|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was told by a person I know who's a cop for a local police dept. that there was a training session a while back done by a local domestic violence shelter. The people doing the training ended the session by telling the police that even if a woman hit the first time that she probably wasn't to blame, and that women sometimes hit first when they realize that a man is about to become violent anyway.
Well, a few of the female cops that were there couldn't hold back, and blasted that idea as the self-serving BS that it was. None of the male cops joined in the argument, though.
Just an interesting story.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, a few of the female cops that were there couldn't hold back, and blasted that idea as the self-serving BS that it was. None of the male cops joined in the argument, though.
I'm glad SOMEONE fought back. And I'm sure I can guess why none of the male cops spoke out: they're just as cowed as the rest of us when it comes to assertings ourselves with women nowadays. We don't want to argue with them because we're afraid we'll be accused of being a misogynist, or who knows what other horrendous accusations. At least that's how it used to be with me. I'm over it for the most part. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist said: "We don't want to argue with them because we're afraid we'll be accused of being a misogynist, or who knows what other horrendous accusations."
I started standing up to the hateful, anti-male liars in the late-1970s. Talk about lonely. To this day, I have *always* stood alone, though I have had men come up to me afterwards and tell me they're glad I spoke up (this includes several men who argued against me when women could hear). And in many cases, women have made it clear, afterwards, that they respect me for speaking up.
But when I have spoken the truth in front of a group of people, I have, like I said, *always*...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The officer said, "The latest statistics show about 15 percent of the domestic violence victims are men, she said."
I wonder where she got this factoid. I've read in countless sources that men are victims of domestic violence about as often as women at every level of severity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder where she got this factoid. I've read in countless sources that men are victims of domestic violence about as often as women at every level of severity.
The statistics certainly do vary. Much of the media reporting on domestic violence against men claims 12-15 percent. I've seen the 835,000 figure from a few years ago many, many times. Then there are the figures based on surveys (Scott uses these in his domestic violence documents), which provide the view that roughly half of all acts of domestic violence are committed by women.
The 12-15 percent may come from law enforcement, but I'd be more likely to think that law enforcement stats would give us 1-5 percent.
Anyone else have any idea where the 15 percent came from? Trudy? Marc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist:
In her '99 book "Ceasefire!" Cathy Young states that the Justice Dept's '72-92 National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVS)were redesigned to include direct questions about assaults by intimates. In the original surveys, people were not asked specifically about domestic violence, but about being attacked by anyone. Women's advocates had charged that much domestic abuse was going undetected because women didn't think of it as a crime -- which of course goes doubly for male victims.
The redesigned surveys boosted women's reports by 70%, but men's reports tripled, according to Young. In the new surveys, men were the victims in 15% of all assaults by current or former partners and 25% of aggravated assaults. Forty percent of assaults on men qualified as aggravated compared to 20% on women.
Young also points out that the new Justice Dept figures still show a far smaller proportion of male victims of abuse than the Straus-Gelles family violence surveys, which focus on specific acts, such as being punched, kicked, hit with an object. But they also still show far fewer male assaults on women than four or even two million a year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over at the MenWeb site, there are several excellent pages on the topic of the dichotomy between Family Violence surveys --
the overwhelming majority of which in the english-speaking world, when both genders are interviewed, find equal rates of violence against men and women by their domestic partners --
and Criminal Violence surveys, which are mainly usa federal studies, and which are far more weighted towards violence against women by men.
One of the articles, by Dr. Murray Strauss himself, is the most cogent explanation I've ever read as to why this massive body of Family Violence survey research is less methodologically biased, and more accurate in its findings, than are the few Criminal Violence surveys that are routinely trotted out by denialists as support for their sexist bigotry. See:
http://www.vix.com/menmag/straus22.htm
There are a number of other good male-positive DV resources there as well. Ack Bob Says Check It Out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Tuesday November 06, @01:57AM EST (#9)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
The 15% figure comes from random surveys ("survey data"), which are of course more accurate than reported violence ("archival data"). But the 15% figure is still far too low because it comes from surveys conducted by a crime agency, namely the Department of Justice. Surveys conducted by crime agencies come off as "crime suveys" to respondents, and this biases male responses because men are less likely than women to see the violence as a criminal assault. And the 15% is also outdated. In 1998 the Department of Justice conducted the Violence Against Women Survey and projected that men made 39% of the victims (835,000 men versus 1.5 million women) in the previous 12 months. And even that is probably low because, again, it's from a crime survey. The most unbiased data comes from randomized surveys done by independent university researchers. And as professor Martin Fiebert's bibliography shows on his university website, these surveys repeatedly show that "women are as violent, or more violent, than men in their relationship with their spouses or male partners." And this is the data they so violently resist, for reasons many of us are familiar with. There's of course other issues to deal with, like severity of harm, aggregate violence, and the totally false argument that self defense explains most of the female violence. The best analysis I've ever seen on the existing data is an unpublished manuscript by Dr. David Fontes, "Violent Touch." You can download it at http://www.safe4all.org/resources.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a comparison of the old vs. redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey, from the DOJ webiste:
***
A comparison of the old and new questionnaire illustrates the expanded cues that help a respondent recall an incident
New
2. People often don't think of incidents committed by someone they know. Did you have something stolen from you OR were you attacked or threatened by--
a. Someone at work or school --
b. A neighbor or friend--
c. A relative or family member--
d. Any other person you've met or known?
3. Did you call the police to report something
that happened to YOU which you thought was a crime?
4. Did anything happen to you which you thought
was a crime, but did NOT report to the police?
Old
2. Did you call the police to report something
that happened to YOU which you thought was a crime?
3. Did anything happen to YOU which you thought
was a crime, but did NOT report to the police?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Marc Angelucci et al.
Good points and nicely outlined. Warren Farrell in his '99 book "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say" also discusses why the Justice Dept crime surveys are less objective and accurate than the scholarly family violence surveys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Collins. You too.
Farrell does a great job with everything he writes (except his own bio on his website). He's a hero. But on this topic Dr. Fontes' "Violent Touch" takes the cake, I'd say. Even though "Violent Touch" was written in 1998 or so, it is still the most current and insightful work around in my opinion. And I have not found anyone who is willing to even try to refute it. They also can't do anything to Fontes' character. He is a clinical psychologist who did his Ph.D. thesis on male victims of DV and has even done trainings for the California Highway Patrol on the topic. He manages the entire Employee Assistance Program for the California Department of Social Services in Sacramento, CA, overseeing the emotional lives of thousands of government employees. Although the fems have pulled some pretty incredible stunts in their false attacks on people's characters, they'll have a hard time trying to hurt Fontes'. Their only break with him is that he's currently inactive for a while so he can spend time with his family. All the more reason why the rest of the men's activists need to speak out as loudly as we can on this, as Scott and others on the site have so beautifully done.
Incidentally, I have no idea why I called Violent Touch a "manuscript." Looks like I need some sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
