southernhybrid

I agree with you that some of them are could be accurate. As you pointed out, women are the primary caretakers of young children and elderly so they may exercise more physical abuse in those cases.

However, my 25 years of experience as a nurse in home care with elderly patients does not compute with those statisitics. In the vast majority of abuse cases that I have dealt with the perpetrator was a male and not a female, despite the fact that the majority of the caregivers I've encountered have been females.

The statistics may have some validity but without the studies to support them, they are not credible. My experiences are not a scientific study but my experience makes me skeptical of those statistics especially since they have no supporting evidence. You are correct though in asserting that if the statistics are correct they don't tell the entire story.

southbound69us

Thanks for the replies....Personally, I had a huge problem with this, as my mother and father were in an abusive relationship and my mother had to leave the state we were living in to flee from my father, and I cannot and will not accept a study that glorifies men and puts women in the light of the abuser rather than the abused.
I don't doubt that women can and will attack men, but it seems to me (and I am in too much of a hurry to look up the stats) that the majority of women who do attack their husbands are doing it in response to abuse themselves--abuse that often goes unreported to police.
What bothers me is that this "study" was brought up on a radio show that caters to millions of people everyday, and discussed (AND AGREED UPON!!) among dozens of phone callers. This propagation of hate-mongering and reverse-discrimination saddens me to no end, and I can only hope that people (and society) are more willing to read studies that have statistical and scientific merit, and not studies that are only relayed on shock-jock radio stations whoring themselves out for ratings.
Free-speech, I have found, is a double-edged sword--and studies like this are often more available to the public than studies with actual scientific and social merit. This just leads to the expanse of ignorance and belittling.
Sigh.....

Paintballislife

well, im not one to advocate violence in homes, but i have to agree with that site on alot of things.. my mom was/ somewhat still is abusive. many many times she woudl throw things and hoit me with things, my dad never reported it.. i know theres worse out there, and my mom is very rarely did anything like that. but i do see more women abusing then men... i think the reason men are put in the spot light cause its a lil bit more obvious when a women gets hit than when a man gets hit... he can always be like, wella fight in the pub. but my mom did come form an abusive home so... i dunno. but i do agree with alot on there. not all of it.

Loren Pechtel

My guess is that the big difference is in severity rather than frequency.

scigirl

Hi Paintballislife,

I'm sorry to hear about your parent's situation - abuse is never a pretty picture no matter who is perpetuating it. Are your parents still together?

Did you read the rebuttal study that I posted earlier in this thread? It seems that the web site you speak of is full of errors - though too many women do abuse their mates (in other words, the rate is not zero!), men are still the primary abusers in all cultures around the world, in both frequency and severity. My main problem with Fiebert's claims are that - well they appear to be wrong. And if we as a society can't even agree on the raw statistics about violence, we will be even more unable to solve the violence problem.

scigirl