HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » Women who killed husbands...

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 10:11 AM

 

Women who killed husbands ‘rarely gave a warning,’ and most weren’t abused, study finds

Conventional wisdom suggests that women usually kill their spouses in self defence or as a final, desperate reaction to chronic battery, the burning-bed syndrome that is sometimes cited as a defence in murder trials. A new Canadian study, however, suggests that barely a quarter of husband-killers are victims of domestic abuse, less than half suffer from any identified psychological problem, and fewer still have had trouble with police.

. . . .


“We’ve got a stereoptye about domestic violence … that the oppressor or perpetrator is the male and when female violence happens, it’s a reaction against male violence,” he said. “The stereotype is so strong, that when you look at the actual data, you’re shocked.”

Prof. Dutton, author of the book Rethinking Domestic Violence, suggested that such assumptions evolved from the feminist view that family violence was a socio-political act of “patriarchal men suppressing women.” He argues instead that personality disorders in both male and female offenders better explain family violence than do social norms.


http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/03/women-rarely-gave-a-warning-before-killing-their-mates-and-most-didnt-suffer-abuse-study-finds/

Whenever a man kills his wife the reactions are predictable: abusive asshole, string him up!

Whenever a woman kills her husband the reactions are equally predictable: he must have been an abusive asshole, he deserved it. Self-defense!

It would seem the reality does not match the stereotypes yet again. Some match that description. But far from the majority. Certainly not enough to justify the lockstep response from so many.

/I do hope Prof. Dutton has tenure otherwise. Otherwise things could get . . . difficult for him.

27 replies, 4531 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply Women who killed husbands ‘rarely gave a warning,’ and most weren’t abused, study finds (Original post)
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 OP
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #1
redqueen Oct 2012 #2
opiate69 Oct 2012 #3
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #7
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #4
redqueen Oct 2012 #5
redqueen Oct 2012 #8
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #9
opiate69 Oct 2012 #10
redqueen Oct 2012 #11
opiate69 Oct 2012 #12
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #13
opiate69 Oct 2012 #14
redqueen Oct 2012 #15
opiate69 Oct 2012 #16
redqueen Oct 2012 #17
opiate69 Oct 2012 #19
redqueen Oct 2012 #20
opiate69 Oct 2012 #22
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #21
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #24
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #6
Sen. Walter Sobchak Oct 2012 #18
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #23
Sen. Walter Sobchak Oct 2012 #25
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #26
Sen. Walter Sobchak Oct 2012 #27

Response to 4th law of robotics (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 02:45 PM

1. A cultural refusal to understand IPV is one of the reasons it's so prevalent.

 

Of all domestic violence in the US, 15% is unilateral violence by men, 35% is unilateral violence by women and 50% is reciprocal. Also, 89% of the women who report being in abusive relationships say that they perpetrate violence themselves.

Professor Dutton is a Canadian, so perhaps the wielders of the torches and pitchforks will be more polite "aboot" it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 02:58 PM

2. Oh yes, Dutton is a darling of the MRA set. And right-wing newspapers, too, obviously.

Got a cite for the statistical claims?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:11 PM

3. Wharrgarbl!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA MRA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man, you really need some new material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:43 PM

7. Apparently the definition of an MRA

 

is anyone who disagrees with what certain people wish to believe.

In other words it's akin to "heretic".

I didn't used to think that's what it meant, but that's the way I've seen it used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:19 PM

4. Of course I do. I always do.

 

Not that I expect that you'll take the National Institute of Health's word for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:32 PM

5. LOL, no need for snark.

Looks like I'll need to do some digging to find the specifics about that 89% claim... I'm curious about the methodology too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:48 PM

8. I can't sift through the link you provided, but I will say their findings seem to fly in thr face of

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:55 PM

9. Apples, meet oranges.

 

IPV <> rape

Also, I'm inclined to take the word of the NIH.

Women are undoubtedly more often the victim of rape, and they are undoubtedly more likely to be injured by IPV. Both of which are only tangentially related (if at all) to the point of the OP.

With regard to IPV, the women who are injured are highly likely to be in reciprocally violent relationships, and in fact they are more likely to be injured than women in the 15% of violent relationships conforming to the battering husband stereotype.

With all due respect, I suggest you sift harder.

People who kill always have a reason. Usually, the reason is that they are bad people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:03 PM

10. Now now... the NIH is obviously just an AKA for MRA.

 

I suggest we call the FBI to put out an APB, PDQ, lest the authors of that study go MIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:04 PM

11. LOL, there wasn't a whole lot of text at my link...

Overall, the studies found, most violence of all kinds against women (64%) came from current or former intimate partners, while that is true for only about one-sixth (16.2%) of men. Women were also far more likely to be stalked than men (16.2% versus 5.2%), and two-thirds of women’s stalkers (66.2%) were current or former intimate partners, compared to four in 10 for men (41.4%). A 2005 Department of Justice study also found that between 1998 and 2002, 84% of spousal abuse victims were female, as were 86% of victims of abuse at the hands of a dating partner. Males made up 83% of all spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers.

THE CLAIM In another effort to show that men are discriminated against, many men’s rights activists assert that women attack men just as much as men attack women, if not more. The website MensActivism.org is one of many that criticizes what it characterizes as “the myth that women are less violent than men.”

THE REALITY Men’s rights groups often cite the work of Deborah Capaldi, a researcher with the Oregon Learning Center, to back their claim. Capaldi did find that women sometimes initiate partner violence, although women involved in mutually aggressive partner relationships were more likely to suffer severe injuries than the men. But Capaldi studied only a very particular subset of the population —at-risk youth —rather than women in general, invalidating any claim that her findings applied generally. In fact, the 2000 Department of Justice study found that violence against both women and men is predominantly male violence. Nine in 10 women (91.9%) who were physically assaulted since the age of 18 were attacked by a male, while about one in seven male assault victims (14.2%) were victimized by females.


Most of that is not about rape.

And my inability to sift is due to being on this phone, so... perhaps later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:15 PM

12. Derp...

 

Study A: "Most financial crimes are commited by rich people"

StudyB: "Most crimes are commited by poor people"

Derp-worthy conclusion: "Study B proves Study A is wrong!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:24 PM

13. The DOJ and the NIH are coming at the problem from different angles.

 

If you ask the DOJ questions about the war on drugs, they'll reach different conclusions than the NIH, and it should come as no surprise that DOJ's conclusions are coincidentally, self-serving.

I have no doubt that 84% of DV prosecutions are of men. I fail to see how this disproves the belief that men are discriminated against by the justice system, particularly in light of the mostly reciprocal nature of IPV.

But that's not even the main issue. Because no one sees fit to intervene in a violent relationship until she gets hurt... she's more likely to get hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:31 PM

14. Thing is, the DOJ isn`t even talking about IPV.

 

The figures are for assault, of which, IPV only makes up a percentage. The author of that piece she quoted is either extremely ignorant, or is intentionally using inapplicable data to bolster her position. Like you said earlier, Apples, meet Oranges. Or, Apples, meet Fruit might be more apropos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:39 PM

15. True, and the NIH study is so limited... only 18-28 year olds.

Interesting study, regardless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:56 PM

16. Wait a minute.....

 

Just less than two weeks ago, you were flogging an opinion piece based, in part, on a study which was comprised of a sampling group of 35 people, and you have the audacity to say the NIH study is limited???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021403622

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:03 PM

17. "based in part" on it?

LOL, really?

Which paragraphs were based on it? I want to know how big a part you're referring to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #17)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:10 PM

19. Um.. the part where the dumbshit author cited it as some kind of source for the idiocy in the articl

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:13 PM

20. So, one sentence?

Two?

The piece discussed several websites, more than a few incidents, some criminal cases... could you please just quote whatever it is you find so central to the substance of the article?



Ugh, nevermind. Two paragraphs out of 19 or so. Yeah, "based in part", indeed.

Also, not sure why you characterized that as an editorial. That in itself is quite interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:24 PM

22. Ok then, strike "based in part on" and replace with "cites".

 

Feel better, highness? Now, how about you adress my point instead of thinking you got one over on me because I used poor phrasing? Only an idiot would author and try to publish a study using a sample of 35 people, and only an even bigger idiot would cite that study in a published article as if it was representative of anything. I think I'll go ahead and put a little bit more trust in a study with a sample of over 11,000, even if the age range doesn't meet your "high" academic standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:35 PM

21. When studying violence, it makes sense to study the 20% of the population who experience it most.

 

I wouldn't describe this as limited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #11)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:24 AM

24. The DOJ report was based on convictions

 

since it's well known that men are A) less likely to report DV, B) less likely to pursue charges and C) less likely to be successful if they do choose to press charges what does this prove?

Would you take the DOJ stats on rape convictions as the accurate number of rapes that occur in this country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:32 PM

6. If he had come to the opposite conclusion

 

no data (or even contradictory data as shown in my last OP here) would have been acceptable.

As is no amount of unbiased studies will ever prove to some people that men also can be victims and women aren't always.

Anything that challenges the dogma is "MRA" or "rightwing".

I remember the brouhaha when I dared suggest men can get breast cancer or be the victims of DV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:05 PM

18. How timely, black widow Melissa Ann Weeks was just arrested again.

 

She was lauded in some circles after she murdered her husband in extremely suspicious circumstances. Then her next husband also died and since then she has tried to poison two more.

There was even a laudatory film made about her after her first murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #18)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:17 AM

23. Women never murder without cause

 

those men were clearly all abusive and she was defending herself.

Because women are perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #23)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 11:48 PM

25. If she had the self control to stop killing...

 

she would probably be on the lecture circuit. She knew all the notes she had to hit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #25)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:07 AM

26. As is I'm guessing there are still a few

 

who believe she is a hero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 06:49 PM

27. No, they retreated from her pretty quickly...

 

I'm sure somewhere undergrads are suffering through the film every semester, but I doubt anyone is seriously arguing that a serial-poisoner convicted of every crime under the sun is still out there kicking patriarch ass.

She should have been sentenced to life for her first known murder (served 2 years for manslaughter), she skated on her second known murder and failed at the third (served 5 years for fraud and forgery) and fourth.

Now 77 she is hopefully out of circulation permanently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread