the states with the (of the ones reported) highest incidence of HIV infections seem to also be the ones with the higher incidence of abuse against women (again, of the states for which there is info).

Absolutely disgraceful; but the number is not really that surprising considering that "Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey." Assuming that the latter used comparable definitions and questions, one would expect domestic abuse incidents to be higher in India.

The comparability bit is crucial, as you can see a different survey with a different definition gave numbers almost twice as high. That's why I'm very careful about making comparisons unless I see the same definition being used across the board.

Why are the numbers so high for southern India where female literacy is higher and female rights are greater than in machoistic north like Delhi?

Why are the numbers so high for southern India where female literacy is higher and female rights are greater than in machoistic north like Delhi?

I don't know, but it's consistent with figures from Bangladesh showing that rates where higher in rural areas than urban ones.

Why are the numbers so high for southern India where female literacy is higher and female rights are greater than in machoistic north like Delhi?

Exactly my reaction. These numbers seem very strange. It makes me question the survey method. If one questionaire was provided per family or if families were interviewed as a group (as opposed to providing each woman with her own questionnaire or interviewing them individually) then women in North India were probably far less likely to report domestic violence then those in the South.

Why are the numbers so high for southern India where female literacy is higher and female rights are greater than in machoistic north like Delhi?

If these numbers are correct, we have to admit that wife-beating is part of our culture at this point. How many other practices have anywhere from 20% to 40% of the people engaging in them? And that, of course, is horrible. And I'm sure the stats for many states not listed would be worse than what we see here.

Yes, this is disturbing.. But 80% of Indians are still working on farms and have no education past grade 10.
Even when I watch Tamil soap operas today, they show lower caste men beating there wives and such and the rest of the village just watches.. So it seems like it is socially acceptable among uneducated indians.

Comment #8 is from me...I don't know why I called myself American there...freudian slip when confronted with stats like these? (Although I am in fact American, the stats here might not be much better).

How many other practices have anywhere from 20% to 40% of the people engaging in them?

Probably goes higher than 40% in some states if the average is 40% and we can see some (albeit less populous) states below.

They key here would be UP.

This is some weird shit...I'm sure I saw 'American' as my handle for comment #8, and now it says 'Amitabh'.

I fixed it after your comment.

How do I get the three vertical dots and then quote from someone elses comment ?

while this is disturbing-- there are many, many states missing on the list! what about figures from Gujarat, Punjab, Assam, etc? i'd like to get a more complete picture of what is happening before we decide that south india has a higher proportion of domestic abuse cases. it may be that more women are willing to report in south indian states as opposed to north indian states.

regardless, domestic violence in south asia and all over the globe needs to STOP!

look at the study, they chose those six states based upon their higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS.

however, i still maintain looking at EACH state's reported DV statistics plus an estimate of what is NOT being reported would give a more accurate picture.

once again, regardless, it must STOP!! Domestic Violence is just horrible.

I think the reason why Egypt shows such high numbers is the inclusion of 'coerced sex' in the definition of abuse. UN surveys correctly consider 'coerced sex' in a marriage to also be abuse. I would assume in a lot of other cultures this is not viewed as abuse at all ( they think of it as 'a husband's right' !!! ).

Another way of looking at this study is that 37.2% of married men in India have assaulted women. That is scary. It would mean every third man around me is capable of violence.

Do the statistics resonate with any of the experiences of people who participate at this blog? Do any of you recall relatives or friends/neighbors of relatives in India behaving in suspicious manners with their spouses? If so, what was your reaction or the reaction of the people you know or are related to in India?

@MoS 18. I am a FoB from Mumbai. In my experience there is a class correlation. Among the middle classes it is less common, probably as a result of better education. Among the lower classes, I have seen this happen in public. One must however keep in mind that: "The plural of anecdote is not data". My guess is that it is not that common in the middle class and that when it does happen, noone wants "publicity" and the police involved. Getting involved in a domestic dispute as a good samaritan can lead to adverse consequences, as the wife may prefer to deny it for the aforementioned "publicity" reasons. There are women's organizations that are raising these issues from time-to-time and there has been some success.

As much as the problem as wife beating is back in the homeland, it is also the problem among some desi's in the west.

In the last 4 months in Vancouver area 3 punjabi women have been murdered and a 4th is in coma after being attacked by there husband or there families. Manjit Panghali, Amanpreet Bahia, and Navreet Waraich are all dead and Gurjeet Ghuman is in a coma.

The murders of Amanpreet Bahia and Navreet Waraich have some things in common. Both were arranged marriages in which the women were given little freedom or any social life by there husbands or in-laws. After there deaths the familes of these 2 young women spoke of how there daughters were kept prisoners in there own home.

But the response among South Asian commuity leaders in Vancouver is to say that violence is a problem against women is a problem among all communites, instead of dealing with the problems. It been an joke the way that the community leaders want to avoid dealing with the problem.

While some amount of class correlation may be present- I know that that domestic violence happens in all strata of society. Doctors, lawyers, actresses( Remember Zeenat Aman getting beat up by then boyfriend Sanjay Khan ?).

On the few ocassions that I had to visit the friendly neighborhood police station in India, I observed at least one weeping woman every vist.Having just been battered by her husband, she would probably be resisting the policeman's efforts to get her to write an official complaint because where would she go with the breadwinner in prison?And that's why playing good smaritan does not work.I know, I have tried and failed.

As for personal experience: I remember one case involving a distant relative.The girl chose not to tell anyone about it because she was not sure about the reaction from her parents and brothers. EVERYONE supported her when she finally came forward and not one person suggested that she should stick by her creepo husband.

Women's organizations in India are douing what they can for general empowerment .With 80% of India still rural and access to primary health and education constrained to the few lucky ones, it\s an obviously up hill task.But at least things will change slowly.

Here a website done in the honor of the late Manjit Panghali

www.manjitpanghali.org

I’m finding that set of numbers a bit hard to believe, in part because Egypt comes close to being a country where all women are assaulted.

Keep in mind that according to some muslims, striking one's wife was prescribed by the Prophet Muhammed in the Quran.

An analysisi of that here; http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Silas/wife-beating.htm

I have had some involvement with the south asian centers for domestic violence here in the Bay area and it is true that the numbers are high among south indians. It appears to be a cultural thing unconnected apparently with level of education (see comment #9).

I suggest everyone look at the website Clueless mentioned above. Very poignant and sad.

@Runa

Yes women don't want to report such problems in india; even when they are financially secure. Many of them want to be on a moral high ground and some are afraid of the publicity and its consequence on them and their family. I have known women from the middle and lower classes who work and earn for the whole family and the husband just drinks and beats her, but they still refuse to report them. I even had a distant aunt who worked as a teacher and came home to an abusive husband; she separated only after her teenaged son threated to run away or something and then too only separated (not divorced). I think first we need to change the attitude of the people regarding divorce and the wife's role in family. She shouldn't feel like she is losing her identity and should feel free to socialise. The few women who do take action feel extremely uncomfortable attending marraiges, etc. mostly because they are pointed out and whispered about. They suddenly find themselves in the 'evil women' or the 'victim' category wherein they are pitied or hated rather than accepeted as a normal person.

Theres no socio - economic & religious background of the abusers. Is abuse more common in the lower strata of society than the higher? What about Islam where Quaran santions wife beating?

ylrsings said:

there are many, many states missing on the list! what about figures from Gujarat, Punjab, Assam, etc?

Yes, there are. The survey was conducted across India. However, the NEJM article only reported some domestic abuse figures. As I said in the post:

unfortunately they provided these figures for only a handful of states (those where they had HIV figures)

ylrsings also said:

look at the study, they chose those six states based upon their higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS.

unfortunately they provided these figures for only a handful of states (those where they had HIV figures)

We don't know if the other states had higher or lower HIV figures. These are simply the only states where we have good HIV figures.

Theres no socio - economic & religious background of the abusers. Is abuse more common in the lower strata of society than the higher? What about Islam where Quaran santions wife beating?

Unfortunately, they haven't released this data yet. The NEJM article was able to gain access, but I haven't, so I can't tell you about the influence of class or education. As for Islam, it's unlikely the dominant factor given the pattern of variation we see in the states were we have data. We can see some states that are very high that have few muslims.

I just saw the site honoring Manjit Panghali- how sad! I am especially shocked to see that her husband was also a teacher and her brother was involved!!! This just shows us that women who are smart/emplyed/westernized can be victims of abuse also. Don't only focus on the "old country" (wherever that might be)look at the people around you in your community/neighborhood/job.

I cannot speak about wife beating, it is nit something I have seen among my Indian relatives, that doesn't mean it non existent. But child beating as far as I hve seen is an integral part of atleast Bengali culture, maybe things have changed since the 80's. As for wife beating, the woman the cooks for my father in Kolkata used to get beaten by her drunk husband regularly, it happend so often that my father spoke to the police who in turn gave her husband a beating. Well thats law enforcement in India today. Street justice, atleast if you're poor.

I saw this on DD years ago when AIDS campaigns were starting out TN, citing the very high figures - Dr Jaya Shreedhar attributed them to superior and reliable statistics collection mechanisms in the State. In a way this corroborates to the high literacy rates cited, both cases being true (Literacy and AIDS/Battery)

Case in point - the graphs

TN has reporting on more categories than any other state, here's the legend
Among
Antenatal Clinic attendees - TN:0.75% AP:1.25%
STD clinic attendees - TN:9% 21.5%
Female Sex Workers - NA NA
Injecting Drug Users - TN:39% AP:NA KA:2.8% MN:22.4%
Men having Sex with Men - TN:~1% AP:NA
TB patients - NA
Migrants - NA

Year 2003, TN - Tamil Nadu, AP - Andhra Pradesh, KA - Karnataka, MN - Manipur

Actually NACO has better figures - http://www.nacoonline.org/facts_statewise.htm

This is awful, and yet entirely unsurprising. And I'm glad that Clueless posted on the murders that have been happening in Vancouver. When the parents (who are in India) of one of these women were interviewed, her father said, "I knew she was being beaten, but I didn't think it would go this far." (!!!!) Again, underscoring how accepted/normalized domestic violence is. While there's a lot of nitpicking we could do with the stats, at the end of the day, DV is one of the most methodologically difficult things to track, and I am inclined to believe higher %s instead of lower ones, particularly based on anecdotal experience.

While I think a socio-economic breakdown would be interesting, I'm with Runa. People often assume DV is more prevalent in low-income communities, when in fact it spans across classes. Similar to the comment "but we have such high literacy! how are those stats possible?", I think people assume that education = less abuse. We can see from the U.S. that that is just not the case.At the end of the day, women across sll sorts of backgrounds are the targets of brutal and ongoing abuse.

Thanks for the post Ennis.

This is awful, and yet entirely unsurprising. And I'm glad that Clueless posted on the murders that have been happening in Vancouver. When the parents (who are in India) of one of these women were interviewed, her father said, "I knew she was being beaten, but I didn't think it would go this far." (!!!!) Again, underscoring how accepted/normalized domestic violence is. While there's a lot of nitpicking we could do with the stats, at the end of the day, DV is one of the most methodologically difficult things to track, and I am inclined to believe higher %s instead of lower ones, particularly based on anecdotal experience.

I wonder if this type of thing is prevelant amongst couples where the husband is living and working outside of India and goes back to India to find a wife, brings her to his country of residence where she has no connections, and proceeds to abuse her. If so a mass campaign should be commenced in order to inform women in India that these things are going on. Maybe such women should bring with them a relative who can live with her in her husband's house (afterall, she most likely has to live with her in-laws so why not the other way around?).

Seems like campaigns need to go on in all the gurudwars, mandirs and masjids informing the men of what the laws in their particular countries are regarding domestic violence, and that they will be reported to the police if they are found to be committing illegal acts. It is up to the communities to come down hard on criminals like this. ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY.

MoS, I think it IS common, but not much more common than the same for diaspora-diaspora marriages. I think this woman had immigrated with family, originally, actually. So it wasn't her husband, but rather her uncle/cousin who killed her. I'll have to double check - the information is unpublished, but is coming out in a manuscript in the next year.

All that said, I know in the U.S. they passed new laws re: DV for recent spouse-immigrants, but unfortunately, with the craziness in immigration these past few years many people are still afraid to report abuse. I have no idea if Canada has an equivalent law.

I can only speak for my own local community, but the irony I have found is that these attitudes are super prevalent ACROSS classes, especially among 2nd gen'ers. That said, if you asked them directly if they think DV is ok, or if they believe in gender equality, they would say no and yes, respectively. For some reason people are able to disassociate what they know is normatively right/wrong from their actions. I wonder if that is true in other communities, as well?

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect and very un-liberal, is it possible that there are more incidences of domestic violence amongst people who were not born and raised in North America or Western European countries? I know that domestic violence is not un-common in the USA amongst people who were born and raised here, yet statistically, is it greater or lesser than that found amongst people who were not born and raised here?

I assume that the hardcore feminist movements of the 1960s would place USA low in domestic violence amongst people who were born and raised here.

As someone who has travelled the world, I find that USA and Western Europe are the places I feel more relaxed and "safe" in as a woman, even if they are lacking in other areas of culture.

Countries I have been to that have not had the types of "radical feminists" (women who really pushed things over the top very publicly), seem to still have very, very, very defined roles for men and women in relationships. Some of that has to do with religion, some of it not.

@ MoS # 35 & 37

Yes, not only is what you say politically incorrect , its offensive and trivializes the issue.Domestic violence isa global issue. Some cultures maybe more secretive about it than others.

Also , for your information, people in India , believe it or not, are very well aware of the dangers of sending their daughters overseas after marriage .I happen to know for a fact that unlike the 70s and 80s today its difficult for young men working in the USA to find brides easily precisely because everyone has wised up and would rather not send their daughters hundreds of miles away.As fora campaign, did everyone miss teh fact that the Government in India openedan entire bureau devoted to helping victimes of NRI marriages?

It really pisses me off to see a serious issue being identified as one more candidate for serious stereotyping .That's what it came across as to me in any case.

Runa,

Mos has a long history on this site for making incredibly sweeping generalizations without any backing, I believe it is best not to indulge her.

Two points:

1. Why does a person beat another? Primarily either because the person does not know how to resolve conflicts in a rational manner, or because the environment is not conducive to debate (or both). If you see, in India, the environment outside the house is such that unless you use violence, the concerned authorities don't listen to your problems. See the recent episode in Nandigram, WB. If the residents of one neighbourhood file a written complaint for any issue, water shortage, or power cuts, or street dog menace - nobody responds. But the moment they stone a bus or burn a few vehicles, the authorities, politicians rush to the spot and address their grievances. Violence is perceived to work.

Is it any suprising that the same attitude finds its way into the house?

2. Not just in India, but all over the world, there is a tendency to judge a man solely by success in his day-job. This trend is recent - only a couple of centuries old at most(since the Industrial revolution) - and is accelarating rapidly in fast-developing emerging market economies.

Do you find yourself doing that as well? Didn't you know that Gandhiji beat his wife in his early years, Nehru thrashed his wife regularly, Jinnah used to kick his wife around? But hey - they were good in their day-jobs as freedom fighters! So, anything they do goes!

The west, they don't beat their wives as much - they cheat on them. But as long as they are good in their day-job and bringing fame and money to themselves - the public lets it slide.

The solution to the problem may lie in judging a man differently.

M. Nam

domestic violence is about power. more specifically, it is about exerting power over an individual. of course, its etiology is multi-faceted and incredibly complex. i think we start entering into a dangerously dichotomous (as well as false) territory when we start engaging in a discussion that simplifies dv to class or endemic to a specific culture (the cultural context of india, as stated by some of the comments). such as: dv is more prevalent among ppl with lower SES OR dv is more of an issue in india vs. the west.

i was once asked by a white woman, who positioned herself as an expert on india based upon her 2 week vacation to the sub-continent, if dv was/is more prevalent in india because of the custom of arranged marriages. obviously, her question is incredibly flawed in many, many ways. it also shows a complete lack of understanding of what dv is. yes, it can be generally said that there is perhaps more public awareness of the negative consequences of dv in the U.S. vs. India BUT this does not negate the fact that the same patterns of gender oppression that exist in India -exist in the US. This sort of odd 'faux multiculturalist' thinking is obviously v. v. dangerous as it absolves americans (as well as good middle class south asians) from "tending their backyard"- and allows for righteous and condescending finger pointing, such as: "these poor third world women they are soooo oppressed" OR "these poor peasant women they are soooo oppressed."

fact of the matter is dv, as one of the comments indicates, is a global issue. and will continue to be a global issue until or unless both the micro and macro forces that program and allow men (b.c. the perpetrators are mainly men...although in some cases, it can be women also)to exert their power over women.Simplification and dichotomization are then definitely not the answer. nowhere near it.

Does anyone have any data on how the prevalence of domestic violence in UP? Did the researchers even consider UP?

Aparna

Does anyone have any data on how the prevalence of domestic violence in UP? Did the researchers even consider UP?

The survey was nationwide, but unfortunately the only numbers that I could see were part of an article on HIV / AIDS and those were limited by the few states for which India has good HIV/AIDS figures. The national survey itself has not been released, but if you click on the link provided, you can see more about it.

Here in Vancouver there alot of women who have come from Punjab to live with there husbands and his family. Alot of these women have no or very few family on there side in Canada. Alot of men who go back to punjab to find a wife, look for one who doesn't have much family in Canada. This way they will be able to control there wife more.

One problem is that women rights groups are afraid to say anything about this, cause they fear being called racist. That is why that DV is and will be a problem among some immigrant groups in the west.

Ennis, your three bullet points were awesome!

Folks,

please go here for the latest and best information about domestic violence and sexual assault/abuse. Better to talk to experts rather than all the conjecture.

I've been a volunteer there since 2003. They know their shit and will even send people out to educate in your workplace, school, etc.

I stand behind my questions because they were, afterall, only questions. And I think the independence that women have achieved in the West is a very significant factor in the equation. Women in the west are way more likely to divorce a man who cheats on them, abuses them, curtails their freedom, or even just annoys them, than women in India. That is what has been re-iterated on this and many other sites -- the stigma attached to divorce amongst Indian people in general. Although Islam allows for divorce, the common understanding is that Hinduism does not, even though the laws of India do. So you see divorce quite prevelant amongst Muslims in Arab countries whereas you do not see the same amongst Hindus in India, even though the law allows for it. Many Indian Muslims also often have similar views of divorce as to Indian Hindus - despite the fact that both their religion and the laws of their country allow it (same with widow re-marriage amongst Indian Muslims).

Add to the divorce stigma the role of the wife/mother commonly bantered about in classical and ancient Indian literature, many of it religiously based, as well as the "values" that are touted via television serials and movies. The self-sacrificing woman who attains goddess status by bending to everyone else's expectations and "finding herself" in the course of it all.

We just don't have all of that here in the West in general, to the extent that India has it. Yes, you find some religious types who are into the submissive wife stereotype of the Bible or something like that time to time. But the general overall ethos of North American women and men regarding marriage relationships and the relationship of a woman to her in-laws is very, very, very different than that of men and women in India.

India has not had a "feminist revolution" or "sexual revolution" back in the 60's like America had and those also might be contributing factors. Not that India does not have feminists, it does. But the hardcore wave of consciousness raising that men and women of North America were pretty much forced to undergo by the exposure that radical feminists and their ideas got over here has not taken place in India as of yet.

I am suggesting that perhaps all of this might contribute to higher statistics in the domestic violence department. Or maybe it doesn't.

I am just asking.

Moornam also made a good point about people lacking in conflict resolution skills. If someone is not trained in such, or exposed to people with such skills - how will they learn? I know that even counseling or therapy is a taboo amongst some India people, and where it is not completely taboo, it is stigmatized.

Add to that a family culture which still revolves pretty much around "beta" (son) and where the brides are taught to "adjust", well, it's a recipe for disaster.

One problem is that women rights groups are afraid to say anything about this, cause they fear being called racist. That is why that DV is and will be a problem among some immigrant groups in the west.

Add this to my points above.

One part of data is False and the other part is unscientific.

UNDP or UNFPA never published any data which says that 70% of Indian women face domestic violence.
Please correct this massive rumour /hoax. WashingtonTimes published a correction on this.

This article has more details.

Coming to the data that 37.2% of Indian women face domestic violence, this is an unscientific representation.

The data related to crimes, suicides are published as numbers per year.

The current representation of 37.2% women facing DV creates false impression that it is a yearly figure.

Moreover, imagine there is absolutely no DV in year 2007, 2008 and 2009. Still, this statistic will show a percentage as high as 33% women facing DV as it considers even a woman who got beaten up in year 1985 and it will keep doing so for many years to come.

When you take yearly DV data, for urban women it comes to about 3.8%.
This figure is so small that it necessitates a similar study to be conducted for men facing DV and both figures have to be keep side by side for analysis.

Otherwise, this data is unscientific.

By the way, the suicide rate of men vs women in India is 64% to 36% and the same ratio is applicable for suicides due to family reasons as well. So, Indian family is more dangerous for a man than a woman.

I hope, you will take a fresh look at the data in an unbiased manner and put some science into it.

More data on suicide and crime statistics is available at: ncrb.nic.in

One more article on DV and Renuka in India

The stats somehow don't ring true...40% of tamils beat their wife while only 16% of delhiites do it...somehow doesnt seem to reconcile with my experience of living in Delhi with stories of 'kitchen stove accidents' and spousal rape everyday in the papers. Atleast the women in TN dont get into as many kitchen stove accidents!

Sumanth, from the link you provided us, this....

To reiterate Vox Day's words: "Even the most secular scientist understands that marriage is about mutual obligations, they tend to view it as women trading sex and offspring in return for protection and provision. So, if a man has no right to the former, then the woman has no right to the latter and they can be ethically withdrawn from her as freely and on as little notice as she provides."

Yet, on page 71, under 'sexual violence', 'forced sexual intercourse' is criminalized AND on page 72, under 'economic violence', money, food clothes and medicines MUST be provided for the wife and children OR THE HUSBAND IS MARCHED OFF TO JAIL! In other words, the traditional marital right of the wife to 'protection and provision' is made into a demand by law but the husband's marital rights are criminalized.

.... is totally ridiculous.

India has not had a "feminist revolution" or "sexual revolution" back in the 60's like America had and those also might be contributing factors. Not that India does not have feminists, it does. But the hardcore wave of consciousness raising that men and women of North America were pretty much forced to undergo by the exposure that radical feminists and their ideas got over here has not taken place in India as of yet.

Perhaps India hasn't needed a "feminist revolution" because South Asia has a long tradition of feminism and discussion of the role of women in society, as well as women who have bucked traditional gender roles throughout South Asian history. Writers like Rokeya Hussain, historical figures like the Rani of Jhansi--there are plenty of socially acceptable role models for girls and women who don't like traditional gender roles.

As someone who has travelled the world, I find that USA and Western Europe are the places I feel more relaxed and "safe" in as a woman, even if they are lacking in other areas of culture.

Dare I say that it may be because you are a white woman? I have traveled the world too, and the US is the only place where I have occasionally felt not relaxed as a woman, and it's always been at work. It is just as difficult in the US for a woman in a male-dominated field as it is in other countries. .

Dare I say that it may be because you are a white woman?

You can dare say it but my black American friends feel the same way. Ours is a well travelled group and we discuss these things amongst ourselves alot.

I'm not negating your experience. I have very little experience in the American work world/corporate world, so I don't doubt you.

Look, MoS asked politely, I think we should do our best to be civil even if we disagree. Not saying folks have not, but I don't think it's necessary to be hostile to someone who is opening up a conversation.

But to address the question: "is abuse more widespread in India or immigrant communities than in the U.S./2nd gen communities?" I would say the answer is mixed. In terms of absolutes, no. The generally accepted statistic for prevalence of partner physical/sexual abuse in the U.S. is 30%. This of course does not include other forms of abuse, nor does it include sibling-sibling or parent-child abuse. From what I can tell, that prevalence is pretty similar to the 37% statistic (which I am inclined to believe is pretty accurate). It's also generally accepted that DV stats are low-end estimates and underreport, so the statistics for India and the U.S. are probably higher. Among immigrant communities it is generally harder to take stats, but I have a feeling it is not much higher than the rates among "non-immigrant" communities (there are however, factsheets at www.endabuse.org which may be more accurate than my "hunch"). I think it's also important to remember that a lot of immigrant women who are battered are abused by U.S. citizens who think they can do whatever they want without impunity because they can hold deportation over a woman's head as a threat.

I'm very much with serenityha on this one - DV is widespread, multifaceted, and crosses cultural groups. It is not inherent to any one group or class. Further, it is not about the "inability to resolve disagreement" as MoorNam mentioned, it is very much about power. Saying otherwise is like saying that rape is about being horny/under-sexed as opposed to it being a violent act of exerting force/power. The distinction is important because then the "solution" or "treatment" is different as well.

And finally, thanks coach for that link. YWCA does amazing work across the country/world, and I've always thought they were a great resource. They also offer really affordable self defense courses for women.

Sumanath, can you explain how your link to a blog provides more credible or "scientific" data than organizations devoted to working to improve gender relations? I ask since your main complaint seems to be with the stats and classifications. And I really don't see what a "yearly" figure would have to do with anything. if women are beaten but not killed in year X, they will probably still be beaten in year X+1. Your point is a red herring.

Although, if you agree with the article quoted by MoS, then I doubt that there will be any common ground from which to move forward in conversation.

I stand disgusted.

Further, it is not about the "inability to resolve disagreement" as MoorNam mentioned, it is very much about power. Saying otherwise is like saying that rape is about being horny/under-sexed as opposed to it being a violent act of exerting force/power. The distinction is important because then the "solution" or "treatment" is different as well.

I don't agree that all abuse and rape stems from power issues. I think there are cases where abuse does indeed stem from an inability to resolve conflict. I see that alot in parent-child relationships where the kid just digs and digs and digs at the parent until the parent snaps and slaps them. I've done it with kids before and it was all about being pushed over my limits with their incredibly annoying and consistently relentless temper tantrums.

As far as rape, I do feel that in situations where a man is sexually repressed and has no outlet for sexual expression, such as in gender segregated cultures, rape may sometimes be more about that than about the man wanting to exert power over a woman. How can we say that all rapes and all forms of abuse are power issues?

Desishiksa,

and the US is the only place where I have occasionally felt not relaxed as a woman, and it's always been at work.

Delhi is definitely under-reported. Probably because wifebeaters are called banians there.

MoS, I'm just going to firmly disagree with you. Even "snapping" at a child is a power play - it is about controlling someone else's actions or feeling like you have control of an "out of control" situation. There are of course more articulate and lengthy explanations behind the psychological explanations, etc., but I think a failure to classify causes correctly means you end up with (well-intentioned but) misguided solutions. There is also, usually, a different relationship between an adult beating the shit out of another adult and an adult beating the shit out of a child, even if some of the underlying issues may be the same.

I agree with Camille here, MoS. It's not OK to beat a child either. What if the child "lost patience" with you? He/she should beat the crap out of you? That sounds absurd, but only because the child is weaker.... So it's basically about who's bigger.

I'm not talking about "beating" a child, I'm talking about slapping them or spanking them which up until recently, used to be a commonly acceptable way for a parent to discipline a child. Nowadays it's verbal repriminds and "time-outs", which sometimes don't work as well as a good, tight slap on the hand or even cheeks (upper and lower ones). But even that is seen as "abuse" by some people. But anyone who has ever had kids or been around naughty ones alot knows that they can really push you over the edge and talking to them just does not work in some cases.

As far as the women who don't feel "relaxed" in USA - could you elaborate further on why and give some circumstantial examples of that?

Are men molesting them left, front and center on a daily basis? Or even weekly or bi-weekly?

The message when you slap a child because they are provoking you is that, when all else fails and you're at your wits ends, its right to physically lash out at even those who are under your care. Not cool

The message when you slap a child because they are provoking you is that, when all else fails and you're at your wits ends, its right to physically lash out at even those who are under your care. Not cool

Again, this is only a modern-day, westernized concept. Nothing wrong with modern-day, westernized concepts, most are great, but to equate a parent lightly but firmly slapping their child when the child has gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over limits - to equate that with abuse is ludicris.

yeah, I think the modern-day westernized method of swinging at a 30 degree down-ward angle at a velocity of 1 cm per second is quite a fascinating advance in parent-child relations. I think this development must have been a result of flemish burghers writing in the 17th century

To be serious here for a second, what did you think about the numbers with regards to abuse of children. 25% sexually abused, and 40% physically abused, although with that latter I don't have a definition so I can't evaluate it as well.

Its hard to know what to think, India is a large country with a population that is not in anyway homogenous, what kinds of interventions would work in a country in which living conditions vary as drastically as they do in India?

"But anyone who has ever had kids or been around naughty ones alot knows that they can really push you over the edge and talking to them just does not work in some cases."

LOL..do you really go around slapping naughty kids who aren't yours...?

Not to condone corporal punishment, but there is a difference between administering a light whack on the butt of a three or four year old and doing the same to a six or seven year old. The young child may take it simply as a deterrent, which is all it is, but the older child, with more developed faculties, might see it as a personal affront and deep humiliation.

I don't know what child psychologists have to say, but as a parent, I followed my own little rule - if the little one was having a tantrum, specially a tantrum directed at somebody or something, a little thwack on the touchie was done but only if all else failed. I don't think I have ever touched my daughter after she turned five, except to plant a kiss on her cheek, which at age 14, she "pretends" to resent as much as she might a whack on the butt.

By the way, the stats on domestic violence was alarming and way beyond my preconceived notions of the problem. I can understand 40% in India, specially if the research sample included all socioeconomic classes. The less educated and poor will then form the vast majority of the sampling. But 30% in the US, where even the less educated and poor are more aware of personal and human rights? It only goes to prove that awareness, through the media or other means, and empowerment, through women's economic independence, MEANS VERY LITTLE! The abuse stats for American and Maharashtrian women are exactly the same.

Nonsense! Domestic violence is a two way street. I personally know men who have been seriously hit by their wives.

unfortunately this whole debate has been framed by feminist groups, who have decreed that men are automatically criminals and women are automatically the "victims". They have given us the vaunted "Duluth model", which has been a spectacular failure in explaining and preventing DV.

http://frieze.socialpsychology.org

Dr. Irene Frieze's research and every "wifebeater's" testimony shows that women are more likely to initiate violence than men!!! The sober man will likely hold back, knowing his physical strength. Her relentless verbal and physical attacks eventually snap his patience and judgement. When he finally hits back, it results in the pictures the feminists tout to the world. The woman clearly shares the blame. The same research also shows that when a woman is passive and does not initiate violence, the man is extremely unlikely to do so either.

This also explains the phenomenon of the "Perenially Abused Victim". social workers have known and documented since the 1960s that many women who have suffered from physical abuse continue to be abused over and over again, EVEN with other men! the feminists grandiosely hypothesized that these women were "vulnerable soft targets" who needed protection.
The truth is that these are aggresive women who have no compunction about initiating physical violence. The fact that they are eventually beaten up DOES NOT absolve them of their aggression and contribution to the violence. The man in fact is effectively checkmated - he can either submit to her aggression or return the blows. if he does the latter, she of course advertizes it to the world. either way he loses.

Not a single one of the damned statistics on this page reflects reality. We need a hefty dose of truth and plenty of fresh air in this debate.

"The truth is that these are aggresive women who have no compunction about initiating physical violence. The fact that they are eventually beaten up DOES NOT absolve them of their aggression and contribution to the violence. The man in fact is effectively checkmated - he can either submit to her aggression or return the blows. if he does the latter, she of course advertizes it to the world. either way he loses."

Those devilish women, if only they realize they are to blame for all the abuse in the world. Men are of course good innocent little dolls who would never hurt a fly and are tricked into abuse. Poor men, how they suffer because of the feminist conspiracy -- they are blamed as the sex responsible for rape, crime and violence. Don't be fooled if the women in question is abused, burned or even killed - the man is sati savitri, who must undoubtedly be manipulated by a woman to kill her.

Pray Raj, Tell us your opinion of Child Abuse. The parent has to submit to the child's abuse or his abuse would be advertised to the world? Pray, such a brilliant man, never in my entire life have I ever seen. His logic would put western philosophers to shame.

Another way of looking at this study is that 37.2% of married men in India have assaulted women. That is scary. It would mean every third man around me is capable of violence.

RB,
relax. take a deep breath. every third Indian man around you is NOT a criminal. every third statistic you see is manufactured/misrepresented/out of context and every third feminist is a liar. the distribution of violent people in society will necessarily follow the Normal Distribution, not the unsubstantiated statistics from biased activist groups.

Domestic Violence desperately needs to be redefined. It is NOT about Man against Woman. It is about violent aggressive people against ordinary people. Women can be and are offenders. You need to go behind bedroom doors and see what happens before the violence to draw the correct conclusions. If a woman hits or spits at her husband, that is domestic violence. If she rains down blows on him, even if he is not hurt, he has a legal right to self-defense. Unfortunately, the Domestic Violence statistics on thi blog were manufactured in the dark rooms of feminist activist groups who are sworn to increasing Woman Power, not to protect and uphold Truth.

Those devilish women, if only they realize they are to blame for all the abuse in the world. Men are of course good innocent little dolls who would never hurt a fly and are tricked into abuse. Poor men, how they suffer because of the feminist conspiracy -- they are blamed as the sex responsible for rape, crime and violence. Don't be fooled if the women in question is abused, burned or even killed - the man is sati savitri, who must undoubtedly be manipulated by a woman to kill her.

ah, the same tired old drama with dollops of witless sarcasm.

this sounds just like the Renuka Chowdhury tirade directed at Karan Thapar. Cornered, and with no logical counterpoints, she switches to the tearjerker/guilt tripping mode, doggedly repeating the same lines over and over, not to debate fairly, but to shut up the other side with guilt.

So am I supposed to suddenly feel guilty for being a man? is every man alive supposed to take blame for every crime ever committed against any woman and be ok with willy-nilly being branded a criminal?

37% wifebeaters indeed! my foot.

Ennis,
NEJM got their statistics from the NFHS survey. If you go to the NFHS India website, you will find the underlying questionnaires used in the survey.

- http://www.nfhsindia.org/pdf/Man_QRE.pdf
- http://www.nfhsindia.org/pdf/Woman_QRE.pdf

1) The BIAS in the questions is clear. I urge everyone to see for themselves. They are asymmetrical questions, designed to elicit the response desired.

2) The statistics based on answers to Question 1009: "Have you ever hit, slapped, kicked, or done anything else to physically hurt your (last) husband at times when he was not already beating or physically hurting you?" are never publicized.

3) The questions are clearly target a certain socio-economic background, primarily rural. This questionnaire is NOT applicable to modern urban households. To extrapolate this to ALL of India, urban and rural, is ridiculous. To use this to pass sweeping judgements about ALL Indian men and amount of domestic violence and posting it on a major blog seen all over the world is even more ridiculous. To extrapolate it to all Indians everywhere in the world is beyond ridiculous.

Don't be fooled if the women in question is abused, burned or even killed - the man is sati savitri, who must undoubtedly be manipulated by a woman to kill her.

make that "manipulated by one woman to kill another" and u have the "truth" asserted in all indian tv soap operas; which are made mostly by women for a primarily woman audience, btw.

As many as 70 per cent of married women in India between the age of 15 and 49 are victims of beating, rape or coerced sex

Ennis,

That is incorrect. The 70 per cent answer was to the following question on page No. 59 in Section 8 in the questionnaire at http://www.nfhsindia.org/pdf/Woman_QRE.pdf.

"Q: Sometimes a husband is annoyed or angered by things that his wife does. In your opinion, is a husband justified in hitting or beating his wife in the following situations: YES NO DON'T KNOW
a. If she goes out without telling him? GOES OUT . . . . . . 1 2 8
b. If she neglects the house or the children? NEGL. CHILDREN . 1 2 8
c. If she argues with him? ARGUES . . . . . . . . 1 2 8
d. If she refuses to have sex with him? REFUSES SEX . . . 1 2 8
e. If she doesn't cook food properly? POOR COOKING . . . 1 2 8
f. If he suspects her of being unfaithful? UNFAITHFUL . . . . . . 1 2 8
g. If she shows disrespect for in-laws? DISRESPECT . . . . . . 1 2 8

The Washington Times has already published an apology for the blunder. The Indian Express simply doesn't care. so a fake statistic starts circulating around the internet. forever and ever....

So am I supposed to suddenly feel guilty for being a man? is every man alive supposed to take blame for every crime ever committed against any woman and be ok with willy-nilly being branded a criminal?

37% wifebeaters indeed! my foot.

Did anyone ask you to feel guilty for being a man? Did anyone say all men are criminals because of the actions of some men? NO. That is the meaning that you have chosen to take away, and as far as I can tell, that has not been a focal part of this conversation. For you to attack women and women's rights organizations and to protect men who DO beat women is incredibly unconscionable. You are certainly not helping anyone, and further, you're belittling a serious and often ignored subject. I don't want to make assumptions about your personal experiences, but I honestly have a hard time understanding how someone could choose to take issue with DV if they have known anyone or lived through the receiving end of the experience.

Raj, it is unfortunate that any legitimate critique you may have is buried under your vitriol for "feminists" and for a nuanced and more accurate understanding of domestic abuse. Furthermore, the day there are more men being beaten to the same degree and frequency as there are women being beaten, then maybe we can reevaluate feminism and patriarchy. In the meantime, I really wish you would think about how your words reframe the debate, and further, how they tacitly accept and promote violence against women.

MoS, perhaps we're talking apples and oranges? When I'm talking child abuse, I mean people who neglect their kids, put them in dangerous situations (intentionally), beat the shit out of them, etc. And I think (this is my unsubstantiated opinion) that there are strong similarities in the psychology that underlies spouse on spouse domestic violence and parent on child domestic violence.

As many as 70 per cent of married women in India between the age of 15 and 49 are victims of beating, rape or coerced sex, the United Nation Population Fund report said. However, the rate of domestic violence is much higher in Egypt with 94 per cent and Zambia with 91 per cent.

The correction to the report is linked here by Washington Times/b>.

Without being drawn into debate and raking mud, I sincerely hope for the sake of rigor, fairness, and honesty, this correction is duly noted. I would hope so.

To be serious here for a second, what did you think about the numbers with regards to abuse of children. 25% sexually abused, and 40% physically abused, although with that latter I don't have a definition so I can't evaluate it as well.

Well, in India corporal punishment is still used in MANY schools, so that would account for some of that.

Secondly, parents and other elders in a child's family commonly slap them - perhaps that is also counted as "abuse".

Thirdly, it is not uncommon for cousins in India to "experiment" sexually with each other, since boyfriend/girlfriend is not allowed. I say this based on what Indians in India have shared with me about their sexual experiences in their youth. Usually one cousin is older than the other. Often times in an older girl with a young boy. Maybe the statistics also count that as some form of "abuse", and I'm sure in some cases it may indeed be abusive, but in some cases it's just two horny kids discovering what makes them tick.

Regarding Raj's comments -- I have seen men in abusive relationships with women who, knowing that if they fight back, the woman could possibly be seriously hurt and they could spend a night in jail. In fact, one of my friends from West Bengal DID spend a night in a Los Angeles jail although he did not do anything -- the neighbors called the police when they heard fighting and he was escorted off to jail.

Another friend of mine constantly took verbal and physical abuse from his live-in girlfriend and again, neighbors called police and when police showed up they found him with scars, wounds and blood on his face and the girl was cleared while he was told to go take a walk around the block to let her calm down.

Yes, there are abusive women out there. And I know that slapping their husband's/boyfriend's faces is not uncommon for alot of women, although I don't count that as "abuse" at all.

With all this being said it does not exonerate abusive men. But at the same time I am glad to see that men who are victims of abuse at the hands of women are starting to stand up and demand justice to an issue that has for decades gone under-reported.

Camille,

You claim only women face DV from men and you like us all to believe than men do not face Domestic violence from women.

It is disgusting.

Women initiate 2 times more DV than men.

In dating relationship in India, 64% is mutual violence, 24% is only female initiated and only 12% is male initiated.

I hope, you have some idea about the research by Prof. Murray Straus.

Any data is unscientific, unless the stats are shows for both sides.

If 37.2% women in India face DV in their life time, then it is important to show the corresponding data for males as well, however small it may be.

On one hand people talk about gender equality and on the otherhand, you people deny similar surveys to men.

It is disgusting.

In India, corporal punishment is mainly "punishment to boys".

Feminism is about gender equality. I do not discount the DV against women.
But, I do not understand why feminists want the whole society to dismiss the DV against men.

I am a DV counsellor since last 2.5 years and I ave counselled 300 Indian Men who are being abused by their wives and wives's family members.

Indian men face DV not just from wife, but from her whole family. Because, in India, its two families and not two individuals who marry.

Radical Feminism and truth are mutual exclusive.

I have already mentioned how the false (and onesided) statistics are propagated in India and world.

Their propaganda even dwarfs the Nazi propaganda.

Sumanth, while I do agree that DV goes both ways, probably alot more than what is reported, still, the feminist bashing agenda of saveindianfamily.org is ridiculous. I'm a feminist and I believe that protection from DV should be provided to men as well as women, because I know that there are unscrupulous women out there who use laws to suit their own agendas - while harrassing or abusing the men in their lives.

At the same time I see this as a "backlash" against what women for centuries were up against. The pendulum seems to be swinging in the opposite direction in order to find a "balance".

What I would suggest for the Indian men who think along the line of saveindianfamily.org -- forget marriage and the traditional Indian family system. Simply enter into an equal live in situation wherein a contract is drawn up between the two parties and both parties fend for themselves financially. Either that or just have girlfriends or be brahmachary. If the traditional Indian family system is working against you, then buck the system.

Sumanth, did I deny that there is DV against men? No. That said, the prevalence rates for DV against women are much higher. If we were talking about rape, not DV, your comments would have already been ignored as red herring arguments. Further, I think you'll have a hard time arguing that DV where men are the victims is the work of radical feminists. I understand that people believe there are all sorts of "scary things" that happen when people begin to take the idea of gender equity seriously, but that said, this is not a feminist construct.

I'm not discounting the experiences of men who are in DV situations. I am just pointing out that the experience is not equal or equally distributed. Also, I would love to see the citations for your statistics, especially behind the idea that women "initiate DV" 2x as often as men in India. What does that mean, and how is that defined? I'm genuinely curious.

@ brown/shlok? # 39

When you said that "MoS has a long history on this site for making incredibly sweeping generalizations without any backing" you were right and how!

I almost decided to take your advice and not indulge her but choked when I read her comment # 81 that includes this nugget "it is not uncommon for cousins in India to "experiment" sexually with each other, since boyfriend/girlfriend is not allowed".I cannot believe that everyone let that chestnut get by without challenge

@ MoS - I have no idea what kind of Indians you are meeting and getting your info from , but as you have chosen to - and I quote here - accept that Indian values are those that are " that are touted via television serials and movies", I need to ask you something:

As an FOB , then should I choose to accept that what I see on the Jerry Springer Show and daytime soap operas represents American values?
Nah, I won't because I would rather keep an open mind and realize that just because some segments of American society are possible represented there it does not mean that I can make generalizations about the whole of America and its culture/values based on that.

You should try that sometime.

I think I'll stop commenting on this thread now. Evidently, I am the only one who finds MoS's postings offensive and needing rejoinder.I am so glad that where I live and work I get to meet so many Americans - white and other colors - who do not subscribe to or perpetuate ridiculous and unforunded sterotypes.

Thirdly, it is not uncommon for cousins in India to "experiment" sexually with each other, since boyfriend/girlfriend is not allowed. I say this based on what Indians in India have shared with me about their sexual experiences in their youth.

Runa, I gave the source for that comment - several Indians who have shared with me their experiences. They told me it was not uncommon. I don't see anything wrong with teenage cousins kissing and making out --- marrying and having kids? - yeah I have issues with that. But just "experimenting" and discovering their bodies together - no.

Even marrying and having kids --- if they are distant cousins there should be no problem with the health of their children. It is very common in the arab world for cousins to marry. Several of my arab friends' parents are cousins and the kids turned out OK.

I never said that Indian TV was a great source for learning Indian values. The TV comment was in regards to the way the role of the wife is often (not always) portrayed --- the self-sacrificing Bharatiya Nari, which could contribute to the lack of divorce in India, in situations where it is clear a divorce is very much needed.

Media - televised, written or passed down orally for generations, has a great effect on the overall psyche/ethos of a culture.

Sati/Savitri stories and their commentaries definetly left their mark in India. That could be seen as good or bad, depending on the viewpoint.

Wow! This thread has taken a really seriously disturbing woman-hating turn since the last time i checked. somewhere down the thread it went all wrong. thanks runa and camille for holding down the fort.

ok. first of all MoS, Sumanth and Raj- nobody is disputing the fact that men can also be victims of dv. i think most of us would agree that men who have been victimized by dv need to be allowed a space to feel comfortable discussing their abuse without the potential shame associated with being a victim (victimhood is often not associated as a masculine trait...such as, if a man is victimized he may feel like he is being feminized etc etc). That said (and I am going to try to say this as politely as I can), I honestly believe that some of you need to seriously re-examine your issues with women - as evidenced by your vitriolic rage against 'feminists.' Only after you can parcel out your feelings against feminists -can you then stop projecting your inner fears, rages, etc. unto this discussion.

Please note that my latter comment is substantiated by your many, many, many absolutely unsubstantiated claims re: abused men. Please also note, that all of your comments are NOT research-based which indicates that dv is sooo much more than a man snapping due to a women's taunts. Research on dv has taught us both qualitatively and quantitatively that dv is about an exertion of power over another individual. it is about trying to control a person that is more vulnerable than the abuser ----and, in many cases, this is due to the fact that the abuser himself (or herself) feels out of control, insecure, and vulnerable. in many instances, just like a bully (abused at home by his/her parents) in grade school picks on the weakest kid in his/her class so does the abuser--who picks a wife or partner that is insecure and whose will they can break with every blow.

One of you discussed the imprisonment of your friend for dv. let me tell you, cops usually do not arrest a person for 'domestic disturbance' unless it is real serious. think about it. thats all i have to say about that.

MoS, I must also point out that your seeming belief (as indicated by your comments re: rape as a consequence of horniness in 'sex segregated countries') - is absolutely untrue. MoS, your comment indicates that you believe sex and violence are packaged together. which is a scary thought. these are the reasons why i believe this belief is problematic:
1. it shows an incredible bias against what you call 'sex segregated countries.'
2. it places the onus of rape back on women. such as - what is a poor horny man to do but to rape because he cannot control his desire in front of women.
3. it also indicates a lack of understanding re: why men rape. and as camille points out, any violence that targets a vulnerable population often has the same underlying pattern: a violent act to claim power over another. Not horniness or even desire. Or else, how do you explain the rape of little children (even babies) or the rape of elderly women?

In conclusion, to be totally honest, a part of me did not even want to contribute to this thread anymore because i wanted to discount some of the comments as 'well- what do they know -whatever.' but the more i think about it - the more disturbing i think it is that ppl can still so fervently believe in half of the things being 'said' on this thread- and put it all out-there so comfortably. My fear is that someone will read their statements and believe what they have to say at face value. To those potential ppl -please please please do your own research before you take any of these comments seriously.

Well said, Serenity.

Thanks Avi. Ditto back to you.

Thirdly, it is not uncommon for cousins in India to "experiment" sexually with each other, since boyfriend/girlfriend is not allowed. I say this based on what Indians in India have shared with me about their sexual experiences in their youth.

I'm surprised to find myself in the position of validating someone I so often disagree with, but she's actually right about this. It is not uncommon. I say this based on the experiences of about a third of my close friends growing up. Also, MoS, it's not just in the Arab world that cousins marry cousins. It's even expected in some parts of India, for first cousins too, and taboo in other parts. For example, the Telugu word for father's sister, attha, can also be used to refer to one's mother-in-law, because in some Telugu-speaking communities, a girl is expected to marry her father's sister's son. I know those of us who have bought into western moral values about who it's okay to have sex with will find this disturbing, but in India it's hardly even worth remarking on when someone is married to their cousin.

but in India it's hardly even worth remarking on when someone is married to their cousin.

Depending on region, religion, and community. In northern India, marrying cousins is strictly taboo among non-Muslims. And that extends to cousins several generations removed.

Pardesi Gori, I am sure some cousins do what you describe, but the cultural paradigm for cousins in northern India is that they are just like your brothers and sisters. We don't even have a word for 'cousin', we refer to them as brother/sister. This is an important cultural value that I'm surprised you didn't pick up on when you were in India.

This is an important cultural value that I'm surprised you didn't pick up on when you were in India.

You are right too, but MoS didn't say what part of India she was talking about, she just said it was "not uncommon". And I did say it was taboo among some areas in India. I just don't think she was wrong in saying it was "not uncommon"--even if you only include Indian Muslims, and some South Indians, it's still a sizeable chunk of the population. (Razib, help me out here--I know there are studies done on this). Either way, there's not as much of the gross-out factor in India--even groups that don't do it are generally okay with people who do, in my experience, as long as it's not their family. It's not so much that I care to defend her but that I think people need to realize how relative all these cultural taboos are.

I grew up in Hyderabad where there are plenty of both North and South Indians and no one was particularly shocked about the cousin make-out stories. While I'm personally not into that, having grown up with my cousins as basically siblings, whatever floats your boat.

Raj - thanks for the correction on the 70% number. I've fixed it, but I needed more than the apology from the Washington Times to do so, I needed to understand what was wrong with the numbers.

Desishiksa # 93,

I just could not resist one more post.I always admire your common sense postings.
However:

If MoS had qualified her statement to say that she meant marriage between cousins in some parts of India, then her statement is defensible. If she had qualified her statement with anything at all , it would have been ok.

Her statement reads that all over India, repressed desis are playing much more than "house" with their cousins and all because "boyfriend/girlfriend" is "not allowed". This is what offends- the sweeping generalization without any qualifiers.Perpetuating stereotypes about 'conservative Indian society'.What does she mean by "not allowed"? Does she claim to speak for all Indians based on the few that she has met?

I am sure that across America there may be some folks who sexually experimented with their cousins.I am sure there are several Americans who are married to their cousins too.You don't see any sweeping generalizations about Americans based on that fact!

I think what hit a nerve was that I have observed such of pre-conceived notions from non-Indians a few times earlier and its very patronizing.Back in the 80s, I remember , along with a bunch of friends,meeting a couple of American exchange students in my hometown in India,. They were totally amazed that our group of teenagers included boys and girls and that we actually had interaction with members of the opposite sex.A few us us were even - gasp! - dating. Actually their open-jawed reaction was quite hilarious in retrospect but back then it was a rude awakening that folks from outside India had a lot of incorrect ideas about India and Indian society.

Some twenty -odd years later , reading something that I found as patronizing on this board ,reminded me that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

What does she mean by "not allowed"? Does she claim to speak for all Indians based on the few that she has met?

Runa, you're right. I missed the implications of that part of her comment. I was reacting more to people freaking out about the cousin thing.

thanks for the compliment, btw.

I've been lurking on this post for a while. The comments are very interesting and telling to me.

One of the things that stands out is the analogy you can draw between some of the commenter's attitudes towards women, and some people I knew in Mississippi, and their attitudes towards...um, people who had more melanin than they did, and the government policies that were shaped to address the inequities they faced.

They'd always flip the argument around to make it about them. It was infuriating. "Do you know how many poor white kids can't get into a good college? Do you know how many whitefolk can't live the American dream?"

The point I'd make to them (and you) is that in each of these discussions, there is a group that is singularly empowered, and another that is most assuredly not. Is there such a thing as DV towards men? Yes, of course! Is it as prevalent as DV towards women? No. And is it as serious? Sorry, but again...no. Speaking very broadly, it's not.

And to the goofy loon who posted these pseudo figures about genders and the relative rates of DV by INSTIGATION, I'm going to call bullshit! Seriously, who are you trying to fool? Since when does the initiation rate for DV mean anything? If you want meaningful figures, how about you look at the INJURY RATE for men and women in DV? Or the rate of short-term or long-term disability resulting from DV? Or do you really think the whole "she started it!" argument is a valid defense for beating your spouse?

Wife beating is not restricted to uneducated, low income, habitual drunkards but it is also more prevalant among upper crest of the society as well. I know a case of a woman who is married to an IPS officer with a rank of IGP in Bangalore who has been constantly physically and verbally abusing his wife. Due to societal pressure women do not leave thier husbands but stay with the habitual abusers. In india the abusers are not just husbands but his entire familly including his mother, brother and sisters. Some men think it is their birthright to beat and abuse women into submission. Education or sociental standing has no meaning since these incidences are never made public although many may have witnessed and know this fact. Of course if women do not come forward then you cannot do much. If women come forward then powerful men like above will blame the women for making these brave men to beat them and of course in India laws and regulations are only on books and never enforced since you can purchase everyone by paying money which some of these men can afford to do. How do you deal with such rouges and how do you expose them so everyone can come to know and publicly humiliate such people. Women's organizations and support groups in India are almost non-existent or not enogh to deal with such ill treatment of women. Too many women are being ill treated in India and forced into a sort slavery after marrigae from which they can never escape. Some of the readers in this post seem to justify wife beating by saying that since man earns and brings home the bacon he can do what ever he pleases with his wife. well, no matter what no one has the right to be mistreated.

Well, I'm not surprised. Wife beating is totally common in India, and they aren't even ashamed of it.