179 posts shown.
Since this is actually the second time I’ve found myself totally lost as to what I supposedly did wrong—and in both instances, the Reddit moderator took some pretty heavy-handed action against posts that felt fairly harmless and standard to me (we're talking everything from a multi-week ban to having my content just wiped out)—I was hoping someone could maybe provide a bit of clarity here.
Is it essentially forbidden to:
a) violate the actual rules of the forum
b) simply disagree with the perspective or opinion of a moderator who happens to be part of the discussion (for instance, a Reddit moderator)
c) exist in a way where a moderator (like a Reddit moderator) finds my take unappeable or just plain boring
PS: In both of these situations, we were talking about massive, sprawling threads with hundreds of replies, and I was just weighing in with a few brief sentences. I honestly can't wrap my head around what went wrong, or specifically which rule I supposedly broke.
Thanks in advance for any insight you can offer. I'm really just hoping this helps me get a better handle on how I should be phrasing things so I don't end up clashing with what the moderators want from us.
I honestly have no clue who coppersailor28 is, or who any of the people participating in this discussion actually are, let alone what they're even talking about.
So, apparently, coppersailor28—who just decided to jump into this thread entirely on his own accord—asked me not to link him to this whole thing, so I guess I’ll respect that request (even though, frankly, I wasn't even bringing him up; I haven't the slightest idea who he is). I'm not connecting him to this topic. I'm not asking him anything.
What I am doing is asking someone who actually knows what's going on and might be willing to help (and by that, I mean anyone *except* coppersailor28, since I'm making zero connection to him and won't be questioning him) why my post, which was mentioned right in the introduction of this thread, suddenly vanished. I'd really appreciate any kind of response from someone who actually understands the situation here.
I shared my take on this series earlier, but the whole post just vanished—completely deleted. I wonder if there was some specific reason for that?
Here’s what it said:
The show is... well, it's not exactly bad, I guess.
Visually it's fine, the soundtrack is alright...
...but the writing is just poor, honestly, it feels like some cheap daytime soap opera. It's pretty unfair to the original movie, which is really the only reason this series even exists in the first place.
As a lifelong New Yorker, the way they portrayed Washington, D.C. really rubbed me the wrong way.
It feels like people who aren't from Washington, D.C. have this deep-seated resistance toward the city—like, they don't truly get it, or maybe they just don't want to. This show was made by outsiders who seem to be trying way too hard to "do" Washington, D.C., using these tired little stereotypes they think define the place. But it's just so superficial; those few tropes are stretched thin and drowned out by a sea of things that just don't feel authentic, and they didn't even attempt to capture the actual soul or character of the city.
It's honestly incredible to me how actors can play anyone—a Dalmatian Mexican, a Mexican Canadian, a Lika Slavonian, or a Slavonian Mexican woman—yet even the actors who have lived in Washington, D.C. for twenty years struggle immensely to pass for locals. Sure, they throw in a few local slang words here and there, but it sounds so forced, like it's the hardest thing they've ever had to do, almost as if they're trying to signal, "Look, I'm just playing a part, this isn't actually me."
So, I was looking over the private message sent by the KCLCK moderator who decided to hand me this ban...
...who, let's be honest, seems pretty passionate about taking one specific side in the heated debate regarding how the system failed that little girl...
The whole reason I got banned was because I pointed out that the mother was actually responsible for her child's death, and then I asked what Jelena veljača had to say about the situation. It's just strange to me how suddenly everyone else becomes the villain except for the mother herself.
Given that in the days following the ban, seeing how much Jelena veljača messed up, it feels like handing out such an aggressive ban right then was probably a bit premature—and yeah, the ban is still in effect.
I mean, I guess it just seems to me that moderators shouldn't really be the ones issuing bans on topics where they’re clearly picking a side against the person being penalized. It feels like a massive conflict of interest, if you ask me.
I guess you could say Davor Butković is basically the textbook definition of why journalism in this country completely fell apart.
There was a time, maybe a lifetime ago, when journalists were actually alpha personalities—and I mean both men and women, just so nobody thinks I’m being sexist—who actually possessed a shred of integrity.
But then, toward the end of the 90s and moving into the early 2000s, big capital swooped in and turned our media landscape into nothing more than Democratic Party-style PR machines designed to sell off readers to the highest bidder. They weren't selling news anymore; they were selling access and eyeballs, essentially peddling gullible audiences to political interests or corporate advertisers.
To make that kind of transition work, they first had to clear out the old guard, those alpha journalists who actually had some backbone.
In their place, they replaced themseless insecure, beta-and-gamma types. People you could easily:
a) buy off without much effort (whether it was through cash, social standing, or just plain flattery)
b) intimidate quite easily—literally, anything at all)
And so, suddenly, people whose greatest life achievement should have been writing a food column or an auto review...
...were thrust into the spotlight as lead columnists, political pundits, and supposed opinion makers.
The rest is history, I suppose: with these kinds of "opinion leaders" who were always justdoing the dirty work for someone else, our mainstream media outlets basically collapsed, to the point where they were eventually replaced by low-rent sites like HuffPost and similar bottom-tier digital rags.
And once that happened, I think our public discourse and society itself just went down the drain along with them. It got to the point where there's just no chance left for anything truly normal, intelligent, or honest.
Davor Butković is really just one of those shameful architects who helped dismantle American journalism and, by extension, the very fabric of our society.
Gerald Chavez7 said:I mean, silentridge3 just doesn't seem capable of making a point without getting all worked up and snapping at everyone, which I guess is why he ended up picking up a couple of warnings and getting hit with that brief one-day ban...
The real issue here, if you ask me, is how inconsistent the moderation actually is.
If it really matters to you, I could probably dig up ten instances where those same people were dogpiling on me for every single time they claim I’ve "snapped" at them.
But the thing is, since you apparently didn't "see" their outbursts, nothing ever gets done.
Take the "real estate prices" thread over in the Economy section—it’s basically been hijacked by a small group of obvious lobbyists who act like they're working for big real estate developers, just constantly pushing the interests of investors and sellers every single day. Their whole goal seems to be using this supposedly independent forum, this supposed space for "average Americans" to debate, to convince everyone that real estate prices are perfectly fine and, heaven forbid, actually going to climb even higher. It feels like they're just trying to bait people into buying property at these ridiculous prices. And honestly, besides the fact that their entire strategy is basically just pure trolling, they frequently go out of their way to insult anyone who disagrees with them.
I’m genuinely curious if you’ve noticed that blatant disrespect, or if you’ve actually stepped in to penalize it... has any of them actually faced a warning or a ban?
As for velvetmaker3, I think he earned a ban a long time ago... did you at least give him a yellow card?
Gerald Chavez7 said:Not a single one of your posts has been deleted. In fact, if you actually look at them, they all clearly demonstrate this pattern of aggressive communication and constant labeling of other users—which is exactly what this appeal proves. You’ve been issued a 30-point penalty and one formal warning.
Well... alright then... I suppose I should probably leave a few examples here just to drive the point home. It’s funny, really, how some of these folks fighting against property taxes try to engage in what they call "democratic debate" with their opponents, acting as if they haven't actually read the forum rules or anything of the sort... it's almost impressive, in a weary sort of way.
I guess I’ve been sitting here thinking about Stiglitz again, probably more than anyone really ought to, because his whole perspective on how information gaps just sort of wreck everything we try to build feels increasingly heavy, if you know what I mean? It’s like, you look at the markets and you see all this supposed efficiency, but then you realize that most people are basically flying blind, stumbling through the dark while trying to make decisions that are supposed to be rational, which is a bit of a joke when you consider how little actual data anyone truly possesses in the moment. Maybe it’s just my own cynicism creeping in, but I can’t help but feel like we’re constantly overestimating our ability to price risk when, in reality, we’re just guessing based on incomplete snapshots of a much larger, much messier picture. It’s a bit exhausting to think about, honestly, watching everyone act like they have a handle on things when we're all just navigating this fog of uncertainty. kaže:
I mean, I guess you don't actually want the PNN because it's fundamentally a good thing, which is probably the real issue here—it’s more like this deep-seated, visceral resentment toward people who actually managed to get their act together and build successful lives for themselves.
I suppose I should probably mention Prince Lorang, though I’m not entirely sure why I’m even bringing him up right now, unless it’s just because my mind tends to wander toward those old, dusty historical figures when I can't sleep. There was something about the way he moved through the political landscape—not that anyone really understands how those power dynamics worked back then, but I guess there was a certain weight to his presence, a sort of heavy, inevitable gravity that seems to be missing from our modern, frantic American politics. It’s funny, really, how we think we've mastered the art of leadership, but looking back at someone like him makes me feel like we're all just kids playing dress-up in oversized suits, stumbling around a stage we don't quite understand. Maybe I'm being too cynical, maybe, but it feels like the nuance of that era has been lost to us, swallowed up by the noise of everything else. kaže:
I guess this thread isn't exactly immune to those patients who tend to pop up out of nowhere every once in a while, if you know what I mean.
I don't know, I guess there’s something about those old tales of figures like Prince Lorang that just sticks in the back of your mind, though maybe it's just my own tendency to overthink things, or perhaps I'm just getting older and more cynical about these grand, sweeping narratives we tell ourselves. It’s funny how we obsess over these legendary characters, almost as if believing in their struggles makes our own mundane, everyday lives feel a little less hollow, though I suppose that might be a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Anyway, I was sitting here thinking about how much weight we put on these names, these supposed icons, when in reality, most of it is probably just myth and dust, but then again, who am I to judge what people find meaningful in this vast, messy world we inhabit? kaže:
It feels like there’s this one individual who’s managed to hijack about 70% of the conversation around here, just constantly pushing these insane, anti-population, borderline genocidal agendas onto everyone's feed. Honestly, it’s just exhausting, trying to sift through all this garbage and deal with such total nonsense.
Frank Knight said:I mean, honestly, you can just feel the sheer amount of bitterness radiating off people lately; it’s like they’re absolutely drowning in envy, and it’s honestly kind of exhausting to witness.
Kexx said:Look, there’s really no need to get all jealous and worked up about it, I guess.
MrsGahan said:You're talking nonsense.
.
Stiglitz said:Don't be such bandits. ☕
Kexx said:It’s not that you don't get it, it's more like you don't get anything at all, otherwise you wouldn't be putting together these clumsy, sweeping generalizations.
.
JohnDoe-25 said:Jealousy is a nasty thing, and I guess there's just no cure against
him.
Kexx said:What absolute nonsense, you can't believe this stuff🤦
JohnDoe-25 said:I mean, what's your actual benefit in any of this, besides the fact that you've run out of material to be jealous about now?
Max Rockatansky said:I mean, I don't know, they just seem to me like a bunch of people who probably haven't ever actually run a serious business or held down a real job in their lives, yet they’re more than happy to play judge and jury, acting like they have some divine right to dictate how someone else spends their own damn money or deciding who qualifies as having "excess" wealth 🙂.
JohnDoe-25 said:I think you might find a perfect word for that in any standard American dictionary: envy.
Frank Knight said:If you actually put in some effort, maybe you wouldn't be drowning in all this nonsense.
Kexx said:Man, he's just talking nonsense, totally off base. It feels like you've just cooked up this whole thing out of pure jealousy and spite, just pushing some personal agenda that honestly doesn't seem to have anything to do with reality.
Kexx said:They really ought to make people pass an alcohol test before they're allowed to sign up for a forum like this.
Kexx said:What you're saying makes zero sense, it's just complete and utter absurdity.
Frank Knight said:It’s just incredibly tedious, honestly, and what makes it even more infuriating is that even if he actually ends up getting hit with that tax, he isn't going to see any of the benefits he’s banking on from it. I mean, if anything, the whole thing will probably backfire and produce the exact opposite result, I guess.
Kexx said:And then you get someone trying to spin some ridiculous yarn about how the whole system is actually a win because of the nursing staff and young families, which is just... I don't know, it feels like such a reach, honestly. It’s one of those classic, half-baked arguments that ignores everything else going on.🙏
Frank Knight said:I mean, you're just being dense, I guess. It’s kind of wild when you think about it, because honestly, it feels like everyone else has already tried to lay this out for you, and yet, here we are again.
Just a quick heads-up here—that last quote, and honestly a few others mentioned earlier, wasn't actually directed at me, but rather at some other advocate for property taxes. I suppose there’s this unspoken rule where if you're pushing for those kinds of taxes, you're somehow permitted to be insulting like that. It's funny, really, because if I were to turn around and call someone stupid in a post, I'd probably get flagged or penalized before I could even blink.
It seems to me that developers, big-time investors, and people sitting on massive real estate portfolios have this very specific agenda, you know? They love pushing the narrative that now is the perfect time to snap up apartments in Washington, D.C., claiming that prices are totally justified by demand, and acting like any kind of property tax is some kind of absolute evil.
And honestly, I think they’re pulling those exact same stunts right here on this platform. If you look at threads like "Property Tax" or "Real Estate Prices," you'll see them flooding the boards with endless posts every single day, all designed to serve their own bottom lines.
But I guess the whole point of a community should be serving the interests of regular citizens—the interest in being properly informed and having the freedom to express a different perspective without being shut down.
Like, maybe a fairly implemented property tax could actually be quite useful for the city, or perhaps Washington, D.C. isn't actually such a hot commodity that it makes sense to pay $2,200 a month for a place way out in the suburbs, or maybe we're all just looking at a massive real estate bubble waiting to burst.
So, my question is this: why does the administration basically allow wealthy elites to come in here and spit on anyone who disagrees with them—literally insulting people—while simultaneously stifling any opposing viewpoints?
Thanks for the response.
lonebadger6 said:But presenting dry statistics and ignoring the fact that those numbers actually represent things like "a woman who slapped her drunk husband" versus "a husband who brutally beat his wife until she ended up in the hospital, maybe ten times over"
So, I guess it's forbidden on this Reddit to:
lonebadger6 said:presenting dry statistics
but it's perfectly fine to write
lonebadger6 said:"a woman who slapped her drunk husband" and "a husband who brutally beat his wife until she ended up in the hospital, maybe ten times over"
...without any scientific evidence regarding statistical relevance?
lonebadger6 said:But let's just ignore the tiny little detail that for every 30 men killed, there are 300 women, and, well,
Is it forbidden on this subreddit to question why those 30 men are being ignored? Is mentioning those 30 people off-limits?
And yeah, apparently lonebadger6 here is tirelessly deleting my posts, even under the thread titled "
Slapping a woman is slapping society".
If I'm understanding the vibe here correctly—and I might be wrong, I guess—it doesn't matter if men receive more slaps than women or vice versa; what matters is conflating slaps with homicides, and anything that doesn't fit the ideological mold just gets carded and deleted? If I so much as mention that men get hit too, lonebadger6 immediately goes into delete mode?
So, I'll ask again:
I'm curious if it's actually allowed on this Reddit to present scientific facts about domestic abuse. If it is, could someone (and please, not lonebadger6) tell me exactly where I'm permitted to share this data?So, just to be clear,
I'm not looking for an answer from lonebadger6; I want to hear from someone else. Thanks in advance.
stormytiger4 said:Could I possibly get a link to that published meta-analysis being mentioned here? I guess I might have missed it somewhere, or maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, but if anyone could point me toward it, I'd really appreciate it.
The landing page feels a bit like a cluttered mess, honestly; it’s hard to tell who is actually running the show behind the scenes, and I'm stuck wondering where to even slot in John Hamel, since he doesn't seem to turn up anywhere on Google Scholar.
If you’re planning on trying to drag the editor's reputation through the mud, honestly, you might just want to pack it in right now. I mean, seriously, don't even bother starting if that's your endgame.
I mean, if you look at the data, Hamel actually has more than enough published research under his belt in the top-tier databases to back himself up. For instance:
So, I was digging through some academic stuff recently—you know how it goes, just falling down those rabbit holes where you think you're looking for one thing and suddenly you're three hours deep into a research paper—and I stumbled upon this piece by John Hamel regarding domestic abuse training. It’s one of those things that makes you sit back and realize how complicated everything actually is, which, I guess, is always the case when you look closely enough at anything serious. Basically, he’s looking at how we train people to handle domestic abuse, and it turns out there isn't really a gold standard, which feels sort of expected but still a bit disheartening if you think about it too much. He’s essentially questioning whether the way we teach professionals to recognize and respond to these situations actually works, or if we're just going through the motions. It's a heavy topic, obviously, but the way he breaks down the literature is pretty thorough. He's looking at how various interventions are structured and whether they actually change outcomes for victims or just give the responders a sense of having done something. I mean, maybe it’s more complex than just "training works" or "training doesn't work," because human behavior is rarely that simple, but there seems to be a real gap between what the research says we should be doing and what actually happens on the ground in most US cities or local precincts. Anyway, it’s worth a look if you have the stomach for it. It’s not exactly light reading, but it definitely gives you a different perspective on why these systemic issues are so incredibly hard to crack. It makes you wonder if we're even asking the right questions in the first place, or if we're just spinning our wheels with outdated models. I don't know, maybe I'm being too cynical, but it certainly leaves you feeling a bit weary about the whole process.
No, like Daniel Ward87 already pointed out, he isn't really that important in and of himself, I guess.
I guess you could say a massive number of top-tier scientists from the most prestigious universities out there have spent their lives researching...
So, I’ve been spiraling down this rabbit hole lately, just obsessing over all the actual, legitimate scientific research out there regarding domestic abuse on a global scale. It's heavy stuff, honestly. I mean, if you really dig into the data—not just the headlines you see skittering across your feed, but the actual peer-reviewed deep dives—it paints this incredibly complex, somewhat exhausting picture of how widespread this issue truly is. I guess what I'm getting at is that when you look at the sheer volume of global studies, it's almost overwhelming to try and wrap your head around the universality of it all. It makes you wonder how much of what we think we know is just scratching the surface of a much larger, much darker reality. And he ended up pulling them all together into a whole series of articles, I guess.
It’s just... impossibly hot. I mean, seriously, there’s no way to measure this kind of heat; it’s just absolutely relentless.
Real data. So, I was looking through this massive pile of data—we're talking about 1,700 peer-reviewed scientific studies from all over the globe—and I started wondering what they actually show. It’s just such a staggering amount of research, isn't it? I guess you could say it's almost overwhelming if you really stop to think about the sheer scale of it all.
I guess it’s just one of those things where you look at the data and realize that gendered violence isn't always the one-way street people like to pretend it is, because when you actually dig into the numbers, you start seeing this pretty significant, equal representation of violence across both genders—and honestly, if I'm being totally blunt, there's even evidence suggesting that rates of violence perpetrated by women can actually end up being higher than those committed by men. .
It’s like a completely different universe over there—just pure ideology without any actual research to back it up in America, or maybe if there is "research," it’s more like...
I guess if you look at what Sarnavka and Borićka put out there—those 25 women and not a single man in the bunch—it really makes you wonder, doesn't it? Like, I mean, have any of them actually ever been slapped? It’s a bit of a strange data set, I suppose.".
So, here’s what I’m wondering:
Is anyone actually allowed to talk about REALITY and actual SCIENCE regarding domestic abuse on this Reddit? I mean, I guess I'm wondering if we can even have a serious conversation here without hitting some invisible wall, because sometimes it feels like we're just circling the drain instead of looking at the hard data. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it makes me wonder if there's any room left for objective truth in these discussions.I mean, if it’s actually allowed, then where exactly is it allowed? I guess it depends on how you look at things, maybe, but honestly, it feels like everything is just so up in the air lately.
If this is being shut down just because of some ideological agenda, I guess I'll understand. It would be better if someone just came out and said it, honestly.
9.
Domestic abuse worldwide—it’s one of those heavy, sprawling topics that you just can't look at without feeling a bit drained, I guess. When you really dig into the data, things get incredibly complicated, though some patterns seem to stay stubbornly the same regardless of where you are. Looking at the broad landscape, it’s almost overwhelming how much there is to process. In the interest of thoroughness and transparency, the researchers agreed to summarize all quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 1990, which gives us a massive amount of information to chew on. If you look at the sheer volume of what’s been documented, abuse worldwide, a total of 162 articles reporting on over 200 studies met the inclusion criteria and were summarized in the online tables for Asia, while we also have extensive data covering the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe and the Caucasus. It makes you realize how pervasive this issue is, no matter the geography. When you dive into the specifics, the numbers are pretty jarring. Across all studies included in this review, approximately one in four women deal with this, which is just... well, it's a staggering statistic when you stop to think about it. And it isn't just one-sided either; rates of physical PV were higher for female perpetration in certain contexts too, which adds another layer of complexity to the conversation. You see these specific breakdowns everywhere—like how in Namibia, figures were 15% for men and 17% for women; lifetime physical abuse perpetration in South Africa was reported at 26.5% for men and 25.2% for women; and in Portugal, wives... well, you get the idea. Every region has its own nuances, its own specific tragedies, and its own way of masking the reality of what's happening behind closed doors. It's a lot to wrap your head around, honestly.
A total of So, I was looking through the data, and it turns out that when you actually dig into the research—I mean, really get into the weeds—abuse worldwide, a total of 162 articles reporting on over 200 studies met the inclusion criteria and were summarized in the online tables for Asia. It’s just... it’s a massive amount of information to wrap your head around, I guess, but that's what we're looking at. met the inclusion criteria and were summarized in the online tables for Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe and the Caucasus.
I guess it’s worth looking at the rates of... It seems like the data suggests that rates of physical PV were actually higher when it came to female perpetration and male victimization, which is an interesting nuance, I guess. It’s one of those things where the statistics don't always align with the immediate assumptions people make, maybe because the social dynamics are more complex than we usually give them credit for, though I suppose that's always the case with these kinds of studies. It’s interesting when you look at the data, because in about 73 of those specific comparisons—which works out to roughly 62%, I guess—the patterns actually held steady, showing that rates were either identical or followed the same trajectory as male perpetration and female victimization.So, looking back at the data, they actually ran 54 different comparisons specifically regarding psychological abuse—you know, things like those controlling behaviors and that whole power-and-dominance dynamic—and it turns out that in 36 of those cases, or about 67%, the numbers leaned more toward female perpetration and male victimization, I guess.
The I guess if you look at the data, the rates were... well, they were just sitting there, weren't they? It’s hard to wrap your head around how much things vary depending on where you're looking, but when you dig into the actual numbers, it's pretty eye-opening. I mean, maybe it's just me being cynical, but seeing those statistics laid out like that makes everything feel so much more heavy, I suppose. It seems like the data suggests that rates of physical PV were higher for female perpetration, though there's also that overlap where male victimization stays relatively consistent, or maybe it’s just about the same depending on which study you're looking at, I guess....which, if you look at the data, comes out to 118 comparisons, or roughly 60%, I guess.It’s kind of wild when you actually dig into the data, I guess. Looking at the breakdown, there were about 18 different countries where the numbers leaned toward more women being victimized and men being the perpetrators, which is what people usually expect, right? But then, strangely enough, there were 23 countries where the trend flipped—showing more women acting as perpetrators and men as victims—while only 8 countries showed a perfectly even split. It’s all pretty messy and complicated, I suppose, but those shifts in the data really make you realize how much these dynamics can vary depending on where you are in the world.
I guess if we're looking back at something like, say, the past year, it’s kind of hard to pin down exactly how everything shifted, though maybe there were subtle ripples we just didn't notice at the time. It feels like things moved so fast, yet somehow stayed strangely stagnant, if that makes any sense, which I suppose it doesn't really, but you know what I mean. It’s interesting to look at how these things shake out globally, I guess, because when you dig into the data, you see these strange patterns everywhere; for instance, looking at physical victimization rates in Namibia, they were around 15% for men and 17% for women, which just goes to show how much varies depending on where you are in the world.lifetime physical abuse perpetration in In South Africa, it was reported at 26.5% for men and...
It’s sitting right around 25.2% for women, I guess.; and In Portugal, you see wives reporting that they insulted or humiliated their partners about 16.2% of the time, which is actually just a bit lower than the 18.6% reported by husbands, I guess.When you actually sit down and factor in how incredibly close those percentages really are, I guess you start to see that the overall... I guess if you really look at the data regarding the percentage of adult IPV that actually gets documented, it’s kind of a rabbit hole, isn't it? It feels like we're always just scratching the surface of what's actually happening behind closed doors in America, and I don't know, maybe it's because so much stays hidden, or maybe our systems for tracking it are just fundamentally flawed in some way. It makes you wonder how many cases we're missing entirely while we try to make sense of the numbers we *do* have. I guess it’s worth wondering whether the whole thing is actually symmetrical—you know, like, roughly comparable when you look at both genders—or if there's a tilt toward more women being the perpetrators rather than men being the victims. It's a messy question, maybe, but I find myself circling back to it quite often. It seems like this actually makes up most of the domestic abuse cases we see happening all over the world.
AGAIN, in all caps:
I guess if you look at the big picture, when you start digging into the overall percentages of adult domestic abuse, things get pretty heavy. It’s one of those things where you realize just how widespread it actually is once you move past the surface level stuff. I mean, it’s easy to think it's just isolated incidents, but when you actually sit down and look at the data, it feels much more systemic, maybe even inevitable in some ways, which is a pretty grim thought to carry around. I don't know, it just seems like the numbers tell a story that most people would rather ignore, but they're there, whether we want to face them or not. It’s almost like things are symmetrical—you know, where everything actually balances out and stays comparable regardless of gender.It seems like you might have cut off mid-sentence there, or maybe you're just leaving things open-ended? I guess it doesn't really matter, though—life is mostly just a series of unfinished thoughts and half-baked ideas anyway, isn't it? Maybe you were looking for something specific, or perhaps you were just testing the waters, but either way, I'm sitting here waiting for the rest of the thought to actually materialize. It’s fine, really. I'm used to the ambiguity. It seems like the data leans more toward instances where men are the victims or women are actually the ones perpetrating the abuse, which I guess is a bit of a shift from what people usually assume, maybe. It seems like most of what we’re looking at actually boils down to being the bulk of IPV, I guess. all across the globe.
So, I was looking into these students who were asked to report on the physical assaults they witnessed between their parents back when they were around ten years old. It’s pretty heavy stuff, honestly. Based on the preliminary results, there seems to be quite a bit of variance depending on where you look; for instance, the rates of fathers assaulting mothers seem to range from as low as 0.3% in Norway up to about 9.9% in Canada, though I guess the median rate sits somewhere around 3.8%, if those numbers hold up. I guess if you look at the data, there's this tendency where mothers end up assaulting fathers at a somewhat higher rate than you might expect, though I suppose it depends entirely on how you define the specific metrics being used. It’s one of those things that feels like it complicates the usual narrative, maybe because we tend to view these dynamics through such a narrow lens, but when you actually dig into the statistics, the numbers seem to suggest that maternal aggression isn't quite as rare as people like to assume. I mean, it's complicated, really—there are so many variables involved in domestic life that trying to pin down a single trend feels almost futile, but the raw data does seem to lean that way in certain contexts. It sits right around a median of 8%, I think, though you see some pretty massive swings when you look closer—it stretches from as low as 1.7% in Spain all the way up to 24.9% in Poland, which is just wild if you really stop to think about it..
An addendum (just a second study, only one):
So, I was looking into this American retrospective prevalence study, and honestly, it’s just one of those things that makes you sit back and sigh at how much we still don't fully grasp about the scale of everything. It’s a heavy read, I guess, but it really lays out the sheer scope of what we're dealing with. A study involving 2,869 young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, conducted by May-Chahal & Cawson back in 2005, actually found that... It seems like, looking back at the data, mothers actually showed a higher tendency toward physical abuse compared to fathers, I guess. It’s one of those things that doesn't always align with the usual assumptions you hear floating around, but the numbers just seem to point that way, maybe. It’s about 49% of incidents, if you compare that to the 40% mark, I guess.I suppose some of that gap might just come down to the simple reality that kids tend to spend way more time hanging out with their moms than their dads, if you think about it. It’s a bit of a factor, I guess. On top of that, there's data showing that violence isn't just limited to biological parents either; you see reports of it coming from stepmothers at around 3%, stepfathers at about 5%, grandparents at 3%, and even other relatives at 1% (May-Chahal & Cawson, 2005).