You beat me to it. Imagine that, someone that's been attacked violently might suffer from anxiety.

And they needed a study to determine that.....

I agree

but the question must be considered, could the violence just have infuriated a pre-existing condition, and/or does the pre-existing condition make an individual more vulnerable to experiencing that violence in the first place? violence doesnt always equal mental health problems, althought I agree it could make you more vulnerable to them. Although, this study seems obvious to many, I think it is necessary, because there is not always a linear answer to these things.

Learning Dynamics (learningdynamicsinc.org)

It's something women can't get away from, and naturally it's depressing, since even the "authorities" don't protect us. Personally, it makes me mad as hell.

It makes me mad as hell too. Violence is genderless. I have been in two relationships where my girlfriends were extremely abusive, both physically and verbally. They both felt justified in doing so and as oddly as it sounds, both were extremely sensitive to violence against women.

In a 2002 study, they found that more women were violent in their relationships than men (whole study here):

Anderson, K. L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 851-863. (Data consisted of 7,395 married and cohabiting heterosexual couples drawn from wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and Households <NSFH-1>. In terms of measures: subjects were asked "how many arguments during the past year resulted in 'you hitting, shoving or throwing things at a partner.' They were also asked how many arguments ended with their partner, 'hitting, shoving or throwing things at you.'" Author reports that, "victimization rates are slightly higher among men than women <9% vs 7%> and in cases that involve perpetration by only one partner, more women than men were identified as perpetrators <2% vs 1%>.")"

So to me, violence in our society as a whole must be removed. NO ONE is justified in abusing their partner...NO ONE. Studies show that men and women physically assault each other equally. Women get injured/killed more often because they are smaller, but the act of violence is inherent to our society, not to a gender.

When women have the power (are the bigger assailant), such as against children, their rates of abuse are greater than that of men (2004 study here).

Abuse is something that affects all humans in civilized societies. It is something that MUST be addressed at the human level, not the gender level.

Of course all humans are at a great risk of mental problems when they are abused...sometimes, the abuse itself helps fester an existing problem. This study was done in Australia, which almost like our society, refuses to even consider that women are not always victims, and men are not always perpetrators. I never can understand the reasoning of brushing half the violence under the rug while "exposing" the other half as the ONLY violence that occurs. The mental state of all of our citizens will always be linked to abuse (bullying), or any factors that create a sub-group of human. I'm sure a Jewish persons mental health was affected by the Nazi's.

If we don't open our eyes to the entirety of the abuse and hit it from all angles, it will never subside. It will only create an entitlement for half the population to abuse while we chastise the other half. Solutions with blinds on will never bring about the end to the violence that is truly our reality as a society. Domestic violence, regardless of victim or perpetrator should make us all mad as hell.

Hehe... well FIRST, as an entire article in general comment (before I respond with respect to the two above...)... yes, this study is rather obvious. In fact... it's about as obvious as "environment influences mental health" PERIOD. But, in a shockingly MORE obvious article once... a moderator stated something like "we know it's not news, just a sort of review... after all, kids surf the web for reports and such". Don't get me started on knocking studies, if anything it's simply a bit of media evidence (as opposed to available academic evidence) that the same hypothesis is tested to the point of puking before being scientifically supported.

As for Jus, it isn't at all necessarily the species. The species is merely the baseline, so while men may have a certain baseline tendency to act in such a way... environment and cognitions are two factors. Absolutely... women have long been viewed as inferior, for all sorts of reasons (media, cultural, etc) that I by NO means mean to minimize by not expanding on.

However, I do believe that Justice makes some interesting points. Not even so much due to a study here or there (although, as a digression: note the complaints about how useless THIS study is, vice how many studies looking at the reverse there are), but because of the fact that a blanket "men shouldn't do it" as opposed to "nobody should do it" is actually a quite negative environmental factor.

For example... and whether it is common relative or not is not my point... consider this hypothetical situation (seen it, trust me :) ). Let me start with a bit of a comparison of environmental/social pressures. Women have to be thin. In analysis of mass media, this is undeniably reinforced, has been since there even WAS mass media in today's terms. That isn't right. Men shouldn't EVER hit women... that IS right... right? Well... needs revising (at end of rant). OK, let's check some other widely socially accepted/endorsed behavior. See movies and such... it's almost FUNNY when the female slaps the male, or chucks dishes at his head. That's almost funny (or IS funny, depending on context)... but even if hit, the guy can't hit back. Now, it's easy to dismiss this as acceptable because the guy does more damage. Ah... but consider the situation in the following paragraph (ok, so I rambled before getting to the hypothetical a bit :P )... just one example of many similar stories I have listened to...

Take a male who gets together with a women, been together a few years. For seven years prior, she had the bleep beat out of her. Was with an absolute monster. The current man is the sweetest, most gentle man you could hope to meet. He doesn't know certain responses. For example... she has been trained to FIGHT in any sort of argument... maximum response for minimum reason... it's all she's known. On the other hand... HE has only ever known more "normal" relationships... whenever there is an argument, you snap for a couple sentences each, then storm off and pout (something close to that). Nobody has ever beat the ish out of anybody. So... you pair the two together, and nothing makes sense. It's like somebody VERY close to their family getting together with somebody very NOT close to their family... totally unfamiliar worlds. Anyway... so, the guy used to "normal" type arguments receives volume 10, completely vile, object throwing, FIGHT for survival type arguments for seemingly no real reason (in the mind of someone used to "normal" disagreements). All he knows is "normal" as I've described... he absorbs the tirades time after time after time after time... including objects being thrown, some slaps, even a few punches. No hitting back. But... eventually, he DOES hit back. Then... he is the one arrested, because again... the well intending (but now highly defensive) woman knows that the cops will lay the pain on the man.

Now... don't at all misunderstand... the laws that lay the auto hurt are obviously in response to women not pressing charges... BUT.... my above scenario is more common than you would probably think. Was the guy truly bad for putting up for it so long before snapping once, thereby talking to me? Of course not. It'd be WAY more productive for BOTH of them to receive couple's counseling.

Anyway, it is definitely correct that domestic violence PERIOD should be popularly (and legally) portrayed as unacceptable. Nobody should be able to do it. Sure, the man can "take it" because he can defend himself... oh wait... nope, then he is arrested. Obviously, it happens the other way MORE often, but again... in a society that finds women slapping men funny in comedies (how long do you think that is REALLY going to be funny?)... this leads me to my point. The common perception that "men should never hit women" should be amended to "partners should never hit partners" PERIOD. I agree with Justice's point.

While that sounds like a good idea initially it's not always sensible. If he has a knife to your throat or a gun in your mouth it is better not to fight. You can heal from a rape; you can't from death.

"Men frequently get violent when they don't get their moneys worth."

Frequently is a completely false statement. Stop and think about it for a moment. If a woman, through no fault of her own, had her children taken away by the government who just decided one day they wanted to, had her removed from her home, and brought in a nanny to take care of the children, and then charged her 30% of her income, all stated in the "best interest of the children," how many would you think would just roll over and say, "Well, at least my children are taken care of."

It seems absurd doesn't it? Seems like a gross violation of human rights, doesn't it? There would be outrage, marches, protests, and probably even violence in the streets. Would we then blame the mothers for being violent? Tell them they should just understand that the government wanted it that way and they have to accept a complete violation of their human rights and remain silent about it? Still completely absurd to view it that way, right?

Now, do it to the father and suddenly we do the most absurd thing ever...we blame him. The fact that MOST fathers are not violent even though they have everything taken from them at the whim of another is a pretty telling fact that MOST can take a lot of abuse piled onto them by the government without striking back. I'd say it is actually pretty spectacular that we don't see a lot more of it. Abuse is not because of the money or power any human (regardless of gender) has or doesn't have. It is about a perceived entitlement to abuse, to have it your way, to take from another because they are your property. Abuse is all about control. In your scenario, government abuse of fathers is much more widespread than any father who abuses an ex-wife because he has to pay child support.

There are few relationships that exist where there is not an argument. Yelling at each other can constitute abuse by the letter of the law, but cases of ongoing "control" abuse are few and far between. It doesn't mean they don't exist, or that they shouldn't be resolved, only that in general, most people are not abusers.

It is important to note that in today's society, a woman and a man make the same amount of money if they get the same education, work the same hours and have the same experience. Choices are what separate pay scales no matter what your gender, hair color, skin color or religious affiliation.

Both women and men are vunerable when they are broke, and both have the ability to make the choice not to be. Anyone, of either gender, who waits for someone to help them, instead of standing on their own two feet is a pathetic excuse of a citizen. If you choose not to go to college and you work a minimum-wage job, so you decide to go out with one who spent years going to school and brings in more income, you have placed yourself in a vunerable position, regardless of your gender. But then to turn around and blame someone else is less than altruistic. In fact, the manipulation of these people by politicians and special interest make it a societal crime. When we begin to hold people responsible for their own decisions, you will find the whole gender-war will cease to exist. But that is a scary, scary thought to those that have built entire political careers and empires on a scape-goats.

Hehe... well, it's difficult to explain that to someone who doesn't know. I am guessing (empathy... you know, what you are supposed to teach to "often violent men"). I actually hear what you are saying, Justice.

There is WIC... why isn't there a MIC? And, to this day... I have no idea if men qualify as well, but it STILL begs the question. Hey, if men CAN enroll in WIC... why isn't it PIC? There certainly ARE single fathers. I once was called to pay child support... after I'd won custody. See, my state automatically files for child support once a woman reports on a food assistance application that she has a child and the man doesn't live with her. Zero questions of custody, automatic assumptions. Much later, I then was on the phone with MY lawyer trying to work out custody considerations for HER... because I had full custody, the issue (not getting into details) was that SHE couldn't see her child... not that I was trying to see mine. No matter how many times I specifically said this, EVERY answer is phrased "well, if you want to see your kid..."; I mean, it was borderline retarded, because of business as usual assumptions.

Although I do want to point out, the pay difference by just about any measure is NOT equal... more than that, I want to point out that certain societal level perceptions are harmful PERIOD. My example above: women should be model skinny. Not good. The statement that "men frequently get violent when they don't get their money's worth"? Likewise, not good. The overriding societal belief that men shouldn't hit women? Very true. But, once again... it's hilarious for some reason when women slap men in movies. The gap needs bridged such that nobody should hit anybody in a domestic relationship is the societal belief.

Although I do want to point out, the pay difference by just about any measure is NOT equal...

I understand that has been beaten into our heads by the media and politicians, but once you start doing research on it, you will find that thinking has been proven false. You can take it to the bank that anyone with the same education, experience, working the same hours, gets paid the same regardless of gender, race or religion.

Check out the Consad Report done for the U.S. Government in 2009. 50 research studies were re-examined to account for hours worked, experience and education. It nullified any pay-gap that has been reported so vigorously by the media and polticians.

I agree with what you say. All we have to do is hold people accountable for their own decisions and the scenario will work itself out. Almost all abuses by the government will be vanquished. But are we willing to hold people accountable for their choices, regardless of gender? That will determine the success or failure of our entire system of government. The success of our families are merely the litmus test of success or failure of government.

Not to minimize your experience in any way, but I'm reminded of the scene in Crocodile Dundee in which he said "That isn't a knife: THIS is a knife"...

But is the reasoning because these studies are consciously trying to destroy men, or is it because the frequency and severity of violence as a whole against women has often pushed us into "minority" status, at best, in many locations throughout the world in many periods?

That is a good question. No, they do not try to "destroy" men. Only omit any possibility that women can be violent. Men are expected to take care of themselves. Most domestic violence is committed by both partners over a long period of time. The "first-strike" is just as likely to be a woman as it is to be a man. But society expects men to be able to handle it themselves without interference of the government. Many government agencies, including police, refuse to believe the guy can't handle an abusive partner and will either arrest him for being "bigger" as some states have written into law, or as I've witnessed, they just laugh and say, "Are you a wimp?"

As society begins to wrap its hands around the violence and begins to understand that all humans, regardless of gender, can cause emotional abuse, be it screaming, hitting, trying to control another, then laws will morph to include all people which only then will begin to actually reduce the violence.

partly because of the reasoning that most atrocities of war are committed by men.

Ummm... wow... ask any family of a man that died in WWI or WWII, Korea, Vietnam or even in the Middle East. Atrocities of war meaning defense of innocent people? Atrocities meaning protecting your country? Are we really willing to rewrite the history books to refer to the incredible job these men did for our country as atrocities? In fact, women were PROTECTED and still are in the military. THAT is the reason Jaon of Arc would cross-dress. That is not being oppressed, it is a protection that our daughters enjoy that our sons are required to belay. They MUST register for the draft in case they are needed to die for their country. A far cry from a "minority" status of women. If they knew JoA was a woman, they wouldn't put her in harms way, not because they wanted to keep the "club" of killing all to themselves.

Atrocities...hmmm...That is a very odd way to view people who put their lives on the line for us back here so we can live our lives without fear.

Men have consistently over time formed large amounts of "male only" clubs. So why is it so horrible when women decide to do the exact same thing by wanting to avoid the vast majority of men?

I'm pretty sure "male only" clubs (like what really), focus on what the men who formed the club wanted to do, not about avoiding a vast majority of women, so when you say "exact same thing," your version sounds more like getting even than an appropriate reason for a club. It is telling in the way you describe it. Do we think women-only clubs are there only to avoid (or demonize) the vast majority of men? I don't think so. That would be a strange club.

I'm not really sure where "male-only" and "female-only" clubs fit in the grand scope of violence, but I would think it would be safe to say that the goal of most clubs is not to keep others out, but to enjoy together, with other like individuals, the things the club sponsors. A German Shepherd club does not make a goal to avoid Shelties, just get together with other owners of German Shepherds. But when a club is together specifically to hate and blame others that weren't born like they were (such as the KKK), then you have a sick, dangerous club concentrated on hurting others rather than just enjoying the time with each other.

We can run but we can't hide, it seems.

Don't ever run, don't ever hide. It only means you accept what the government, special interest and media feed society non-stop on a daily basis. And when you think about what some women feel in the face of a controlling, screaming, abusive partner, stop and think also about what some men feel in the same situation, but without any support mechanisms in place. If they are strong enough, they'll handle it themselves.

Stopping abuse is about helping people on a human level, not a gender level. When we can give all people the help they need when they are victims of abuse, then and only then, can we truly claim to be a civilized society, free from a predisposed view of who we should help and who should be able to take care of themselves. Humans are humans and all should be treated with the same respect, regardless of how they were born. Violence is violence and ALL humans are affected by it. Whether is it war, terrorism, or abuse by a domestic partner...after being exposed to violence, a human's mental health most certainly can suffer. Sometimes the narrow view of the media is clearly evident in the angle they take to focus a report, apparently limiting this not so surprising "phenomenon" to only one group so defined.

Domestic violence is an extremely important subject and the only way to defeat it is to expose it and discuss it on a complete level, hiding nothing, even if it means we need to address our daughters AND our sons.

Sorry, Justice?, but while I agree with a lot you have to say and that violence and trauma are big issues for men and women both, and am sorry for your traumas, I also believe that in many societies throughout time women and their concerns are relegated to "minority" status, or worse yet, "non-existent" status.

No need to be sorry. You have a right to your opinion. But I would like you to note that in our society, today, men and women each have a human status. To apply today's standards to yesterday's society cannot be realistically achieved. To explain, do you think that women in 1941 felt they were a "minority" status because they staying at home taking care of the children instead of being shot at in Europe? You have to remember that each "group" had their own contribution during that society. Chivalry over the past 40 years has been painted as control and holding women back...but that is what it is today, not what it was yesterday. Most women would appreciate not having to be called upon to pick up a gun and risk their lives defending their country...just as most men would probably appreciate not having to do it. But for one, even in our current society, it is a duty, for the other it is a choice.

Remember that no matter if you are a man or woman, there is a capability of of being discriminatory, or being discriminated against. It is evident by your own statement:

However, with the large groups of separatism among men and high level of sex discrimination among men towards women, I feel that I have even as a bisexual woman, that I be okay with female separatism as a choice for myself if it came to that.

I'm not really sure what you are advocating, but it sounds like you might think it would be easier if we had a society of men at odds with a society of women, which then would probably have to be redistributed by race within gender, and maybe then by religion within race within gender. What it sounds like, is that you believe women who are "victims" need a society of their own in order to be equal. While sadly, this may be the experiences you have had, I can assure you that separating a society by any "grouping" is a damaging step that is almost impossible to come back from. Just look at the middle east. I believe it is in the best interest of society to stop, take a step back, and realize what it is that we are doing. And that by working together, respecting each other, taking responsibility for our own actions and treating others the way we want to be treated are pivotal to a successful society.

May we live in a more peaceful world in the future...

Agreed, and it will be people like us that need to choose to build that peaceful world, instead of continuing the rampant segmentation that has plagued our our government and our society.