From NPR and the AP:
CDC Survey: 1 In 4 Women Attacked By Partner
December 14, 2011It's a startling number: 1 in 4 women surveyed by the government say they were violently attacked by their husbands or boyfriends.
Experts in domestic violence don't find it too surprising, although some aspects of the survey may have led to higher numbers than are sometimes reported.
Even so, a government official who oversaw the research called the results "astounding."
"It's the first time we've had this kind of estimate" on the prevalence of intimate partner violence, said Linda Degutis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The survey, released by the CDC on Wednesday, marks the beginning of a new annual project to look at how many women say they've been abused.
One expert called the new report's estimate on rape and attempted rape "extremely high" with 1 in 5 women saying they were victims. About half of those cases involved intimate partners. No documentation was sought to verify the women's claims, which were made anonymously.
But advocates say the new rape numbers are plausible.
"It's a major problem that often is underestimated and overlooked," said Linda James, director of health for Futures Without Violence, a San Francisco-based organization that advocates against domestic abuse.
The CDC report is based on a randomized telephone survey of about 9,000 women and 7,400 men.
Among the findings:
As many as 29 million women say they have suffered severe and frightening physical violence from a boyfriend, spouse or other intimate partner. That includes being choked, beaten, stabbed, shot, punched, slammed against something or hurt by hair-pulling.
That number grows to 36 million if slapping, pushing and shoving are counted.
Almost half of the women who reported rape or attempted rape said it happened when they were 17 or younger.
As many as 1 in 3 women have experienced rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetimes, compared to about 1 in 10 men.
Both men and women who had been menaced or attacked in these ways reported more health problems. Female victims, in particular, had significantly higher rates of irritable bowel syndrome, asthma, frequent headaches and difficulty sleeping.
Certain states seemed to have higher reports of sexual violence than others. Alaska, Oregon and Nevada were among the highest in rapes and attempted rapes of women, and Virginia and Tennessee were among the lowest.
Several of the CDC numbers are higher than those of other sources. For example, the CDC study suggests that 1.3 million women have suffered rape, attempted rape or had sex forced on them in the previous year. That statistic is more than seven times greater than what was reported by a Department of Justice household survey conducted last year.
The CDC rape numbers seem "extremely high," but there may be several reasons for the differences, including how the surveys were done, who chose to participate and how "rape" and other types of assault were defined or interpreted, said Shannan Catalano, a statistician with the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
"It is an evolving field, and everyone is striving to get a handle on what's the best estimate," Catalano said.
The CDC's numbers don't seem surprising to people who work with abused women.
"I think that the awareness is growing," said Kim Frndak, community educator for the Women's Rescue Center to End Domestic Violence, which operates a shelter on the outskirts of Atlanta.
"More and more people are really saying, `Oh, this is something that we need to pay attention to as well,' because it's your sister, it's your mother, it's your daughter, it's your son, it's your brother. Someone in your own circle is being affected by domestic violence, and the effects can be devastating," she said.
I don't know what "internalizing greater equality" means. Let's just acknowledge a few principles:
ReplyDelete1. There is greater variation within groups than between groups.
2. Men and women are equal under the law.
3. Persons are to be treated according to their own merits and actions.
"3. Persons are to be treated according to their own merits and actions."
ReplyDeleteWhat a fucking load of bullshit. Care to furnish either a Wholly Babblical OR Constitutional source for that whopper?
I know that you want to be able to shoot those people who threaten you (disagreeing with and denigrating your fucking stupid views might be a thing that "threatens" your selfworth?) but you really need to find a citation that justifies that particular bit of nonsense.
No Greg, I won't agree to the principles you outline.
ReplyDeleteInternalizing greater equality means that people change their own personal beliefs to recognize each other as true equals. Haven't you understood the premise of internalizing values?
Sigh. You do like making other people do your own work for you instead of doing it yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_equality
1. variation is immaterial for purposes of this argument; there is no variation that pertains, either within groups or between groups
2. This is not a matter of legal status, it is about the power dynamic between people. Legal equality is about an entirely different relationships.
3. No, people are to be treated with a fundamental respect. No woman has to earn the right not to be the victim of domestic violence; there have been far too many abusers who claim women 'deserve' their abuse because of some trivial failing or fault. It is not ok for men to beat up women,or for women to beat up men, or any other demographic of members of domestic relationships to harm the other by either threat or actual violence.
Sheesh Greg, do you ever think you might need to actually have knowledge And/Or an understanding of a topic before you form an opinion on it -and express that opinion?
dog gone:
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should have been clearer. I'm sure that Greg Camp's comment wasn't about women (at least I hope I'm sure). I expect he's using the "eye for an eye" OT justification for hurting people if/before they can harm you. Either way, it's bullshit.
The two of you jump to so many unwarranted conclusions that it astonishes me that you ever claim to be rational thinkers. Where did I say that beating up anyone is a good idea?
ReplyDeletePersons are to be treated according to their own merits and actions.
I'm talking about hiring decisions and the like. I don't grade my students on the basis of being men or women. I grade them on their work. Are you really incapable of seeing how that fits with what I said?
Democommie, you want a citation? How about King's speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial? He spoke about judging a person on the content of his character, not the color of his skin. This isn't something that is based in facts. It's a moral principle.
Dog Gone,
I treat persons not as members of groups but as individuals. That doesn't mean that I go around attacking people. I don't beat on women. I don't need you to respect me, but if you'd stop disrespecting me so much, you might see that we share a lot of agreement here.
By the way, do you work in the social sciences? "Internalizing greater equality" sounds like the phrasing that such fields use. It's wordy and vague and could be written better.
GC writes Persons are to be treated according to their own merits and actions.
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about hiring decisions and the like. I don't grade my students on the basis of being men or women. I grade them on their work. Are you really incapable of seeing how that fits with what I said?
and that pertains to a post on domestic violence against women by spouses, or romantic partners HOW?
IT DOESN'T.
I wrote about changing how people regard and treat each other, that the best change comes from teaching them to think and feel differently, not from locking them in jail, or least of all from shooting them.
So, either you are an idiot, and didn't even look at the material in the post.
Or you need to admit that your comment did not address the content in a way that makes any sense whatsoever.
Show me what 'variation' makes any sense or has any application whatsoever to it being a bad thing for men to beat up the women they claim to love.
Show me where men and women are equal under the law in job hiring has anything whatsoever to do with men beating up their spouses / lovers.
Show me where people are to be treated according to their actions and merits applies to it being wrong for men to beat up women. Is there some action or merit on the part of women that you think explains assault?
You wrote something stupid. I pointed out that you wrote something stupid, and that your comments have nothing to do with the content of this post, whatever validity they might have in other contexts (or not).
You are an idiot, you cannot and do not read for comprehension, and your comments are drivel.
Are you incapable of admitting you are wrong? Apparently so.
So, either you are an idiot, and didn't even look at the material in the post.
ReplyDeleteI go with idiot.
Although, he also appear to not look at or understand the material.
Variation within and between groups is about the false notion that all men are better than all women or that all whites are better than all blacks. If we consider people as groups, we find no ranking by race, ethnicity, or sex. That being the case, there is no justification for treating any member of a particular sex or race or so forth badly just for belonging to that group.
ReplyDeleteBeing equal under the law means that the crime of domestic violence is no less significant or outrageous than that of assault against a stranger. Abusers try to claim that their wives are theirs to abuse, but that's evil and foolish. Equal under the law also means that each person deserves the same civil rights, including the right not to be abused.
Treating people according to their own actions and merits means that I take individuals as they are, not as members of groups. Yes, that one is moving beyond the immediate topic, but if I look at another person as an individual, I have to learn that person's characteristics. I can't just say, she's a woman or he's Chinese, and know everything that there is to know about the person.
And Greg wonders why we think he's an idiot.
ReplyDeleteGC writes:If we consider people as groups, we find no ranking by race, ethnicity, or sex.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, we DO. We find far more abuse of women by men.
Or did you miss the statistical significance of groups here:
Among the findings:
As many as 29 million women say they have suffered severe and frightening physical violence from a boyfriend, spouse or other intimate partner. That includes being choked, beaten, stabbed, shot, punched, slammed against something or hurt by hair-pulling.
That number grows to 36 million if slapping, pushing and shoving are counted.
Almost half of the women who reported rape or attempted rape said it happened when they were 17 or younger.
As many as 1 in 3 women have experienced rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetimes, compared to about 1 in 10 men.
and
Several of the CDC numbers are higher than those of other sources. For example, the CDC study suggests that 1.3 million women have suffered rape, attempted rape or had sex forced on them in the previous year. That statistic is more than seven times greater than what was reported by a Department of Justice household survey conducted last year.
I'm not making any statements about individual behavior here - other than Greg is an idiot -but this is clearly about differences in groups by gender.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteAre you just determined to disagree with me? Are you claiming that women are inherently victims of abuse? I said that no one group is superior by nature to another group. I'm aware that some women are abused by the men in their lives. That's not how it should be, nor is it "natural." We need to do something about domestic violence--penalties for abusers, more shelters for victims, etc. By ranking, though, I was referring to the inherent characteristics of men and women, say, and my point was that there is no difference in the worth or ability of either.
GC wrote:Are you claiming that women are inherently victims of abuse?
ReplyDeleteAre women inherently victims of abuse?
Where does anything in this post suggest the problem relates to an inherent quality in either men or women?
Has it been true that men physically abuse women more than the other way around across cultures and throughout history?
I don't have statistics for that, but I think it is a reasonable generalization. That is probably true of children to some degree as well.
Do you consider that an indication of some inherent quality?
I don't. I think your point is silly.
I do believe how we see each other as human beings is significant to how we treat each other, which is one of the reasons I object so strongly to your use of the word goblin for human criminals. I'm sure you think it is cute, but I see parallels in that dehumanizing terminology to derogatory and dehumanizing terms/ slang/ etc. applied to other groups which also seems to go hand in glove with abuse, be it gender, race, age, economic status, etc.
Words have power, and names and identity have a special power.
Or do you disagree?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI asked if you believe that they are. I do not. I've been saying all along that they are not. If you can't understand that, then you need to check your reading comprehension.
As for those who commit crimes of violence against innocent persons, they dehumanize themselves.
Greg, It's a matter of testosterone vs. estrogen, and when you throw about a million guns in, the women are gettin' fucked, figuretively speaking.
ReplyDeleteNow that's a quote of the day for ya, even if I say so myself.
"3. Persons are to be treated according to their own merits and actions."
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing, Wild Greg; it makes no difference what "persons" you're talking about. Whether it's women in toto or in part or some other population, reating them according to "according to their own merits and actions." is completely wrong. We treat people as people. When I say, "we", I mean those of us who use our heads for something other than a hat rack.
Greg writes I asked if you believe that they are. I do not. I've been saying all along that they are not. If you can't understand that, then you need to check your reading comprehension.
ReplyDeleteYou asked a stupid question in the context of having made a stupid comment. My reading comprehension is operating just fine, thank you.
As for those who commit crimes of violence against innocent persons, they dehumanize themselves.
No. They don't. People do things which are wrong, they do things which are cruel, They do things which are mistaken, and they do the worst when they think they know better than other people and try to force that belief system on others. But they are still people, and deserve to be regarded as such. You're predilection to see people as 'dehumanized' or less human is deeply disturbing to me.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI disturb you? Good. You disturb me. I do think that your comments would be more effective if you didn't toss around insults all the time. You just can't resist making judgements about others. If that's what you mean about treating people as people, I'll take my approach any day.
But you wonder why I accuse you of being a hypocrite.
Democommie,
Yes, I've had months of experience with you treating people as people. I have no doubt that a great many neutral observers would call you a fucking liar on this one.
Mikeb302000,
So we are all without the power to choose? We're all slaves to our hormones? Somehow, many of us find ways not to become abusers.
Besides, yes, there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country. Why aren't there far greater numbers of abuses?
Aw, poor Greg, he confuse words with actions. I make fun of you, Greggy, because you're a whining piece of shit and a FUCKING LIAR. I wouldn't lift a hand towards you, except in self defense. I wouldn't restrict or attempt to limit your exercise of your civil rights in any way.
ReplyDeleteYou and others like you do not make the world safer for the rest of us--or for yourself. Your demented notion that your carrying of a concealed weapon is some sort of magic talisman against harm to your person is nonsense on a par with elephant charms.
You're a fucking idiot who, thanks to the wonderful 1st Amendment, is allowed to say or write whatever you like, as long as it's not prohibited by constitutionally observant laws. We are, likewise, protected in our mockery, disdain and ridicule of an asshole like you--with the exact same conditions. If you want to be an asshole, that's your privilege; as it is ours to call you an asshole. Asshole.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteFine, but can you really not see that your claim to treating people as people is looking false?
"Fine, but can you really not see that your claim to treating people as people is looking false?"
ReplyDeleteActually, Greg Camp, no. You say, "treating" and you think that covers discourse? Do you think I'm abusing you in some way? If so, please contact the Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance people and have them write me a ticket.
Say stupid shit; be ridiculed and laughed at. You want to come here and make ridiculous assertions, assertions for which you provide no substantial backing, insulting the intelligence of people who ARE actually a good bit more educated than you are in a number of areas. Then YOU want to be considered an intelligent and thoughtful commenter? Fuck you, you whining clown.
Greg: "Besides, yes, there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country. Why aren't there far greater numbers of abuses?"
ReplyDeleteDidn't you read that sub heading? Women are being killed by gunfire every day by their partners or ex-partners. Why do you defend that?
I'd say most of the abusers could be easily identified as unfit for gun ownership. That wouldn't hurt you a bit. Why do you resist?
Don't answer that, it's enough that you do resist. And that's why I blame you and all your partners in crime (gun-rights supporters).