Poll: Isn't this kind of sexist?

[The_root_of_all_evil]

That doesn't refute anything I said.

It provides a numerical basis though. Something you were lacking.

By the way, for the CDC report:

Thus, approximately

4.9 million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated against

U.S. women annually, and approximately 2.9 million intimate partner physical

assaults are committed against U.S. men annually.

Again, that's not 1/3 or 85%.

 

[Sean Steele]

Because it's Oprah, and the audience she caters to and targets is predominantly women. It's not strange at all that the topic of her show would be spun to catch the attention of women specifically.

Pretty much this. Also, the CDC has found that women are over three time more likely to experience domestic violence than men.[footnote]https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/181867.txt[/footnote]

Honestly, I find domestic violence among the LGBT community (both among men and women) to be more interesting and glossed over.

Why dose the CDC keep those numbers I thought it would be the FBI or the like.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm sorry, since when was killing the only kind of domestic abuse?

Equally, when was Intimate Partner Violence the only kind of domestic abuse?

They're flawed statistics.

Maybe the study is flawed. But the OP didn't even bother to look for one. And other people have provided other studies that have lesser numbers, but still a huge disparity between the percentage of male and female victims.

Huge disparity? >40% male is NOT a huge disparity.

That's a huge disparity.

 

[Dags90]

Why dose the CDC keep those numbers I thought it would be the FBI or the like.

Violence is a public health problem, so the CDC investigates it. The Department of Justice also collects data about reported domestic violence crimes.

 

[Liudeius]

This (with other examples) has come up on the Escapist a few times.

The conclusion, it is sexist, but that's not going to change soon.
(Though this particular example may not be depending on context.)

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

So I happen to be watching reruns of oprah, mostly because I had nothing alse to do. Ok, entirely because I had nothing to do but anyway, the issue addressed in the episode is the abuse and/or murder of WOMEN by their MALE boyfriends/husbands and exes.

I started thinking, why is it MALE?

What's the point of making it very clear that men beating up they're girlfriends is an issue (and it is), and simultaneously completely ignoring that there's even a possibility of it happening the other way around.

And before you say that it's because it happens mostly to women, A: There's no definite proof of that and B: I don't really see how that changes the issue unless women beating men is an extremely small less than 1% minority in these cases.

Doesn't this just really help reinforce a harmful view in society that women could never bring harm to men?

A: Did you even look? First google hit for 'Domestic abuse statistics':
http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet%28National%29.pdf

85% of domestic abuse victims are women. So unless you have something countering the plethora of sources they cite your claim that there is no definite proof is quite flimsy.

B: And why does it need to be less than 1%? One is a bigger problem than the other. Nearly 8 times as common. So what is the problem with focusing on the bigger problem? You're the one that took focusing on the bigger problem as saying the smaller one never happens.

Let me ask you something, whos more likely to report that their partner is abusing him/her, a man or a woman?

That's what I meant by "no definite proof".

And the problem is that by neglecting to mention the other group you give the impression that it almost never happens to the other group. over 15 percent isn't almost never.

So you lack any real proof, you just have a guess. Sorry, that's not particularly acceptable. "Oh your study is wrong because I have a random guess that you may have already accounted for, but I was too lazy to look!". Besides, for it NOT to be the majority of women you'd have to have massive amounts of under reporting. Where's your proof of that?

No, it doesn't give that impression.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware making assumptions based on rational thinking was forbidden when arguing. Your absolutely right, I'm sorry.

Do the world a favour, google the definition of guess.

Let's see... is it rational to assume that men might be under reporting so much, with the only evidence being knowledge of society and no hard numbers, that the percentage would change by 35%+ percent? HMMMMMMMM. No, that's not rational thinking. That's playing dumb and pretending that maybe absolutely fantastical things might be unaccounted for.

When you're guessing at a ridiculous amount like that, no it isn't rational. It's simply a random guess.

I feel like I'm repeating myself-well actually I feel more like I'm shouting at a wall but large numbers still don't make it a guess.

 

[Jake Lewis Clayton]

B: And why does it need to be less than 1%? One is a bigger problem than the other. Nearly 8 times as common.

15 x 4 = 60
15 x 5 = 75
<------
15 x 6 = 90
15 x 7 = 105
15 x 8 = 120

There's where you want to be aiming, it's between 5 and 6, not 8 ;-)


You did good with the statistics and sources, just don't put your own figures in unless your ability to do maths is atleast primary school when you post

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

So I happen to be watching reruns of oprah, mostly because I had nothing alse to do. Ok, entirely because I had nothing to do but anyway, the issue addressed in the episode is the abuse and/or murder of WOMEN by their MALE boyfriends/husbands and exes.

I started thinking, why is it MALE?

What's the point of making it very clear that men beating up they're girlfriends is an issue (and it is), and simultaneously completely ignoring that there's even a possibility of it happening the other way around.

And before you say that it's because it happens mostly to women, A: There's no definite proof of that and B: I don't really see how that changes the issue unless women beating men is an extremely small less than 1% minority in these cases.

Doesn't this just really help reinforce a harmful view in society that women could never bring harm to men?

A: Did you even look? First google hit for 'Domestic abuse statistics':
http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet%28National%29.pdf

85% of domestic abuse victims are women. So unless you have something countering the plethora of sources they cite your claim that there is no definite proof is quite flimsy.

B: And why does it need to be less than 1%? One is a bigger problem than the other. Nearly 8 times as common. So what is the problem with focusing on the bigger problem? You're the one that took focusing on the bigger problem as saying the smaller one never happens.

Let me ask you something, whos more likely to report that their partner is abusing him/her, a man or a woman?

That's what I meant by "no definite proof".

And the problem is that by neglecting to mention the other group you give the impression that it almost never happens to the other group. over 15 percent isn't almost never.

So you lack any real proof, you just have a guess. Sorry, that's not particularly acceptable. "Oh your study is wrong because I have a random guess that you may have already accounted for, but I was too lazy to look!". Besides, for it NOT to be the majority of women you'd have to have massive amounts of under reporting. Where's your proof of that?

No, it doesn't give that impression.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware making assumptions based on rational thinking was forbidden when arguing. Your absolutely right, I'm sorry.

Do the world a favour, google the definition of guess.

Let's see... is it rational to assume that men might be under reporting so much, with the only evidence being knowledge of society and no hard numbers, that the percentage would change by 35%+ percent? HMMMMMMMM. No, that's not rational thinking. That's playing dumb and pretending that maybe absolutely fantastical things might be unaccounted for.

When you're guessing at a ridiculous amount like that, no it isn't rational. It's simply a random guess.

I feel like I'm repeating myself-well actually I feel more like I'm shouting at a wall but large numbers still don't make it a guess.

Yes, they do. You have a reason to believe one is more under reported than the other. There is no reason to believe the ridiculous amount it would need for women to not be the majority of the victims. Believing that someone may owe you money is not a good basis for the claim that they may owe you a billion dollars, for instance.

That's a pretty extreme metaphor but i suppose your right.

 

[twistedmic]

A: Did you even look? First google hit for 'Domestic abuse statistics':
http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet%28National%29.pdf

85% of domestic abuse victims are women. So unless you have something countering the plethora of sources they cite your claim that there is no definite proof is quite flimsy.

B: And why does it need to be less than 1%? One is a bigger problem than the other. Nearly 8 times as common. So what is the problem with focusing on the bigger problem? You're the one that took focusing on the bigger problem as saying the smaller one never happens.

That would be 85% of reported domestic abuse situations. There could be hundreds or thousands of cases where men have been physically abused by women that haven't been reported, either because the victim was too embarrassed to make the report or felt that they would receive no help from the authorities. Also, of those reported cases, there's the possibility that some of those reports were false. The women claims to have been abused to get back at the man for one reason or another (i.e. to get sole custody of children, to get more alimony, to get ownership of the house, etc.). Please note that I do not believe that all, or even most women, lie about physical abuse. Only a very few (hopefully) do that.

 

[Woodsey]

Because shows like Oprah like to boo and hiss at men. Its not sexist, but it does reveal the rather bizarre mindset of certain people.

Its like that talk show a few months ago where all the women (bar one, kind of) decided that a woman having her breast cut off is much worse than a man having his penis cut off - which did happen and which they spent 10 minutes laughing about.

 

[Evidencebased]

No, it's adjusting the content of the program to what'll draw the best ratings among the demographic it's aimed at.

Sometimes you discuss part of an issue without also discussing every other aspect of it. That's all that's going on here, it has absolutely nothing to do with "sexism" - the view that one gender is superior to the other - in any way or form.

Guess we can soon add "sexism" to the list of claims that should be viewed with extreme scepticism due to preposterous unfounded use.

Yes, this. Oprah's audience is primarily female and (according to a lot of the studies cited on this thread, among others) are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than perpetrators of it; considering both the audience and the stats, it's not at all unreasonable or sexist for one episode to be addressing violence against women.

 

[Bobic]

Honestly, I find domestic violence among the LGBT community (both among men and women) to be more interesting and glossed over.

Well, this is something I've never thought about, but you've gone and piqued my curiosity. How do the figures compare for that, is there more/less? Is there a difference in figures between gay males and lesbians? Or do you not really know d'yu to it being glossed over?

 

[Maeta]

i grew up with my mum watching the main british tv soaps like eastenders, and i remember loads of storylines concerning violence by men towards women, yet none the other way round, or between same sex couples for that matter, yet i've come across cases of wives mistreating their husbands in one way or another in my local area and at uni as much as i have of husbands mistreating wives, tho i thankfully don't recall violence amongst people i know, mainly cheating and locking the other out overnight
my main point is that in all the tv shows i was subjected to, which are supposed to be realistic, there was a 100% rate of women being abused (often very violently), and most of the time in the same shows, when the women cheated on the men, they were portrayed as the good guys, or at least in no way as harshly as the guys who cheated on the girls. often, the innocent husband was seen as a bad guy for somehow failing the wife by being the perfect husband (which seems a bit wrong)
as for my personal experience, my ex accused me of cheating on her with a girl who i had never spoken to, and also with another girl because i walked home with her one night when she lived basically next door (knowing full well that the other girl was in a committed relationship). the thing was, my ex was constantly flirting with this other guy (and one of our mutual friends at the time joked that her relatinship with her bestfriend was a bit suspect, which i ignored) and apparently i was an asshole for getting jealous for good reason, but was as much an asshole for apparently flirting with this girl who i played darts against once or twice... and i wouldnt describe it as flirting...
sorry, went a tad overboard there... but you get my drift

 

[GigaHz]

A: Did you even look? First google hit for 'Domestic abuse statistics':
http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet%28National%29.pdf

85% of domestic abuse victims are women. So unless you have something countering the plethora of sources they cite your claim that there is no definite proof is quite flimsy.

Yes, but even this statistic is hard to confirm as accurate. Most male victims are too ashamed to report any physical abuse from their partners because it is emasculating for a man to confess it. Hell, I was good friends with a guy who reported his fiancee for physical abuse and even the cops couldn't take him seriously (real professional of them too). All I know is that it does happen. Definitely not as frequent as Male abuse over Females, but enough to give it some much needed attention.

Back on topic, abuse is bad enough but women are more likely to be murdered by a former lover or their own husband than anyone else. It's a strange and ugly phenomenon so it fits the Oprah demographic perfectly. It's not so much about vilifying men, it's more about documenting something sick and getting women to be aware of the signs that they are in an abusive or dangerous relationship.

I don't know if many of you have been affected by a friend or family member who has been in an abusive relationship before but is incredibly hard to get them out of one. I can think of at least 3 times in my life where I have tried to get friends out of a toxic relationship. It's almost always a moot effort but you try anyway. It is only when they are pushed to the point of desperation that they might stand a chance of getting out. Women need to be made more self aware of the signs so that they stand a greater chance of leaving the relationship before they develop a Stockholm Syndrome esque love connection with their partners.

 

[cynicalsaint1]

I don't disbelieve that women are more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse than men, but I also think that incidents of women beating up men are probably under reported as well.

I knew a dude whose wife beat him, he tried calling the cops once and he was the one who ended being arrested.

I know that's anecdotal, but fact of the matter is when it does happen there are a lot of people who just aren't going to buy the story.

Same thing with rape where a woman rapes a man. No, its not near as common as the other way around, but it happens - and when it does most people are just going to laugh it off at the victim's expense.

Really which situation is in the need of more awareness?
Just something to think about.