Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view
The study mentioned on this page below is familiar. I read about it over a year ago. Someone did a study claiming that women who never marry are more likely to be abuse victims.
I’m not sure if I totally understand the study correctly.
I’m a never-married woman who is over the age of 40, but I fail to see how my single status supposedly makes me more vulnerable to being a crime victim than that of a married woman.
Or, given that some conservatives are using this study with the assumption that it’s single women who are “shacking up” with a man who are more prone to being victims, I guess I understand that, though I do not necessarily agree.
That is, some conservatives are using this study to shame single women from having pre-marital sex, or from not having a live-in lover. They are using this to pressure single women to force their live-in lover to marry them.
I understand the Bible does not condone “shacking up” or pre-marital coitus, but, I am not a fan of my fellow conservatives using such “scare” or “shame” tactics to convince single women from not having pre marital sex or live-in BFs. I think it’s a distasteful, sexist approach.
You can read more about all this stuff using these links:
First, here is the offensive, sexist editorial – I mean, how can they blame WOMEN for being the victims of violence?
They should be calling out the men who are abusing these ladies and/or the children. Also note, on the “One Stop Thread” page of this blog, I have link after link to news stories of married men who were caught sexually or physically abusing their OWN kids or someone else’s!
Again, here is a link to the offensive editorial:
(Link): One way to end violence against women? Married dads.
by W. BRADFORD WILCOX AND ROBIN FRETWELL WILSON June 10
The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer with fewer boyfriends around their kids.
… The bottom line is this: Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.
The Bible no where suggests that a woman needs to marry or is obligated to marry – Jesus and Paul, in the New Testament, actually depict singleness as being preferable to marriage and parenting!
If it were true women were safer being married, I think Jesus and Paul would have taught on the topics of marriage and singlehood differently than they did.
Here are various rebuttals and commentary in response:
(Link): The Washington Post Says Women Get Abused Because They’re Not Married
The story, which was originally titled “The best way to end violence against women? Stop taking lovers and get married,” got re-named after wise Internet users made a rightful stink over its controversial content. Also noteworthy: the sub-header read “The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer hitched to their baby daddies.”
Now it’s called “One way to end violence against women? Married dads.” But I think the Post should have taken it down completely.
Using legitimate data to back up their claims (nothing says “I’m telling you the truth!” like a graph), authors W. Bradford Wilcox and Robin Fretwell Wilson do the world a great disservice by making it sound like women have the power to avoid being abused — and it apparently comes down to what they should be doing with their bodies, their kids, and their lives.
…. Further, Wilcox and Wilson feign total ignorance of a problem they themselves are perpetuating — institutional sexism and misogyny, which are major factors in the widespread problem of violence against women and children.
By drawing the conclusion that a simple marriage certificate is actually responsible for the stats, they’re doing both genders a huge disservice, and they’re tricking readers into thinking abuse doesn’t have anything to do with misogyny.
As they write, “The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers.”
Well, that’s certainly an interesting point. How did they arrive there, and what explains it? Is it true that getting married can protect you from abuse?
Actually, no. Because correlation doesn’t mean causation. While they back up their conclusion with legitimate data points, the statistics say more about healthy relationships than they do about the institution of marriage.
(Link): Violence Against Women: The Washington Post’s Sad, Sloppy Journalism
The most serious problem with the Washington Post’s sloppy journalism is that it none-too-subtly suggests that all partner violence against women can be boiled down to a single factor: your relationship status.
Decades worth of research blow that simplistic idea out of the water in two seconds.
Continue reading “Are Single Women – and specifically Never Married Women – More Likely To Be Victims of Abuse? Rebuttals to this view which is advocated by W B Wilcox”