. If there are few or no relevant scriptural quotes, there may be announcements by leaders or commentators of the religion. For example, at least one newspaper has had columns with religious experts responding to questions about their religion. In the Christian and Hindu sections above, I see nothing addressing the subject of domestic violence and I think that material should be deleted (or moved to a page about conjugal relationships or something), with apologies to whoever went to the trouble of writing it. --Coppertwig 11:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A question: Are you suggesting that quotes are relevant to "domestic violence" only if they refer to "physical violence"? Because the discussion of "domestic violence" used in this article "Psychological/emotional abuse can include, but is not limited to, .... controlling what the victim can and cannot do". I believe, and I mean this quite seriously, that the submission of a wife to her husband (or partner to partner for any sex) in the context of organized religion is a priori abuse/domestic violence, since the submission is necessarily in part coerced by the power of religious prescription, e.g., "Thou shalt." When we look at domestic violence checklists, we see items such as "Do you feel obligated to be sexual with your partner?" [4], religious strictures for submission in fact create the obligation so described.

Unfortunately, I need to make this point more bluntly. If an abuser says something like "You must have sex with me, or I will torture you by burning your skin.", nobody would deny that threat constitutes domestic violence. I see little reason to read the situation differently when the threat is the eternal punishment of damnation.[5]

The common theme when looking at domestic violence in practice is not the physical violence that does almost always end up as DV's endpoint, but the pattern of coerced control the abuser creates, all too often with the assistance of the stick of religious teachings of submission.--Joe Decker 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the partner says "do this or else", then I guess that's domestic violence. But if the religious leader says obey your husband, I wouldn't call that domestic violence. The order, and any threat, is coming from the scripture or the religious leader or whatever, not from the partner. If the scripture says "Threaten your wife until she obeys", then I would consider that to be relevant to domestic violence. Of course, someone might use a scripture that says "obey your husband" as part of a threat during domestic violence. But to me, that scripture says nothing about domestic violence; it's just more likely to be (mis)used in that way than other parts of the scripture, which could also no doubt be twisted into threats. If "obey your husband" is somehow relevant to domestic violence, perhaps this article, if it mentions such quotes, needs to explain the connection, e.g. "The scripture says nothing about domestic violence, but it does say 'obey your husband', which some men might use as a threat during domestic violence." or something like that. --Coppertwig 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm afraid I'm not convinced, however. In saying "Obey your husband", instead of say "Obey your husband unless he's trying to maim you." scripture does in fact contribute directly to the causes of domestic violence, not by its influence on the perp, but on its influence of the abused. While there are more subtle ways in which religiously-derived gender-norms propagate the destructive idea that women should not feel empowered to protect themselves, this quote nails the point to the wall--forget how the words read to the husband, what the words say to the wife is "If you are being abused and are a married woman, you have to take it or face eternal suffering." And that acquiescnce is part of the big picture of DV as well. I see survivors of domestic violence return to their abusers all too many times, the incident that haunts me to this day is the woman who returned with her teeth in a bag. There are many, many reasons that survivors return to relationships in which they are being abused, but this "obey" prescription seems to me to be a significant cause.

Still, perhaps my point is too subtle for the article. I have some reservations about the quotes section in general--in particular because the views of different religious people even within the same denomination vary so widely it'd almost take an article per major religion to start to tackle the question of how those religions relate to the idea of domestic violence—and if those articles were to be started, it'd probably be best that they actually try and lay out the various points of view found within the cultures surrounding those religions, a few quick quotes here and there likely really do nothing to add to informing the reader.

Anyway, I appreciate anyone who can keep an even tone in disagreements about subjects as "hard" as this one. My sincere thanks. --Joe Decker 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point is well made. OK, maybe "obey your husband" does say something about domestic violence -- maybe it says "don't try to protect yourself from domestic violence (e.g. by running away)." --Coppertwig 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

After further thought: "obey your husband" could be interpreted in two ways: (1) "Always obey your husband, even while he's physically attacking you", which would say something about how to respond to domestic violence; or (2) "Generally obey your husband," (but with common sense saying not to apply this when he's being violent), which says nothing about domestic violence. By quoting the passage here without comment, perhaps we're implying that (1) is obviously the way it's to be interpreted. Therefore quoting it here without comment could indirectly promote domestic violence. --Coppertwig 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, and of course there's a range of variations between the two as well. I think this points out a more general problem with the quotes section at all, it really oversimplifies the depth and range of beliefs contained within the various religions there--maybe the whole section should go? (Just thinking out loud here.) --Joe Decker 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Leaving an abusive relationship" problems

"Most" might seem obvious, but this statement needs a reference. The use of the word "fail" is laden with judgement and seems to be a blame-word. I don't believe this section adds any useful information, only speculation. If the "reasons" for staying in an IPV relationship could be cited, maybe that would add value. Gtamber 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements

There are a number of unreferenced statements in this article that should either recieve a relevant citation or be removed if no references can be provided. DPeterson^talk 12:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Still no citations or references added. I do think the unreferenced statements should now be removed and the POV section either edited or deleted. DPeterson^talk 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I will do that, unless there are objections...or proper reliable sources cited. RalphLender^talk 18:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Domestic violence in popular culture

This seems to be clearly biased feminist propoganda. The author seems to suggest that the male-dominated media condones domestic violence, which is frankly ludicrous. The author also claims that sexual relations are usually shown as power struggles, which is not the case in most soaps/dramas (the most frequent showing of relationships on television)

Maybe someone else can write a decent entry who is free from idealogical baggage (for example, this author clearly believing in the continual oppression of women in every part of society, a common feminist theme) Also, an entry that mentions the clearly negative portrayal domestic violence receives in the media (think little moe in Eastenders) would be appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.99.221 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

There are so many unreferences statements throughout this entry, which are far from neutral. I have added some reliable statistics with referenced sources (****)

Deleted Section

I deleted a section that has been without a citation since March. DPeterson^talk 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Domestic Violence Gives a Sense of Power

God never intended for domestic violence to take place. Reason: Some people blame God for why they were in the relationship to begin with. The truth, the wake-up call, the eye-opener is that the first signs of abuse are always recognizable: Isolation, Jealousy, even verbal abuse. ~~Jshephard

FAO Andrew

How is what I said innaccurate, more men are assaulted by their wives and girlfriends statistics slate because more men live with women that men,--88.108.114.220 17:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back that up? Your logic is flawed because it assume that all things are equal (i.e. men and women assault at the same rate). However, Tjaden & Thoennes found: Information from the survey shows that violence against men is also predominantly male violence: Most (70.1 percent) men who were raped since age 18 were raped by a male, while 35.8 percent were raped by a female. Similarly, most (85.8 percent) men who were physically assaulted since age 18 were physically assaulted by a man, while only 14.2 percent were physically assaulted by a woman. Finally, nearly two-thirds (64.6 percent) of the men who were stalked since age 18 were stalked by a male, while 38.4 percent were stalked by a female (see exhibit 29). Hope this explains my changes, also, keep in mind that if we quote our sources, we are not allowed to edit the quoted areas because then we are changing the words of our source. Thanks.-Andrew c 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable and verifiable sources are critical, especially in situations such as this where there is dispute. MarkWood 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Internal and External references added to violence versus men section feel free to add more

I've added several internal and external references to the violence versus men sections. They have been included as hypertext links for ease of use. Feel free to add more.

Here's the revised version :

Violence against men

(Note : Internal and External references for this section are hypertext linked, feel free to expand on them)

As in all forms of domestic violence, violence against men can take a physical form, or can take the form of psychological, economic or social domestic violence. Many people ignore or minimize the importance of non-physical violence, even though (1)it may be far more common, (2)it may induce more severe suffering, and (3) it can have longer lasting effects on the victims' lives and well being.

Self-reinforcing sexist stereotypes and role expectations of men being strong, aggressive and in control, and women being passive and defenseless victims perpetrates the cycle of domestic violence against men, induces under-reporting and stigma, and minimizes proper law and enforcement in this area.

Physical violence against men

Physical violence against men is the term known for physical violence that is committed against men by the man's intimate partner.

Very little is known about the actual number of men who are in a domestic relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by their partners. Few incidents are reported to police, and data is limited. Dr. Richard J. Gelles contends that while "men's rights groups and some scholars" believe that "battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention" and that "there are as many male victims of violence as female", he states that such beliefs are "a significant distortion of well-grounded research data." In addition, researchers Tjaden and Thoennes found that "men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners (although this may represent differences in willingness to report being victimized, or differences in attitudes and awareness about resources available to male victims of physical domestic violence between these two cohorts). Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant."

The available data indicate that:

• 3.2 million men experience "minor" abuse (such as "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting") per year.
• In the United States, approximately 800,000 men per year (3.2%) are raped or physically assaulted by their partner.
• At least 371,000 men are stalked annually.
• 3% of nonfatal violence against men stems from domestic violence.
• In 2002, men comprised 24% of domestic violence homicide victims.
• Over 20 years, the instances of homicide from domestic violence against men decreased by approximately 67%.
• Approximately 22% of men have experienced physical, sexual, or psychological intimate partner violence during their life.

There are many reasons why there isn't more information about domestic abuse and physical violence against men. A major reason is the reluctance of men to report incidents to the police, unless there are substantial injuries. This is partially due to stigma, and sexual stereotypes, and may also be due to unsupportive gender-biased attitudes by professionals and

researchers in the area of domestic violence. Data indicate that although mutual violent behavior is quite common in intimate relationships, men are seriously harmed less frequently than women.

Psychological, Economic and Social violence against men

Psychological, economic and social violence against men is very common, can be severe and relentless, and is often minimized or ignored. Unfortunately, it is often even more overtly minimized or dismissed by professionals who work in the area of preventing and treating domestic violence.*

Rather than see themselves as advocates of victims - whoever they may be - many professionals in this area unfortunately see themselves as gender advocates. Only when professionals are gender-neutral and avoid sexist stereotypes can they be a constructive force in helping men recover from victimization, as opposed to implicitly blaming the victim - thinking that they must have done something to deserve it, or unjustly advocating for abusers simply because they are female.

Paternity Fraud as domestic violence against men

Men suffer considerable emotional, psychological, economic and social harm from paternity fraud. Paternity fraud is considered to be quite common (from 10 to 15 % of children - based on studies from blood banks and other genetic data). Paternity fraud is one of the more common forms of domestic violence against men.

Unfortunately, in many countries, the law offers no protection to the male victim of this form of domestic violence. This rewards and encourages the victimizers leaving men largely defenseless. The coercive power of the state is used to continually perpetrate the ongoing victimization of the male spouse - even after the relationship has ended.

Unfortunately, the law assumes that the male spouse is automatically responsible for any children that are born during the marriage. This represents one of the common sexist traditions embedded in law in this area that dates back to times when women were powerless under the law, when adultery was a seriously punishable crime, and before the invention of safe and effective paternity testing.

Forced paternity as domestic violence against men

Consent to have sex with someone does not constitute consent to have a child with her or him. Forcing someone to have a child against her or his will, or without her or his consent constitutes domestic violence. Forced paternity is one of the more common forms of domestic violence against men.

Unfortunately, in many countries, the law assumes that consent to have sex equals consent to reproduce - at least if you are male. This represents one of the common sexist traditions embedded in law in this area that dates back to times when women were powerless under the law, and before the invention of safe and effective contraception, and emergency contraception.

Fraudulent claims of domestic violence as a form of domestic violence

Fraudulently claiming that a partner has engaged in domestic violence is - in itself - a form of domestic violence. It is a particularly cruel form of domestic violence because the coercive power of the state is coopted to continue the abuse and prevent escape.

A person fraudulently accused of domestic violence suffers strong psychological and emotional trauma. Often her or his career is destroyed. He or she is widely stigmatized and rejected by friends, acquaintances, employers, colleagues, neighbours, and even strangers. Often this stigma can occur even with the mere unproven accusation of domestic violence. It can destroy a victim psychologically,economically, socially, and physically.

Furthermore, fraudulent accusations of domestic violence can be used to remove custody of children. Since many people would rather suffer severe physical injury or even lose a limb rather than lose their children, it is clear that this form of non-physical domestic violence can cause more suffering than many if not most cases of physical violence.

It is difficult to assess the frequency of fraudulent claims of domestic violence. Hopefully, it is a fairly rare - albeit severe - form of domestic violence, however, data is not readily available. Some consider the idea that a woman could lie about such a subject to be inconceivable, but there are many well documented historical and recent examples of other false accusations including rape. (See : [6] and [7]).

To assume that only men lie or abuse is an unrealistic sexist position. Probably, both men and women are victims of this form of domestic violence. However, given that men are statistically much more likely to be accused of domestic violence than women, it is also likely that men are more commonly victims of fraudulent claims of domestic violence. Motivations for this form of domestic violence are the same as f or any other (See sections below), although legal transfer of child custody may provide added incentive.

Attempt to minimize violence versus men and silence dissenting information

I undid the removal of the material on non-physical domestic violence against men. It is an important area that should not be silenced by individuals with a strong POV. Non-physical violence is well recognized as an important sub-type of domestic violence.

Rather than delete or attempt to silence this material, expand on it, or present opposing information.

Hi. I was the person who removed it, because you failed to provide sources. I am not trying to silence anything, but given that these are your first and only edits to Wikipedia, it kind of seems like you have an axe to grind here. Wikipedia is not for promoting your own personal agenda.

With that said, I'm not going to remove your edits again, because I'd like to hear other editors' views on this. But the sources you have now provided appear to be a blog and a "reader mail" section on CNN, neither of which are reliable in any sense of the word. No offense.

Also, when you start a new section on a Talk page, please add it to the end of the page, not the beginning. Thank you! --Ashenai 11:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not my first or only edit to Wikipedia. I also do not have any axe to grind. I am editing anonymously, because I do not wish to be subject to personal attacks, or suffer from ongoing stigma for providing information on an important area that many people with very strong POVs would prefer to have silenced. Thank you for not deleting the entry, since this will allow more people to add to it and improve it.

I agree with Ashenai's initial removal, and feel the edit should be reverted again. Wikipedia has a number of guidelines on including information, and I feel these edits fail them all. Information has to not only be attributed and verifiable, the sources we use have to meet a specific standard as well. We also have a neutral point-of-view policy, that says the we need to present information neutrally, substantiate and attribute specific opinions, and not give undue weight to minority views. The fact of the matter is, domestic violence against men is not given the same amount of weight as domestic violence against women in the media, in the legal system, and in scholarly publications. Wikipedia is not the place to try and fix some injustice of society. We can only report what our sources say, giving due weight to majority and minority views. Unfortunately, the changes gives undue weight to domestic violence against men, they are unsourced or sourced from poor, unreliable sources, and they present original research. Also, unrelated, there appears to be a word wrap issue in your edits. Are you copy and pasting from a word processor or something similar? While the term "non-physical violence" may be an oxymoron, things like paternity fraud and forced custody are not violent by any definition of the term. This seems like a whole slew of men's rights issues thrown together in one place. Please consider editing the men's rights and fathers' rights articles instead. (actually, I just checked, and you copy and pasted the same thing here as you did there. This is redundant. There is no reason for any article to contain the exact same content as another article (unless they are a short summary of a more detailed article per our content forking/summary guidelines). -Andrew c 14:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to revert the edits. The sections on "forced paternity", "paternity fraud" are simply not "domestic violence" by any definition of the term. These sections were full of emotive, editorializing, unencyclopedic language like "a particularly cruel form of domestic violence", "unfortunately", "the coercive power of the state is used to continually perpetrate the ongoing victimization", etc. Reading through the additions, I was more and more convinced that this was simply original research. The tone was not encyclopedic, but instead emotional and argumentative. The sections were not neutral. There were considerable sourcing problems.-Andrew c 14:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do remember to sign in with the four "~". I agree with Andrew c here. The material should only be added if there are references or sources to support the statements. See Wikipedia policy regarding the verifiability of material. RalphLender^talk 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming over from the Fathers' rights movement I would like to fourth the comments made above, in that the additions were not verifiable from reliable sources, and in addition were phrased in a POV fashion. I believe that Andrew c's deletions of the material from both articles was appropriate. Slp1 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)