|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent article. A copy needs to go to each member of the house and senate. I will send the url to my congressperson...who happened to be one of the main supporters of VAWA. :( And to my senator as well. Great work.
I would send them the text but I would want your permission to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would send them the text but I would want your permission to do so.
Hey, Tom. I don't mind you forwarding the text as long as my byline and copyright notice are included. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good. Thanks for the permission. It is much more effective to send text and ask (demand :>)) a response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist,
This is an excellent article. I've forwarded it to the Stop Hating Men e-mail list and I wish this had happened two weeks ago, since today the NH Senate Internal Affairs Committee will be voting on whether to recommend the Men's Commission bill for passage in the full Senate. Hopefully we'll have some time before the full Senate vote, and I can send it out to other Senators in NH.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can you get on the 'stop hating men' email list??? Thanks for your time Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan,
E-mail me privately and I can add you to the list.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 26, @12:03PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Does anybody know of more current (unbiased) studies that support the Gelles studies?
The current studies clearly use trick questions and math to inflate the female side of the stats.
I would like more current (2001) references to pit against the newer DOJ studies. That is because the newer DOJ studies contradict the older Gelles.
We really do have to be careful about this fact because it can be used to slam us. It would be most helpful if there were newer studies that supported the Gelles studies.
warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We really do have to be careful about this fact because it can be used to slam us. It would be most helpful if there were newer studies that supported the Gelles studies.
Hey, Warble, you might want to check out some of the older DV articles on this site. Go to "News Topics" and click on the "Domestic Violence" logo. I think we've reported several times on studies both in the U.S. and abroad which seem to vindicate Gelles.
Btw, Gelles was in the news recently on the completely different topic of child custody and human services. It was an episode of Dateline. I was quite impressed that they interviewed him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott compiled quite a bit of research a while back on DV for "Domestic Violence Awareness Month."
Scott: do you still have links to those documents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The MANN flyers for DV Awareness Month can be found at:
/dv_flyers.shtml
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 26, @12:10PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have links to the other studies you mention? The newer DOJ studies and some of the other ones you claim are biased? I'd like to read them.
Garth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The really sick thing is that the Clinton-era holdovers at DoJ continue to publish reports that accentuate the female-as-victim. But if you look carefully at the reports (I can't lay my hands on the one I most recently dissected, but when I do, I'll pass it along), you'll see that they invariably have information buried in the back that CLEARLY demonstrates that men are not the only perpetrators by a large amount. The other thing they do is compare apples to oranges in the same graph, so read the fine print carefully when you finally do get the reports.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have links to the other studies you mention? The newer DOJ studies and some of the other ones you claim are biased? I'd like to read them.
Yes. I won't explain why they are biased at this time. That can be an issue for another debate.
Two popular links follow:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/172837.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/170018.pdf
I thought this next study was a more current study. It leads the reader to believe that is the case. However, when I read the fine print, I found it is just a restatement of stats done in an earlier study. This is obviously trickery in that it fails to gather new stats to confirm a previous study. Here is the link anyway:
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf
It is interesting to note that men suffer significantly more physical assults in their lifetime (see exhibit 3).
Here is another misleading study that fails to gather new evidence. It is little more than a study of a study. It is just using the same old bloated stats to slam men. The URL follows:
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
There are many more types of studies. But this will get you started. It helps to have a basic knowledge of stats to understand the math. It is necessary to also carefully examine the wording and definitions to isolate where they are inflating statistics.
For example, I have found admissions in the text that justify increasing the numbers reported violence because the researchers don't believe that only one incident occurred where there has been a report of violence. So, if a female reports having been hit, that single report may count as MANY acts of violence against a women in the survey. There is no record of a similar adjustment for men.
Read them very carefully. These facts makes them quite biased. There are also many other techniques the researchers use to inflate the statistics.
To illustrate, they use the following language to justify this inflation of the numbers for women:
“Because some rape and physical assault victims experience multiple victimizations per year, an estimated 876,000 rapes and 5.9 million
physical assaults are perpetrated against U.S. women annually (see exhibit 14). Given the pervasiveness of rape and physical assault among
American women, It is imperative that violence against women be treated as a major criminal justice and public health concern.”
Using this language the study marginalizes men as victims and in fact damages their humanity because they fail to be female. Again, there is no similar estimate made for men. So, clearly the numbers are little more than an outright lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, Dr. Martin Fiebert's bibliography at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm is constantly updated and has some very current research. One of the most powerful can be found under "Archer." British researcher John Archer published a meta-analysis in the 2000 issue of the Psychological Bulletin, which is a top-notch academic journal published by the American Psychological Association and heavily pear-reviewed. In it he examines the bulk of the existing data and concludes that women are significantly more likely to intitiate physical aggression in relations and to do it more often, men inflict more harm on average, and that about 38% of victims who are physically harmed are male (as he calls it, a "substantial minority" of harmed victims). And he also points out why crime surveys (such as data from the Department of Justice) are not reliable. He then prints some of his peers' comments and responds to them. Surprisingly, professor Irene Frieze, who once was allegedly caught suppressing her research on dating violence because it showed equal violence between males and females (Cathy Young, "Ceasefire!"), came out in support of Archer and recognized the problem as major. The only real opposition came from feminist commentors Mary Koss and her colleague, who made the usual phony arguments about the conflict tactics scale, and who argued that researchers need to be cautious and "socially responsible" about their research. John Archer then responded very well, pointing out his critics' flaws, exposing their hypocrisy, and highlighting the political nature of their opposition. It was excellent. This is again a top-notch journal. It is almost like the New England Journal of Medicine for the field of psychology. The report is written in very technical language, but there are some fabulous quotes that can be taken from it, such as:
Executive Summary: "Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more
frequently. Men were more likely to inflict an injury, and overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women." Page 651.
"Archer's (2000) very carefully done study provides strong evidence that women engage in more violence acts within close relationships than men but that men are more likely to injure their partners, as least in the samples studied . . . The denial or trivialization of violence by women against men and the knowledge that women can also be violent imply that what is happening to the male victims of violence needs to be examined." Dr. Irene Frieze, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, page 683.
"The need to address physical aggression in intimate relations by both men and women is now inescapable."
Dr. K. Daniel O'Leary, State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York, page 689.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many thanks Marc. The page you listed is a great resource!
ASSAULTS BY WOMEN
It is filled with studies that substantiate the violence of women. Very impressive. For anyone who hasn't see it yet....check it out and email it to your feminist friends. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, Dr. Martin Fiebert's bibliography at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm is constantly updated and has some very current research. One of the most powerful can be found under "Archer." British researcher John Archer published a meta-analysis in the 2000 issue of the Psychological Bulletin, which is a top-notch academic journal published by the American Psychological Association and heavily pear-reviewed.
Gees Marc. I've gone through and done a sort of meta analysis of this list, and I am shocked. In some cases, the studies suggest that women are extremely violent. For example, there is a study that found women are six times more likely to use violence. The quote follows:
"Stets, J. E. & Henderson, D. A. (1991). Contextual factors surrounding conflict resolution while dating: results from a national study. Family Relations, 40, 29-40. (Drawn from a random national telephone survey, daters between the ages of 18 and 30, who were single, never married and in a relationship during the past year which lasted at least two months with at least six dates were examined with the Conflict Tactics Scale. Findings reveal that over 30% of subjects used physical aggression in their relationships, with 22% of the men and 40% of the women reported using some form of physical aggression. Women were "6 times more likely than men to use severe aggression ...Men were twice as likely as women to report receiving severe aggression ." Also found that younger subjects and those of lower socioeconomic status were more likely to use physical aggression.) "
Hell. This is exactly the opposite of that the feminist are trying to claim. I actually expected that men would tend to be at least somewhat more violent than women (by mabye 20%). However, that is clearly not supported by this long list of evidence.
Thanks for the ref!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, be careful when citing some of the studies listed in Feibert. While they are mostly credible in their statements, many of them have VERY small sample groups, and as such, cannot individually be of a lot of use. For example, I read of one study there that cited hospital emergency room visits in New Orleans. The sample group was, like 100 total or so, hardly statistically significant. However, when the whole of what Feibert lists is taken en masse, it demonstrates pretty conclusively that wome nas at least as likely as men to initiate violence. One thing that still seems to ring true, from what I've read, is that more women are injured than men. But even at that, the number of men injured is still on the order of 40% or the whole, minimum.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And he [Archer] also points out why crime surveys (such as data from the Department of Justice) are not reliable. He then prints some of his peers' comments and responds to them."
I'd be interested in hearing more about this, since I can't access Psychological Bulletin online I was wondering if you could summarize his points about crime surveys.
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew, the recent 1998 National Violence Against Women Survey found that men made about 40% of the victims in the last 12 months (835,000 men, 1.5 million women). The latest National Crime Victimization Survey found that men make 15% of the victims. Here is what Straus, Gelles and Archer have said about both these figures. Many others have backed this up.
* * *
Dr. Murray Straus
“ . . . the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is presented to respondents as a study of crime. The difficulty with a crime survey as the context for estimating rates of domestic assault is that most people think of being kicked by their partners as wrong, but not a crime in the legal sense. It takes relatively rare circumstances, such as an injury or an attack by a former partner who ‘has no right to do that,’ for the attack to be perceived as a crime (Langan & Innes, 1986). This is probably why the NCVS produces such totally implausible statistics as a 75 percent injury rate (compared with an injury rate of less than 3 percent in the two surveys cited earlier) and more assaults by former partners than by current partners. This is because, in the context of a crime survey, people tend to report attacks only when they have been experienced as ‘real crimes’ – because they resulted in injury or were perpetuated by former partners.”
Walsh, “Women, Men and Gender, Ongoing Debates,” 1997, p. 212
* * *
Dr. Richard Gelles
“My colleague Murray Straus has found that every study among more than 30 describing some type of sample that is not self-selective [i.e. not from a shelter] has found a rate of assault by women on male partners that is about the same as the rate by men on female partners. The only exception is the U.S. Justice Department’s Uniform Crime Statistics, the National Survey or Crime Victims, and the U.S. Department of Justice National Survey of Violence Against Women . . . The National Crime Victims Survey and National Survey of Violence against Women both assess partner violence in the context of a crime survey. It is reasonable to suppose both men and women underreport female-to-male partner violence in a crime survey, as they do not conceptualize such behavior as a crime.”
“The Missing Persons of Domestic Violence: Male Victims”, 1999
* * *
Dr. John Archer
“ . . . misleading . . .”
“Caution is required when using some of these sources, notably crime surveys. They specifically ask about assaults in the context of criminal behavior, thus tending to reflect only those assaults perceived as crimes.” Page 652.
“Men may be more reluctant to label a physically aggressive act by a woman partner as a criminal assault, and there is a much higher female victimization rate following separation and divorce. Analyses of NCS and NCVS data showed higher female victimization rates than is found in other sources. It is therefore reasonable to assume that their figures are misleading.” Page 665.
“Not only does the National Violence Against Women Survey have the demand characteristics of crime surveys (because the emphasis was on violence and personal safety) but also it was presented as a survey on violence toward women, thus giving the message that men’s victimization was not a concern.” Page 698.
Sex Differences in Partner Aggression
Psychological Bulletin, September 2000
American Psychological Association
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statistics Canada have a yearly research project going on. It's title is Family Violence In Canada and its ISSN is 1480-7165. The current, 2001 issue lists the 5 year rate at 7% of men and 8% of women, (number between 15 and death who have had one or more physical domestic violence crimes against them in the previous five years).
You can get the current one at: http://www.statcan.ca/english/IPS/Data/85-224-XIE. htm
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most media people are not pro-men or anti-men. They do what political pressure tells them to do. As more men show support for pro-male media pieces, and speak up against misandry, more will be done.
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's about time!
battering husbands, as well as battering wives is wrong!!! but let me put it another way...discriminating against people who have been abused in any way is also wrong...dead wrong!!!!
if a male has been abused, he should be helped!!!
and one last thing...
DO NOT EVER MIX CHIVALRY WITH CRIME, VIOLENCE AND ABUSE!!!!!!!!
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!!!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
