Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cailil (talk | contribs) at 23:42, 4 February 2010 (→Violence by women: Beyond the box of heterosexual couples.: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gender studies Start‑class

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Deletion Debate

Unnecessary Article

This article is basically just a stub and would be better suited broken up into larger violence categories, like "domestic violence" and such. Plus, what's the point in having an article just about violence against women?

If there's no response in a week, I'll mark this article for deletion. Matt620 21:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is necessary for the same reason ethnic violence is necessary: it speaks of violence where a group of people is targeted simply for being members of that group. --Flewellyn 08:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated earlier, it's not often that clear-cut. They aren't targeted for being women; they are targeted for being cruel women, or abusive women, or a woman who refuses advances. Being a woman is actually only empirical data to the crime itself, but decades of feminism and the assertion of females being targeted have often blinded people to this. Matt620 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you're trying to accomplish here. If you're trying to argue that women who are victims of domestic violence are targeted because they are, as you say, cruel, or abusive, or refusing advances, are you trying to insinuate that they are "asking for it"? Because that's a clear implication of your statements. I also note your rush to blame feminism for...well, for what? Trying to point out that women get attacked just for being women, and that there is something wrong with this? I find it fascinating that you would object to that. --Flewellyn 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather funny that you assert it is wrong to assert the females deserve it (this is actually false; my assertion was that the motives for the violence are NOT because the victim's gender was female, but for a reason inspecific to it), and yet, you reverse this on the men by stating the victims said they raped him. Whether or not that is true, these women committed heinous acts that, under the reasoning you gave for violence against women, would classify as violence against men.

No, because their actions were motivated by personal grudge or pain. They targeted specific men who they claimed had specifically hurt them; true or not, this constitutes targeting an individual, not a group.

At any rate, my reason for thinking you were blaming the victims is that you threw in the "refusing advances" bit as a justification for assaulting a woman. As if a woman is obligated to return unwanted sexual attention! I find that very interesting indeed.

As for feminism, I am speaking about the state of constant victimhood without asserting responsibility for female violence. Erin Prizzey did studies on this: I'll refer you to her research. Matt620 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard that "culture of victimhood" argument before. I have yet to hear a concrete explanation of what it means. --Flewellyn 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the constant posts, but wouldn't it be better to convert this to gender violence? Ethnic violence does a significantly better job as an article because it encompasses all violence targeted by ethnicity, whereas this one ignores one sect. Your assertions about men and domestic violence are false due to the very nature of battered wife syndrome. In a more encompassing article, an addressing of the myths and facts surrounding engendered violence can be addressed in a way that would cut down on the POV and falsehoods of the current article. Matt620 17:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My assertion that women are targeted for being women, as opposed to men, who are targeted for other reasons (being of a different race, religion, sexual orientation, political party, or for personal reasons), is somehow disproved because of a legal defense? That doesn't make sense at all.

One of the myths about violence against women is that it's somehow on an equal footing with violence against men. This myth, I fear, is one you appear to be trying to champion. I am assuming that you're acting in good faith by pushing for this article to be deleted or rewritten (I agree that it needs expansion, but not in the ways you describe). However, I would consider efforts to add the perspectives you espouse to be questionable. --Flewellyn 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion relies upon reasoning that you grant to females and not to males, and thus, is guilty of biased POV and illogic. I'll grant that practices like foot binding are a violence against women, because it was SOLELY started at females for being female. Rape, domestic violence, and all of that are not. They are not targeted against women for being women, anymore then cases like the Letorneau case targeted the boy for being male.

Actually, your assumption that I grant reasoning, or rights, to females that males do not have, is illogical. You seem to assume that because I argued men are not generally targeted for being men, I am saying that women should have the right to target men and not the other way around. That's just silly. --Flewellyn 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The legal defense disproves your assertion because it is WOMEN killing their HUSBANDS, not the other way around. This defense is invoked nearly unilaterally by women (hence the name) and it is targeted solely against men. By your logic, that would make it a violence propogated against men by women because of their gender. I don't necessarily agree with this assertion; I'm just pointing out that by the standards you impose for violence against a gender, this would qualify.

Really? The legal defense I've seen generally argues that, while the man may not have been attacking his wife at the time she killed him, he had been doing so recently, had a history of doing so, and was very likely to do so again, and she felt justified in taking action to protect herself. Excessive action, perhaps; I'm not sure I agree with the battered woman defense, though I can see the point. But the women who killed their husbands in these cases were not attacking them for being men, but for being abusers. Right or wrong, murder or self-defense, that doesn't constitute a hate crime. --Flewellyn 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "equal footing." Are you saying violence done against women is more wrong, or that it is justifyable? That is the exact problem that courts have these days: that women are somehow saintly and guardians of all that is good and only do wrong when provoked. The myth you seem to be promoting is denying that men are targeted by women for violence, which is false.

I've no doubt you could find one or two outlying cases where a woman attacked a man just for being a man; however, outliers are not statistically significant. Just as you said 8% of rape cases are unfounded, that means 92% of rape cases have solid founding. Yet the rape conviction rate is not 92%, it's more like 10% on average (according to DOJ stats from 2005), so that means 82% of reported rapes result in the perpetrator walking. Moreover, even when a man is convicted of rape, the woman has still had her name dragged through the mud by the defense, by the media, and by the perpetrator's family; she will have her sexual history and past relationships questioned, her morality impugned, her judgement questioned at every turn; and even if she secures a conviction for her assailant, on average he will serve just 65 months (DOJ Stats). To this day, there are still people who believe that Desiree Washington was a "gold-digger", even after Mike Tyson was convicted and served his time for raping her.

As for equal footing, well, that's easy: on average, women are smaller, lighter, and less strong physically than men. Furthermore, women in society do not have equal power by any means. That, plus the statistical evidence that the overwhelming amount of violent crime is committed by men, shows that violence committed by women is not on an equal footing with that committed by men. Men do it more often, more successfully, and suffer fewer consequences, your claims of courts thinking women are pure and never do any wrong to the congtrary. --Flewellyn 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I pushed for this article to be rewritten because all of the violence against women that was sexist-motivated against women were covered in different articles. This became little more then a fact-bank, an unnecessary stub that espoused POV at the expense of violence against men.

I certainly agree this article needs more content. But to argue that its existence is POV simply because it doesn't talk about violence against men is silly. I've already explained why, if you are unable to comprehend it, I cannot help you. --Flewellyn 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps creating a new section, rather then breaking things up into one group, would make things easier to find.

Violence against women

This article is reptitive and provides nothing new to Misplaced Pages. All instances listed as violence against women are covered in different articles, such as sati, or mention violence that is not specific to women, such as rape. A minor aside, but the lack of a corresponding article explaining violence against men begs the question of female chauvinism with an attempt to explain violence against women as more heinous then other acts of violence.

The one problem with your assessment is that, due to the inability to get accurate prison rape statistics and the relative lack of concern regarding false rape charges (due to rape being prosecuted without evidence), the assertion that rape targets women primarily is questionable.

Have you any statistics, any citations, to back up this assertion about rape being prosecuted "without evidence", as you say? Where are the statistics showing a rampant epidemic of false rape charges being filed? You speak of this assertion as being questionable, but provide no reason for us to question. --Flewellyn 08:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just read how rape cases are prosecuted. Often, there is no physical evidence like DNA to link them, and it becomes a swearing contest of "he said, she said." Look at the Duke rape case for a timely example. The 1996 FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that at least 8% of rape cases are unfounded, and Dr. Kanin of Purdue did a small study that proved that 40% of rape cases done in a specific area were actually false. Statistics are unreliable, but we see evidence of this in the media. Matt620 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If by "no physical evidence" you mean "the defense claims there is no physical evidence", then yes, that's true. However, the defense is naturally going to claim whatever they can in order to get their client off, true or not.

You know, the defense can't claim there is no physical evidence unless there isn't any. No lawyer would perjure himself that obviously. Matt620 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with the FBI statistics showing an 8% "unfounded" rate, which I should point out is not the same as "false", just "no evidence available to support it". What this means, however, is that 92% of rape cases are founded. Given that organizations such as RAINN, who track reports of rapes to themselves versus reports to the police, have demonstrated that on average 10% of rapes are reported to police, this should indicate that violence against women very much is a special problem. --Flewellyn 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That belongs under the "rape" section, not a violence against women section. Extrapolate your statistic further; try to find the number of men who are raped and do not report it. You'll find it lower. Also, you seem to be ignoring a key component: when the victim claims it's rape but the "perp" claims it's consensual. Essentially, she says yes, then says no later. Matt620 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Or rather, he claims she says yes, then says no later. Whereas she claims she did not say yes. Tricky situation, and hard to assess either way, but I note that you apparently assume she is lying, based on your phrasing. It's actually a safer bet to assume that the person who has the most to gain by being deceptive is the one most likely to be so. (Not that this means the man is automatically lying, either.) --Flewellyn 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What about violence against men? Dudtz 7/20/06 7:27 PM EST

Men are not targeted for violence as a class in the way women are. Various groups of men are indeed targeted, because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or what have you, but not just for being men. Whereas women are very often targeted for violent acts simply because they are women. This is why there is no page for violence against men. --Flewellyn 08:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly feel that this page should be merged with the domestic violence page or that a violence against men page should be opened. What you're saying sounds rather biased. Violence against men does happen, I can't pull out any statistics or quotes or websites but honestly if you feel that this does NOT happen then you'd have to be pretty daft. Domestic Violence is not immune to any culture, race, religion, or gender, it effects BOTH genders. With this being said, in the fairness of equality, this should be merged with the domestic violence page, or a domestic violence page against males should be opened up. Friggit 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Flewellyn, there is a problem with that assertion. Studies among violent college-students show that the women typically hit men, mostly their partners, because they believe, among other reasons, that men will not hit them back. There are also cases such as battered wife syndrome and the results that are propogated primarily against men. There is violence committed against men for being men. Recall the Bobbit case, or Aileen Wuornos. Matt620 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to these studies? I would be very interested to read them. And it's noteworthy that you name two cases in which a woman attacked a man, which everyone has heard of; if everyone has heard of a case, that means it was noteworthy, and something which happens all the time is not noteworthy. Also of note, in both cases the women claimed (convincingly) that they had been raped or abused by the men they targeted. --Flewellyn 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I provided examples in popular culture because one does not necessarily need to be an expert in the subject. In regards to your discussion of rape, are you making the implication that, because the women claimed they were raped, that these men deserved their fates? If so, you are guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of: the implication that the men deserved a serious implication.

No, I don't believe that they deserved it. That's rather an odd conclusion to draw from what I said. What I meant was simply that, sure, we all know about the Bobbit and Wuornos cases. But they were newsworthy for a reason: women generally don't commit much violent crime. It's overwhelmingly male; last statistics I saw from the DOJ (2005, since 2006 hasn't been compiled yet) put the numbers at 90% male/10% female. --Flewellyn 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A good starting point of research would be to look at the domestic violence section in Wiki. There's more around, you just need to get the broader ones that don't encompass solely "women victims of male abusers", the criticism that is often given because of the people conducting the study.

New counterpoints

I'm going to place everything here, so it's easier to read.

I do not "apparently assume she is lying." I assume nothing. As a judge, I would throw a "he said, she said" case out for lack of evidence. However, this doesn't happen that often.

As for your DOJ statistics, the cases were noteworthy not only because they were committed by women, but because of the severity of their actions. There is also one problem with DOJ statistics, and that measures only actual offenses. One key criticism of gender justice is that often women are not prosecuted, and men are arrested when they are not perpetrators because they act in self-defense. You can read any of the stories on sites for battered men.

Also, VAWA statistics have your numbers a little off. In aprox. 2.35 million cases, men were the victims 835,000 of the time. A little over a third. And this doesn't count the stigmatization that men don't tell about such things because they think no one will believe them.

As for your "personal motivation and pain" point, that was precisely what I said about men targeting women for rapes and DV. It was against an individual, and not a group. I said that nearly verbatim when you mentioned those things. So, why is it when a man targets a woman for DV, it's a violence against women (as a class), whereas when a woman does it, it's personally motivated?

No, my reason for men assaulting women was not justification. Never was it, and never will it be. It was the reason why they did it: pure and simple. It is not so basic as a silly discussion of gender as a class.

The "culture of victimhood" is often advocated by men's group (which include a fair number of women) in which women perpetually play themselves as victims of oppression, even when that is false, because it brings about the results they want to see. Often, this term is applied to people who work in women's shelters; telling women exactly what to say when it comes to court, whether or not it is true. Surprisingly enough, it's usually women who condemn these actions specifically, in some cases, even the women themselves, who abuse their husbands. Prizzey goes on to comment that 62% of the women she interviewed at a women's shelter were as violent or more violent then the men themselves.

As for your "silly" assertion, you have it completely wrong. I said you are granting females the right to be perpetually victimized as a class by stating violence against them is class violence, whereas it is not for males. That is the illogic, because the examples provided follow the same purposes.

As for battered woman defense, I still fail to see how you cannot apply this to your "class violence" argument. It follows all the things you set out for rape, DV, and such: targeting one specific group, illegal violent action, and such. And your assertion is a falsehood: a man does not need to be an abuser to be killed; she just needs to say he was. The so-called "advantage of being deceptive", no?

As for your outlier case, I could make the same argument against females. More often then not, it's a crime against a specific individual. Thus, rendered invalid by the argument you use for battered wife.

In regards to rape: you are first making the false assumption that what happened was rape. Tests can only determine sexual contact at best, not if it was unwanted. Determining cause for rape is actually just a complaint about it, not physical evidence. Throwing out 8% of unfounded cases often means the defendant rescinds her complaint. Thus, if 92% of rape cases were charged, you would have innocent people in jail.

Second, regarding the emotional turmoil of the woman convicting: that happens in every case that goes to trial. Because it is a question of honesty most of the time (given how many rape cases have actual physical evidence), those types of questions are valid and the jury needs to know. If a woman has a sexual history and is known to make false rape accusations, that is quite important.

In regards to equality in power; typically, one doesn't need to be equal in power: women often use weapons to mitigate this. As for your "equality in society," what on earth does that mean? And how is that relevant?

You are also making a false assumption about conviction. Compare how many women are convicted to how many men? How many times does the woman get off? How many times are female-on-male DV thrown out, or the male is arrested.

Now, Fwel, you're making another false assumption at the end. I'm not stating that it's POV (although I stand by my earlier comment of changing this to "gender violence"). I'm stating that spouting women as the sole sufferers of rape and DV, as this article does, is false. Reliable statistics are hard to get these days, because women are often not convicted for violence: just look at any college campus, or in the media. How often is a man punched or slapped and nothing happens? Reverse the genders, and you'll find an arrest. I already knew about your statistics; I'm not denying violence affects women. However, please do not forget that men are more often then not the victims of violence; not women. Read the new Australia violence study (It's not the most ideal study; they have more women participants), but you'll see. You seem to be under the notion that violence against women is a class thing. Presumably, the second-wave feminist argument that men use violence to control women. But this is false. I'd be more inclined to believe the reverse, given the work I've done on colleges. Matt620 11:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So your argument boils down to "you make no sense because I say so, what you say is false because I say so". If this is the best rebuttal you can present, I think we're done here. --Flewellyn 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read? I'm accusing you of illogic because YOU are not following YOUR own statements, but tint them to make violence against women a perojative class-based argument. It has nothing to do with me. It seems you are unable to answer this very simple assertion. Matt620 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: rename to gender-based violence. Do not merge with domestic violence as violence against women include atrocities conducted on a large scale in war time. In Congo for example rape thousands of women have been raped and killed by soldiers. In Sudan, too, gender-based violence is systematically used to opress thousands of women. See Amnesty International for more information.

Improving the article

Here is a suggested alternative to change the tone of the article:

I think you can generally see what I'm getting at. One thing you might want to look at is narrowing this term down to its core - ignoring the two million different issues relating to women's rights that get glommed under this title. Maybe stick specifically with, I don't know, violence against women, and ignore other social injustices for the moment. –Gunslinger47 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this alternative?

Citations would be added appropriately when necessary, of course. Matt620 04:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this looks pretty decent. The sentance "many feminist groups conduct studies to show the problem of domestic violence that women must be addressed" needs to use more neutral language. Following that, criticism of prominant views on the subject should be kept to a subsection, as per convetion. Also, I think the introductory paragraph should note that "violence against women" have have nothing to do with actual violence at all, as we traditionally know the term. –Gunslinger47 23:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, for the most part, though I think some information about the societal origins of, and toleration for, violence against women might be instructive. --Flewellyn 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the origins would appear to be derived from misogyny, patriarchy and gender differences - both physical and physiological. Probably a couple million other factors. Make sure you cite sources, and avoid original research. –Gunslinger47 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants the go-ahead to use what I have, please do. I'm swamped at work and with research. Matt620 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Started something of a re-write

Still has a long way to go but the database going up and down is frustrating. Essentially my goal was to demonstrate that an encyclopedic article can be done on this topic. (In light of the WP:POINT comments at the AfD on Violence against Men. I'll try to come back to it but if anyone wants a go in the meantime, have fun. :) Agne 21:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually like your opening paragraph, but I see a few red flags.

A.) It is important to mention that crimes that fall under the "violence against women" category are not exclusive to women. That's not mentioned anywhere in the article. I can understand how to UN works to combat the violence against women part, but leaving that out, when law shows it affects everyone, leaves out pertinent information regarding the violence.

Going off of this point: the studies of the .pdf file mentioned in 3 are only about women

B.) It is worth mentioning that psychological violence is difficult to prove in a court of law.

C.) The part "Feminist groups have contended that the advancement of women in society will curb the prevelance of violence against them." The citation does not prove this and is inappropriate.

D.) The lack of a criticism section. There have been numerous criticisms about violence studies as only selecting women victims, and ignoring violence against men (just read the controversy regarding the Australian Personal Safety Survey, and how Dr. Laura was villified by feminists for mentioning the findings: That men were twice as likely to be victims of physical violence or threats.

I'm not going to put up a POV tag yet. I like what you've done and I support it, and I understand you are not finished. These are just my views as a person who works with the abused. There are a lot more men then the world gives credit for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt620 (talk • contribs)

I agreee that it is a work in progress and if it wasn't for the database constantly being lockdown yesterday, I'd probably have added more. Not sure how much I can get to today (and I'm hoping other editors would get involve.) as for your individual points
A.) The article is exculsive to Violence against Women and to keep the matter on topic it should stay that way. As another editor down below astutely notes that Violence against Men is a separate topic. What the article is not exclusive is the concept that violence against women is only perpretrated by men. What I would like to see is more coverage of state sanction violence and even violence done by other women.
B.) I agree and under an expanded "Types of Violence" that should be noted. C.) Doh! I linked the wrong doument. :p I accidently linked to just the press release instead of a transcript from the actual seminar. Thanks for the catch. I will need to backtrack mysteps to get the right one.
D.) There will be criticism section but again the need will be stay on topic. My original thought would be to include a listing of some of the studies on Violence against women and then criticism of those studies-like maybe the issue is not as big as the studies say and so forth. As for the violence against men, the relevant information that I will need to find is the criticisms that say a "focus on" violence against women hurts men or the dealings with violence against them. You just can't randomly insert some details about violence of men without putting them in the direct context of how they relate to the topic of violence against women. Agne 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A.) I agree that you have done the proper thing of noting that violence against women is not solely perpetrated by men, but also by women and governmental bodies.

If you want some state-sanctioned violence; I would mention the ideas like foot binding (societal pressure, and often performed by women), sati (religious coercion, I believe was the appropriate term), and the texts of Muslim scholars (as the Muslim world is a theocracy.) The appropriate Wiki pages have some information you can cite.

D.) Criticism of violence against women is not solely violence against men, in fact, violence against men isn't even a criticism. It's criticism of the actions undertaken, misrepresentation of fact (such as the famous "100,000 people die of anorexia a year" comment), and bogus statistics presented by feminist organizations. Domestic violence against men is actually just a category of domestic violence. In and of itself, it's not a criticism; the criticism comes from only reporting violence against women and ignoring other violence: which is a gender bias. Matt620 21:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Domestic violence against men belongs in separate article

I see that some editors have been adding "and men!" wording to some parts of this article. I submit that this is not appropriate, as the article topic is violence against women. The same editors seem to have started the Domestic Violence Against Men article; I believe that such discussions belong in that article, not here. --Flewellyn 15:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I found the editions somewhat inane since the phrase "violence against women" will never refer to violence against men. You are quite right that it is a separate topic. Agne 15:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the term VAW gets used to cover any rape, any domestic violence, etc., regardless of whether the particular instance is done to a man, a woman, someone with no genitals, someone with both types of genitals, etc. But I could be wrong. The Literate Engineer 17:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the clauses were inappropriately added. The only objection I had was it deserves to be stated that the crimes associated with violence against women are not unique to women. That's all. Matt620 15:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for clean up?

Recently a clean up tag was added to the article. On this talk page has been discussion on improvements via expansion but the tag particularly references the style guidelines. To help in this improvement, what particular style features should be worked on? Agne 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• It seems like it was added for the female-on-female violence section. Matt620 06:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is terrible; it needs a complete rewrite. Unfortunately, I have nothing useful to add to the article iself, but I can add a reader's opinion that as it stands it is not an encyclopaedic entry.GideonF 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus for merge –  Anþony  talk  13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Domestic Violence

The violence against men one was merged so should this article.

Merge Support

• Oppose as the Domestic Violence article is meant to be a broad overview (and is already quit long as it is and may even benefit from being split into smaller articles.) Violence against Women is a distinct category on its own accord as evidence by the UN resolution specifically dealing with the topic of Violence against Women. The reason given above about the "Violence against Men" dances the line of WP:POINT and is not a valid reason to merge. Agne 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support There is no need for this to have it's own article, it could have a seperate link on the Domestic Violence page HorizonSwing 21st November 2006.

Note: This is the editor 11th edit and first edit outside of the article Hereward FM. Agne 20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• In addition to Agne's correct reasoning, I'd like to point out that domestic violence is a subset of violence against women, not the other way around. You don't merge the larger topic into a subtopic. I Oppose any merger. The Literate Engineer 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I support the merger of these articles. Literate Engineer, Domestic Violence itself has been around longer than other forms. And from what i;ve seen in previous posts you seem to be some sort of feminist. User:88.110.122.155 22nd November 2006.

Note: User's 1st edit and to this talk page Agne 19:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The topic "Violence Against Women" includes such acts as domestic violence, rape, honour killing, female genital cutting, sex trafficking, and arguably sexual harrassment, just to name the obvious ones. The claim that "has been around longer than other forms" is a dubious one at best, considering rape's been around a long time too, and of questionable relevance. I haven't seen anyone explain why any merger should be to domestic violence instead of rape or honour killing, and I don't think anyone will because I don't think it can be done since, as Andrew c and I have pointed out, merging a broader topic into one specific element doesn't make sense and shouldn't be done. As for me being "some sort of feminist", what's your point?The Literate Engineer 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose the topics are different enough, and the content is different enough that merging the broader topic into the more specific topic wouldn't make sense. We'd end up deleting content that wouldn't fit under the DV heading.--Andrew c 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support this article should be merged, totally agree. 86.140.130.33 13:50 26th November 2006 UTC.

Note: This is the users 4th edit"

• Oppose While domestic violence most often consists of violence against women, it is not the same thing. Violence against women can include non-domestic (i.e. non-familial, non-friend/acquaintance-based) violence such as stranger rape, genocide targeting women and war zone violence against women, to name a few. Domestic violence includes partner violence against men, in both heterosexual and gay relationships, which has no place in the violence against women article. I believe that there should be many links between the articles, but do not agree that they should be merged. 209.193.40.223 06:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This is the users 8th edit"

If somebody doesnt give a good reason to merge soon can we take the merge notice off?

• Strongly oppose: violence against women is a different issue, deserves to have its own page and be a sub-article for the domestic violence article.
• Comment: Some of you should stop the macho POV stuff.. think of your mothers with all thu respect!!! read about it! and those who have seen this type of violence know this article is important enough. see:Lissette Ochoa's domestic violence case. --F3rn4nd0 10:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Suppport Hey what about all the men that are Domestically Abused by Women every year, think of your fathers as well people, strong agree to merge as article is so small, could have its own section in Domestic Violence category. 88.108.58.403rd December 2006.

Note: This is the users 1st edit and appears to edit the same page as User:86.140.130.33 above"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing topics

I took a cursory look at the article and don't see mentions of rape, honour killing, female genital cutting, sex trafficking. Did I miss something? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge the article or open a Violence against men article

The violence against men article has been merged with domestic violence. I don't see why we can't merge this article with the domestic violence article? If this article is so important I can't see why domestic violence against males is not considering important enough to warrant it's own page. I'm just trying to be equal and fair here. Friggit 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion two topics up. There was a merge proposal that failed just under 2 months ago. This article talks about more than just domestic violence, so the merger makes no sense. Where would the non-domestic violence go (i.e. the UN resolution, state violence, etc)? Is there a UN resolution concerning "Violence against men"? Does the WHO have guidelines concerning "violence against men", how is that topic notable? While I understand what you mean by trying to be equal and fair, what you are really doing is giving undue weight. This article should exist because the UN and WHO, among many other notable organizations recognizes "violence against women". Do a google search of "violence agaisnt men" vs. "violence against women", making sure to exclude the word "domestic" from both searches, and you will see that the google test says violence against women is over 60 times as notable. Also note what the first pages you get are. A letter to the editor of the NYT, a page about gay bashing, an anti-feminism page, etc. How reliable are these sources when compared to the first hits for women (government resources, colleges, advocacy groups, etc)? So if we have a small article dealing with violence against women, and give the same amount of space to violence against men, when it is 60 times less notable with questionable sources, we aren't being "equal" we are giving undue weight (which violates wikipedia's NPOV policy). I may be missing something, but I do not believe that your argument logically flow. Hope this helps.-Andrew c 22:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If one can purport to rationally assert, without batting an eyelash, that violence against women is 60 times as notable as violence against men, in the context of a world where most victims of violence are male -- then that is an overwhelming statement on the relative value we place on women's rights and women's lives, relative to that of men. Clearly it's a sixtyfold systemic bias, but unfortunately systemic bias against men is seen as "correcting." Blackworm (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"War and militarism" section is full of feminist blame language

Militarism and the masculinities associated with it produce special environments that allow for increased violence against women.

"The masculinities associated with it" is feminist blame language, and "special environments that allow for increased violence against women" amounts to calling soot snow, given that war is primarily about killing men.

For example, the military itself establishes brothels near military bases, exploiting women themselves for the purpose of creating access and entitlement for men.

Yes, some fact checking is badly needed here.

Another example of violence against women incited by militarism during war took place in Auschwitz. Jewish male prisoners had access to (and used) Jewish women forced into camp brothels by the Nazis, who also used them.<ref> Dworkin, Andrea: Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel and Women's Liberation. pg. ?. Free Press, 2000. ISBN 0-684-83612-2</ref>

Andrea Dworkin is a gender theorist, and a highly controversial one, not a historian. The paragraph should at least indicate this to override the presumption of expertise.

I removed the "War and militarism" section. The original author is welcome to insert a cleaned, NPOVed version.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.24.158.135 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 6 February 2007.

As you say, the paragraph is clearly workable. I have restored it with some changes. Please feel free to work it up more instead of just blanking it. Thanks. Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes.-Andrew c 15:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it is me, author of the above "feminist blame language." I'd like to review the history of the section and make some comments about your deletion.

History: The section did not exist until a new editor, Geminiwalker, apparently fed up with the lack of coverage of important issues concerning violence against women in the article, completely rewrote the whole thing in a non-encyclopedic manner. One of the things the editor touched on was violence against women in the military and in militarized settings. I reverted the editor's article to the original and did my best to use the facts that that person had written in new sections that were not previously part of the article. Most of the facts that the editor used were not cited. I believe that the article benefitted from both the Geminiwalker's and my own edits.

"Feminist blame language:" This is the first time I've heard this phrase. I find it not entirely appropriate in this case. The words I wrote: "special environments that allow for increased violence against women" and "The masculinities associated with it," don't blame anyone for violence against women, or sexism. If anything, they are a bit pretentious and snooty. I'd love it if someone came up with a better introduction for an important topic.

I don't know if I'd agree with you on your point that war is primarily about killing men, but that fact that you brought it up shows that you may have missed the point of the entire article. Yes, men get killed in war, and yes, men make up the bulk of all the armies that I know of. But, during war, and within militaristic communities, there is also violence against women. It would be poor scholarship not to note how war and militarism contribute to violence against women.

I'm not sure I've read any Andrea Dworkin, and if she is controvertial it might be important to find another source, or note it in the text, but it seems to me that we should not discount her because she is a gender theorist and not a historian. This article could probably benefit significantly from many gender theorists, seeing how it is an article on violence against women.

Dkreisst 02:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I learned a lot about the history of this article and you bring up some good points. I basically agree with everything you said above, so while not adding anything to the discussion, I did want to thank you for joining in.-Andrew c 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ivorcatt.com material

Please see Talk:Child_abuse#ivorcatt.com_material, regarding edits done to this article and others, which I feel should be discussed. Clayboy 16:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and have reverted the article. If I was a little too bold, I would like to hear a justification for inclusion from the anon editor here on talk. I'm totally willing to discuss things, but for the time being its better to leave it out while it is disputed.-Andrew c 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

content deleted

i am writing from a shared IP used by both children and adults. i contributed the content below from a different shared IP but it was deleted. 210.87.18.78 03:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Irish Times reports: "Four out of 10 Irish women who have had sexual relations have experienced domestic violence .... a number of things violence against women. One of them is for their partner to have punched walls or furniture." Irish Times Tuesday, Feb 05, 2002.

Erin Pizzey writing in the Daily Mail states: "I heard shrill women preaching hatred of the family. They said the family was not a safe place for women and children. I was horrified at their virulence and violent tendencies." How feminists tried to destroy the family

"A young girl who recently managed to gain her freedom from the Halton Women's Shelter in Burlington, Ontario, has disclosed some bone-chilling information about just what goes on behind the closed doors of that facility, something which those operating the shelter would not like the community to know about.

One of the troubling things that this child revealed was that she and the other children in the shelter were made to watch a video in which a man was graphically shown beating up on a woman.

This video was part of a children's program at the shelter and all children who came to the women's shelter were forced to attend shortly after their arrival.

The young girl said she and her siblings did not like watching the violent video and that watching it made them feel very upset and uncomfortable.

The young girl also said that it seemed to her that the women who worked at the shelter did not like men and that everyone at the shelter was supposed to think the same way as the shelter staff.

It would appear that this program is being used to condition the children into believing that it is a normal for men to go around beating up women.

The children were also being told that what was on the video was what they could expect to happen to them when they get older." Ontario Citizen's Free Press

One topic up we discuss the deletion, and there is a very similar conversation going on at the Child abuse talk page (as noted above). I suggest you read the comments here and there, and try to respond to our specific concerns. Hope this helps.-Andrew c 03:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Shelter Industrial Complex"

Did that phrase actually come from the one source cited in that section? Are sources pending on the unsourced majority? Should the section be deleted and the sourced sentence folded in elsewhere? I'm kind of in favor of that. The Literate Engineer 18:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is my fault. I've changed it. Sorry. I ought to tag myself for vandalism.

I don't know about citations. With some work in current media the statements, or similar statements, shouldn't be too hard to track down. The author of the majority, Geminiwalker, probably isn't editing anymore.

I admit that its presence skews the article a bit, but think it is an important issue, so I'd rather have it than assimilate it.

Dkreisst 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out, though, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, by INCITE! Dkreisst (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, now see Emi Koyama's talk at Humbolt State University, "Shelter as a Tool of Social Control: Is there a Domestic Violence Industrial Complex?" in April 2008. Koyama's presentation schedule Dkreisst (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

re:Deletion Debate, sexism

there is no violence against men article, so this article should be deleted too.. Misplaced Pages is discriminating men—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.197.24.171 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 22 February 2007.

I ask that you read these discussions and bring up specific points (referring to wikipedia policy may be helpful as well) besides the vague notion that wikipedia is discriminating men.-Andrew c 15:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Violence against women by women

Very little research has been done on lesbian relationship violence, so reliable source information is hard to come by. Contrary to sexist gendered beliefs, women have the capacity to be violent. Thus, this form of violence can occur in lesbian relationships, daughter-mother relationships, roommate relationships and other domestic relationships involving two women. Violence against women by women also exists outside the sphere of relationship violence, probably even less research has been done on this subject."

If very little research has been done and reliable information is hard to come by, why did you say anything? What gendered beliefs are in the article, and where does it say women don't have the capacity to be violent? Even less research has PROBABLY been done about violence against women by women outside the sphere of relationship violence? Then why are you mentioning it? This whole paragraph contributed NOTHING to the article. All it said was "women can commit violence against women" which doesn't need a whole paragraph!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.94.251.197 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 March 2007.

First, please sign all talk page comments by typing four tildes. Next, I agree, this paragraph is unsourced and not directly related to the topic at hand. I would agree to move it to talk and let anyone who wants inclusion to reword it and find some reliable sources to back up the content. I'll give discussion a few days and remove the section myself if no one objects.-Andrew c 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:160.94.251.197, the essence of the paragraph is "women can commit violence against women." However, I think that it is a relevant topic in this article. Its subject is violence against women. I think its weakness is that the only information in the paragraph is on domestic violence, which makes it a target for editors who believe that this article and domestic violence should be merged. Currently, the presence of an entire paragraph puts what might be an improper amount of emphasis on this section, but I think that, especially when this article gets larger, that this section will be necessary, even if it most of its information is on domestic violence. Dkreisst 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Violence against women, by women, or violence by women against women.

This is a classic example of a corrupt half-truth2nd type being used by 'some' to create chaos in society.

It should be pointed out that research soon to be published will show how deceptive this slogan is.

First it assumes all violence against women is by men, and the example given, ie in lesbian relationships the violence is always by another woman.

Then there other examples of violence by women against women.

It would be great to keep this listing, and show how the devil and the half-truth were able to fool the world.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Coatracks, criticism and original research

Recently User:Caesarjbsquitti‎ multiposted teh same information to after being warned.

The material added here was then put into a "Criticism section" by IP user:67.71.95.177 along with their own addition of a synthesis of sources in order to make a point. 67.71.95.177's addition was OR because it connected 2 sources about the difference between male and female cancers with a blog post to advance a position about Sexism against males.

This use of a section is called coatracking - creating a section that is about something other than the subject of the article. It also contained original research. Thirdly WP:Criticism suggests that critical material be integrated into the article where appropriate - rather than creating a separate section. This prevents pov-forking and eliminates coatracks--Cailil 11:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

History should record that the slogan, "Stop violence against women' was based on a half-truth, a divisive, one sided truth. It is a flawed truth, that the Advertising Board saw fit to eliminate. HOpefully, history will record this truth, and not blend it with other truths to ignore this critical mistake that was used by some individuals to divide the family and divide the sexes.

Original research, some of it was, but where does original research start and finish, and why do you want to ignore this valid criticism of the slogan, and the topic.

North America has been 'politically brainwashed' by this one side agenda, and history should not ignore it or face making the same mistake sometime later in time.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

History should show how 'feminism' was corrupted and used its one sided power to create a 'social cancer' in society, under the pretense of doing something good, as in human rights, or good feminist ideology.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

" A women's rights advocate, co-ordinator of the Northern Women's Centre in Thunder Bay responded 'the vast majority of violence against women is perperated by men. This is a backlash." One of the complainants suggested that this was not the way to address the issue by being superficial and laying blame. "

This was part of the original article that shows how corrupt the ideology behind this 'half-truth' was and is....

Stop violence against people, men, women and children seems the greater truth. I am not looking to get into a debate on this subject but it is interesting to note who complains when these half-truths are revealed ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• "This use of a section is called coatracking - creating a section that is about something other than the subject of the article. It also contained original research."

Two sentences.

Sentence one.

Wrong. The criticism is all about 'violence against women campaigns that are sexist, bigoted and biased.

Sentence two.

Contains some original research. Containing original research and being origianl reserach are two different things.

I am surprised that the real issue of justice, fairness and integrity of the issue is not being researched or discussed.

Why are these writers trying to censor this obvious truth, when they are suppose to be about 'human rights'?

This is a great lesson on censorship and corruption of information by those whose intent was the opposite.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Caesar J. B. Squitti. You are certainly entitled to your opinions - and yes, it is debatable what exactly is original research and what isn't. However, if you (or anyone) add material to the articles indiscriminately, we end up having possible original research, opinion, POV etc. intertwined with valid content. This makes the discussion here on the talk page much more confusing and your edits will likely be reverted. A good approach is to contribute sourced facts and avoid personal opinion. Then we can have a more constructive discussion about where the article is (or should be) heading. Alfons Åberg (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The material that was added to the listing was referenced to the Chronicle Journal and involved a decision by the CRTC of Canada going back to 1989 I believe.

What is interesting is to see some people manipulate my postings on the talk page to try to remove the 'credible source' on the actual page.

You can see who and what these people are, take a good look for yourself, and some even claim to be concerned about 'human rights'...

Anyway this is a good exercise to see how prolific this problem is in North America, and how "they" have been able to maintain this half-truth.

Thanks for the info and advice.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cycle of Home invasion, Perpetrators and Survivors

Could someone please add a new section on cultural factors and a new section on police intervention into domestic violence situations. Also a link to the source.

Commentary on the Novel 'HouseGuest' Humorous extracts from Hugh Mackay and a definitive compilation of Old Testament and New Testament teachings.

Thanks 61.8.3.177 (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Such a stupid term

Can it be any more stupid?

Cite from the article: " Similar to a hate crime, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive"

Aha... and as examples we have: (citation from the article)

-- "Many women underwent extrajudicial punishment in labor camps of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Their suffering was described in memories of former Gulag women prisoners Yevgenia Ginzburg, Eufrosinia Kersnovskaya and others." --

IS THIS A JOKE?!

Were labour camps in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union women only or what?

I can write exactly the same about men:

--- "Many men underwent extrajudicial punishment in labor camps of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Their suffering was described in memories of former Gulag men prisoners Solzhenitsyn, Marchenko and others." ---

Et Voila!

Another cite from the article:

"War and militarism

Militarism produces special environments that allow for increased violence against women"

OH REALLY?

And militarism doesn't produce "special environments" that allow for increased violence against men? Again I ask: Is this some kind of joke?

Ever heard of conscription, and funny stuff like "Dedovshchina" that often comes with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Dedovshchina http://en.wikipedia.org/Andrei_Sychov

This article is sexist bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.63.213 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bondage

This article is unnecessarily rather restrictive of expressing the full ambit (including consensual relationships) of expressions of v.a.w Lead and other images have been supplied accordingly.YesOn8 (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And they have been removed. This is not an article on bondage. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not exclusively. But certainly aspects of the practice are within the commonly-acknowledged rubric of the term, especially where female submissive are forced to or accept to take up the role of a gender-specified target of violence. I've rectified.YesOn8 (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other articles that more appropriately cover the material you are adding. I suggest you take you material editing to the Bondage (BDSM) article. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This article does not even address bondage. If you have some reliable sources with which you can verify your claims that bondage constitutes violence against women, then we can have that discussion. Until then, your contributions are simply original research. -- Irn (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It does. It expressly addresses female submission, with which there are intersections and commonalities of coverage. That requires a 'reliable source' justification no more than the other things listed under the same heading (labour camps, etc). When they are required to have one, so will femsub which is so obviously violence against women, anyway (I mean, what else is it, ?violence against trees?); not before.YesOn8 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote. When employed as a technical term (which is only one sense of it - not fully inclusive of all that is understood by it as a concept simpliciter), violence against women definitely includes

"any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life."

Very obviously, then, female submission is one of its forms that results in physical harm in private life. Women's boxing is similar, just in public life. Now really do we need a 'reliable source' to verify to us that female submission causes physical harm? Really, do we?? Maybe you be a woman, find any reliable source known to you that is willing to spank or hogtie you, and you can take my word for it.YesOn8 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the bondage that you are referring to, since it is consensual, is about pleasure, not "harm or suffering." I would agree that mainstream pornography reflects the sexism in our society a maintains our understanding of women being less human than men. However, that doesn't seem to be your point for adding bondage pics to the article. Dkreisst (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh. Why is this being debated at all? BDSM is consensual and doesn't harm the sub (if it does and isn't consensual, it isn't BDSM. If it is consensual, how is it harm?). Why are so many people replying to what I'd categorise as a troll? Misplaced Pages isn't a Zoo, and trolls aren't exactly endangered, so Do Not Feed It. Dendlai (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(indent reset) It is certainly not the foremost example of violence against women, which your image placement is implying. I've reverted your most recent edit because it gives undue weight to BDSM. —C.Fred (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if not the 'foremost', which is your opinion, then find a more apt image in replacement. As for me, I've known vastly more women who were fem subs than were, say, recipients of violence in labour camps. So i'll need to see documentation and sourcing to believe it's not both the most widespread and most popular form of it.YesOn8 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've requested page protection (and rollback) per WP:PREFER to prevent further editing without consensus. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if page protected is warranted, as it's just one editor on a WP:SOAPBOX at the moment, who has received a three-revert warning. —C.Fred (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

POV

Violence against men redirects to Violence. Sexist much? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Blame the world. "Violence against women" is a topic well-covered in reliable sources. "Violence against men" isn't. Dendlai (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence, it now redirects to Domestic violence#Violence against men An elegant solution, not done by me btw. Regarding the second sentence and answer following, it is not like the reliable sources are giving disproportionate reporting. They can count, and are aware of the effects of Testosterone. Thank you for the heads up in the first sentence, and, we can really do without the kind of WP:SOAP you are selling in the second. WP:AGF. Anarchangel (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting to Domestic violence#Violence against men suggests that violence against men happens only in the context of domestic violence. But a mugger beating up a man to steal his wallet is also violence against a man. Pais (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

GBV and prostitution/sex work

Sorry for my english....ok...I go: everywhere in the globe there are a lot of authoritative document (unfpa, who, unece, amnesty international, unhcr,) that use the definition "gender-based violence". This term is used because it better describes this kind of violence in all the dimensions as well as "(...)a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men " (etc...), in Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, United Nations -General Assembly dic. 1993 (see too: UNIFEM) ....But there's nothing about it in this article.... So, I think gender-based violence is the correct definition. In Spain was approved "The Gender Equity Law and the Integrated Protection against Gender-based Violence Law" by the Spanish Congress. See also:

• Gender-Based Violence: A Price Too High
• WHO: "Gender-based violence"
• "Can you name 16 forms of gender-based violence?"
• "Gender Based violence", Developing Gender Statistics Training Video; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
• The costs and impacts of gender-based violence in developing countries: Methodological considerations and new evidence from www.worldbank.org.

And I think it's better to make a difference (in "see also" section) between prostitution, sex work and forced prostitution. thanks for patience! --Andrea.Rho (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the word "women" describes a gender, it seems that the term "gender-based violence" is less specific than the term "violence against women". I'm not sure, however, what changes you would like to see in the article. Are you thinking the name of the article should be changed? Dkreisst (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think, but my english is not enought to talk about, maybe the document in the net. =)--Andrea.Rho (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Violence by women: Beyond the box of heterosexual couples.

Observations:

First and foremost the article on 'violence' is a rather 'black and white' perspective of abuse, with violence being merely one form of abuse, and not necessarily abuse, as in a reaction to some form of abuse. This has been long known as part of the 'game' of violence.

I also wanted to bring to your attention an incident whereby a bi-sexual woman, involved her lesbian lover to kill her boyfriend. While this is quite possible, I am surprised on how the 'theories' of today are so blatant stereotypical and sexist.

Here is the link: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/12/03/axe-murder-guilty-puddicombe763.html Bisexual Girlfriend found guilty of axe murder]

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar, your above post is an inappropriate use of the talk space. You have previously been warned for soap-boxing - if you are still unclear what the problem with posts like this are please follow the link provided for an explanation of the relevant policy--Cailil 23:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Start-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles