Where is it okay to share scientific facts about domestic abuse?

So, there’s this massive meta-analysis on domestic abuse—it basically pulls together 1,700 scientific studies—and the results are actually pretty eye-opening. I was wondering, though, if it’s actually allowed on this Reddit to bring up hard scientific facts? If it is, maybe someone could point me toward the right spot to share this data (and please, let it not be lonebadger6).
If you aren't really in the mood to slog through the whole thing, just look at the bold parts:

WHICH GENDER IS MORE PHYSICALLY VIOLENT?

http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/

ABOUT PASK, THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE KNOWLEDGE PROJECT
The world's largest domestic violence research database, spanning 2,657 pages and featuring summaries of 1,700 peer-reviewed studies.

Again:
The largest study on domestic abuse, condensing 1,700 scientific studies— scientific papers conducted using rigorous methodology and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Over the years, I feel like research on domestic abuse has become unnecessarily fragmented and bogged down by politics. The purpose of The Domestic Violence Knowledge Project is to pull together everything we know about domestic abuse in a way that's rigorously evidence-based, transparent, and methodical, providing reliable, up-to-date research that's easy for both academics and the general public to access.
In March 2010, the senior editor of domestic abuse recruited family violence scholars from the United States, Canada and the USA to conduct an extensive and thorough review of the empirical literature, covering 17 broad topic areas. These researchers were tasked with performing a formal search for published, peer-reviewed studies using standard, widely-used search tools, and then cataloging and summarizing all known research relevant to each major topic and its sub-topics. In the interest of thoroughness and transparency, the researchers agreed to summarize all quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 1990, as well as any major studies published prior to that time, while being very clear about their exclusion criteria. The included studies are organized into detailed tables, with each table containing summaries of studies specific to its sub-topic.
In this massive undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants across 20 universities and research institutions spent two years or more diving into their topics and drafting the results. They looked at roughly 12,000 studies and ended up summarizing and organizing more than 1,700 of them into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which offer a full review of findings for each topic and total 2,657 pages, were released in 5 consecutive special issues of domestic abuse published between April 2012 and April 2013. Every conclusion, including how much the evidence actually backs up or contradicts current theories, is based strictly on the data they collected.

1.

Basically, the results showed that physical IPV victimization is significant for both men and women in heterosexual relationships. Across all studies included in this review, approximately one in four women (23.1%) and one in five men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship, leading to an overall pooled prevalence estimate of 22.4%

2.

About one in five (22.9%) people reported perpetrating physical IPV in their current or most recent relationship. Staying consistent with previous reviews, rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women were generally more similar than they were different, though rates for women were slightly higher than for men (the pooled prevalence was 28.3% for female perpetration and 21.6% for male perpetration).

REPEATING THIS: female perpetration = 28.3% and male perpetration = 21.6%.

3.

When it comes to emotional abuse, prevalence rates might average around 80%, with 40% of women and 32% of men reporting expressive aggression.(i.e., things like verbal lashings or emotional strikes triggered by some kind of upsetting situation), and 41% of women and 43% of men actually reported experiencing some type of coercive control.

4.

Then there's the second point, where studies looking at why people actually lash out—the big motivations behind the violence—often ended up showing pretty similar patterns for both men and women. Like, Kernsmith (2005) pointed out that the main reason that men and women alike turned to domestic abuse was basically just wanting to get even with a partner who had hurt them emotionally. Kernsmith also noted that stuff like self-defense, pure anger, or just trying to stop a partner from doing something certain were all pretty standard motives for both genders. Leisring (2011) found something similar, noting that for college-aged women, the most frequent drivers for minor physical violence were retaliation for emotional pain, anger, or maybe just stress and jealousy. It’s much the same with Shorey et al. (2010), who concluded that for both men and women, the primary triggers involved retaliating for emotional wounds, venting anger, struggling to express feelings they couldn't quite put into words, or simply trying to grab their partner's attention.

5.

When you look at the studies that tried to directly compare the two, it gets a bit messy; out of the 12 papers that looked at whether gender plays a role in the power/control motive, four didn't even run statistical analyses on their data. Among those that did, three reported absolutely no meaningful gender differences when it came to using power or control as a motivation for violence. One specific paper suggested women might actually be more driven by power/control than men are. Meanwhile, the other three papers followed what you'd expect based on traditional gender theories, finding that men leaned more heavily on power/control motives than women did (Barnett et al., 1997; Ehrensaft et al., 1999; Shorey et al, 2010). Then there was that one final study that just gave totally mixed results (Makepeace, 1986).

6.

There is also some empirical backing for the idea that women tend to cite self-defense as a motive more often than men do. Out of the ten papers that used actual gender-specific statistics, five showed that women were significantly more likely than men to claim self-defense as their reason. On the flip side, four papers didn't see any statistically significant difference between the genders at all, and only a single paper suggested men might be more likely to use that excuse (Shorey et al., 2010). I guess we really need to dig deeper into whether this trend holds true across all types of people, regardless of age or ethnicity, to see if it's actually universal. Even though half of these 29 studies did show gender gaps, it’s worth remembering that only a small minority of people in most samples—regardless of whether they are men or women—actually cite self-defense as their motivation for violence. If you look at people who aren't perpetrators, the self-defense claims from men hovered between 0% and 21%, while for women, it was between 5% and 35%. The highest numbers (50% for men and 65.4% for women) came from groups of actual perpetrators, who, let's face it, might have a bit of an incentive to exaggerate how much they were just defending themselves.

7.

As for the massive amount of research looking into gendered arrest rates, the consensus seems to be that men are generally much more likely to be taken into custody than women are.

8.

In the limited number of studies that actually dive into conviction and sentencing differences, most have found that male defendants are statistically more likely to be convicted and end up with harsher sentences compared to female defendants.

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).

Can I get a link to that published meta-analysis being mentioned here?
The website is kind of a mess, honestly. It’s hard to tell who’s actually running the project, and I can't even figure out where to place the first person listed on the cover (John Hamel) since he doesn't show up on Google Scholar.

stormytiger4 said:Can I get a link to the published meta-analysis being mentioned here?
The website looks a bit messy, it’s hard to tell who is actually running the project, and I can't find the first person listed on the cover (John Hamel) anywhere on Google Scholar.

From what I know about this project, there isn't just one single report. Instead, the results were released through several special issues of the journal domestic abuse. It says right on the project page: "The 17 manuscripts, which provide a review of findings on each of the topics, for a total of 2,657 pages, appear in 5 consecutive special issues of domestic abuse published between April 2012 and April, 2013. All conclusions, including the extent to which the research evidence supports or undermines current theories, are based strictly on the data collected."

Link

You can find info on the project collaborators here; Hamel is the supervising editor, basically the boss.

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.

You aren't going anywhere like this. Or rather, not on topics that have nothing to do with it, and especially not using your method of twisting things and pushing half-truths in your war against women. It’s not just about you, obviously. Anyway, I didn't ban you; it was the entire Politics moderation team that decided to close those threads and prevent any more of these misogynistic spikes from happening.

It’s just that, for instance, instead of carefully looking at stuff like this (from "your" link):

rates of injury are much higher among female victims than male victims, and those injuries are more likely to be life-threatening and require a visit to an emergency room or hospital

...you'll just ignore it and push the narrative that domestic abuse is perfectly equal or even that men suffer more.

This is just one example, and we've been through this thousands upon thousands of times already.

And let's not even get into the most extreme form of abuse/crime:

More women than men are killed in the context of ‘domestic homicide’, 315 women in 3 years compared to 117 men. Women were 73% of all victims of domestic violence homicide, men were 27% of all victims of domestic violence homicide. Women killed in the context of ‘domestic homicide’ are more likely than men to be killed by members of the opposite sex: Of the 315 female victims of ‘domestic homicide’, 304 (97%) were killed by men. Of the 117 male victims of ‘domestic homicide’, 37 (32%) were killed by women

https://kareningalasmith.com/2016/09...-2015-3-years/

All of this without even diving into the fact that women often (though certainly not always) kill their abusers, whereas the reverse is extremely rare, but there’s no point starting a debate about that with someone who thinks they're on a "holy mission."

But, like I said, we’ve told you all this before. Along with a few other usual suspects. Distorting facts, cherry-picking info, leaving out data that doesn't fit your agenda, and so on...

If you ever feel the urge to actually present real, complete data instead of just the bits that suit you, then it might be a different story altogether...

I don't really get why people are tripping over this topic—what's actually wrong with the research? The journal where they dropped the results is peer-reviewed, so everything went through the standard vetting process. That means you can take the findings to the bank, at least as far as the authors themselves claim, provided you keep their specific limitations and caveats in mind.

EDIT: Looks like we were typing at the exact same time, my bad.

Honestly, every single discussion eventually devolves into this kind of circular nonsense. Obviously, any form of abuse is ugly and destructive, whether it’s physical or psychological...

But presenting nothing but cold statistics while ignoring the reality behind them—the difference between "a wife hitting her drunk husband" and "a man brutally beating his wife until she ends up in the ER ten times over"—is a stretch. To act like the issues men and women face regarding domestic abuse are some perfectly symmetrical problem is just a completely different conversation entirely...

Oh, sure, no worries, here's what the study says: we're all in the same boat, the danger is identical, the abusers are all the same. Let's just conveniently overlook the tiny detail that for every 30 men killed, there are 300 women, and as that exact study points out: rates of injury are much higher among female victims than male victims, and those injuries are more likely to be life-threatening and require a visit to an emergency room or hospital

It's all the same, right? Sure, Peter killed Anna, and Isaac brutally beat Georgia, but then again, Mirta spat on Hrvoj, and Zdenka pinched Marko. It's a perfect 2:2 split. Right...

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.

Daniel Ward87 said:I honestly don't get why this thread even exists, I mean, what's actually the issue with this research?

From what I can gather, the whole friction comes from the fact that scientific findings just don't seem to align with certain ideological dogmas.

Science tells you one thing, while dogma insists on something else entirely.

If dogma is supposedly more important than the facts, then I guess I'll just sit back and wait to hear that, too.

silentridge3 said:Is it against the rules on this Reddit to bring up the neglect of those 30 murdered men? Are those 30 just off-limits now?

Well, thanks so much for demonstrating your debating style... 🙂 That's exactly how you approach domestic abuse... 🙂 And that’s why all the topics are locked (by the way, that happened before I even became a moderator)

And yeah, lonebadger6 here is tirelessly deleting my posts, even in the thread titled "Slapping a wife is slapping society".

Even there? 😲 🤣 Send me a link, since I've never actually heard of that thread... 🙏

I'll happily take a look at who's been deleting your stuff, since apparently there isn't a moderator yet who hasn't wiped your misogynistic posts and handed you bans for them...

Since I don't recall that thread from Politics at all, I guess you've basically granted me super-moderator powers to go deleting things in other subreddits. Thanks for that... 👍

If I'm following correctly, it doesn't matter if men get slapped more often than women, as long as we don't mix up slaps with actual murders...

Check the response under the first quote... 🙂

And that, kids, is why silentridge3 is not allowed to write about domestic abuse on Reddit Politics.

By the way, this is the 973rd thread on PŽK about this. I assume the super-mods or Nice himself will personally notify you the moment they decide to change their stance on your "problematizing" male violence on Reddit Politics. You really don't need to ask every five minutes...

You personally derailed at least seven different discussions regarding domestic violence. We didn't just ignore you; we gave you plenty of warnings and chances to course-correct. It’s on you that we had to shut those topics down entirely.

Here are a few examples: Radical feminism ruling the European Union, Have men been stripped of their rights?, Gender-based violence and discrimination, Female quotas on election ballots—"positive" discrimination, Is our society misandrist? (Open sessions from 8-12 and 17-22)...........

And to answer your question from the PDF thread: Don't expect any politicians to step in if you continue behaving exactly as you have in every other similar discussion, including this one.