|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feminist's largely successful fraud proclaiming all female domestic violence as "self-defensive" has been institutionalized in the DV Industry through most state's legal protocols, which must adhere to the well-known radical feminist Duluth Model.
Duluth uses discriminatory and gender-fascist language and concepts to define only men as "batterers" and only women as "victims."
This of course purposely ignores all the known objective social science research about intimate partner violence, including the gender parity in the initiation of violence, let alone the higher incidences of DV among lesbian couples.
In my home state of Illinois, the Bureau for Domestic Violence Prevention recently released a DV "protocol" (set of guidelines) for responding to FEMALE BATTERERS. (It's publication took seven years to develop following the male batterer's protocol issued in 1996.)
While acknowledging that a "very small minority" of women assault their male partners, the new Women's Protocol mandates extensive "screening" (by feminist DV advocates) to ensure that any women alleged to be a perpetrator of DV will be extensively assessed to make sure she's not REALLY a "victim."
The female self-defense alibis are imbedded throughout this "screening." (Of course, no such assessment is mandated, or even permitted, for men accused of domestic violence.)
I would encourage anyone concerned with the gross injustices in the DV Industry to contact your own state's Bureau of DV Prevention (usually a sub-section of the State Attorney General's Office) and ask for your FREE copy of the DV Protocols for men and women.
I look forward to the day when a successful FRAUD lawsuit is launched against the feminist DV gulag because what they are perpetrating is extreme, state-sanctioned, third-party violence against men.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:16 PM April 12th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the very informative note. The amount of lying going on is especially disgusting given the nature of the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc,
May I use this essay on a website I am developing?
zenpriest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:06 AM April 13th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
It's not exactly an essay but sure you're more than welcome, and thanks!
I can't emphasize how important I think it is for people who are involved in this issue to understand how to factually refute the "self defense" argument calmly and rationally. Everywhere I've gone they've tried to throw this at us, from the known male feminist speaker "Jackson Katz" to the very vicious domestic violence council in Los Angeles County, to everywhere else, because it sounds convincing and most people are thrown off guard by it. Some of these people believe it themselves only because they never do the research to find out the other side. Their own leaders are completely lying to them.
Another trick they use is to cite non-ramdonized research and present it as though it represents the general population, like citing a study that says female violence in relationships is often self defense when in fact the study was not randomly done but instead was done by asking women in a DV shelter whether they struck their partner and why, and then saying that such and such study found that most women who were violent in relations were acting in self defense." Putting aside the issue of the reliability of the women in a shelter in such a survey, such a study does not account for all the women who struck for reasons other than self-defense but never needed to go to a shelter.
I made an error, by the way. I said feminists have been citing studies that use the Conflict Tactics Scale for decades to cite figures on "female violence" when I actually meant "female victims." I've got to proofread.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:12 AM April 13th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Something that sticks in my mind is a refutation used by feminists like Jackson Katz, when they are confronted with the study by Gelles. I recall hearing Katz say, "Gelles used the flawed 'conflict tactics scale' when showing women hit as often as men." I have heard that spoken by G-fem d.v. advocates on more than one occasion. In fact, now that I think about it, I heard the CA attorney general, Bill Lochyer use that excuse. Here's the excuse they use to say the conflict tactics scale is flawed:
Women don't respond with the level of physical violence that men do. "They just throw a pencil or something," said Bill Lochyer.
Bill Lochyer is wrong. Thomas B. James, J.D. writes in his book Domestic Violence: The 12 things you aren't supposed to know,
Preliminarily, it should be noted that the distinction between “mild” and “severe” abuse is a rather artificial one. The law does not always make this distinction. The crime of battery encompasses any unwanted touching, no matter how slight. Men are arrested, charged and convicted of “domestic assault, “ and “battery” every day for doing things like grabbing car keys from a woman’s hand to prevent her from driving drunk, or giving a woman a friendly hug, a slap to the wrist, etc. These men all show up in the archival data as “batterers,” right along with the men who beat women so severely that they require medical treatment or protection in a shelter.” (In Los Angeles and California I know for certain that “Zero Tolerance Policies” of police departments have done just. that under the guidance of the bigoted feminist training they are indoctrinated with.)
James goes on to say, “Those who rely on archival data to support their extraordinary claims about male violence never seem to have any problem with lumping these offenders together and calling them all “batterers.” They don’t bother to take the time to distinguish between men who commit “mild” abuse and those who commit “severe” abuse. It is not clear why it is believed distinctions must be made between “mild” and “severe” violence if the figures show that women commit more violence than men, but not if they don’t.”
Hey, Dr. James, It’s clear as a bell. In the domestic violence industry of California today, we are dealing with hate-monger bigots, the likes of which we have not been seen since groups of Ku Klux Klansmen wore white hoods and burned crosses on lawns. They are the exact same type of people, only the Femi Klux Klan is at war with all men. The Femi Klux Klan is alive and well, and is the major force driving amercia’s domestic violence industry.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray wrote -
"The Femi Klux Klan is alive and well, and is the major force driving amercia’s domestic violence industry."
If you consider the hundreds of millions of dollars the the DV Industry extorts from men for legal costs and court-mandated feminist "psycho-dynamic educational" counseling, all based on false statistics, outright lies, and gender-fascist ideology...
WHY have there been no successful lawsuits against this racket?
Every state DV Bureau is commiting outright fraud against the taxpaying public when it represents itself as providing effective responses to domestic violence.
There are NO credible studies showing that batterer's counseling is effective, yet men are routinely ordered to attend and pay for six to twelve months of weekly "therapeutic" sessions in men's group counseling.
This state-funded extortion scheme nets feminist DV counseling firms many thousands of dollars annually; a nice "gravy train" that continues to grow and enjoys a steady stream of court-referred male "clients."
With the typical per session fees running $60 - $80, in a standard 26-week program, a man will fork over from $1,500 - $2,000 for "treatment" that is abusive, non-therapeutic, and ineffective.
By running three weekly groups with 20 guys in each, a DV counseling firm can easily clear $190,000 to $250,000 annually!
In most states, you can get in on this racket without even holding a college degree, becoming a "certified DV educator" by attending 80 hours of feminist DV training offered through the state's taxpayer-funded DV Prevention Bureau.
I'm truly astonished that the Mafia has not moved into this field! It's at least as lucrative as the garbage collection (oops! environmental waste) industry that they took over ten years ago!
But then I guess even the "wise guys" have principles...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid, Marc, you're still playing into their hands. What feminists are engaging in is a logical fallacy known as "Argument from ignorance" or "Shifting the burden of proof."
This tactic is often used by ideologues on the layman who doesn't understand issues of burden of proof in the scientific realm. The most known example is the one used by the Tobacco lobby against the claim that
smoking causes cancer. It basically goes, "The studies don't compare identical groups - it *could be* that the high-incidence of cancer among smokers is due to some other differences between the groups,
such as worse eating habits or stress." In here, they try to shift the burden of proof to you - to prove that it's not due to other factors. From a scientific point of view, this is simply an unacceptable argument. Critiques
of scientific studies must be scientific as well, that is, they must meet a certain burden of proof. If these arguments were valid, the medical community would reject the claim that smoking causes cancer, or for that
matter, any other claim, since you can always make up speculations regarding the reason for an empirical/observable phenomenon.
Feminists have the same burden of proof as everyone else. When feminists opened shelters for women, for instance, they didn't have to prove that the violence experienced by these women wasn't justified. If a person
came and demanded to withhold funding from these shelters because it "could be that the men who hit their wives did so to protect their children from violent mothers," he would have the burden of proving it. Similarly,
when a feminist claims women are only hitting in self-defense, they have the burden of proving it. Whenever feminists make an unsubstantiated claim, ask for evidence. They should not be allowed to get away with
having their uncorroborated claims accepted automatically as gospel. Of course, you should always have as much information as you can handy, including a refutation of the self-defense claim. But don't let them shift
all the burden of proof on to you. They're not entitled to any special treatment.
Another important trick that you should be aware of is "lying without lying" -- another favourite feminist tactic. This involves tricking the listener (through phrasing) into believing something that isn't true, but without
explicitly making a false statement. This relates mostly to their "critique" of the CTS. It usually goes like this: "The Conflict Tactic Scale asks people if they've been slapped, grabbed, or pushed in the last 12 months.
By contrast, the National Crime Victimization Survey found that women make up 85% of all victims of domestic violence." Casual listeners, and even men's activists, keep falling for this. From the above, you'd think
that the NCVS *doesn't* ask people if they've been slapped, grabbed or pushed in the last 12 months. But it *does*. I know, because I've read it from start to finish. All its definitions and questionnaires. Now, I don't
really have the space or time to go into too much detail, but since the NCVS is the most commonly used study by the fems, I'll give you an overview of its methodology of DV measurement so you'll be able to see
through the feminist rhetorical tricks:
1. The NCVS defines a victim of intimate partner violence as someone who has experienced any number of incidents of violent crimes (whether one or a hundred), according to its definition of violent crime. (see 3).
2. The questionnaire tells respondents to only report incidents that they've experienced in the last 6 months. Respondents are interviewed twice a year, and the numbers are added up to generate a 12-month estimate.
(despite what feminists would have you believe, the survey does not track long-term battery).
3. Violent crimes are defined as: robbery, rape or assaults. Assaults are divided into: "Simple assaults" - no injuries or minor injuries, no weapon. "Aggravated assault" - use or threat of weapon, or any assault
causing serious injuries. "Sexual assault" - any unconsensual physical contact, including grabbing and fondling and verbal threats. Rape - includes "psychological coercion" (whatever that means.)
4. Respondents are explicitly asked about minor and frivolous forms of violence including, but no limited to: slapping, grabbing, pushing, *throwing objects*, and "holding and fondling without the use of physical force." (I'm not joking.) All
these assaults count as violent victimization, whether by a stranger or by an intimate.
5. Chronic violence, called in the survey "Series Victimizations" or "Series Data" (defined as at least 6 incidents) are classified as *a single incident*. IOW, no distinction is made between chronic, intermittent or
isolated violence.
6. Other than hate crimes, (e.g. racial or sexual orientation) no context is asked about, not even self-defense. Who initiated the assault is asked about, but this information isn't used in the classification of victims of
intimate partner violence. That is to say, if a woman struck/pushed/slapped her partner in self-defense, he *will* be classified as a victim of intimate partner violence, since that matches the definition.
7. Men make up 25% of the victims of aggravated assaults (the most severe form) in partner violence.
8. Although women were more likely to experience assaults, the severity was virtually identical: women were slightly more likely to sustain minor injuries, and no more likely than men to sustain serious injuries.
9. The survey found about 80,000 women need medical attention a year due to DV. The CTS - at least 200,000. (Don't remember exactly offhand, but it's a 6-figure number)
10. The only major methodological difference between the NCVS and the CTS is that in the NCVS is based largely on *voluntary* response - the NCVS screener never mentions violence by spouses, intimates,
lovers, boyfriend/girlfriend explicitly, and that is the only reason for the difference in the findings - women are more likely to volunteer this information.
Bottom line, despite what femmes would have everyone believe, the studies showing women to be the majority of victims aren't superior to those that show men and women suffer equally. In fact, they're much worse
from a methodological design perspective. As John Archer said in his PB study, the alternative studies that feminists use don't have any advantages. (Femmes just trick you into thinking otherwise.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:03 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm aware that they should have the burden of showing that the female violence in the CTS-based studies is self-defense, rather than us showing that it is not. I mentioned also that they fail to apply that same argument to male victims (as Gelles said, "That is true, on BOTH ends). But I also went further than that and pointed out that: 1) the limited data they do occasionally cite to show it is self defense is either self-selected and not randomized, or it only looks at female victims and not male victims, and, 2) the randomized, two-sex studies that *do* ask about motives and context show that self-defense does not explain female violence. So even though, scientifically, the burden should be on them over this, and in a court of law we could perhaps sit back and say, "prove it," I still think it's good to go beyond that and to actively *disprove* what they're saying.
On a different topic, and to get a little technical here, I'm unclear on this statement:
"The only major methodological difference between the NCVS and the CTS is that in the NCVS is based largely on *voluntary* response - the NCVS screener never mentions violence by spouses, intimates, lovers, boyfriend/girlfriend explicitly, and that is the only reason for the difference in the findings - women are more likely to volunteer this information."
I'm unclear because you're comparing National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) with the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). But they are two different things. NCVS is an annual crime survey conducted by the Dept. of Justice, while the CTS is a methodology used by most studies including the NCVS. Perhaps by "CTS" you mean the National Family Violence Survey (NFVS)? I.e. the 3 surveys done by Gelles, Straus and Steinmetz from 1975 to 1992? That sounds more like what you're saying. If so, then yes there are significant differences between the NCVS and the NFVS, one of which was that the NCVS focuses heavily on "crime" (hence, "National *Crime Vicimization* Survey") and is therefore totally biased against male victims because people are less likely to consider it a crime when it's male on female (which could explain why the current NCVS only shows about 15 percent of the annual victims being male), whereas NFVS had nothing at all to do with crime but instead was conducted by independent researchers (Gelles, etc.) and funded by the Department of Mental Health (a non-crime agency), and thus it was more fair and it repeately found that men make at least 50 percent of the victims. Somewhere more in the middle is the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) of 1998, which on the one hand did not focus as hard on crime as the NCVS, but on the other hand was still biased in that it was still conducted by a crime agency (DOJ) and used some "crime" related language, and also was biased by calling itself a Violence Against *Women* Survey, and so it was somewhere in between the NCVS and the NFVS - it found that men make about 36 percent of the victims yearly ("According to these estimates, approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an
intimate partner annually in the United States.") www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/nij/181867.txt
In my opinion, when we're in a position where we only have a matter of seconds to respond, the above 36% figure is the easiest and most persuasive because it comes from the Department of Justice. We often don't have time to get into the CTS and all that other stuff, so citing the Department of Justice's Violence Against Women Survey which shows that 835,000 men and 1.5 million women are victims, making men at least 36 percent of the victims, is often the first thing I cite, and then if I have time I get into the, "but that's a crime survey, which is biased because . . ., and virtually all studies by non-crime agencies show that men and women initiate DV at equal rates . . . ." Advocates all do this differently, of course. Some prefer not to use statistics at all and simply to argue that there *are* male victims and they need inclusion, recognition, outreach and shelter no matter what their numbers are. I respect that approach too and in some environments it probably even works better.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I say the CTS, I do mean the NFVS as well as other studies that use it. But feminists always refer to the studies that show 50% of DV victims are men as simply the "CTS". It's basically their rhetorical recipe:
1) Claim all studies that show men are 50% of DV victims are based on the CTS.
2) Bombard the listner/reader with all sorts of scientific-sounding mumbo jumbo (i.e. gishgallop) about the "flaws" of the CTS (it's virtually always the same: they're simply parroting from their stash of feminist propaganda articles).
3) Introduce the NCVS using a contrasting phrase to trick the reader/listner into thinking that the NCVS doesn't have these "flaws" (it does.)
Now, the NCVS doesn't use the CTS, but it uses something similar. In fact, all surveys of violence are similar, since there are so many ways to enquire about a respondent's violent victimization.
But I don't think the NCVS' findings are due to the fact that it's a crime survey. All other crime surveys that I'm aware of show men to be 40-50% of DV victims (Canada's crime survey, the British Crime Survey, the Scottish Crime Survey, Australia's crime survey). The NCVS is the only remaining crime survey in which DV isn't explicitly mentioned (just general questions about crimes and violence). All other crime surveys have been revised in recent years to include explicit questions or dedicated questionnaires for DV measurement and have since shown men to be about 50% of DV victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:27 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I fully agree with your "1, 2, 3" comment above. Well said.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:36 AM April 14th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
I just re-read this part from your comment above:
"But I don't think the NCVS' findings are due to the fact that it's a crime survey. All other crime surveys that I'm aware of show men to be 40-50% of DV victims (Canada's crime survey, the British Crime Survey, the Scottish Crime Survey, Australia's crime survey). The NCVS is the only remaining crime survey in which DV isn't explicitly mentioned (just general questions about crimes and violence). All other crime surveys have been revised in recent years to include explicit questions or dedicated questionnaires for DV measurement and have since shown men to be about 50% of DV victims."
That's very interesting and it makes sense. I know that Gelles, Fontes and Archer all criticize NCVS based on its being a crime survey, but it seems you may be more accurate given the points you make above. And actually, it's a related point. Thanks for that info.
I'll also note that the NCVS uses the CTS, since you have pointed out that it uses something "similar" but not the CTS itself. Thanks for that info as well.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:45 AM April 13th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas B. James, J.D. in his excellent book, Domestic Violence: The 12 things you aren't supposed to know," says,
It also can be asked whether it really makes any sense to distinguish between "good" domestic abuse ("mild" abuse committed by women against men) and "bad" abuse (any kind of abuse committed by men aginst women, regardless of severity.) Men bleed when they are cut. Men feel pain when they are hit." "Men's tendency to suppress, and/or deny their pain only provides evidence about the societal response to the experience of pain by persons of the male gender, not the actual incidence of pain in persons of the male gender."
The truth of the matter is that gender feminst trained police (and judges) are hate-monger bigots in Los Angeles, because they drive around in police cars with bumper stickers that say "There's No Excuse for Domestic Violence," from the Family Violence Prevention Fund," then encourage domestic violence, yes encourage domestic violence, by excusing the violence of criminal women, when they excuse their behavior following the bigoted training of the hate monger bigoted domestic violence industry (gender biased Duluth Wheel). The Duluth Wheel uses only male nouns and pronouns, when speaking of batterers, and uses only female nouns and pronouns when speaking of victims.
(click) Law Has No Intergrity
(click) Sexist Symbol
Ray
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:06 AM April 13th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Lastly, Thomas B. James, J.D. writes, "And studies have shown that women are much more likely to use a weapon against their partners than men (188). Moreover, even a muscle-bound man may be completely incapable of defending himself in his sleep, or when he is hit with an object from behind (189). It is also mostly women who use weapons to assault their partners. According the National Crime Victimization Survey, males are 20% more likely to be victims of aggravated assault at the hands of an acquaintance as men are (190). The numbers 188, 189, 190 are all footnote numbers to the studies the author is citing. I forgot to include those on previous posts, but they are in the book.
Ray
(click) Ever Been Hit By Her?
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:57 AM April 13th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas B. James in his book, Domestic Violence: The 12 things you aren't supposed to know, writes,
"One of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American public in recent times is the myth that women only batter in self defense. The truth is that women batter for the same basic reasons that men batter, including but not limited to the simple desire to control their partners.
Those who have an interest in perpetuating this myth usually rely on information obtained from law enforcement records and battered women's shelters to support their claims (228). These kind of records, however, are inherently unreliable because they are derived from non-representative samples that are not randomly selected."
"The most serious problem with such archival data, however is that it selects only those subjects who have a strong motivation to allege that they were acting in self-defense."
Couple female false accusations of domestic violence with the domestic violence advocate's strong motivation to lie and we can see a potent synergistic evil. That evil, lying combination leads to the statistical epidemic of fraud we see fueling today's domestic violence industry with the misinformation necessary to rip off taxpayers for more and more money to perpetuate the fraud. (my words)
Ray
(click) Domestic Violence Is Often Fraud
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:22 AM April 13th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
In the book Domestic Violence: The twelve things you aren't supposed to know, Thomas B. James writes,
"In Feibert and Gonzalez's study of college women who abuse their male partners, (257) selfishness (desire to force partner to focus on her needs and desires rather than his own) was the principal reason cited by most of the women themselves for their acts of violence against their male partners. 46% of the abusive women cited this as a principal reason for their use of violence against a male partner. (258) 44% of women cited, "I wanted to get my partners attention" as a pricipal reason for assaulting their partners, 43% said they did it out of anger because their partner "was not listening to me." More than one third of the women rationalized their behavior on the grounds that they did not believe that men get hurt when they are victims of domestic abuse. (259) According the American Psychological Association the primary reason that women aggress is to express anger. (260)"
Ray
(click) Lying Women Hurt Real Domestic Violence Victims (Men)
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am wondering just how committed we are at stopping domestic violence against men when there has only been one response to the post (and that poster did not say he sent in a donation) about supporting the fund raising efforts by the Domestic Abuse Helpline For Men at:
http://www.noexcuse4abuse.org/support.html
Here is an opportunity to actually help do something. Posting and reading articles is fine, it is getting and disseminating education about our problems, but we need to be doing something affirmative like helping out with this measley $20K fund drive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:29 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
We made a deal with DAHM to pay for their His Side advertisement and request for donations for their project, which they did. One of our members also send DAHM a large donation.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:34 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
The checks in the mail. I'll give more later if at all possible. This is definitely a charity that I would like to be able to support regularly throughout the year. Every little bit (and large bit) helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" I am wondering just how committed we are at stopping domestic violence against men when there has only been one response to the post (and that poster did not say he sent in a donation) about supporting the fund raising efforts by the Domestic Abuse Helpline For Men at: "
Don't misread things. I sent them an e-mail a few weeks ago and told them that, now that I'm tutoring more students I have a little more spending money and will be able to make a donation soon.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is an opportunity to actually help do something. Posting and reading articles is fine, it is getting and disseminating education about our problems, but we need to be doing something affirmative like helping out with this measley $20K fund drive.
You are very right. The check is in the mail (paypal is fine, but I like to avoid the middle man).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I generally don’t publicly advertise my charitable donations. But for what it’s worth I sent mine in the day after the DAHM item was posted. (As I like to think many others did too)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:48 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Most physical abuse of children, especialy against boys is perpetrated by women.
...Is THAT self defense, too...?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
