In a presentation to the Canadian Association for Equality, researcher Dr Tonia Nicholls summarised intimate partner violence research findings as of October 2016. Early on in her presentation Nicholls notes that feminists use “bullying and intimidation” to “prevent implementation of research evidence contrary to prevailing perspectives” and seek to “block research funding, dissemination [of findings], and mentoring to scholars labelled ‘antifeminists’ and ‘backlashers’.”Dr Nicholls goes on to list, and elaborate on, the 10 most important “uncomfortable facts” deriving from intimate partner violence (IPV) research.
- Men and women are perpetrators and victims of IPV at similar rates and across the types and severities of IPV. (A very “solid” finding derived from over 200 research studies. More women than men reporting they struck the first blow, women also more likely than men to retaliate physically.)
- Women do perpetrate serious violence. Women are, in fact, more likely than men to perpetrate severe assaults. (Because women are smaller, they often wait until their partner is intoxicated or asleep, or will arm themselves with a weapon, before attacking. Also, women are more likely to perpetrate sever violence on non-abusive male partners.)
- Both men and women suffer physically, psychologically, financially and otherwise due to IPV. (Male perpetrators are, however, more likely to cause physical injury due to the strength differential.)
- The causes of IPV are varied but similar across the sexes. Both sexes engage in IPV to coerce, out of anger or to punish perceived partner misbehaviour. (Self-defence is a relatively uncommon motive for violent action.)
- Patriarchal oppression is a relevant but insufficient explanation for IPV. (Rates of IPV are somewhat higher in gay and lesbian relationships. Women who have engaged in both heterosexual and lesbian relationships reported their lesbian partners as more violent than male partners. Further, notions that IPV is attributable to patriarchal causes have “repeatedly been disconfirmed”.)
- General theories of violence are good explanations of IPV. (People who are abusive and violent in relationships show developmental trajectories similar to other types of criminal offenders. Abusive and violent behaviours develop early in women who perpetrate IPV and remain as aggressive traits and are not, as patriarchy theorising portrays, survival-based reactions to male violence.)
- Batterer intervention programs (BIPs) are ineffective. (BIPs are no more effective than no treatment at reducing assault.)
- Male IPV does not always escalate. (Male recidivism and escalation have been overstated. Women who acknowledge a role in IPV are often told “don’t blame yourself, you’re the victim” even when this is untrue.)
- There is little evidence of widespread approval of wife abuse. (Awareness of the problem of IPV has increased but that primarily extends to female victims/male perpetrators. Women are being educated that violence against men is acceptable, with higher approval rates for women hitting men.)
- Efforts to reduce IPV have neglected half of all victims and half of all perpetrators.
Conclusions drawn: male perpetration has declined whereas female perpetration remains stable; more studies are being undertaken; prevailing patriarchy-based IPV theories are clearly seriously flawed; and any ideologically driven approach to reducing IPV isn’t going to work. (The video of the 45 minute presentation is here.)
Aided by social justice academics, mainstream journalists, educators and whatever-direction-the-wind-is-blowing-politicians, feminists have not only managed to suppress the truth, they endlessly produce pernicious counterfactual patriarchy propaganda. And so the Prime Minister baldly asserts untested feminist theory as fact:
“Let me say this to you: disrespecting women does not always result in violence against women. But all violence against women begins with disrespecting women.”
Sydney Morning Herald writer Judith Ireland elaborates:
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has called on all Australians to make a “cultural shift” and stop disrespecting women, declaring that gender inequality lies at the heart of domestic violence.
In comments that have been labelled a “gamechanger” for the fight against domestic violence, Mr Turnbull called on parents, teachers and employers to get on board the culture change, saying he wanted Australia to become known as a country that respects women.
“Because … violence against women begins with disrespecting women. And so this is a big cultural shift.”
More from Ireland:
That relationship between gender inequality and domestic violence has been a bit of an elephant in the room as Australia has begun to tackle this problem in a more open way.
As [Australia’s then Ambassador for Women, Natasha] Stott Despoja acknowledged, to admit that something as awful as domestic violence bears a relationship to things like sexist jokes, thinking women are less able than men, or the casual prejudices that many of us hold, is not an easy thing to do.
Along with Stott Despoja and Batty, former sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick and Minister for Women Michaelia Cash have recently spoken about the link between inequality and violence.
Even the usually sensible Daily Telegraph has social justice moments:
Gender inequality is at the core of violence perpetrated against women.
The real elephant in the room here is the failure of the pink-pilled to produce any evidence linking supposed “gender inequality”, “sexist jokes”, “casual prejudices” and lack of respect to violence against women. Lots of people – notably, gender studies academics and feminist “thinkers” such as Clementine Ford – are making good money peddling women-are-victims nonsense to the impressionable and gullible, and why wouldn’t they? Cranking out bullshit beats having to work for a living.