No, but I am under the impression that the rates of abuse are lower in egalitarian marriages. Eg: see
here. "Where communities believe that men are privileged and should be in charge and women submissive, women in much higher percentages are abused."
You had every opportunity to make your own thread related to this material. This is for discussion of Scripture. But since you are now posting articles on secular academics I will address part of your article:
In other words, where communities believe that men are privileged and should be in charge and women submissive, women in much higher percentages are abused.
But it’s not simply one man and one woman. There is a culture that contributes, an ideology, a worldview, a theology.
(The article starts quoting the book)Historically, men’s abuse of and violence towards women have been explained primarily in individualistic terms. Such explanations find the cause in the psychology, mental health, or life experiences of perpetrators. While these personal factors may certainly play a part and should not be ignored, they are inadequate on their own. The scholarly consensus today is that behind all domestic abuse and violence lies a belief in male privilege and entitlement, and conversely, a low estimation of women, that usually reflects the values and ideas of the community in which people find themselves.
No, not all domestic abuse and violence is simply the result of male privilege. Nor is all abuse committed by men.
Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2014
In 2014, slightly more men (4.2%) than women (3.5%) reported being victims of spousal violence during the preceding 5 years. This translated into about 342,000 women and 418,000 men across the provinces. Similar declines in spousal violence were recorded for both sexes since 2004. According to the 2014 GSS, the most commonly-reported type of spousal violence experienced was being pushed, grabbed, shoved or slapped (35%). A quarter of victims (25%) reported having been sexually assaulted, beaten, choked,
or threatened with a gun or a knife. A similar proportion (24%) reported having been kicked, bit, hit, or hit with something. As in previous years, women reported the most severe types of spousal violence more often than men. Among victims of spousal sexual assault, over half (59%) reported non-consensual sexual activity that came as a result of being manipulated, drugged, or otherwise coerced, sometimes in combination with sexual assault through physical force. Just under one-third (31%) of spousal violence victims in the provinces reported sustaining physical injuries as a result of the violence. Women were proportionally more likely than men to have reported physical injuries, with 4 out of 10 (40%) female victims reporting injuries compared to just under a quarter (24%) of male victims.
and
A history of family violence in the childhood home was notable among those who reported being the victim of spousal violence as adults. Over one in five (21%) spousal violence victims reported having witnessed abuse committed by a parent, step-parent or guardian as a child. This proportion is significantly higher than the 11% of respondents in spousal relationships free of violence who had witnessed violence as children
and
According to the 2014 GSS, many Canadians across the provinces reported having been emotionally or financially abused by a current or former spouse or common-law partner at some point during their lifetime. In total, 14% of those with a current or former spouse or partner reported this kind of abuse. Men were slightly more likely than women to report emotional or financial abuse (15% versus 13%).
Now certainly there are some caveats, with homosexual men being included in the data, and with the understanding that some abuse is reciprocal, some may be defensive, or a delayed defebsive respoonse when out of the compromising position, etc. But it still shows that men are abused as well, though women may have higher incident frequency, and more severe injuries.
The CDC also reported men being abused:
Any contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking was found to be at 44.2% for men and 47.3 for women.
Abuse even happens when no men are involved in the domestic arrangement.
For instance, in the CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation, which broke things down further,
It was found that 43.8 percent of lesbian women reported violence, rape or stalking by an intimate partner. More than two-thirds of lesbian women (67.4%) identified only female perpetrators. The remaining percentage may have had either only male, or a combination, since this was looking at lifetime incidence.
The lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking
by an intimate partner for men back in 2010 showed 29% of heterosexual men reporting such, with 99.5 percent being female only perpetrators.
There have also been studies showing reluctance on the part of the both genders to report abuse. So it is bound to be higher on all counts.
The article certainly overstates its case. And of course, you did not quote this portion:
It’s not like egalitarianism wipes away abuse, however, for in the Nordic countries, where egalitarianism is the ideology, there is a higher than – USA, Australia, other European countries –abuse rate. Research suggests this is about the threat of male loss of power and retaliation.
The article argues that the cultural messages drive abuse, but then are forced to concede that where the egalitarian message is strongest, you have more abuse reported. Now, I am willing to grant that some argue that more people are willing to report in those countries. Maybe so. But at best that might result in break-even numbers. And the example certainly doesn't show a good outcome in this test case for egalitarian cultural messaging.
They theorize this involves the threat of loss of power. They cite research, but don't link to it. So I am not sure what to think on that. But it also points out that dynamics vary region to region, for distinct reasons.
And, at least going on the information in the article, this does not look specifically at the questions you are pointing out regarding religious notions. Male superiority also is discussed in non-religious contexts.
This study, for instance
looked at Global Family and Gender Survey data from eleven countries (United States, Australia, France, Ireland, United Kingdom, Canada, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru).
They looked at rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) and infidelity among couples with different levels of religious commitment, as well as whether the belief that the man is the head of the household increased couples’ risk of IPV or infidelity.
They found:
Couples with nominal or unequal religiosity (less/mixed religious couples) had higher rates of infidelity than either highly religious couples or couples in which neither partner exhibited much religiosity (shared secular couples). Infidelity was generally similar between highly religious couples and shared secular couples, but in the US women in highly religious couples did cheat less. We found no differences in IPV—measured by both women's reports of victimization and men's reports of perpetration—according to couple religiosity. Further, the belief that the man is the head of the household did not influence couples’ risk of either IPV or infidelity across the entire sample. In Latin America, however, patriarchal men in shared secular couples perpetrated IPV significantly more often than their egalitarian or more religious counterparts. (emphasis supplied)
In most categories the differences were not statistically significant, but they were in one region in regards to those who held a secular view of headship.
In the footnotes of a related write up by some of the study authors they did note something regarding the data from Australia. They did not have as much data from there, but what they did have showed a trend in line with your observations in your area:
The country-level reports show that Australian men in highly religious couples are more likely to be perpetrators of IPV than those in shared-secular couples, suggesting the ABC stories were especially relevant for the Australian context.
They also noted that in older data in North America there were more specific trends showing religiosity mattered. The more recent research shows that lessening.
Research using nationally-representative samples of U.S. adults generally finds that—within married couples—more
religious men are less likely to be perpetrators of IPV, and religious women are marginally less likely to be victims of IPV.14 Globally, higher religiosity is associated with being less likely to believe that wife beating is acceptable.15 Religiosity, or
religious commitment, seems to be the determining factor, not religious tradition, and it seems that nominal religiosity may
present the most risk, with both the nonreligious and the religiously devout being less likely to perpetrate IPV than are
those who attend religious services infrequently. For example, sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox has noted that conservative
Protestant men in the U.S. who are active in a religious community are among the least likely to physically hurt their
spouses, while conservative Protestant men who are not active in a religious community are the most likely to be abusive.16
Sociologists Christopher Ellison, John Bartkowski, and Kristin Anderson similarly found that perpetration of IPV was
lower only among men who attended religious services weekly or more.17 Evidence from Canada suggests a similar pattern,
with those who are infrequent attenders of religious services being the most likely to be abusive.18
This study, which is admittedly a bit limited in some of its design, showed that a factor that correlated with abuse among religious college students was the lower biblical knowledge among those who claimed to be religious.
Participants completed a measure of religious overclaiming, reported on their perpetration of IPV, and reported their religiosity. Across both studies, we found that higher religious overclaiming was associated with greater perpetration of IPV.
The data is mixed, but there are some suggestions that those who are most religious and actually carry that out, are less likely to abuse than those who claim religion, but don't act on it.
Which would also explain why the pastor repeating a number of times that the text doesn't excuse abuse and micro-managing would not get through--since the nominally religious are not there to hear it, or actively involved in studying the text.
