Would violence agaisnt women stats be as high if they did not include name-calling?

Question

Under the Violence Against Women Act, name calling is included as an act of violence. Would the reported incidence of domestic violence be as high as it is, if it did not include name-calling?

B.Q. - When people speak to you of the incidence of violence against women, does it occur to you that this includes name calling? How does the inclusion of name calling as a violent act, influence how you feel about seriousness of such statistics?

I'm not condoning name-calling, but it's certainly not the same things as beating someone.

Answer 1

Name-calling is not violence. -.- I don't agree that it's an act of violence. It can be emotional abuse depending on the frequency/severity of it and which names were called though and that is a very serious thing. I didn't know they included name-calling...I mean, who would report name-calling as violence? If this happens, then yeah it would change the numbers.



BQ: I think of physical beating when people speak to me of violence against women. I think that including name-calling lessens the seriousness of the message. It should be reserved for the serious things.

Answer 2

VAWA is a joke. "Violence against women" is a joke. These people know all of the tricks in the book to inflate the violence against women statistics, while hiding and bringing down the violence against men stats. They use every little bad thing a man does to a woman to count as domestic violence to inflate the statistics, make women look like helpless angels, and men are horrible perpetrators. Name-calling is certainly one of them. It is disgusting. If all this stuff truly counted for both genders, 90% of men have faced domestic violence. Here's a video showing how these people can victimize women:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvDWxoF0BNc

When people speak of violence against women, they are being very misandric and female-victimizing. I usually stop listening as soon as I hear the phrase.

.rewsna siht stroper ohw ydobyna ot UOY KC\_/F dnA

Answer 3

Common Sense, if someone clicks the Thumb Down button on my answer, is that not "Digital Abuse"? Worse than mere Name-Calling, because the up/down score lasts forever!



#aufschrei



Added: By the by, the article you cited explicitly says "constant" name-calling. You forgot to mention the modifier. Sources: National Domestic Violence Hotline, National Center for Victims of Crime, and WomensLaw.org. We would need to see what the text of the ACTUAL LAW says, not just someone's explanation of it.

Answer 4

Name calling? Last time i checked that was freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment as long as it is not direct hate speech, and hate speech by definition has ton include a threat of violence. Domestic Violence reports are so high because women think they can sleep around without consequence now a days. I garantee that you grandpas have hit your grandmas before, but it was not as taboo and was not considered something to be secretive so they grew old together and you would never know. Now you have testosterone driven women, and boys grown up by single moms who dont know how to act. I think that is the real hard truth.

Answer 5

a lot of people are idiots when it comes to the law. The law is about what you can prove and what you actually get jailed for. The courts are responsible for changing all the laws. So all this talk about "thats the law" it could not be when you get to court. Unless you have been through court, found guilty or not guilty you are just speculating on what can happen. Plenty of people have gotten away with crimes under the same law that others were found guilty under.



People need to quit worrying about whats on paper and instead worrying about what they can prove and avoid stupid situation which cause them to be judged by the law anyway. Cause as proven before a new law can get made on your behalf against you AT ANY TIME.

Answer 6

I don't think name calling should be included but threats of violence should.

Answer 7

The website you post on a continual basis is NOT a basis by which law enforcement files criminal charges. It is a website that indicates the signs of an abusive person!



No one has ever been arrested for name calling, EVER!



LOVE the way you keep grasping, though!!!

Answer 8

By lowering the bar to define 'violence against women', feminists might initially gain higher numbers, which is to the benefit of their poisonous agenda, BUT they will lose respect by playing the game of semantics.



Once again, the word 'rape' used to have a certain meaning and evoke a reaction from me when I had a clear understanding of the word. As feminists have come to play with the definition I have had to retrain myself to understand that it more than likely does not mean what I envision it to mean.



Same with 'abuse' or 'violence' now. I will simply understand that an 'abused' women may have had money held against her desire. Or that she was called a name after provoking her partner.



Is this what feminists want? Because that's what they're going to get.



Fool me once, shame on YOU. And that's where it ends for me.



Feminists. Shame on YOU.

Answer 9

Gee, I wonder what that does to the statistics regarding violence against men.



Does this mean that everytime some woman calls a man an a$$, we should call it violence against men?



Pretty Little Liar is getting at something, but missing reality by a mile here.



Frankly, Pretty Little Liar, we don't care what you're tired of. It is not our job to keep you awake.



And if you're annoyed, imagine how annoyed men are when they are told by every other commercial that they are lazy, stupid or evil? Imagine how annoyed they are when every feminist here automatically assumes that if they aren't a feminist, they are a misogynist, if they believe men should have resources for domestic violence, they are a misogynist, if they think some educational resources currently aimed at women should be redirected to men when when women are graduating 20% more than men makes them a misogynist...



Can you imagine how annoyed THEY might feel?



Yeah, there are situations when one person is forced to put up and or be intimidated by stupidity from another. You could, I suppose, catagorize every form of stupidity that the second person could produce as violence, or you could recognize that the fact that the person who is powerless to protect themselves is the situational problem.



I didn't say they were at fault - I said that this was the problem that had to be fixed.



Our issue is that more and more constraints are being put on the behaviour of individuals, almost inevitably men, with no concept of their real meaning or any idea that they'll actually protect the potential victims. Frankly, I don't see this as protecting somebody who is powerless, since he can still give her menacing looks or burp at inopportune times or ... come up with any number of infinitely creative but undefinable ways of making her life more annoying that cannot be outlined by law, but she can't get away with.



By your line of reasoning, you're going to try to outlaw them all.



To me, that just leaves an overbloated unenforcible legal system and it leaves the potential victims just as undefended.



If you want to protect these defenseless here, you need to recognize the situation here, that they are defenseless, and make them not be defenseless. They need to be able to leave, or they need to be able to dish it out.



But if they can't take name calling, then they can't take any number of other types of abuse which you're not going to be able to, item by item make illegal.



Can we hear the plaintive call to the police officer: "He's looking at me!"

Answer 10

Big deal. Violent and aggressive men need to be jailed for cussing at women and gays. Verbal abuse and bullying are the same thing and it's unacceptable.



BQ: I'm aware.

Answer 11

Verbal abuse can be a serious issue.



So is financial abuse.



If someone is dependent on you for money to buy formula to feed the baby, for example, then you, if you choose to be abusive, have an awful lot of power over that person.



I shall be honest, this incessant line of questioning you have on violence against women, and DV, is starting to really annoy me.



The fact that you can even ask these questions day in and day out shows how little you actually know or care about the real suffering of people that goes on all around you.



These criteria were not bourne out of thin air. Nobody made them up just to get one over on men. They are bourne out of real, tangible and awful suffering.



The fact that YOU do not give a toss about it is more of a reflection on you than on anything else.



I suggest you read up some more about it before you continue to make an idiot of yourself.



EDS - EXACTLY - CONSTANT name calling - i.e. VERBAL ABUSE. Go and do some research. Read a case study. Visit a DV shelter and find out HOW REAL VICTIMS OF ABUSE feel about this issue.



You are so flipping blind and selfish, you really do not care at all.