|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 01:52 PM May 13th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The New Scientist used to be a decent publication for the semi-scientist and interested layman. Unfortunately it has become the "Time" of scientific pubs. It is sad of course to see this kind of thing in any publication but the good news is, The New Scientist is widely regarded as media-hype-junk-science-peddaling trash among actual scientists. The general rule is, the more widely-appealing and/or dumbed-down a publication is, the less real scientists want to have to do with it.
That said, the bad news is, it is widely-read and people actually look to it for what they think is scientific information. Worse news is that in actual real scientific publications, you can see feminism rearing its ugly head in all manner of places. The primary place to look for it is in sociology and psychology peridicals. The up side of this is that these are considered "soft sciences" (and for good reason). The bad side is that they are often used as sticks to beat pols into passing bull-spit anti-male legislation.
And so it goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 02:03 PM May 13th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"Soft Sciences" (and for good reason) The scientific process has been used in psychology for years. I fail to see how the manipulation of entire nations can, or for that matter would be considered a "soft science". Unless of course one wanted to discount the actual accomplishments of the current paradigm entirely. Pavlovs Dogs might argue as to how soft psychology actually is also. I earned a B.S. in psychology, a "hard degree" and learned the scientific process, and how it can be manipulated. If one were to call any field of endeavor soft one might want to actually look at psychiatrists, which now a days are nothing more than dope dealers with a m. d. degree. Manipulation of the masses has been studied since before written history, I fail to see how a science such as this can be discounted, unless of course one doesn't want to admit that yes, they to have perhaps been played.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 08:45 PM May 13th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Hot damn, I knew I'd get a rise out of *somebody* for that one!
"Soft sciences" refers to the tendency of some fields of study to lean on highly subjective data. These fields can really only hope to obtain subjective data because of the type of studies being done. This is called "soft data". "Hard data" is data taken from highly repeatable observations that are utterly independent of the observer, assuming a 1) rational oberserver and 2) accurate means of measurement and finally 3) use of the same standards of measurement.
Psychology, sociology, etc., can't be called hard sciences because of the very nature of the type of investigations they require. However this isn't to say they are not useful. But alas like any endeavor, they are simply more readily corrupted by those seeking to use them for their own evil purposes (eg: feminists) since no dataset can be collected such that on can expect it to be repeated within a comfortable margin. These are in fact ideal for creating a veritable endless justification for applying for grants since any- and everything you do requires *repeated* observations and as always, "further investigation is necessary." Really, not a bad racket, almost as good a cash-cow as drug development experiments and stuff like neuro-biology!*
There's also this: soft sciences are easier to get degrees in. Hard sciences are called hard for a reason: they are hard to deal with as compared to the "old softies"... so there... ahh hahhahahahaha ..... aww c'mon now, laugh! :-)
----
*Wow, I can't wait to see the pasting I take for that crack!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 09:53 PM May 13th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I used to enjoy ribbing the psych and sociology crowd too, mcc99 (OK, I admit it, I still do). It's just that they make it so easy sometimes, with some of the laughable junk "science" that comes out of those fields from time to time...
However, you should (if you haven't already) investigate the area of science known as experimental design (aka biometrics, chemometrics, etc.). I used to lecture students in the "hard" and "soft" sciences on it, and it's a very, very complex skill set that every scientist should be familiar with. It's hard to produce a valid result in any field without it.
Coupled with an accurate, reasonably precise measurement system and solid statistical analysis, a well-designed experiment in psychology can yield very meaningful and scientifically valid data. The same can be said to a lesser extent of sociological research in some cases. Sadly, some "social scientists" are not properly trained in such techniques (most psychologists are required to study and demonstrate proficiency in this area as part of their Ph.D. research program), so some sociological and psychological research lacks scientific credibility.
As for what is or isn't a hard science, remember that neurochemistry is a sub-specialty of psychology. Spooky, huh?
That being said, I still tell people that if it has "science" in its name (social science, political science), it probably isn't science! And yet here I am as a published scientist in what would meet your definition of a "hard" science, defending the scientific integrity of sociologists and psychologists.
I'm so confused! Is there a psychologist in the crowd that can help me work through this conflict and apparent self-loathing?!
;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 09:56 PM May 13th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
That all being said, feminism is to science what rust is to steel. Destructive and corrosive at best, the source of catastrophic failures at worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:42 PM May 13th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
R-Man ---
Your dilemma is arguably neither scientific or logical.
It is existential i.e. philosophical.
You desire "science" where only "subjectivity" can be verified.
Anything having to do with understanding women is best categorized as CHAOS THEORY!
Freud spent his entire life trying to understand women and died crazy, by his own admission.
Women have nothing to tell you, except for your failings.
There are no female philosophers.
For a reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 06:54 PM May 13th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Really scary stuff. What next? Will the fems take over Scientific American, for instance, like they took over Rat in the 60s?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One unintuitively good thing about feminist tripe getting into the likes of New Scientist and Scientific American is that it then gets read by people with somewhat better critical faculties than those of the average population. True, academics have a left-wing bias in general, but scientists tend to want to see defensible evidence for outlandish claims. Let's not forget that the Sokal hoax was perpetrated by a physicist.
Actually, that gives me an idea, perhaps there's a place for a Sokal-like hoax in feminist rhetoric. Hmmm....
--
Silence is the voice of complicity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 05:31 PM May 14th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
. True, academics have a left-wing bias in general, but scientists tend to want to see defensible evidence for outlandish claims.
John, I'm a scientist. Do I sound like a leftist to you? Do I sound like a neoconservative? Or does it sound like I've learned to think for myself instead of tossing around propaganda about looking for "commies under every tree" or what is it this week? "Liberal bias". I don't mean to be offensive, but I take exception to your comments about scientists. I am assuming here that you are a staunch Republican and neoconservative. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but bear with me, I'm heading for a point.
The conservative and liberal points of view are only two out of an infinite political continuum. Try and remember that there is a whole spectrum of political color outside the black and white political world of the USA, and that scientists and men's activists come from all areas of that spectrum, including the right wing and conservative part of that continuum. Does that make them "biased" as well? According to your own logic it does. Do you mean to suggest that another bias (i.e. a "conservative bias") would be better? That ANY bias is a desirable thing?
When it comes to scientists, the fact that they aren't wearing black shirts, burning books instead of reading them and goose-stepping to patriotic marching tunes doesn't mean that their work is subject to some mythical "liberal bias", any more than it means an evangelical Christian's scientific work is automatically subject to some mythical "conservative bias" or "Christian bias". That's the equally ridiculous American "liberal" or "left wing" assertion that ironically mirrors your own.
I'm curious as to how you think you could demonstrate that in general academics and scientists are left-wing, biased "liberals" (I'll assume the common American propaganda usage of that term, even though its meaning varies within every single subject). As for your comment about how we want to see defensible evidence for "outlandish claims" (i.e. the Earth not being the center of the universe, planets moving around the sun, the Earth not being flat, that kind of outlandish thing - all of these claims resulted in the persecution of the scientists making such claims), I assume you're implying that we scientists consistently commit a logical error that the British philosopher Bacon identified 400+ years ago, i.e. creating the argument (a "liberal" one in this case) to suit the conclusions.
I didn't realize that claiming the Earth was round and didn't sit at the center of the known universe qualified me as having "liberal bias". Aside from which, if such a bias existed, scientists like me would long since have discovered or invented a cleanser to get it out. Of course, science has been a little busy curing diseases and inventing the technology you're using to bash us.
While you're out hunting for "liberal bias", you might do well to remember that the so-called "conservative" governments that have ruled the US (and to a lesser extent, Canada), for 25 of the last 30 or so years are the ones that passed most of the laws that deny us status as human beings in our own countries while running up the largest deficits in human history. I'd say a "conservative bias" has proven itself just as damaging to men and families as a liberal one, and that maybe we should focus on avoiding ALL biases within this movement, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 06:41 PM May 14th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
RandomMan, my goodness Sir your umbrage was felt as well as read! You were right of course, as most scientists, at least as the secretarial crowd will tell you are mostly athiest. Seeking knowledge and the truth are not necessarily the same things depending on your training now are they? Anyway Sir very good rebuttal! As well as a hint of seeking a more Humane system of government.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by tudball on 10:52 PM May 14th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Huh? The secretarial crowd? Most scientists are athiests? Like RandomMan, I am a scientist and for the life of me I cannot discern what your point could possibly be. As for the "very good rebuttal", please note RandomMan's reflections later on in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:54 AM May 15th, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, Davidadelong, while I thank you for the fine compliment, I have to point out that one of the finest scientists I ever worked with was an evangelical Christian, and I found him a fascinating coworker, and a great friend. He gave me "the news", and as I am already mildly religious (and a student of philosophy), I was happy to hear him out and discuss his views at great length as we collaborated on our scientific work. It never clouded his scientific judgement. He felt that evolution, for example, was all part of God's divine plan (i.e. that life was intended to evolve through a pre-conceived path, and that fate did not exist). As a scientist, I believe that evolution is a valid theory, but I can offer no compelling proof that my evangelical friend is incorrect in his assertion. He also believed that science and scientists were part of the divine plan, too. Wise fellow. Hard to argue with. The most valuable thing I learned from him was that there is no requirement for a conflict between faith and science, despite the artificial conflict playing out in the media today over evolution, and that the search for truth and the search for knowledge are frequently coincident.
Then again, I believe that a scientist should also be a philosopher, and should always be open-minded and willing to listen to all points of view without preconception. I did this with feminism years ago and flatly rejected it as false and self-serving after I thoroughly investigated the statistics, assertions, philosophy and psychology behind it. Philosophy is, after all, derived from the Greek words meaning "love of wisdom". While I vaguely follow a western religion, Confucius was right about many things, among them the idea that a wise man realizes what he does not know, and that it is a tragedy that the world does not recognize this shortcoming in itself. As a scientist, I am humbled by the religious thought. As a philosopher, I am stunned by the elegant truth of the statement.
Regarding your point about scientists being primarily atheists, as a scientist and philosopher, I cannot disprove the existence of God (or Gods, depending on one's beliefs), so I do not claim that God does not exist! However, since there is no evidence that God does exist, I do not claim that either. I simply claim that there is no reason to deny anyone the freedom to be religious as it pleases them, insofar as it does not harm others. My own religious beliefs are private, as is the right of everyone in my country.
However, as a scientist and philosopher who respects religion, seeking knowledge and the truth are always the same thing to me, Davidadelong. Even if the newly acquired knowledge reveals falsehood (i.e. it's "negative information"), it is a valuable contribution to what tiny, infinitesimal bit of the relative "truth" we do know. Claiming to be knowledgeable about the "human condition" or the "universe" is hopelessly naive and egotistical, in my opinion. Such things are so vast as to be truly unknowable, which, to a religious person, makes them the domain of God or Gods. To a scientist, it makes them "complex" or "unsolvable". A philosopher may debate the complexity or depth of the unknowable as a pursuit. Regardless, that shouldn't stop us from trying to learn all that we can about them, again in my own opinion as a member of all three of the aforementioned groups: a scientist, a mildly religious man and a philosopher.
I know that many scientists (hard and soft), are flatly atheistic, and many are, to put it simply, sadly phobosophical, but I believe these are self-imposed limits that arise from fear of the unknown, internal conflict, and an unwillingnesss to accept the impossibility of success in their pursuits without invalidating them as a way of life, not defining properties of the scientific mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:16 AM May 15th, 2006 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I happen to agree with you about ones endeavor to learn all one can about many things. If a Person decides for themself that there is no god, then that would be a conclusion that the individual came to for themself. Since the god story depends entirely on faith perhaps these People that refuse to believe have placed their faith in other things. One could postulate that any one that doesn't believe in god is actually removing limits from themselves, and anyone that does believe in god is just following the historical myth placed to help control the slaves. A different point of view to be sure. I personaly am a spiritual Person, some have said a philosopher, a poet, and a Humanist. It has been said that all religions have been started because of the fear of the unknown, at least that is what the higher halls of learning say in regards to religious studies. I myself took as many classes as I could to learn as much as I could about the dynamics and psychology of religions. I do not understand your comment "but I believe these are self-imposed limits that arise from the fear of the unknown,". Historicaly speaking some of the most astounding discoveries have been made by People that refused to believe the dogma of religion, and were persecuted for it. So, due to historical evidence to the contrary, and a personal analytical decision of my own to reject all religious propaganda I have to disagree with you, and pose the exact opposite; perhaps those that cling to the belief in god are doing so out of fear, hedging their bets if you will, and are afraid to reach their own true potential without an unseen protector from the things that they can't see, and fear. The scientific mind can be a beautiful thing indeed, if the owner of that mind can or will think for themselves......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:54 AM May 15th, 2006 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"phobosophical?"
I laughed until my ribs hurt!
When are you going on tour, RandomMan?
Stand-up is your real vocation, though the paying crowds may be a bit thin, initially.
You sure as hell know how to write.
Scarier still, you know how to think before you write.
My girlfriend in Grenada would call you "formidable."
But then, she's an island girl, and has been known to exaggerate when it suits her purposes.
Looking forward to future installments... ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:45 PM May 15th, 2006 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
I do not understand your comment "but I believe these are self-imposed limits that arise from the fear of the unknown,". Historicaly speaking some of the most astounding discoveries have been made by People that refused to believe the dogma of religion, and were persecuted for it.
You've misunderstood me, Davidadelong, I don't mean to imply some defect in the non-religious mind, and I fully agree that people cling to a belief in god out of fear in many cases (it's love or respect in some others). However, I also believe that many people reject a belief in God out of fear.
I'm sure you know that no offense was intended, and that like you, I ultimately consider myself a humanist in my tendencies. I'm also what you would probably consider a "spiritual man" as well, I do not follow any organized religion or accept church dogma (that's where the slavery and persecution can start in some cases), but as I said, I have no reason to not believe in God, and I think that Jesus and various other "prophets" and writers had some fine ideas worth keeping around, although they're certainly not all from one particular religion. Of course, I'd be burned as a heretic by any Christian church for saying so, and beheaded for blasphemy in Islamic countries. Hence the reason that I don't accept organized religion or any dogma for myself. This, in my mind, does not mean that I cannot respect what the founders of those religions had to say. It's not an either-or proposition, as I see it.
What I was driving at was the fact that religion is not necessarily incompatible with science, it's just that it only comes from a scientific mind...
...if the owner of that mind can or will think for themselves
I couldn't agree more!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:48 PM May 15th, 2006 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Roy. I was just having fun with the Greek language!
I've been told to do stand-up before, but I invariably end up ranting about men's rights...apparently you can't be an entertainer today unless you lick the boots of feminism, and this is one escaped slave who refuses to comply, so it proved impossible to get a gig!
Grenada, huh? I'm guessing that feminism's not a real big element in her life, huh? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 01:05 PM May 15th, 2006 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
My Grenadian girlfriend is immune to feminism.
She's real smart.
'Nuf said?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 06:34 PM May 14th, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
John Doe:
I think I may have misread part of your comment - for some reason, I read what you were saying about scientists a bit backwards. I still object to your assertion that scientists (as academics) are "leftists" with a "liberal bias" for the reasons I stated, but I believe I misunderstood what you were saying about scientists "wanting to see evidence for outlandish claims": I thought it was an attack and that you meant that scientists were trying to "see" or "fabricate" evidence that wasn't there for biased, outlandish claims they were making because of their supposed "liberal bias", but I suspect that you actually meant this as praise for the skepticism of scientists when the non-scientists make silly claims. Am I right?
Ooops - I was following the line of reasoning from your claim of bias in academia, and assumed your comment on scientists was also a negative one.
I now see what you were trying to say - that scientists are more likely to question biased, outlandish stuff, not that they make stuff up to suit their biased, outlandish conclusions!
Why I didn't "get" that on my first read, I'll never know. My apologies for my misunderstanding of your comment. I still disagree with you on liberal bias and conservativism, I would guess, but I took your assessment of scientists all wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:16 PM May 14th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
There is a tribe in the Amazon, the Kanomamo.
Their entire logic is based on a mathematical system that has only TWO numbers ---
They are ---
ONE (1)
And, MORE THAN ONE (+1)
When advanced western thinkers can grasp this eloquent logic, then we will have no more wars.
Buy Neil Young's new CD --- "Living With War."
It's angry. And logical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, RandomMan, you did have me quite completely wrong. My experience of academia in general and scientists in particular is quite considerable and I do feel that most are somewhat left leaning in their politics. That's most, not all. Notice that I did not use any words like "socialist", "conservative", or "liberal", I am merely expressing my general and personal observation that overall their politics are towards the left of center rather than the right. This may or may not have anything at all to do with their research.
I suspect that you actually meant this as praise for the skepticism of scientists when the non-scientists make silly claims. Am I right?
Indeed you are, although a fair number of so-called scientists deserve a good quantity of approbrium too. Can I hear the words "cold fusion" whispered somewhere in the distance? And it's quite astonishing what moronic "research" is done in the name of psychology these days. Scientists are human, too, after all, despite their aspirations to discovering what they believe to be the truth. (No, I'm not a relativist either - science is about applying the scientific method; to test a theory, you have to have a theory in the first place. Many scientists' egos are often quite tied up in their favorites.)
--
Silence is the voice of complicity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 10:51 PM May 14th, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Academics --- i.e. tenured professors...
are the elite class in our society.
They cannot be fired from their jobs. They have no actual accountability for their "labour."
They have no measureable responsibility for how they spend their time.
And they all want to get as far away from the classroom as possible. (The "slum" of academia...)
They are, in fact, the modern equivalent of Egyptian Priests... above and beyond all accountibility.
But Americans need their faux-aristocracy, right?
Jeb Bush for President?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:30 PM May 14th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
JD, I sincerely hope I didn't offend you with my rant - as I said in my follow up, I gathered I had read you wrong. As I said therein, I agree that most "academics" do lean to the political left for reasons of intellectual freedom if nothing else. The neoconservative movement in American politics has a strong anti-scientific and anti-intellectual component to it: consider creationism, "intelligent design" and the muzzling of criticism in the lay press. For that reason alone, most philosophical people seem to have trouble supporting the "right wing", and since the choices are limited to one or the other, well...
I think you'll agree that the "leftist" element is concentrated more in the liberal arts faculties than the traditional sciences. It's certainly a bastion of feminist ideology and demagoguery these days, and the main reason I have nothing to do with academia today. The immense concentration of leftism in the liberal arts and social science faculties certainly gives the impression of an overall leftist leaning in that insular little world. However, I believe that most academic scientists are far too self-involved to pay much attention to the world beyond their labs. Whether it's ego or social incompetence has to be determined on an individual basis. Also, many scientists will cling to a single bright idea they had early in their careers and never attempt original thought again, for fear of never living up to their own self-image.
Surely you've seen how so many of them dress and have observed their almost stereotypically pathetic inability to deal effectively with other human beings, if you've ever attended a conference. Ego is most certainly also an issue: I've worked with Nobel laureates who couldn't add 2+2 because of their titanic self images.
Can I hear the words "cold fusion" whispered somewhere in the distance?
I used to do research in a related field, so I completely get your point. Cold fusion was the largest pile of crap ever to come out of the physical sciences, in my learned opinion.
I recall a doctoral thesis I once saw by a sociology candidate that had studied how many people ran stop signs and traffic lights as a function of "social factors" like "stressful events" in the news. I couldn't stop laughing, it was so ridiculous - that was why it was brought to my attention...so I totally understand why you and so many others believe that much of the research done today is moronic. Alot of it is, on top of the fact that in the sciences, it's frequently corporate-sellout slave-work by grad students pimped into such meaningless efforts by intellectually bankrupt supervisors looking to make a few bucks. In the social "sciences", it's often ideological junk-science disguised as research which is pumped out by the truckload. Some of the crap that passed my desk when I served as an editor for scientific journals was tragic beyond description.
It's been nice talking with you, and again, I hope my earlier mis-fire didn't cause undue offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No problem RandomMan, we're on the same wavelength.
Take care.
JD
--
Silence is the voice of complicity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc A. on 04:41 PM May 13th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
We have data on self defense at http://www.ncfmla.org/dv_data.html
It can be useful in drafting replies. Scroll down to "Self Defense Myth"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bull on 07:35 PM May 13th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think “radical” feminists use Mein Kampf as their operations manual?
“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.”
“The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”
“The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.”
“The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.”
When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
Quotes by Adolf Hitler
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bull on 09:56 PM May 13th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
My reply was intended for the article versus Marc's reply; my bad. I'm a guy, so, I can admit when I'm in error LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:48 AM May 14th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Marc - I was looking over the NCFM LA's website, and I followed a link to a San Bernadino County, CA Sherriff's domestic violence page. They have a "myths and facts" page which addresses DV and cites quite a bit of "data".
Much of that data is the usual tripe from feminist-controlled (and therefore biased) groups and f*cking idiots like Sen. Biden. However, here's the astonishing part: check out the top three myths.
That's a law enforcement agency actually acknowledging that men are a substantial proportion, as many as half, of the victims of DV, AND that VAWA is 100% for the benefit of women even though men are acknowledged to be a large proportion of the victims. In California, no less.
After years of having to fear all police as a man's enemy in domestic affairs, and believing that they were pretty much all cut from the same misandric cloth, I'm cautiously impressed with the fact that a law enforcement agency (albeit a small one) has finally gotten a part of the message through the unstoppable onslaught of feminist propaganda. It doesn't mean I'm going to run to the cops for protection anytime soon, but it is certainly refreshing to see such a balanced view at least given some space along with the usual man-bashing material.
Too bad they left this one out (NCFM's link doesn't work, so I'm cribbing):
Sommer, Reena (1994), "Male and female partner abuse: Testing a diathesis-stress model," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. The study was in two waves: the first was from 1989-1990 and included a random sample of 452 married or cohabiting women and 447 married or cohabiting men from Winnipeg, Canada; the second was from 1991-1992 and included 368 women and 369 men all of whom participated in the first wave. Subjects completed the CTS & other assessment instruments. 39.1% of women reported being physically aggressive (16.2% reporting having perpetrated severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their male partner. While 26.3% of men reported being physically aggressive (with 7.6% reporting perpetrating severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their female partner. Among the perpetrators of partner abuse, 34.8% of men and 40.1% of women reported observing their mothers hitting their fathers. Results indicate that 21% of "males' and 13% of females' partners required medical attention as a result of a partner abuse incident." Results also indicate that "10% of women and 15% of men perpetrated partner abuse in self defense."
Wait a sec, thanks to fathersforlife, I found a link. More specifically, the male results are here and the female results are here. Notice the MASSIVE difference in the "severe violence" category, and the predictors, which show a much larger neuroticism and substance abuse component for women.
(This might be old hat to some of you, but I hadn't gone through this study).
It's interesting, but hardly surprising, that in this climate of misandry, with a constant bombardment of "acceptable" and apparently even socially desirable woman-on-man violence all around us, that women are MORE THAN TWICE AS LIKELY to commit acts of "severe violence" against their partners (although women needed medical attention more often for the less "severe" violence the suffered). Also interesting is the fact that more women than men report observing their mothers hitting their fathers at least one generation ago, and that the numbers for female on male violence for a largely pre-feminist generation ALSO run around 38%. In short, the entire feminist "power" model and the Duluth model are patently false, as we all knew, and haven't the slightest basis in reality. It seems logical to assume that women have been more violent and vicious than men in the home for some time.
As someone said recently, if men got the same "gold stars" for beating the hell out of women as women currently get for beating the hell out of men, I guess they'd be doing it more often too, right? But it seems that this hasn't changed things much: women have been more violent than men in the home for at LEAST two generations, long before it became fashionable to assault, torture, rape and murder men for laughs on televisions and movie screens.
Still, on the subject of gold stars, these CA cops get a gold star from me for having the guts to at least try and present the truth about DV to some limited extent. Hopefully it translates into their DV policies to some extent.
Just to prove this is on topic, the study I'm referring to was completed by a female (Canadian, even), social sciences Ph.D. candidate, who used proper statistical methods in her analysis. Like I was saying above, sometimes solid science can come from the "social sciences", feminized and un-scientific though they may frequently be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 10:56 AM May 14th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks RandomMan for your excellent research!
Unfortunately, the federally funded DV Terrorism Network will not be much persuaded by facts.
(i.e. the irrefutable evidence of female domestic violence.... according to Duluth "women cannot provoke a man to violence..." Even if she is beating him over the head with a frying pan, stabbing him with a kitchen knife, or cutting off his penis while he's sleeping... it is ALL feminist self-defense, battered woman syndrome, the Evil Patriarchy made me do it, etc....)
The feminists have captured the high ground in the gender wars battlefield, using their best weapon --- CHIVALRY.
Men will continue to commit sepuku (hari kari) rather than define themselves as a "victim class."
Women are very smart when it comes to understanding how to manipulate men.
Ask Senator Joe Biden, Father of Our VAWA.
He's an expert on this subject!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc A. on 11:48 AM May 16th, 2006 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Random Man, yeah the San Bernardino County Sheriff's site is strong in that the first three entries give good data on male victims and debunk feminist myths, but then the rest of it repeats all the feminist half-truths and lies. It looks to me like what happened is all the feminist stuff was there for a long time, and then somebody at the Sheriff's office decided to add the 3 more recent items on female violence without changing the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 08:53 PM May 14th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
A recent example that is potentially feminist inspired science was in evidence on FOX recently:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195293,00.html
This piece maintains that on-line avatars, etc. using 'feminine' names receive more abuse than 'male' names.
Note that this study is to be published by the IEEE -- the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. The institute, normally, has high standards.
The premise of the study may be true. However, given the nature of some of the 'modern' definitions of abuse (essentially anything the abusee defines at the moment to be abuse), and given recent experience with on-line feminists (check out 'Darth Maggie -- aka Margaret' on MND), I believe a healthy skepticism is warranted.
Note that in Darth's case, her stupefying, hateful double standards produced some significant 'abuse'. The study, in counting the instances of 'abuse' would have ruled that a feminine name had encountered far more abuse than the male names. Superficially true, but utterly misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 06:16 PM May 15th, 2006 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
We live in a society where men are expected to make the first move... therefore someone who can be categorized as 'female' is going to see more folks approching her than someone categorized as 'male'.
Now... to make this a horrible thing all you need to do is define that normal process as abuse, viola!! instant headline.
Also... there are people that say things online that they never would say to another persons face, basically stupid horny kids. Defining such poor but technically harmless behavior as abuse is one more example of the dilution of a term to meaninglessness.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 06:47 PM May 15th, 2006 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
That's definitely the standard feminist plan in action, Dave - criminalize men (or at least define everything they do as "abuse" or "rape"), then do the same to masculinity and finally to boys. I'm surprised there's any male behavior left that hasn't got a prison term and a support order attached to it at this point, as I mentioned in another discussion a few days ago.
The fact that the male courting and mating behavior you're describing (and which feminists are bitching about, just for a change), is essential to the propagation of the species might have something to do with our falling birthrates, I'm sure you'd agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 10:12 AM May 15th, 2006 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
There was a time in our history that when a woman was raped there were those that said "She asked for it!" usually because of the way the woman dressed or behaved. That was an example of astounding stupidity.
This business of; "the man asked for it" is virtually the same thing. And is just as astoundingly stupid as the sentiment that any given woman "asked to be raped". No one ASKS to be violated, harmed or discriminated against. It happens because the perpetrators of such things know they can get by with it and practically no one will stand on the side of the victim.
Some years ago, at my workplace I was assaulted. Why? because I am a traditional Indian. I have long hair that I braid and wrap in buckskin, I wear traditional jewelry and my ears are pierced.
When the person (a woman) was asked why she assaulted me she said, and I quote; "Look at him. He asks for it...!" The woman got off with a verbal warning. A VERBAL WARNING!
When will this attitude end, that if someone, ANYONE is harmed we look for reasons that they may have contributed to their victimization?
No woman EVER asks to be raped. Verbally or otherwise. No member of any ethnic group asks to be harassed or assaulted, ever. And no MAN ever asks to be murdered by an abusive woman...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 06:38 PM May 15th, 2006 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
And one might add ---
No country asks to be "liberated" by occupiers?
Violence is violence, justifications aside....
(Politically incorrectly incomplete comment.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 06:15 PM May 16th, 2006 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately Roy violence is sometimes the only thing some will understand. Not that I am siding with our gov. Violence is indeed violence; no justifications can or will remove the aftermath of violence either. If we were indeed enlightened would we not make sure that when we did resort to violence that the lesson would be learned so that we would not have to resort to violence again? By the way, who on this site strives to be politically correct anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:15 PM May 16th, 2006 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
That was a hate crime that you experienced, Thundercloud, pure and simple. The fact that you didn't press a federal case over it when you had absolutely every right to is testament to the fact that you're a better man than most.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
