This is a blog for victims of the Domestic Violence Industrial Complex (DVIC)
The Rise of the Domestic Violence Industrial Complex
This is a blog for victims of the Domestic Violence Industrial Complex (DVIC) and the associated domestic armies of advocates, police and social services units that use the court rooms and the hidden processes of law to on one hand, destroy American’s and on the other, to socially engineer them into being compliant, and defenseless followers. And all of that, as they pick our pockets, tow our cars, repossess our homes, and steal our children. All of these aforementioned are themselves separate but inter connected subsidiary industries, which this blog seeks to examine in full.
In no way do I attempt to diminish or denigrate the experiences of people who have suffered great horrors, and certain abuse in the homes, by intimate partners, parents, significant others and more. And in no way do I wish to avoid discussion about the real, actual abuse of children, and the subsidiary destruction of their lives after having witnessed DV.
Instead, I seek to set the record straight, and as a citizen, I feel a duty to my neighbors, friends, and my country, to examine real, actual, and costly violence from a different perspective: the Rise of the Police State, and its direct relationship to the DVIC.
But followers of WHAT, exactly is the question that has plagued scholars and others for over 40 years, since we first encountered the social engineering scheme of those who wage domestic violence. And we now have an answer to that question of ‘what.’ It is a state of the nation that has a suspended constitution, secret courts, and secret laws, using secret due process violating mass surveillance on all American citizens.
Police brutality cases across America costs taxpayers 1.8 BILLION dollars per year, even as police departments plead that they are under staffed, and under paid (while other Americans would work for half the price, just to have a job.)
And the situation is NOT getting any better, as we see time and again, corrupt or trigger happy police killing six year old kids, and worse- things are NOT getting better for women either, or for anyone in “domestic America,” except those who perpetrate, escalate, condone, or are complicit with such rampant corruption of process, and fraud upon the courts.
Police Misconduct, brutality, and criminality costs American taxpayers 1.8 billion dollars per year. Here’s the data from just ten of the cities with the biggest payouts.
Clearly, there is violence of outrageous proportions being waged across America, on Americans, but it isn’t what you think it is, and it isn’t what the propaganda stream says it is. While the average citizen hears endless MSM propaganda about the noble cause of ‘helping women and children,’ and the publicly funded colleges are virtual recruiting grounds for those who make a living by peddling the false narrative of ‘violent men’ hurting ‘helpless women and children,”the real facts on the ground are that families have been destroyed, and jobs lost; homes repossessed, and as caring fathers (and their children) are murdered in the drivers seat of their own cars.
This blog seeks to examine the state of affairs that has arisen in the era of the Rise of Domestic Violence Industrial Complex, and the related subsidiary industries that thrive under the tutelage of those who believe that more police, in more homes, at all times, is a good thing for “the children” of this America that they will inherit-if there IS an a America left, after these and theirs destroy the Constitution, and every liberty that descends from it.
The Domestic Violence Industrial Complex was birthed by the women’s liberation movement, and feminist jurisprudence.
The next time you read a story about a torture victim winning a 10 million dollar settlement because he was beaten to a bloody pulp, remember these women that I name below, because they are the seed, that grew the tree, that dropped the baton/Taser/bullet/water torture on this guys face.
And here are the basic feminist theories of law that inarguably and indisputably guided and created our current police state, guided by DVIC policy and practice. Put another way, these people give Creationists a run for their money with baffling illogical and irrational theory and abstraction, as well as plain old-fashioned-numb-minded-blinders-on hatred of those who question or challenge their creation.
Or, next time you see another black man, or any other man who has the potential to appeal-or who has sex appeal- to a wider audience being killed by cops [here is a list of those], remind yourself that this is the direct result of feminist jurisprudence, the odd, eugenic, internationalist appeal to justice via privileging the narrative of middle class white women[the ones with the Vagina’s on their heads], and those who adopt their ideological survival strategies.
Here, I will juxtapose several images, with the first three images that exemplify their direct ideological appeal to misandry and the hatred of men, with a pseudo-scientific basis, and then, their wider appeal to authoritarian control, allied with duality and international finance, which is how women’s violence exerts itself, and latter images the direct result of their “militant” philosophy having built the current American police and international interventionist state that works at the behest of the MIC:
This is Valerie Solanas, who is one of their early inspirations with their stated goal of eugenics:
The marriage made in sheol: How the ADL spying scandal blossomed into the NSA “wiretap everyone, all the time, and send it through Israel for vetting'” also known as “The love child of feminist jurisprudence and its little bastard cousins of unconstitutional surveillance backed by authoritarianism, born behind the doors of the family courts, CPS, and other rapeohoax venues”.
At several points in recent history we see examples where the right wing white feminist eugenicist unites with the police state, and the global zionists, which are notably the historical slaughter of non-Jews by zionists bolsheviks in the Ukraine during Stalin, and shortly thereafter, how zionists worked with closely with Adolph Hitler and the Nazi’s to eradicate lower class persons, migrants, and dissidents, while also culling from their herd the critical thinkers and dissidents from the Jewish middle class who challenged them.
Then, for historical purposes that run cunter narrative to their form of revisionism, one must look at the era of the VAWA, and the domestic spy scandal that broke that same year in 1993, when the Anti Defamation League was caught using the tactics of COINTELPRO, and feeding data to local police, hate gangs, bombers, and the FBI for blackmail and compromise operations. While on the surface, these operations appeared to be “just a few bad apples,” we see today that this has provided a model for ALL of our police infrastructure, and the massive domestic spying that is taking place on American citizens.
The scope, and breadth of the spy operation and the nature of the material that the ADL had compiled on some 12,000 key peace activists, and dissidents, and especially on anti-apartheid activists (anywhere there is apartheid, you will find the ADL projecting racism onto others while minimizing inquiry into their collusion with it at every institutional level) was mind boggling, but because it was a direct collusion with police, and connected to the CIA, it was dragged out in the courts for some ten years, and finally swept under the rug.[Here is the LA Times sputtering initial reportage on this operation]
Then, a curious thing happened: illegal spy operations run by these dual nationals, that targeted American citizens in wide sweeping investigations behind the scenes, and without the oversight of due process became the norm, not the exception. Anywhere you look today, you will see the “interconnected webs of association.” You will note the complete militarization of the police.
And, you might come across the word “Israelification” which is in fact a misnomer, as not all Israeli’s are racists, or sanction apartheid, and not all Israeli’s agree that a fascist police state is the right solution*. So, based on how the ADL spy scandal was never prosecuted criminally, and given that we see now that it was in fact, a model of policing and total surveillance, the right word to use is “ADLification,” because of the close alliance between American police who take privately funded vacation junkets to Israel, paid for by mysterious slush funds, and come back with Jerusalem Syndrome, which is a psychotic identification with Biblical characters, real and imaginary. Blackmail can do that to people.
When the Anti-Defamation League compromised 12,000 or more activists, dissidents, and others, it was publicized, and the damage, minimized in MSM, and little investigation was done in other parts of the country t see how widespread the practice is. It was this complicity between the ADL blackmail material, and the collusion of police-during the Clinton administration, where the current DVIC situation of heels on the ground began.
The fact that the ADL had the power and the blackmail material on many activists should have been a red flag to those who value Democracy, but the necessary collusion of one other group had not been fully secured: the police and the military, and this form of spying provided a model whereby the nations police were brought “on board” and made “to heel” in order to derive endless income streams from the DV policies, and especially “If you see something say something.”
Not at all unlike how the ADL and other nefarious groups are frequently caught torching black churches, or painting swastikas on synagogues, or any number of fake bomb hoaxes phoned in from Israel from yet another fat Jewish boy who lives in his mothers basement,, the American and western police in general are encouraging constant calls-which translate to constant statistical manipulation, which leads to constant crisis manufacture, which then creates a constant revenue stream.It is a make-work project of beyond-Orwell proportions, and discredits the DVIC appropriately as a narrative, and as a “social justice” movement.
So- how did feminist jurisprudence become the hand maiden of such nefarious police state activity? The answer is simply blackmail and slander; defamation and gray area created in family courts in the era of VAWA, as each cop said “Shit, that could be ME”.
And the answer is in the later gray area non-court rooms of the “family court and domestic violence” star chambers; the answer is in the now all too common chronic surveillance state, and its attendant illegal domestic spying; and now, all of the groups under this “umbrella” of organizations are in on it, from the curiously silent and gutted NAACP, which is led by white women like Rachel Dolezal, to the Asian Law Caucus, which was once a victim of this spying, but now some members who have ties to this politic and its racism are curiously silent about it as well (and equally infatuated with these hateful eugenicist white women).
But they had lots of help.
* This is a is a disclaimer that has become necessary as various hasbara, race supremacists, and other forms of zionist fascism and other hate campaigners frequently accuse others of anti-semitism, while practicing hate themselves, sometimes even orchestrating fraudulent events or framing others and then calling the police, which is the paradox and the methodology of of this scourge of DVIC profiteers and cry bullies.
Speak Out Against Cry Bullies, and their passive aggressive, pre-emptive, racist, supremacist intimidation. Don’t suffer their smears and defamation in silence.
Meet the cry bully: the foot soldier of the propaganda of DVIC narratology. Slinging dirt, genderizing and racializing issues, and pre-emptively slandering others is the root of the DVIC money pot, and a guarantee to keep DVIC warriors, and their co-conspirators in business.
Someone who uses the perceived righteousness of a social justice cause as a pretext to abuse others, and then plays the victim when confronted about that abuse.
The root of the DVIC narrative holds that once upon a time, men were kicking the crap out of women, and that women were afraid to speak up about it-that it was ‘hidden and suffered in silence.” On the surface, this sounded plausible, or possible-and many men were in fact doing exactly that. But not some men, apparently, as those men were into other forms of institutional power over women, and they needed a foil and a scapegoat to cast the first stone upon. Having or creating blackmail material didn’t hurt their cause-but how to legitimize it?
So what to do when the facts contradict the dogma? For some- particularly a very well financed group of people, many of them who are not even American citizens, and many of whom have dual citizenship in Israel-the truth simply didn’t matter, because their side of the never ending war against the goy and the co-opters of Jewish traditions always takes precedence over truth. This has been the state of affairs in “western” culture since the days of Herod and Pontius Pilate.
Then, there was also the tradition of Eastern Bloc Jews using women for profit, aka white slavery, a situation where Jewish traders, pimps, and then, the women’s version of trading and pimping, aka “social welfare programs,” colluded to ensnare lower income women into profit schemes of all kinds, as well as convenient levers with which to pry wealth and status away from men. [See “White Slavery” from the Jewish Women’s Archive]
The main staple in nearly all domestic violence narratives is that one person or groups of persons-nearly 100% of the time gendered male, despite ample evidence of women’s violence against children and men, or despite ample evidence of women’s deviance and criminality. And this ce male is situation of gendering violence male is because the multi-billion dollar crisis PR industry gets federal funding to perpetuate myths, and those myths create jobs for police, social workers and other DVIC profiteers.
Related Story: The Anti-Defamation League was caught spying in America in 1993, and never tried or convicted-and the American police soon became their toilet slaves, taking private funds and paid vacations in Israel-how did illegal spying in 1993 become de facto spying on a national level from the NSA down? The answer is blackmail and slander.
Without irony, this PR industry is influenced, manipulated and frequently headed by the usual suspects, known as the the Kings of the Smear Campaign, and these suspects are heavily invested in racist, eugenicist, and genocidal theories such as the following(and without irony, these same Jewish zionists also aided Hitler’s rise to power):
that the “white race” should be genocided (again-without irony, these same people were behind the KKK, and worked with them up until the mid 1990’s).
That apartheid and genocide in Palestine is necessary for their version of racial supremacy to thrive in the middle east.
Never forget: these are from tribes that believe in performing brutal circumcision upon baby boys-to initiate males into cuckoldry and social violence by traumatizing them and causing brain damage– is a “tradition”. So, there’s that-domestic violence perpetrated by grown men against baby boys, and the women who encourage it. Hmmm.
This condition of mythology guiding culture, and then, profiting some at the expense of others is as old as the Torah and it’s Talmud, or the Bible-which is really “Talmud lite” for the sheeple, and silence is the key to it’s successful manipulation of the dialectic. This silencing and ne is so effective, and so ingrained in Jewish thought and culture that it is extrapolated upon the wider culture wherein a passive-aggressive form of cultural subjugation occurs.
Lashon hara and it’s mis-application and extrapolation upon the wider culture guides the dialogues about domestic violence, and privileges the violence of racist Jews and their hand maidens in the DVIC industries, and as such works as a form of proselytization- a false representation of real Jewish belief and culture designed to ensnare and entrap others.
The victims are nearly 100% of the time non-Jewish, and are labeled in one form or another as an abuser of one kind or another. Failing any proof of actual abuse, these victims are then cast under suspicion, and slandered in the MSM, or in their workplaces, homes, and other social settings.
And even then, when one of these wealthy, racist dual citizens get’s caught in domestic violence, or other aggressive or despicable racist behavior, they are called “white” in the MSM- as was the case of Donald Sterling, a Jewish slumlord and also the case of Jeffrey Epstein, a pedophile. The media at large is a direct beneficiary of cry bully dollars in the form of advertising revenue, and is under the influence of this same exact form of DVIC narrative control.
At the root of THIS form of DV is ADL sponsored or manipulated defamation, and cry bullying is the nefarious practice of slander from the position of pre-emptive victim, and cast upon unsuspecting targets of racist defamation.
A major part of the DVIC crisis PR is the generation, and regeneration of one crisis after another, so much so that they essentially manufacture crisis, and then profit from it. And, the invasion of men’s locker rooms, long a goal of the international ‘feminist.’
Here below is one example-but the web has literally hundreds of thousands of these and they form an integral component of creating the appearance that DVis greater than it is, and especially, they continue the war on low income families and others through ‘false light’ campaigns. These people literally view themselves as ‘warriors’ in a ‘fight’ against bad guys- mostly guys. And the DVIC reies upon them to ‘get the word out’ and keep the cash flowing. DV crisis PR is a hundreds of millions per year industry, as theyliterally sit around and calculate which “campaign” will generate the most awareness- and hence, garner more federal funds to WAGE domestic violence.
Public awareness campaigns educate the public about specific issues. Campaigns bring issues to the forefront of dialogue, and they can alter social consciousness and encourage people to change their actions. Public awareness campaigns on domestic violence can educate community members about the prevalence of abuse, encourage people to take action to end abuse, and alert survivors to the options and resources that are available to them.
Here we explore three aspects of developing domestic violence awareness campaigns:
Traditional DVAM campaign events: Purple Ribbon Campaign – Clothesline Project – Silent Witness Display – Brides March – Empty Place at the Table – Hopeline Cell Phone Drive
Key Considerations in Organizing a DVAM Campaign
Domestic Violence Awareness Month (DVAM) is the perfect opportunity to develop and launch a public awareness campaign on domestic violence. DVAM awareness campaigns can link with an organization’s DVAM activities, span the entire year, or last for several years. They can range in complexity from large budget, national campaigns encouraging a specific segment of the population to get involved in domestic violence prevention, to small budget campaigns that highlight a local hotline number.
Whatever the campaign, advocates may find it helpful to join forces with other anti-violence advocates, domestic violence prevention organizations, and community-based organizations. Often larger campaigns are able to reach more people and have a greater impact on public opinion. Forming a coalition to launch a campaign or joining an existing coalition’s campaign can provide advocates with resources they otherwise might not be able to develop or access on their own. Practical planning tips and a story of lessons learned are included here, in “The Rhode Island Experience” [PDF – 4p.].
These campaigns are very well funded, and work in sync with others from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on down to ‘stay on message’ which is the same mesage they have ben sending since 1993, when the DVIC began its rise to power.
Here, the CDC packags the message as a ‘public health crisis’ rather than as a money generating scam that the DVIC and it’s beneficiaries are all in on it. Keep in mind that these same organizations say absolutely nothing-they are 100% silent about 1) women’s violence against children 2) women’s violence against men 3) police brutality 4) rape, violence, and homicide in American prisons:
The focus of public health is on the health, safety and well-being of entire populations. A unique aspect of the field is that it strives to provide the maximum benefit for the largest number of people.
Public health draws on a science base that is multi-disciplinary. It relies on knowledge from a broad range of disciplines including medicine, epidemiology, sociology, psychology, criminology, education, and economics.1 This broad knowledge base has allowed the field of public health to respond successfully to a range of health conditions across the globe.
The field also emphasizes input from diverse sectors including health, education, social services, justice, policy and the private sector.1 Collective action on the part of these stakeholders can help in addressing problems like violence.
The public health approach is a four-step process that is rooted in the scientific method. It can be applied to violence and other health problems that affect populations.
In many cases, we see thatthese organizations, NGO’s and federally funded PR boiler rooms are also at war with private industry PR machines, such as the recent “R coup” where the DVIC was able to infiltrate the locker rooms of the NFL.*
Here, below we see a phony ‘men’s rights’ organization “the Good Men Project” that is, itself part of the well heeled DVIC PR machine downplaying the PR campaign of the NFL PR counter-campaign-it really is THAT ridiculous (follow the linked text to the article).
It makes me wonder- is there a Bad Men’s Project somewhere? Oh, yeah- that’s everything else that these organizations demonize, and denigrate, or can’t leverage a dollar or two out of. Like, actual Men’s Rights and human rights organizations-and prison reformers, and peace activists, etc.
In the 20 years since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed, America has become a full blown surveillance state. Is that because somehow, men are or were outrageously dangerous to their families, or the children they rised? Or is it that the MIC and its domestic partner, the DVIC found that fathers might have stood up against such massive, warrantless, and unconstitutional programs? That men and fathers particularly, somehow, treasured the rights of due process, and law?
Certainly, the great majority of SCOTUS cases are based upon men who fought for legal rights, and that, because most laws are written to control, contain, limit, penalize or criminalize men. That men, somehow, fought for those pesky Constitutional rights, so that all of us could be free.
I ask these questions above in order to lend a framework of potential organizing points for any group and any discussion about redeeming American and western democracy as an institution of truly greater good.
In that light, here below is a link farm for NSA/FBI/CIA surveillance abuse that targets every American, and especially, i currently collecting, storing, and leveraging every child in America-a culling has begun, and it started with VAWA, and men who objected (no matter how irrationally or how crudely) to the invasion of their homes via these DVIC politics and policies.
List of NSA spying abuses-and it is by no means complete:
Dr. Martin Fiebert of California State University has spent the last thirty years in a foxhole, assaulted by the DVIC, women’s groups, and international bankers for one reason: he keeps accurate, unbiased, non-gendered statistics about domestic violence.
And, much to the dis-satisfaction of the DVIC and the associated industries of policing, prisons, social services, foster care and adoption, social workers and psychology- and the well heled PR industry that promotes the cause-and all of which benefit directly from the DVIC, Fiebert has maintained and updated a bibliography of women’s violence dircted at men in the home that has changed little in its basic premise in thirty years, and which is affirmed in study after study .
Fiebert, , himself a psychologist is still here despite those industries, telling us what we knew 30 years ago: women initiate MORE violence in the home, and this runs counter to every lie, half truth, and manipulation of data that the DVIC uses to profiteer the narrative of DV. The issue isn’t men versus women- it is the DVIC and the MIC against all of us.
The state of the America today, with massive prison growth, police brutality, and endless war has shown that privileging the narrative of DV is in fact and practice, an act of domestic violence itself, with certain individuals and organizations paid very well for their work undermining American civil liberties that affect every man woman and child in America. Regardless of political persuasion, gender, or religious beliefs, nothing confronts American ideals and freedom more than the deliberate fractures caused by the DVIC, and those men and women who have been victimized by it.
Here below is Martin Fiebert’s complete annotated bibliography referencing assaults by women on their spouses and other partners. It is worth noting that young men, in the mating game, are the least likely to report stalking, or other violent acts by potential sexual partners. I post this in the public interest, and in the interest of dismantling the huge DVIC and its associated industries. http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
Last updated: June 2012
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.
Ackard, D. M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2002). Date violence and date rape among adolescents: associations with disordered eating behaviors and psychological health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 455-473. (A Minnesota statewide school sample of 81,247 students <40,301 boys, 40,946 girls> in the 9th and 12th grade responded to the question of whether they ever experienced date related violence. Over 90% of students reported never experiencing dating violence. In terms of grades, 3.3% of 9th grade girls and 2.8% of 9th grade boys reported experiencing violence, while 5.5% of 12th grade girls and 2.3% of 12th grade boys reported experiencing violence. In terms of ethnicity, American Indian boys <7.1%> and African American boys <7.2%> reported experiencing higher rates of dating violence than American Indian girls <6.8%> and African American girls <3.6%>).
Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 305-311. (A sample of actively dating college students <204 women and 140 men> responded to a survey examining courtship violence. Authors report that there were no significant differences between the sexes in self reported perpetration of physical abuse.)
Allen-Collinson, J. (2009). A marked man: Female perpetrated intimate partner abuse. International Journal of Men’s Health, 8, (1), 22-40. (A case study of an abused heterosexual man. Article examines themes obtained from interviews and personal diary material.)
Amendt, G. (2008). I didn’t divorce my kids!: How fathers deal with family break-ups. Campus Verlag Publishers. (In Chapter 5 author presents data from an internet survey of 3600 divorced German fathers. Results reveal that 1/3 of men reported episodes of physical violence during the divorce process and 2/3 of these were initiated by ex-partners.)
Anderson, K. L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 851-863. (Data consisted of 7,395 married and cohabiting heterosexual couples drawn from wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and Households <NSFH-1>. In terms of measures: subjects were asked “how many arguments during the past year resulted in ‘you hitting, shoving or throwing things at a partner.’ They were also asked how many arguments ended with their partner, ‘hitting, shoving or throwing things at you.'” Author reports that, “victimization rates are slightly higher among men than women <9% vs 7%> and in cases that involve perpetration by only one partner, more women than men were identified as perpetrators <2% vs 1%>.”)
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680. (Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression indicate that women were more likely than men to “use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” In terms of injuries, women were somewhat more likely to be injured, and analyses reveal that 62% of those injured were women.)
Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 213-351. (Analyzing responses to the Conflict Tactic Scale and using a data set somewhat different from the previous 2000 publication, the author reports that women are more likely than men to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners.)
Archer, J. (2006). Cross cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10, 133-153. (A review article which suggests that “women’s empowerment is associated with lower victimization rates from their partners.” Greater individualism and empowerment by women, however, are also associated with higher perpetration rates.)
Archer, J., & Ray, N. (1989). Dating violence in the United Kingdom: a preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 337-343. (Twenty three dating couples completed the Conflict Tactics scale. Results indicate that women were significantly more likely than their male partners to express physical violence. Authors also report that, “measures of partner agreement were high” and that the correlation between past and present violence was low.)
Arias, I., Samios, M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 82-90. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 270 undergraduates <95 men, 175 women> and found 30% of men and 49% of women reported using some form of aggression in their dating histories with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.)
Arias, I., & Johnson, P. (1989). Evaluations of physical aggression among intimate dyads. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 298-307. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale-CTS- with a sample of 103 male and 99 female undergraduates. Both men and women had similar experience with dating violence, 19% of women and 18% of men admitted being physically aggressive. A significantly greater percentage of women thought self-defense was a legitimate reason for men to be aggressive, while a greater percentage of men thought slapping was a legitimate response for a man or woman if their partner was sexually unfaithful.)
Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence. Do adolescents follow in their friends’ or their parents’ footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162-184. (A modified version of Conflict Tactics Scale was administered on two occasions, 6 months apart, to 526 adolescents, <280 girls, 246 boys> whose median age was 13. Results reveal that 28% of girls reported perpetrating violence with their partners <17% moderate, 11% severe> on occasion one, while 42% of girls reported perpetrating violence <25% moderate, 17% severe> on occasion two. For boys, 11% reported perpetrating violence <6% moderate, 5% severe> on occasion one, while 21% reported perpetrating violence <6% moderate, 15% severe> on occasion two. In terms of victimization, 33% of girls, and 38% of boys reported being victims of partner aggression on occasion one and 47% of girls and 49% of boys reported victimization on occasion two.
Basile, S. (2004). Comparison of abuse by same and opposite-gender litigants as cited in requests for abuse prevention orders. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 59-68. (Author examined court documents in Massachusetts for the year 1997 and found that, “male and female defendants, who were the subject of a complaint in domestic relations cases, while sometimes exhibiting different aggressive tendencies, measured almost equally abusive in terms of the overall level of psychological and physical aggression.)
Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983). Violent intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships. Family Relations, 32, 283-286. (Surveyed 461 college students, 168 men, 293 women, with regard to dating violence. Found that 15% of the men admitted to physically abusing their partners, while 21% of women admitted to physically abusing their partners.)
Billingham, R. E., Bland, R., & Leary, A. (1999). Dating Violence at three time periods: 1976, 1992, 1996. Psychological Reports, 85, 574-578. (Data was collected from college students in 1986 <401 women, 202 men>, 1992 <210 women, 204 men> and 1996 <342 women, 229 men>. Subjects completed the CTS and results reveal a significant decrease in partner violence over a 10 year period. However, in terms of subjects’ self reported violence and report of partner violence, women were consistently more aggressive than men.)
Billingham, R. E., & Sack, A. R. (1986). Courtship violence and the interactive status of the relationship. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 315-325. (Using CTS with 526 university students <167 men, 359 women> found Similar rates of mutual violence but with women reporting higher rates of violence initiation when partner had not–9% vs 3%.)
Bland, R., & Orne, H. (1986). Family violence and psychiatric disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 31, 129-137. (In interviews with 1,200 randomly selected Canadians <489 men, 711 women> found that women both engaged in and initiated violence at higher rates than their male partners.)
Bohannon, J. R., Dosser Jr., D. A., & Lindley, S. E. (1995). Using couple data to determine domestic violence rates: An attempt to replicate previous work. Violence and Victims, 10, 133-41. (Authors report that in a sample of 94 military couples 11% of wives and 7% of husbands were physically aggressive, as reported by the wives.)
Bookwala, J. (2002). The role of own and perceived partner attachment in relationship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 84-100. (In a sample of 161 undergraduates, 34.3% of women <n=35> reported being victims of partner aggression compared to 55.9% <n=33> of men.)
Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multi variate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297-311. (Used CTS with 305 college students <227 women, 78 men> and found that 133 women and 43 men experienced violence in a current or recent dating relationship. Authors reports that “women reported the expression of as much or more violence in their relationships as men.” While most violence in relationships appears to be mutual–36% reported by women, 38% by men– women report initiating violence with non violent partners more frequently than men <22% vs 17%>).
Brinkerhoff, M., & Lupri, E. (1988). Interspousal violence. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 13, 407-434. (Examined Interspousal violence in a representative sample of 562 couples in Calgary, Canada. Used Conflict Tactics Scale and found twice as much wife-to-husband as husband-to-wife severe violence <10.7% vs 4.8%>. The overall violence rate for husbands was 10.3% while the overall violence rate for wives was 13.2%. Violence was significantly higher in younger and childless couples. Results suggest that male violence decreased with higher educational attainment, while female violence increased.)
Brown, G. (2004). Gender as a factor in the response of the law-enforcement system to violence against partners. Sexuality and Culture, 8, (3-4), 3-139. (Summarizes partner violence data from the 1999 Canadian General Social Survey <GSS>. The GSS is based on a representative sample of 25,876 persons. Overall in the 12-month period preceding the survey, an estimated 3% Canadian women and 2% of Canadian men reported experiencing violence from their partners. During the 5 year period from 1995-1999, an estimated 8% of Canadian women and 7% of Canadian men reported violence from their partners. Reviewed police and legal responses to partner violence in Edmonton, Canada and concludes that “. . . men who are involved in disputes with their partners, whether as alleged victims or as alleged offenders or both, are disadvantaged and treated less favorably than women by the law-enforcement system at almost every step.”)
Brush, L. D. (1990). Violent Acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Methodological issues in the National Survey of Families and Households. Gender & Society, 4, 56-67. (Used the Conflict Tactics scale in a large national survey, n=5,474, and found that women engage in same amount of spousal violence as men.)
Brutz, J., & Ingoldsby, B. B. (1984). Conflict resolution in Quaker families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 21-26. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 288 Quakers <130 men, 158 women> and found a slightly higher rate of female to male violence <15.2%> than male to female violence <14.6%>.)
Burke, P. J., Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1988). Gender identity, self-esteem, and physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 272-285. (A sample of 505 college students <298 women, 207 men> completed the CTS. Authors reports that they found “no significant difference between men and women in reporting inflicting or sustaining physical abuse.” Specifically, within a one year period they found that 14% of the men and 18% of the women reported inflicting physical abuse, while 10% of the men and 14% of the women reported sustaining physical abuse.)
Caetano, R., Schafter, J., Field, C., & Nelson, S. M. (2002). Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among white, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1308-1322. (A probability sample of 1635 couples was interviewed and assessed with the CTS. Agreement concerning intimate partner violence was about 40%, with no differences reported across ethnicities. Women significantly reported perpetrating more partner violence than men in all three ethnic groups.)
Callahan, M. R., Tolman, R. M., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Adolescent dating violence victimization and psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18(6), 664-681. (Subjects were 190 high school students <53% male; 47% female; approximately 50% African-American> who completed a modified version of the CTS2. In terms of injuries, 22% of girls and 17% of boys reported being injured by their dating partners. Note this difference was nonsignificant.)
Capaldi, D. M. & Crosby, L. (1997). Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Social Development, 6, 184-206. (A sample of 118 young men and their dating partners were surveyed regarding their own physical aggression as well as that of their partners. Findings reveal that 31% of men and 36% of women engaged “in an act of physical aggression against their current partner.”)
Capaldi, D. M, Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2004). Women’s involvement in aggression in young adult romantic relationships. In M. Putallaz and K. L. Bierman (Eds.). Aggression, Antisocial Behavior, and Violence Among Girls (pp. 223-241). New York: Guildford Press. (A review chapter which reports on data obtained from Oregon Youth Study and Couples Study. Authors conclude that “Young women were observed to initiate physical aggression toward their partners more frequently than were the young men.” And “the relative prevalence of frequent physical aggression by women and of injury and fear for men was surprisingly high.”)
Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22 (2) 101-111. (A longitudinal study using subjects from the Oregon Youth and Couples Study. <see above> Subjects were assessed 4 times across a 9 year period from late adolescence to mid-20’s. Findings reseal that young women’s rate of initiation of physical violence was “two times higher than men’s during late adolescence and young adulthood.” By mid-20’s the rate of initiation was about equal. Mutual aggression increased the likelihood of injury for both men and women.)
Capaldi, D. M. & Owen, L. D. (2001). Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk young couples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of Family Psychology, 15 (3), 425-440. Drawn from a community based at-risk sample, 159 young couples were assessed with the Conflict Tactics scale and measures of self reported injuries. Findings indicated that 9.4% of men and 13.2% of women perpetrated frequent physical aggression toward their partners. Contrary to expectations, 13% of men and 9% of women, indicated that they were physically injured at least once. Authors report “2% of the men and none of the women indicate that they had been hurt by their partners between five and nine times.”
Carlson, B. E. (1987). Dating violence: a research review and comparison with spouse abuse. Social Casework, 68, 16-23. (Reviews research on dating violence and finds that men and women are equally likely to aggress against their partners and that “the frequency of aggressive acts is inversely related to the likelihood of their causing physical injury.”)
Carney, M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 108-115. (An excellent review of the literature on women who perpetrate violence in intimate relationships. Also summarizes intervention programs for such women.)
Carrado, M., George, M. J., Loxam, E., Jones, L., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression in British heterosexual relationships: a descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 401-415. (In a representative sample of British men <n=894> and women <n=971> it was found, using a modified version of the CTS, that 18% of the men and 13% of the women reported being victims of physical violence at some point in their heterosexual relationships. With regard to current relationships, 11% of men and 5% of women reported being victims of partner aggression.)
Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., O’Leary, K. D., & Slep, A. M. S. (1999). Factor Structure and convergent validity of the Conflict Tactics Scale in high school students. Psychological Assessment, 11, 546-555. (A sample of 2320 high school students <1,180 males, 1,140 females> from seven high schools in Long Island, New York were assessed with a modified CTS. A significantly greater number of women <37.8%> compared to <22.5%> men reported perpetrating physical aggression toward their dating partners. Of specific note 18.1% of women compared to 4.3% of men reported slapping their partners and 16.9% of women compared to 5.5% of men reported “kicking, biting or hitting” their partners.)
Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital aggression: Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178-1184. (Examined 93 couples seeking marital therapy. Found using the CTS and other information that 71% reported at least one incident of physical aggression in past year. While men and women were equally likely to perpetrate violence, women reported more severe injuries. Half of the wives and two thirds of the husbands reported no injuries as a result of all aggression, but wives sustained more injuries as a result of mild aggression.)
Caulfield, M. B., & Riggs, D. S. (1992). The assessment of dating aggression: Empirical evaluation of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 549-558. (Used CTS with a sample of 667 unmarried college students <268 men and 399 women> and found on a number of items significantly higher responses of physical violence on part of women. For example, 19% of women slapped their male partner while 7% of men slapped their partners, 13% of women kicked, bit, or hit their partners with a fist while only 3.1% of men engaged in this activity.)
Cercone, J. J., Beach, S. R. H., & Arias, I. (2005). Gender Symmetry in Dating Intimate Partner Violence: Does Behavior Imply Similar Constructs? Violence and Victims, 20 (2) 207-218. (A sample of 414 college students <189 men, 225 women> responded to the CTS2. Results reveal that male and female subjects were equally likely to be perpetrators of minor violence in intimate dating relationships, but women were twice as likely as men to perpetrate severe violence <15.11% vs 7.41%>).
Chang, D. F., Shen, B-J., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2009). Prevalence and demographic correlates of intimate partner violence in Asian Americans. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 32, 167-175. (Study reports the first national estimate of IPV among Asian Americans. Sample consisted of 1470 <47% men, 53% women> individuals of varying Asian ethnicities who responded to items on the CTS. Data reveals that 5.02% of men and 8.48% of women perpetrated minor violence on their partners. With regard to severe violence women were more than twice as likely as men to perpetrate violence <1.54% vs .71%>).
Chermack, St. T., Walton, M. A., Fuller, B. E., & Blow, F. C. (2001). Correlates of expressed and received violence across relationship types among men and women substance abusers. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 15, 140-151. (A sample of substance abusers <126 men, 126 women> ranging in age from 17-83 completed a modified version of the CTS. Results reveal no differences in expressed or received partner violence for men and women.)
Clark, M. L., Beckett, J., Wells, M., & Dungee-Anderson, D. (1994). Courtship Violence among African-American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 20 (3), 264-281. (A sample of 311 African-American college students <76 men, 235 women> responded to the CTS. Findings reveal that 41% of men and 33% of women reported being physically abused by a dating partner.)
Claxton-Oldfield, S. & Arsenault, J. (1999). The initiation of physically aggressive behaviour by female university students toward their male partners: Prevalence and the reasons offered for such behaviors. Unpublished manuscript. (In a sample of 168 actively dating female undergraduates at a Canadian university, 26% indicated that they initiated physical aggression toward their male partners. Most common reason for such behavior was because partner was not listening to them.)
Cogan, R., & Ballinger III, B. C. (2006). Alcohol problems and the differentiation of partner, stranger, and general violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21 (7), 924-935. (A sample of 457 college men and 958 college women completed the CTS. Results revealed that significantly more men than women <35.4% vs 26.0%> reported being victimized by their partners.)
Coker, A. L., McKeown, R. E., Sanderson, M., Davis, K. E., Valois, R. F., & Huebner, E. S. (2000). Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school students. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, (4), 220-227. (A stratified sample of 5414 <2836 female, 2578 male> public high school students grades 9 through 12 responded to the South Carolina Youth Risk Behavior Survey in 1997. Severe physical dating violence was assessed by responses to the question of how many times during the past 12 months were you physically beaten up by the person you date or go out with? And how many times during the past 12 months did you beat up the person you date or go out with? Results reveal that 8.9% of girls reported perpetrating violence compared to 6.1% of boys. In terms of victimization, 9.7% of girls reported being victims compared to 5.3% of boys.)
Coleman, D. H., & Straus, M. A. (1986). Marital Power, Conflict, and Violence in a Nationally Representative Sample of American Couples. Violence and Victims, 1, 141-157. A sample of 2,143 couples from a 1975 nationally representative survey responded to the CTS and a measure developed by Blood and Wolfe to assess marital power. Couples were classified as equalitarian, female-dominant, male-dominant, or divided power. Equalitarian couples had the lowest rates of partner violence while female-dominant couples had the highest rate of partner violence followed by male dominant couples.)
Coney, N. S., & Mackey, W. C. (1999). The feminization of domestic violence in America: The woozle effect goes beyond rhetoric. Journal of Men’s Studies, 8 (1), 45-58. (Authors review the domestic violence literature and report that while society in general as well as the media portray women as “recipients of domestic violence…epidemiological surveys on the distribution of violent behavior between adult partners suggest gender parity.”)
Cook, P. W. (1997). Abused men. The hidden side of domestic violence. Westport, CN.: Praeger. (Presents the evidence, empirical and personal, for male spousal victimization. Examines resistance to acceptance of findings and offers solutions to reduce domestic violence.)
Corry, C. E., Fiebert, M. S., & Pizzy, E. (2002). Controlling domestic violence against men. Available: http://www.familytx.org/research/Control_DV_against_men.pdf Earlier version presented at Sixth International Conference on Family Violence, San Diego, CA. (A critical examination of men as victims of partner violence.)
Cui, M., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Melby, J. N., & Bryant, C. M. (2005). Observer, Self-, and partner reports of hostile behaviors in romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1169-1181. (Examined a sample of 236 young people <48% married, 52% dating; 56% women, 44% men> who completed questionnaires regarding their hostility toward their partners. Findings reveal that couples living together have higher levels of hostility than dating couples and that women in both conditions demonstrate higher levels of hostility towards their partners than men.)
Cunradi, C. B., Caetano, R., Clark, C. L., & Schafer, J. (1999). Alcohol-related problems and intimate partner violence among white, Black, and Hispanic couples in the U.S. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 23, 1492-1501. (A probability sample of 1440 couples <565 white, 358 Black, 527 Hispanic> was obtained from the 1995 National Alcohol Survey. Subjects completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. Ethnicity results reveal that overall rates of partner aggression were similar for whites and Hispanic while Black rates were significantly higher. In terms of gender, white men and women had similar rates of partner aggression, Hispanic women were somewhat more aggressive than Hispanic men and Black men were more aggressive than Black women. Alcohol related problems were a predictor of intimate partner violence in Black couples.)
Davis. R. L. (2010). Domestic Violence-related deaths. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 2 (2), 44-52. (A review article which examines domestic violence-related suicides. Author concludes that “when domestic violence-related suicides are combined with domestic homicides, the total numbers of domestic violence-related deaths are higher for males than females.”)
Deal, J. E., & Wampler, K. S. (1986). Dating violence: The primacy of previous experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 457-471. (Of 410 university students <295 women, 115 men> responding to CTS and other instruments, it was revealed that 47% experienced some violence in dating relationships. The majority of experiences were reciprocal. When not reciprocal men were three times more likely than women to report being victims. Violent experiences in previous relationships was the best predictor of violence in current relationships.)
DeKeseredy, W. S. & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Woman abuse on campus. Results from the Canadian National survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (A large sample <1,835 women; 1,307 men> of Canadian college students completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results reveal that women report engaging in higher rates of violence than men. Specifically, 46.1% of women reported engaging in some physical violence in intimate relationship since leaving high school. With 38% employing “minor” violence and 19% employing “severe” violence.)
DeMaris, A. (1992). Male versus female initiation of aggression: The case of courtship violence. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: interdisciplinary perspectives. (pp. 111-120). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. (Examined a sample of 865 white and black college students with regard to the initiation of violence in their dating experience. Found that 218 subjects, 80 men and 138 women, had experienced or expressed violence in current or recent dating relationships. Results indicate that “when one partner could be said to be the usual initiator of violence, that partner was most often the women. This finding was the same for both black and white respondents.”)
Doroszewicz, K., & Forbes, G. B. (2008). Experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion among Polish college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 58-73. (The CTS-2 was used to study dating aggression in a sample <men=100, women=100> of unmarried Polish college students. Results reveal that women were overall significantly more aggressive than men <48% vs 35.6%>).
Dowd, L. (2001). Female Perpetrators of Partner Aggression: Relevant Issue and Treatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 5 (2), 73-104. (A review article examining female partner aggression with a focus on treatment issues.)
Dutton, D. G. (2006). Rethinking Domestic Violence. Vancouver: UBC Press. (A thoughtful and scholarly analysis of research and treatment in the area of Domestic Violence. Offers much insight, particularly to therapists and policy makers with regard to Intimate Partner Violence <IPV>. Concludes that men are as likely as women to be victims and both suffer similar physical and psychological consequences of IPV.)
Dutton, D. G. (2007). Female intimate partner violence and developmental trajectories of abusive families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71. (A review article which concludes that female violence towards intimate male partners is just as severe and has similar consequences as male violence towards women. However, most criminal justice interventions and custody evaluations assume that males are more likely to be IPV perpetrators.)
Dutton, D. G., Corvo, K. N., & Hamel, J. (2009). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and practice part II: The information website of the American Bar Association. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 30-38. (A review article critiquing the American Bar Association’s attempt to correct myths about domestic violence. Specifically authors state, “. . . female IPV is more commonplace than male IPV.”)
Dutton, D. G. & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: the conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680-714. (A review and analysis of the data regarding male victimization. Critical of feminist approaches that minimize female perpetration and trivialize male injury.)
Dutton, D. G., Nicholls, T. L., & Spidel, A. (2005). Female perpetrators of intimate abuse. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41, (4) 1-31. (A review article examining issues related to female abusers. Authors conclude, based on survey and epidemiological studies, that females are as abusive as males in intimate relationships. They note that this is “especially so for younger cohort samples followed longitudinally.”)
Dutton-Greene, L. B., & Straus, M. A. (2005, July). The relationship between gender hostility and partner violence and injury. Paper presented at the 9th International Family Violence Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH. (Report of findings from international dating violence Study which collected data from over 11,000 <70% women> college students from 50 universities in 21 countries. Subjects responded to the revised Conflict Tactics scale, gender hostility scales and injury scales. Findings reveal that women perpetrated greater partner violence than men, that women were more seriously injured than men and that hostility toward the opposite sex was significantly and similarly correlated with partner violence for men and women.)
Eaton, D. K., Davis, K. S., Barrios, L., Brener, N. D., & Noonan, R. K. (2007). Associations of dating violence victimization with lifetime participation, co-occurrence, and early initiation of risk behaviors among U. S. high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 585-602. (Data was examined from the 2003 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Subjects were 15,214 students from the 9th to the 12th grade and consisted of 48.7% female, 61.5% white, 13.9% black, 16.6% Hispanic, and 8.1% other race or ethnicity. Physical dating violence was assessed by response to the question: “During the past 12 months, did your boyfriend or girlfriend ever hit, slap, or physically hurt you on purpose?” Results reveal that 8.8% of girls and 8.6% of boys reported being victims of dating violence.)
Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741-753. (A sample of 541 subjects from New York State <298 women, 243 men> who had been followed for over 20 years responded to the CTS. While overall similar rates of perpetration of partner abuse were reported by men and women <21% vs 22%> women were more likely than men to kick or hit <9% vs 5%> or hit or try to hit with objects <7% vs 2%>.)
Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2004). Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: men’s and women’s participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113 (2), 258-270. (Assessed 980 individuals, ages 24-26, who were participants in longitudinal study in New Zealand. Subjects were examined with the CTS, the Partner Conflict Calendar, PCC, a measure of the consequences of abuse and a variety of personality and psychopathology scales. Findings reveal that 9% of the total sample, with an equal number of men and women, were victims of clinical abuse in their relationships with partners.)
Ellison, C. G., Barkowski, J. P., & Anderson, K. R. (1999). Are there religious variations in domestic violence? Journal of Family Issues, 20, 87-113. (Subjects were selected from the first wave of The National Survey of Families & Households and consisted of 2,420 women and 2,242 men. Self administered surveys revealed that females were significantly more likely than males to perpetrate violence toward their partners. Authors report that “regular attendance at religious services is inversely associated” with domestic violence for men and women.)
Ernst, A. A., Nick, T. G., Weiss, S. J., Houry, D., & Mills, T. (1997). Domestic violence in an inner-city ED. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 30, 190-197. (Assessed 516 patients <233 men, 283 women> in a New Orleans inner-city emergency Department with the Index of Spousal Abuse, a scale to measure domestic violence. Found that 28% of the men and 33% of the women <a nonsignificant difference>, were victims of past physical violence while 20% of the men and 19% of the women reported being current victims of physical violence. In terms of ethnicity, 82% of subjects were African-American. Authors report that there was a significant difference in the number of women vs. men who reported past abuse to the police ,19% of women, 6% of men.>)
Farrell, W. (1999). Women can’t hear what men don’t say. New York: Tarcher/Putnam. See Chapter 6. (Pp. 123-162; 323-329.) (An excellent social and political analysis of couple violence.)
Feather, N. T. (1996). Domestic violence, gender and perceptions of justice. Sex Roles, 35, 507-519. (Subjects <109 men, 111 women> from Adelaide, South Australia, were presented a hypothetical scenario in which either a husband or wife perpetrated domestic violence. Participants were significantly more negative in their evaluation of the husband than the wife, were more sympathetic to the wife and believed that the husband deserved a harsher penalty for his behavior.)
Felson, R. B. (2002). Violence and Gender Reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Scholarly review and analysis of the literature. Author concludes that, “Women are just as likely as men to be victims of violence from their partners. . . .” Also “casts doubt on the battered wife syndrome as an explanation for why women kill their male partners.”)
Felson, R. B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence? Contexts, 5, 21-25. (Reports that while men are eight times more likely to commit overall violence than women, there is gender parity in partner violence. Author suggests that violent men are “less likely to assault their partners because of the chivalry norm.”)
Felson, R. B. (2008). The legal consequences of intimate partner violence for men and women. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 639-646. (Author reports that “evidence does not support the idea that assaults by male partners are particularly likely to be underreported or treated leniently. Rather, the results suggest that offenders who assault women are more likely to suffer legal consequences than those who assault men. . . .” In the article author summarizes an unpublished study examining whether gender and marital status affect whether people think the police should be notified about a partner assault. In a telephone survey, 800 subjects responded to a scenario of an argument between a couple in which one strikes the other, bruising their arm. Results indicate that subjects were more likely <80% to 60%> to condemn men’s assaults on women than women’s assaults on men, even though injuries were identical.)
Felson, R. B., & Outlaw, M. (2007). The control motive and marital violence. Violence and Victims, 22, 387-407. (Study based on an analysis of data obtained through the National Violence Against Women Survey <see Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000>. Authors looked at 10,000 respondents out of 16,000 total sample who were currently married. Results reveal that adult women are just as controlling and jealous toward their male partners as the other way around. Also report that, “While controlling spouses in current marriages are more likely to act violently there is no evidence that this relationship is gendered.”)
Felson, R. B., & Pare, P. (2005). The reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 597-610. (Authors analyzed data from The National Violence Against Women Survey, and found that “male victims are particularly reluctant to report assaults by their female partners.” Reasons for nonreporting include: fear of reprisal, thought that police could do nothing to help and charges would not be believed.)
Felson, R. B., & Pare, P. (2007). Does the criminal justice system treat domestic violence and sexual offenders leniently? Justice Quarterly, 24, 435-459. (Authors analyzed data from the National Violence Against Women Survey and conclude that “women who assault their male partners are particularly likely to avoid arrest.”)
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2005). Partner violence and mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1103-1119. (Examined extent of domestic violence experience and perpetration in a sample of 828 <437 women, 391 men> young adults who were 25 years old. Subjects were part of a long term longitudinal study and were administered the CTS2. Results reveal that “there were more men exposed to severe domestic violence than women” and that mild and moderate rates were similar for men and women. Overall, 39.4% of women and 30.9% of men reported perpetration scores of 3 or higher. Authors report that men and women reported similar rates of injury <3.9% for women vs. 3.3% for men>. In terms of initiation of partner assaults, 34% of women and 12% of men reported initiating physical assaults.)
Fiebert, M. S., & Gonzalez, D. M. (1997). Women who initiate assaults: The reasons offered for such behavior. Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590. (A sample of 968 women, drawn primarily from college courses in the Southern California area, were surveyed regarding their initiation of physical assaults on their male partners. 29% of the women, n=285, revealed that they initiated assaults during the past five years. Women in their 20’s were more likely to aggress than women aged 30 and above. In terms of reasons, women appear to aggress because they did not believe that their male victims would be injured or would retaliate. Women also claimed that they assaulted their male partners because they wished to engage their attention, particularly emotionally.)
Fiebert, M. S. (1996). College students’ perception of men as victims of women’s assaultive behavior. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 82, 49-50. (Three hundred seventy one college students <91 men, 280 women> were surveyed regarding their knowledge and acceptance of the research finding regarding female assaultive behavior. The majority of subjects (63%) were unaware of the finding that women assault men as frequently as men assault women; a slightly higher percentage of women than men (39% vs 32%) indicated an awareness of this finding. With regard to accepting the validity of these findings a majority of subjects (65%) endorsed such a result with a slightly higher percentage of men (70% vs 64%)indicating their acceptance of this finding.)
Flynn, C. P. (1990). Relationship violence by women: issues and implications. Family Relations, 36, 295-299. (A review/analysis article that states, “researchers consistently have found that men and women in relationships, both marital and premarital engage in comparable amounts of violence.” Author also writes, “Violence by women in intimate relationships has received little attention from policy makers, the public, and until recently, researchers…battered men and abusive women have receive ‘selective inattention’ by both the media and researchers.”)
Follingstad, D. R., Wright, S., & Sebastian, J. A. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40, 51-57. (A sample of 495 college students <207 men, 288 women> completed the CTS and other instruments including a “justification of relationship violence measure.” The study found that women were twice as likely to report perpetrating dating violence as men. Female victims attributed male violence to a desire to gain control over them or to retaliate for being hit first, while men believed that female aggression was a based on their female partner’s wish to “show how angry they were and to retaliate for feeling emotionally hurt or mistreated.”)
Foo, L., & Margolin, G. (1995). A multivariate investigation of dating aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 351-377. (A sample of 290 college students <111 men, 179 women> responded to the CTS. Results reveal that 24.3% of men and 38.5% of women reported perpetrating physical violence toward their dating partners.)
Forke, C. M., Myers, R. K., Catallozzi, M., & Schwarz, D. F. (2008). Relationship violence among female and male college undergraduate students. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 162, 634-641. (A sample of 910 college students <520 women, 390 men> from three college campuses responded to select items from the CTS. Results indicate that women were significantly more likely to report perpetrating physical violence on their male partners than men on their female partners.)
Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11 (3), 275-286. (Data collected from 1965 adolescents in eighth and ninth grade in 14 schools in rural North Carolina. Results reveal that 36.5% of dating females and 39.4% of dating males report being victims of physical dating violence. In terms of perpetrating violence 27.8% of females while only 15.0% of males report perpetrating violence.)
Gelles, R. J. (1994). Research and advocacy: Can one wear two hats? Family Process, 33, 93-95. (Laments the absence of objectivity on the part of “feminist” critics of research demonstrating female perpetrated domestic violence.)
Gelles, R. J. (2007). The politics of research: The use, abuse, and misuse of social science data – the case of intimate partner violence. Family Court Review, 45, 42-51. (An analysis examining the issue of how social science data has been “abused and misused in policy and practice in the area of Intimate Partner Violence <IPV>.” Challenges “supposed” facts in the area and faults feminists for not acknowledging the empirical findings that men are equal victims of IPV.)
George, M. J. (1994). Riding the donkey backwards: Men as the unacceptable victims of marital violence. Journal of Men’s Studies, 3, 137-159. (A thorough review of the literature which examines findings and issues related to men as equal victims of partner abuse.)
George, M. J. (1999). A victimization survey of female perpetrated assaults in the United Kingdom. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 67-79. (A representative sample of 718 men and 737 women completed the CTS and reported their experience as victims of physical assaults by women during a five year period. Men reported greater victimization and more severe assaults than did women. Specifically, 14% of men compared to 7% of women reported being assaulted by women. Highest risk group were single men. The majority (55%) of assaults on men were perpetrated by spouses, partners, or former partners.)
George, M. J. (2002). Skimmington Revisited. Journal of Men’s Studies, 10 (2), 111-127. (Examines historical sources and finds that men who were victims of spousal aggression were subject to punishment and humiliation. Inferences to contemporary trivialization of male victims of partner aggression is discussed.)
George, M. J. (2003). Invisible touch. Aggression & Violent Behaviour, 8, 23-60. (A comprehensive review and analysis of female initiated partner aggression. Historical, empirical and case evidence presented to demonstrate reality of “battered husband syndrome.”)
George, M. J. (2007). The “great taboo” and the role of patriarchy in husband and wife abuse. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 7-22. (A scholarly examination of key myths and taboos surrounding the concept of patriarchy. Emphasizes the point that IPV will be successfully combated only when male victimization is acknowledged and addressed by both men and women.)
Giordano, P. C., Millhollin, T. J., Cernkovich, S. A., Pugh, M. D., & Rudolph, J. L. (1999). Delinquency, identity, and women’s involvement in relationship violence. Criminology, 37, 17-40. (Reports the responses of 721 young adults <45% male, 55% female; 47% white, 53% nonwhite> who had been involved in delinquent activities 10 years earlier. Subjects responded to a modified version of the CTS. Findings reveal that women were more likely to perpetrate violence than men. Specifically, 27.6% of women compared to 19.2% of men hit or threw at their partner and 8.3% of women compared to 0.4% of men threatened spouse or partner with a knife.)
The DVIC is the domestic partner of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and as such, it is primarily a propaganda endeavor.
It is impossible to understand the DVIC without first understanding that it is, at its primary source, a propaganda campaign, and an arm of CIA projects of mass control and particularly control of minds through media, in extensions and refinements of Project Mockingbird; and that the DVIC was birthed in the post Reagan era, but most likely conceived as a tool of social control well before it:
In 1981, CIA director William Casey, in a meeting with President Reagan, was quoted as saying, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” link
Today, we see that the war is endless, the enemies ever multiplying, and the boogieman is always at your door. But exactly WHO is that boogieman? This blog makes the argument that the DVIC and its affiliated industries are the real enemy of the people, and the state is now a tool of mass repression, instead of a union of democratic endeavor, due to this collusion.
I attempt to make the case that the DVIC is the domestic partner of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and that together, they work to on one hand create violent offenders, and on the other, to steer those violent offenders into military service-and failing that, they label such men as “threats” to home and homeland.
Where did this war at home-in our homes, and on our televisions, and our internet-this everywhere at all times endless war-exactly how and where did this full assault on all Americans, and others begin? I suggest it began when American’s realized they were in a huge trap- that of endless debt; and that the MIC created the DVIC as a tool of social control to contain the hearts and minds of women who produce the future’s cannon fodder.
There are likely many opinions on that, but for expediency, I will point to the mid 1980’s, the war on pornography, and the collusion of women’s organizations and police power. That battle played out in a variety of ways, but culminated in the birth of a devilish Rockefeller child known as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) whereby the MIC and the Mockingbird of the CIA were able to finally obtain a post-cold war objective: that of total control of the minds of the masses. And they did this through generating constant fear, and especially, by undermining the voice, and the guidance of the men that women chose to make babies with.
As we see now- that was no small effort, and the VAWA and it’s affiliated policies and projects elected three presidents-and Vice President Joe Biden notoriously wrote the legislation into existence. At that time, this other war-the war at home, here in America on the domestic front- became a proxy for later conflicts that we see playing out today all across the middle east (ME), and if some have their way, into Russia and China and Korea. Such is the vision of the endless warriors.
So, this is the beginning- in the era when we were told that women needed to be ’empowered’ in order to give them rightful equality, and necessary protections against systemic, institutional violence directed at them by ‘the system’ that kept them ‘in their place’ and the men who controlled and created those systems. We will see that now, that model was a deliberate falsehood- that women are now and were then heavily invested in the creation and maintenance of those same institutions of inequality, and that war has only increased due to VAWA, and prisons have only grown and children in America are no better off.
And we will also see that men are far worse off than ever- that in fact, many men who fill the prisons, and the homeless shelters, and the insane asylums of America (those which are left after the privatized prisons became de facto mental institutions) were often the resistance to this ‘New World Order,” where our children are leveraged against us. And we shall see that DV as we know it was and is often an act of resistance by some, and an act of retribution by others, and that, which only enables further repression, and the destruction of civil liberties.
Who is Dr. Martin Fiebert, and why is he as relevant today as he was in 1993, the year that VAWA was passed?
Long before the ideologues, the politicians, the police and prison guards unions, and the women’s organizations and gender feminists-the vast net of social services slavers that slept in the same political bed with them, there was extensive knowledge of DV, and plenty of statistics, and resources devoted to empowering victims, or lending voice to the issue.
But the problem at that time was one of narrative control, and then, institutional control-and then, the vast money pot that finances these endeavors. And the centerpiece issue was that “international” feminists, financed by outside-of-America interests, wanted in on that money pot, and to do so, they allied themselves with the police power, which can NEVER sem to have enough police on the force, or money in their pensions.
And politicians, of course, none of whom knew how to answer the burning questions of the day, each election, like “What-do you beat your wife?!” Each and every resistance to utilizing the memetic of DV was cast as someohow, the person who read the writing on the wall ws a wife beater, by not going along with the politics of identity and DV’s insistence that it was for the children-after all-“do you beat your children??”
Martin Fiebert is often cited in Men’s studies programs (which are roundly mocked and derided by those who derive income from the DVIC), but also more and more frequently cited as a cool head in the otherwise hot dialogues of gender studies and DV narratives. What Fiebert did then and now, was kept a running, updated bibliography of studies that documented women’s violence against men, and women’s violence against their husbands and partners.
Not surprisingly, his work is some of the most downplayed of all the great statistical record keeping feats of the last decades, because it told us then, what everyone knows now: women initiate slightly more DV than men, and men use more force to stop these assaults; and women become harmed in slightly greater ways as a result. In other words- after hundreds of millions stretching into the billions, payed to these police/feminist organizations to study DV- we know now what Fiebert knew then. And a LOT of people made A LOT of money in these era’s, manipulating these facts for paychecks and pensions.
Here is a compendium of statistics you have likely heard about, or are familiar with from television, and other media because organizations like the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) and others like them are multi-million dollar public relations industries, funded by domestic dollars in the form of federal grants that states and entities receive for disseminating messages about DV-and there are many more of these that echo each other ala the CIA-MSM Mockingbird, and there are many more federal offices like the DOJ’s Office of Violence Against Women, and other org’s and NGO’s that are ‘on message,’ and on the payroll as well:
Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
Last updated: June 2012
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.
And here, below are other sources of opposite end of the ‘official’ and state subsidized statistics- the stats that document the falsehoods inherent in federally funded and incentivized propaganda campaigns that put a bounty on men, and incentivize each and every report, whether true or false.
Plainly, the war is on men, and their families-their children- are the bounty that the state seeks.
Families, children, local economies and more have lost opportunities while academics, police, lawyers, judges, CPS workers, social services centers and PR firms rake in billions (the Foster Care industry alone is estimated to pay out some 600 million per year, despite the fact that a child’s chances of being raped or otherwise sexually abused go up 70% the day they enter that system).
And, as is well known, and documented, domestic violence rates have changed little in the 40 years that these DV industries sprang up-women still initiate MORE DV, abuse MORE children, and DV in general is is committed at a nearly a perfect 50/50 rate, with women tending to initiate more, and men tending to respond to female initiated violence. And, many of the communities that pushed the narrative of DV are themselves intricately implicated as abusers- the rates of DV in the gay community are outrageously higher than in the straight community.
I will not weigh in to the statistical and rhetorical quagmire that is the inflationary and conflationary tendencies and propaganda tactics of those who work in the highly profitable DV industries, and I will avoid partisan, diversionary, and divisionary traps, and would rather invite the reader to focus on two things: 1) the massive amounts of money available for those who work in the various DV industries, and 2) the wider fact that a war has been waged here in America, primarily upon men, and most people never knew it, because the Mockingbird effect is so plainly profitable, and lies and half truths, falsehoods and fakery travel the world a thousand times before the truth wakes up and puts its pants on.
But the facts are the facts: men die or are murdered by these policies every year, but only recently has anyone taken the time to compile statistics of that. Until the Ferguson MO murder of a black shoplifter, few in America were aware of how many people are killed by police, and even fewer were ready to begin to look at the horror of the effects of domestic violence on men. But it is this salient pointwhere I will begin this blog, and hope that the reader can make the connections themselves.
So, in the record of human violence, there is no shortage of evidence that we are an often brutal or violent species. But there is also clear evidence in the record that ALL humans endure violence in one form or another, and that they experience violence equally, and collectively- but little proof that violence is gendered. Only in the modern replication of Victorian female privilege do we see the narrative of privilege inthe disguise of the DV rhetoric.
And that modern trend to privilege some narratives above others is plainly against most previous social group ethos and practice, and, well- it’s inhuman. Women have frequently throughout history fought alongside men in conflict, and just as frequently been injured or harmed in conflicts.
Only when we see the encroachment on any given society by another version of society do we see the privileging of the narrative-that for one society to separate the women of another society away from their primary society-then we see that use of negative language to describe the primary societies violence. It is a blatant and calculated effort by one tribe to steal the ‘breeding stock’ of another, through outright violence and trickery. And this is what America’s DV policies are as well.
But WHO is doing the stealing-who is doing the trickery? That is a bigger question, that I cannot answer immediately, but I can point to other periods of human history and show that women frequently fight ALONGSIDE the men of their tribes, rather than against them.
From Westerndigs.org a tale of 5000 year old conflict, where women fought alongside their men, rather than against them:
From Stone Darts to Dismembered Bodies, New Study Reveals 5,000 Years of Violence in Central California
“Throughout the 5,000-year survey, the researchers also note, evidence of violence was almost always more often common in men than in women — with the notable exception of blunt-force trauma.
“Females also on occasion participated in combat with neighboring tribes and colonizers, although to a lesser degree relative to males,” Jones reported.
Indeed, rates of head trauma were only slightly less common in women than men — 4% of females, versus 5.5% of males — an observation perhaps supported by the many historic accounts of women taking up arms alongside men in the Miwok, Costanoan, and Patwin, among other groups.
Taken together, Jones said, their data portray periodic bouts of inflamed violence among Central California’s ancient indigenous groups, rather than a long, steadily increasing trend.
But violence was always present, despite what Jones sees as a tendency by modern historians and anthropologists to overlook native conflict.
“It seems that everyone wants to envision some Eden-like period in the past when there was less violence,” he said.
“Violence is an uncomfortable topic, especially for some Native American descendants. Certain naive environmentalists also seem to want to cling to the notion of prehistories free of any social or ecological ills.”