Pages

Friday, December 14, 2012

DV More Common In Two-Earner Couples

More evidence that complementarianism, as opposed to equalitarianism, yields superior social results. In this case, less violent homes (H/T Wintery Knight)
While the researchers found that differences in education levels appeared to have little influence, when both partners were working, intimate partner violence increased.
“When both male and females were employed, the odds of victimization were more than two times higher than when the male was the only breadwinner in the partnership, lending support to the idea that female employment may challenge male authority and power in a relationship,” said the researchers.
Of course, a key limitation to this study, published in the tellingly entitled Violence Against Women scholarly journal, is that they interviewed only women.  I would have liked to have seen the dataset expanded to men, who report near-parity rates of abuse at the hands of women in America and in Canada, and the UK, and see what the effect of spousal employment is on male-female relationship dynamics.  I would further like to see the dataset differentiate between physical violence, both minor and severe, and psychological aggression, and measure the associations between each type of violence and employment status.  That data would be quite interesting, I think.

Going back to the assertion that female employment may challenge male authority and power, perhaps we may accurately apply power dynamics theory for states and countries to human relationships. Accepting for a moment the debatable feminist postulate that remunerated employment imparts greater power to women in a relationship, the literature, of this is but one example, suggests that power parity--in this case, wage parity--leads to greater, not less, dyadic conflict.  Thus by subverting complementarianism and by encouraging equalitarianism, the literature suggests feminists themselves encourage more, not less, inter-personal violence.  In other words, and paraphrasing libertarian theorist Harry Browne, feminists break men's and women's legs [with equalitarianism], only to later hand them a crutch [heavy handed and misandrist DV laws], saying, "See, if it weren't for us, you wouldn't be able to walk".

7 comments:

slwerner said...

"The study was based on telephone interviews with 303 women..."

Maybe it just me, but that doesn't seem like a reliably "representative" sample. I also have to wonder if so few women were interviewed, was there some sort of pre-screening employed to winnow down the sample, or could it be that out of thousands who were called, only 303 were willing to talk about personal matters with a stranger over the phone.

If the latter is true, then it would stand to reason that women who felt that they had something to complain about would be more likely to relate issues of IPV*.

"Finally, the study found that Hispanic women were significantly less likely than white females to report intimate partner violence..."

I assume that they are meaning that Hispanic women were less likely to tell some stranger about such issues. Actual law enforcement data (cleverly camouflaged with the DOJ's Uniform Crime Report by calling all Hispanic perpetrators "White") demonstrates that IPV among Hispanics - especially those who are poorer and more recent immigrants - occurs at a very high rate relative to other demographic groupings.

Of course no mention was made detailing the studies efforts to "reach out" poorer non-English speaking women - the very kind who are the most reluctant to speak to strangers (ironically, this is often out of fear of reprisals by their husbands should they "talk too much" and reveal "family secrets").

Also not noted in the story preceding publication of the study is what portion of the sample group were in same lesbian relationships, another demographic group with a very high rate of IPV.

But these are just my own personal and admittedly highly biased speculations. My broader point is that, as I observed happening on another forum wherein this study was discussed, it would be fool hearty to place much faith in a brief synopsis of an unpublished study of a very small sample in a specific geographical region as being representative of what is occurring on a larger scale nation wide.

Just the reported number of 67% of women in relationships reporting IPV ought to suggest that this supposed study should be seen as suspect.

* of course, IPV is also defined-down to include many things which most rational, non-feminist (but I repeat myself) people would find rather innocuousness (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/definitions.html - see "Psychological/emotional violence" bullet point)

wanderling said...

It's not just you Werner.
What a terrible methodology.
Considering common DV tactics include monitoring women's phone usage and even access to a phone, this data is severely restricted.
And women in abusive relationships who don't work are often prevented from working by their abusers. It is their complete financial dependence on the abuser combined with his threats to kill her/their children or her extended family that prevent disclosure.
Commenting on flawed studies to paint an erroneous picture of DV that does nothing but hide the real number of incidents is dishonest at best and damaging at worst.
Employment is critical to empower women to leave DV relationships and to maintain their distance from an abuser.
A blog post which suggests employment for women is instead correlated with increased DV and therefore shouldn't be encouraged is selfishly biased and completely irresponsible.

empathological said...

I know you know this, there is danger in churchian complimentarianism whereby its female rule in disguise, and is more tilted than egal ordered marriages.

The adoption of a middle manager power dynamic based on workplace dynamics would be interesting to note. More, as you say, the breakdown in abuse is woefully under studied to get to whether we are talking about a mutual argument that ended in tears (verbal abuse, per her), or someone threatening to kill the other. verbal abuse that is able to be codified is in fact very rare if not for the silly laws and lists that have been written.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"If the latter is true, then it would stand to reason that women who felt that they had something to complain about would be more likely to relate issues of IPV

Just the reported number of 67% of women in relationships reporting IPV ought to suggest that this supposed study should be seen as suspect."


Selection effects are always the bane of quasi-experiments and surveys such as these. I had the same problem for my second thesis...the vols one gets to help you with your social science research are always ones that are motivated for some reason to do so.

Without knowing where these researchers got their study population from, it's hard for one to gauge how representative their sample is. If they called women at home using numbers in the phone book, that population (with land-line phones and SAHMs) wouldn't match with the population who would answer an ad at a campus women's center or worse, a women's shelter.

Frankly, I was surprised that a study published in a journal entitled Violence Against Women, assuredly a feminist mouthpiece if there was one, would undercut a key tenet of feminism...that women's remunerated employment correlates with higher rate of victimization. Of course, given what we know about which sex initiates most IPV, it's not altogether clear that these victimized women didn't themselves throw the first punch (which is regularly minimized as harmless female-on-male IPV) that led to the incident(s) they report as victimization.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"A blog post which suggests employment for women is instead correlated with increased DV and therefore shouldn't be encouraged is selfishly biased and completely irresponsible."

Is it really that inconceivable that a population who strives for independence and avoids interdependence may be more aggressive and belligerent than the population who strives for biblical submission and "one flesh?" That that same population, being more independent-minded, may react more strongly to perceived threats to their independence, to include IPV of the sort that the CDC found? Or that they may have a very expansive definition of IPV, a definition far broader than that of the general population?

No, the irresponsibility here is to continue to let equalitarians propagate unopposed a family model based not on unity but on independence and convenience--particularly when such a model places all parties in the equation (women, children, men) more at risk?

Not that I expect equalitarians to care one iota about short- and long-term harm to others. What counts is power. who has it, who doesn't. Their language makes this focus on power crystal clear; their independence and agency are all that matters and all others be damned.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Empath,

"I know you know this, there is danger in churchian complimentarianism whereby its female rule in disguise, and is more tilted than egal ordered marriages."

Yes this is quite true. What passes under the guise of churchian complementarianism may very well more of a deviation from the Biblical order of things than egal-ordered marriages.

With those (faux-complementarian) couplings, I expect there to be less reported IPV, as the woman is the dominant partner in the marriage and it is well known that men report IPV at rates far less than women, despite evidence that suggests it occurs as much or more than the reverse. Moreover, men in these situations have far less "power"--to use equalitarian language--to escape from such situations given the legal social and legal obstacles to doing so.

wanderling said...

"What counts is power. who has it, who doesn't. Their language makes this focus on power crystal clear; their independence and agency are all that matters and all others be damned."
projecting much? Kinda ironic that you say that considering promotion of the traditional family model is promotion of male power over anyone else in the household, and society at large.