|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:16 PM October 17th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I actually thought that I once or twice saw this number used on the first National Crime Victimization Survey's in I believe 1992 that included domestic violence. I have been unable to bring that survey up more recently. I wonder if the Library of Congress might still have it if anyone is concerned. I believe that's where the number came from and why it is so entrenched. I believe too that the first crime victimization survey had problems (don't they all?) so that may be why you can't officially find the thing anymore. It sure has made it into a lot of myths. Has anybody thought to ask Martin Feibert or Bert Hoff. They were some of the first people I recall seeing that started challenging some of the outrageous domestic violence claims (lies).
When VAWA passed I believe that was one of the bogus numbers to come from the lying radical/gender feminist, hate monger bigots who committed fraud to get VAWA passed. The biggest, most famous lie was the famous Super Bowl Sunday Myth by Sheila Kuehl at a news conference in Pasadena, California. The fact that crook is not doing hard time in jail for her fraud as part of the ongoing hate crime war against men makes a mockery of our whole system of law.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got info that the Murray Straus study was probably the one that got it started, because that's his position, so that's the one I used as a jumping-off point.
Sometimes people have "mistaken" DOJ crime stats, which do report 85% of some crimes as having female victims, but the usual statement claims knowledge of ALL incidents when that cannot be possible.
I do feel the 95% number was a construct by an overzealous PR firm. Having so many different citations of studies and reports that don't actually exist is a red flag there.
T______
"A woman needs a man like a fish needs the river."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:07 PM October 18th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I had always thought that the "95% female victims of D.V." was bogus.
I mean, think about it. If those numbers were accurate why don't you see TONS of women EVERYWHERE with fat lips, bruises, black eyes, etc.? If those numbers were fact, THAT'S exactly what you'd see, every day. scores of injured women at the store, shopping mall, convienience store, at work, etc.
I can't remember the last time I saw a woman with so much as a scratch on her.
So I knew those "facts" HAD to be FALSE.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no! One of the staples of Radical Feminist Indoctrination has been crushed. The poor feminists, now their lies will be exposed for the world to see. I wonder, if we keep debunking bullshit statistics like this, will we finally debunk Feminism as a whole, and bring true Gender/Sex Egalitarianism to the world?
Hopefully, yes.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree about bogus statistics. I remember in college one of my stat. professors always said, "statistics lie and liars use statistics". Also could'nt help notice as I posted on a female forum, these young ladies loved to use statistics in attempt to prove me wrong. And for Gods sake if they seen something on the front page of a web site, it must be the truth, Gospel! That's what it said, it must be right and who am I to argue. I was so tempted to ask them how the hell they can be so freqin stupid to believe everything they read. Do you not think statistics can be presented in any way that will prove one's point? I just cannot argue with women, do not feel right about it so I just leave.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:46 AM October 20th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
They will fight tooth and nail to preserve thier victim status, they can't believe they possibley cannot be victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're forgetting that Domestic Violence has been expanded so that 'abuse' includes: he didn't compliment her on her new haircut, he didn't take out the trash, and he didn't ask permission before spending money.
Domestic Inconvience just didn't have the same punch as Domestic Violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, all the logical and reasoned comments about feminism's long-standing genius for misusing statistics, spinning the truth, and wagging the dog... are old news.
News that, while true, has not made much of an impact on the Orwellian hegemony (deliberate neo-Marxist reference) of feminism-gone-wild.
The fact of matters today is that the radical feminist, misandrist, anti-family, anti-choice-for-women-and men P.C. tyrants have near-total control over the bureaucracies of the legal apparatus, the government's funding channels, higher education, and the (lobotomized) mass media.
If you can intimidate legislators, judges, the police, social workers, psychologists, academics, news readers, and virtually the entire public sector... why corrupt your idealogical zeal with such trivial notions like "truth?"
To paraphrase a classic Bogart movie line -
"Truth? We don't need no stinking truth!"
Feminists don't fear facts. You can't fear what you can't recognize... or deconstruct.
What they fear is the possibility of a mass media attention span covering the rise of the men's movement and the massive rejection of feminism by younger women... a "soundbite" that lasts long enough to plant the IDEA that the end of feminism is thinkable in the public's imagination.
Once that idea sinks its roots into the public's consciousness, then all else -- even real legal reform and an end to the gender wars -- becomes possible.
Statistically speaking.... I'd give it a 50/50 shot at best.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's like I said last year at Men's News Daily -- if we had a significant number of blogs, with everybody linking back and forth, commonting on the things going on -- we'd really have something!
T______
"A woman needs a man like a fish needs the river."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel you discriminate against us other fishes.
First there are fish in the Oceans too you know, and lets not forget all those lake types.. Why do you wimin only go after fishes in the River? Inquring minds want to know....Comeon fess up.. You don't come clean were going to Ooooprah...
Please take us seriously Peta doesn't and were really really hurt and upset.
This is a spoof on whoseevers link above says a Woman needs a man like a fish needs a river!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:59 PM October 19th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"This is a spoof on whoseevers link above says a Woman needs a man like a fish needs a river!"
A radical/gender feminist needs a man like a radical/gender feminist needs a fish, and the truth is, it's good that neither one is needed by the rad/gender fem as neither one deserves that "fate worse than death." As far as the bicycle goes I'll peddling away from radical/G fems just as fast as my little flippers can go, and if the man wants to ride on the handle bars, well I guess that's o.k. although things are already rather ackward for me.
The Fish
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trudy, you rock. You are making a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks!
T______
"A woman needs a man like a fish needs the river."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
