Intimate Partner Violence in the Great Recession

That is a recent paper from Schneider, Harknett, and Mclanahan (pdf), here is the abstract:

In the United States, the Great Recession has been marked by severe negative shocks to labor market conditions. In this study, we combine longitudinal data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study with Bureau of Labor Statistics data on local area unemployment rates to examine the relationship between adverse labor market conditions and intimate partner violence between 1999 and 2010. We find that rapidly worsening labor market conditions are associated with increases in the prevalence of violent/controlling behavior in marriage. These effects are most pronounced among whites and those with at least some post-secondary education. Worsening economic conditions significantly increase the risk that white mothers and more educated mothers will be in violent/controlling marriages rather than high quality marital unions.
That backlash seems to have started more or less right away…

Comments

Who exactly are these brutes lashing back at? I'd say this is pure lash. And for their second course, they're voting for Trump.

Right. Because they are not nice. i learned that from a scientist.

Righto! "Bad people" beat their wives and support Trump because of their financial woes.

"Good people" assault Trump campaign event attendees while waving Mexican flags and swearing in Spanish.

"I see." said the blind man as he picked up his tools and walked away.

But conservatives have proved that being married makes you rich!

The backlash must be because the woman has tricked the man into thinking they are married when they are not actually married. After all, if they were really married, they would be rich because the man would be paid a million dollars a year.

Don't know about you but I scroll to the bottom of studies to see the stats.

This one jumped out.

The percentage of mothers who are married:

59% - white
20% - black
37% - Hispanic

I have three kids. Raising them well is a crazy amount of work for my wife and I. What hope do single mothers have?

Racism, sexism, classism and every other ism. None of it matters if family ceases to exist in a meaningful way.

Isn't it likely family structures can fail to form because of racism, sexism and classism?

Then how do you explain much lower rates of illegitimacy among blacks prior to the war on poverty?

Johnson's 1964 declaration of the "War on Poverty" coincided with the latter stages of "The 2nd Great Migration", when African Americans were moving en masse from the rural south to the urban north. Pre-migration, African Americans in the rural south were primarily getting by on small farms. Like anything else, there are two basic inputs to running a farm, labor and capital. Capital requires money, which they didn't have, so they needed to compensate with lots of manual labor. With no money, they couldn't hire labor, so instead there was a financial incentive to have lots of kids to help work the farm. Illegitimate children would be of no help, so there was a strong incentive to maintain strong, traditional families. This rural-to-urban trend is true across history and all cultures, here's an article that nicely highlights this phenomenon, especially note the family and living arrangements section - http://goo.gl/br9dgC

"Johnson’s 1964 declaration of the “War on Poverty” coincided with the latter stages of “The 2nd Great Migration”, "

The 2nd Great Migrations is generally considered to be from 1941 to 1970. It was nearly over by the time of Johnson's speech, let alone before any legislative changes took effect. So, there is very low correlation in the two and this seems to be a tenuous connection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Migration_(African_American)

JWatts - but wouldn't you actually expect a pretty significant lag effect with this? A young couple that came of age in a rural environment where family cohesion was critical for prosperity wouldn't just instantly forget those cultural norms when they move to Detroit in 1942, right? It's not like strong family units are a negative in an urban environment, it's just that their positive economic effects become less significant. In fact I would expect it might take a lag of about one generation to really even start noticing a difference in the family statistics, which in my Detroit example would put you right smack at the announcement of Johnson's war on poverty.

It's interesting that you argue that illegitimacy would not help the small farmer, but don't draw the parallel observation that the welfare state makes it economically feasible. The Democrats' "Life of Julia" during the 2012 campaign was designed to point this out to dependent voters.

"Then how do you explain much lower rates of illegitimacy among blacks prior to the war on poverty?"

How do you explain the much lower rates before welfare reform that has for two decades used taxpayer dollars to teach that marriage makes you rich and that having children before marriage makes you really really poor?

Since welfare reform, cash welfare has fallen to 25% of the Federal funds given to States, and States have used the Federal dollars in social engineering, like teaching abstinence, fighting to make getting pregnant doom a girls future as a punishment, and marriage training.

Yet the rate of bastards born has increased since the conservatives ending the war on poverty and started their war on bastard children.

Also, how many black women giving birth in 1850 in the highly morally righteous conservative South were married?

Was Sally Hemming married when she gave birth?

That would be just about the least robust conclusion possible, but I trust that it would be emotionally appealing to you? How would you explain the growth in broken families without also suggesting that the social justice three were less prevalent in the past? Your hypothesis sounds like some Okey-Doke, to quote our President.

Hey, look Mills. Here are some vulnerable minorities being held down by white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TomLlamasABC/status/738603331258454016

In this video, a crowd of oppressed men, of apparent hispanic origin, throw eggs and watermelon in the face of a solitary white woman while they circle around her.

Yikes. Choosing between a fellow white woman who is being assaulted and the group of aggressive male minorities assaulting her. How could Millian ever decide? Someone should get an AA graduate of HYS on this!

https://youtu.be/faDs7K5elLs

Millian, with your belief in rape culture, what do you think would have happened to this woman if it were dark, the cameras weren't there, and the doors to the building she escaped to were locked?

Would you feel bad for her? On the one hand, she's a woman, on the other hand, she's a Trump supporter - a gender traitor if you will.

Sleazebags like Millian are responsible for Donald Trump.

Then you have a hard time explaining all the family structures in the benighted past...

Certainly it's possible that racism/sexism/classism could cause family structures to fail, but what evidence is there to support the idea that this explains the failure of family structures in the US in the late 20th/early 21st century? The evidence I can think of all seems to lean against that as an explanation. (For example, racism and sexism are enormously less pervasive and powerful now than fifty years ago, but families are weaker--there's way more divorce and way more single motherhood than there was fifty years ago.)

> 59% – white; 20% – black; 37% – Hispanic

Looks like the non-educated non-white guys just leave instead of fighting.

> Looks like the non-educated non-white guys just leave instead of fighting.

Or the non-educated non-white guys are brutes all the time.

"Black and Hispanic women and less educated women were more likely to experience intimate partner violence in both low and high unemployment environments. The effect of a worsening economy, however, was stronger for white mothers and for mothers with at least some college education. During the Great Recession, the prevalence of partner violence among white and more educated women rose to the level normally experienced by their more disadvantaged counterparts."

Think about raising your kids in an entire community of single mothers where nobody has any extra time or money.

Nobody has any extra time? Lol. Income is correlated with hours worked. Single moms who work 40 or more hours per week are a tiny minority of female-child welfare recipients.

The confounding of "controlling behavior" with "violence" suggests that this study is worthless. It does not prove it, but it is suspicious. Maybe unemployment means the husband is around more often and so comments on the state of the carpets more frequently. So what?

Never trust social science that tells you what everyone wants you to believe.

The confounding of “controlling behavior” with “violence” suggests that this study is worthless

Not worthless as an insight into the mentality of the researchers. "Controlling" generally means he looks askance at her discretionary expenditures.

That reminds me of 1978 when there was the sensational story of a fistfight in the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team locker room because Hall of Fame pitcher Don Sutton mentioned that star first baseman Steve Garvey's glamorous blonde wife was cheating on him with "The Way We Were" composer Marvin Hamlisch. Then Cindy Garvey sued for divorce claiming that Steve was "verbally abusive," which sounded pretty bad until you actually stopped and thought about it.

"Never trust social science that tells you what everyone wants you to believe."
"Everyone" but you, of course.

Couples fight over money, notably when there is a shortage of sums they're accustomed to. Who knew?

'That backlash started...'

Tyler wouldn't dare link an uptick in black male violence with black male political engagement. Posts like these help Trump.

And when you have a Super Bowl during a Great Recession...man oh man is there mayhem!

"That backlash seems to have started more or less right away… "

Indeed. Graphs using thin colored lines, which are unreadable for someone even mildly color blind. That's crap.

It is a common misconception that it is the men who are guilty of this crime. But statistics show that women are the instigator of family violence 57% of the time. And when parents kill their children it is typically women who commit this crime by a wide margin. What muddles the statistics is that it is considered "unmanly" for a man to report domestic violence, AND the laws intentionally favor the woman in these crimes such that it is likely that even if the man is the victim he is the one that would be arrested by the police. Claims of domestic violence are commonly used by women to enhance the probability that they will be treated favorably in a divorce or child custody case. Much like the restraining order domestic violence is an example of laws skewed to favor females and often misused to seek revenge after a failed relationship.

Perhaps a misconception such as that is understandable in light of studies like this, which ignore and in fact are designed not to measure violence or "controlling behavior" perpetrated against husbands.

In order to "fucking love science", first the left must control science.

"And when parents kill their children it is typically women who commit this crime by a wide margin."

Not at all. Bureau of Justice Statistics says that in cases where a child under the age of 5 is murdered by a parent, it is the father 52% of the time. This is one of the few types of serious violent crime where the rates are even in the same ballpark. In cases of intimate partner homicide, these account for 41.5% of all homicides where a female is the victim compared to 7% of homicides where the victim is a man. Women most certainly can be abusive and can fabricate claims of abuse as you say but everything we know about violent crime patterns suggests that male-on-female abuse and violence is much more common than the converse.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

"In cases of intimate partner homicide, these account for 41.5% of all homicides where a female is the victim compared to 7% of homicides where the victim is a man."

I'm not saying that domestic violence deaths are equal, but that is a misleading stat given that men 3X are much more likely to be homicide victims in situations, so of course domestic violence would account for a smaller percentage. It's sort of like the BS stat showing how homicides make up a much higher percentage of female workplace deaths. Sounds really bad right? Except that women are less likely to be murdered at work than men -- it's just that women face so much less workplace danger in general (in fact, 13X fewer workplace deaths than men), that even a lower level homicide can be recast as a higher percentage (yet another case of "lies, damn lies, etc"). And homicide isn't necessarily the right measure. Homicide rates don't necessarily mean that female-initiated violence is less common -- only that it is less often fatal (which would not be surprising given size/strength differences).

All the different ways of slicing the data are in the link I provided. I notice you do not challenge the point that women are more likely to be murdered by male partners than the other way around. And the whole reason I got into this in the first place was that I was responding to the false claim that women murder their children more frequently than men "by a wide margin."

Generally, men are, on average, more violent than women and this is borne out by the data. If someone wants to claim that in the specific case of domestic violence, the reality is significantly less lopsided than what is suggested by the official data, one should provide evidence and citations instead of a vague "dark matter" theory of undetected female aggression. Note that while men may be deterred from reporting domestic violence for reasons including those cited by the original poster, women have their own reasons for not reporting abuse including having, on average, lower incomes and lower levels of employment. In relationships among the working class or poor, if a woman loses her partner and/or he goes to jail, the woman may face the very real threat of poverty and bouncing around homeless shelters.

The data is fluid and I applaud you on finding a source to support your point. But check out: http://blog.chron.com/momhouston/2011/04/moms-killing-their-children-more-common-than-you-think/
"27.3 percent of child deaths resulting from abuse were perpetrated by the mother, compared to only 14.8 percent of fathers"

One of the problems in getting good data is the diverse way these things are reported and compiled. Keep looking and I'm sure you will find evidence that refutes your position too.

I'd say a link to a BJS report on homicide cases is not so much like finding a source to support his point, but rather like looking for high-quality data and pointing out that it contradicts your assertion. Wouldn't it make more sense for you to just acknowledge that your initial assertion was wrong?

For some reason the data is often unavailable or skewed to favor women. Just as the punishment for this crime is typically far more harsh if the perp is a male. Was the link Ricardo had "high quality"? I don't know but I do know that if you take the time to research it (did you follow the link I had posted?) you will discover that most reports show that women are most often the ones' who murder their children. Here are some comments taken from a couple of other links:

A 2000 study conducted by Marlene Dalley, Ph.D., analyzed trends in Canadian child murders and concluded that "Both mothers and fathers kill infant children at the same frequency, though when all (victim) age groups are considered mothers and step-mothers killed more children than fathers and step-fathers."
A 2003 study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that of 34 North Carolina newborns who were killed or left to die, at least 85 percent of them were killed by their mothers (usually through strangulation or drowning).

http://www.seeker.com/how-rare-are-female-child-killers-discovery-news-1766493791.html#news.discovery.com

That means that, acting alone or with others, female parents were responsible in 69.1 percent, and male parents in 33.1 percent of cases of fatal child maltreatment.
http://fathersforlife.org/articles/report/resptojw.htm
http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/arizonarepublic.html

I couldn't find how they define a "controlling marriage". It's difficult to come to any conclusion without a baseline metric.

Is one conclusion that White women are valued only for the income they can bring in? And since more educated women bring in more money, it stands to reason that they would be more affected, especially since expectations of these women and the family lifestyle would have been higher to begin with.

Do you think Tyler finds these articles by

Using Google Search under the term

Backlash.

I said this because the previous post included the word backlash as well.

Tell us what the next search term will be so we can get ready.

Backlash to backlash.

He's drawing a whimsical and meaningless thread between consecutive posts. How is that not obvious?

It is obvious, obviously, that he has been searching under backlash to get some backlash on the backlash website comment section.

\ \\\\\\\ backslash

It's amusing to see how various ideological tribes will parse these studies to see how it could benefit/outrage them.

Comments for this post are closed