RADAR ALERT: Call the CDC Today, Tell Them to Stop Goofball Research

Don't women make attempts and threats of violence too? Is it being implied that men make more threats or attempts, or do or say things that could appear as such, than women? Or that women are more likely to perceive something as an threat? If neither is true, then I don't see how that necessarily affects the numbers they got. It would be better if there was also a breakdown for just attempts and/or threats, then we might have more justification for contacting them. For all I know, women are more likely to make threats than men!

Besides, hasn't other research shown there are more female victims than male (perhaps due to violence in lesbian relationships)? I think even some of the Conflict Tactics Scale studies, like by Strauss, have shown higher percentages of female victims than male. In fact I remember something about 28-30% are male. That's approximately what this CDC study shows - a little more than two thirds of the victims are women.

Matt or Scott, I'll need some more clarification and verification on this, before making a call or writing a letter. I hope the other guys will too.

-ax

Two thirds of the victims in the CDC study were women, if an (approximately) equal number of men and women were studied.

-ax

Ax said: "Besides, hasn't other research shown there are more female victims than male (perhaps due to violence in lesbian relationships)? I think even some of the Conflict Tactics Scale studies, like by Strauss, have shown higher percentages of female victims than male. In fact I remember something about 28-30% are male. That's approximately what this CDC study shows - a little more than two thirds of the victims are women"

No. The one that shows 38% is partly *crime* based. Anything that comes from the Department of Justice or that is co-sponsored by them is fully or partly crime based and is unreliable because it uses crime terminology in the surveys, which lowers the positive responses from male victims much more so than female victims becaus men still are less likely than women to see it as a crime when it happens to them. Straus, Gelles and others have repeatedly explained the unreliability of the Dept. of Justice data. The reliable studies are purely sociological surveys that use no crime terminology. Those are the studies found in Fiebert's bibliography, and they consistently show women commit and initiate domestic violence at least as often as men in heterosexual relationships.

The problem with this latest CDC study, or one of the problems, is that it counted any "unwanted sex" as automatically domestic violence, which is absolute nonsense. There is a big difference between unwanted and unconsensual sex. People have unwanted but consensual sex all the time when they give in to their partners' desires but don't really want to. That is still consensual. This study appears to have used that as a factor that they knew would bias the males because sexual "coercion" (being "pressured" but not forced to have unwanted sex) tends to happen more to women than men although it happens quite often to men too. (Sexuality & Culture, Summer 2000.)

RADAR is correct. This looks like another rigged, results-driven study.

Here's the email I sent them:

"Dear Dr. Gerberding:

I feel that the recent results of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey are possibly innacurate, due to a bias against men which is inherent in the wording of the survey.

One of the questions of the survey, asks the partner whether he or she has been subjected to "any unwanted sex". There is a big difference between unwanted and nonconsensual sex. People have unwanted but consensual sex all the time when they give in to their partners' desires but don't really want to. That is still consensual.

The question is biased against males because sexual "coercion" (being "pressured" but not forced to have unwanted sex) tends to happen more to women than men. However, since it is still considered by the designers of the survey to be "violence", the results indicate a disproportionately high percentage of female victims as compared to men.

Perhaps the CDC should redesign the survey and conduct it again, in light of the above, so that those who are in positions to create or change legislation in the area of domestic violence, are more likely to be able to operate on a firm foundation of unbiased data.

Thank you for your consideration."

-ax

From the text of the CDC report) --

"Intimate partner violence (IPV) is defined as threatened, attempted, or completed physical or sexual violence or emotional abuse by a current or former intimate partner."

Look at that first sentence and its definition of IPV. That is straight out of the radical feminist Duluth Model DV Industry dogma that qualifies a "dirty look" as domestic violence. "Emotional abuse" means asking - "Honey, where did this $1,200 credit card charge come from?"

The really insidious intent of this report is revealed in this paragraph:

"This report describes the results of that survey, which indicated that persons who report having experienced IPV during their lifetimes also are more likely to report current adverse health conditions and health risk behaviors. Although a causal link between IPV and adverse health conditions cannot be inferred from these results, they underscore the need for IPV assessment in health-care settings."

So, what is really being proposed is that doctors, nurses, and other health-care professionals shall be legally mandated to interrogate ("assess for IPV") every female who shows up for medical care.

The feminists are quietly but aggressively pushing for these "mandatory reporting" laws.

As part of any intake process, the woman will be asked -- "Honey, has your husband ever made you feel uncomfortable?"

What it will ultimately mean is that if a man's wife or partner goes in for a medical check-up, he will get a visit from the local feminist DV agency to inquire about his "abusive" behavior.

That means that any woman that is malicious or just plain stupid enough to say "sometimes he scares me" has effectively made her mate into an abuser via coercion -- and possibly malicious intent -- by the feminist gestapo that runs this society. Women have taken it too far and men have supported them in their klan-like tactics.

If anyone did not think before that we live in a totalitarian feminazi state they do now. I fear not only for the men that are targeted but for women that may have said "He yells sometimes.." jokingly only to find out the police is now on the way to their home to interrogate their partner.

This must end...and soon.

----------
Mr. Reality's new story - Sir Alan: Why I have to think twice before employing a woman

There's nothing wrong with commenting on it, but we also need guys to call or email them. It only takes a few minutes.
-ax

Therefore you have no idea what any of the posters here have or haven't done unless they choose to advertise their letters which I am assuming many -- such as myself -- choose not to do.

Don't just assume noone has done anything simply because they don't advertise it here.

----------
Mr. Reality's new story - Sir Alan: Why I have to think twice before employing a woman

I just called and sent E-mails.

I am merely extolling more guys to send something or call.

I am becoming more and more convinced, day by day as I visit this board, that your computer screen must have dots on it that aren't on everyone else's. It's as if you see words that aren't there. Are you sure there's not some really small ants, or perhaps poppyseeds, on your screen?

-ax

I am merely extolling more guys to send something or call.

In truth you have no idea what many of the men here HAVE and HAVE NOT been doing since all you "can see" is the comments made on this forum. Thus your comment was out of place.

As I stated beforehand don't assume noone is doing anything because they don't report it to "Axolotl on the MANN boards."

Worry about what YOU'RE doing and less about what you believe others have or haven't done.

Hopefully the other circus act won't come online and start cheerleading.

----------
Mr. Reality's new story - Sir Alan: Why I have to think twice before employing a woman

Why do you believe, that if I am trying to get some guys to do something, that that means I am "assuming no-one has done it?"

Okay, I'll couch it in your terms: "Hey guys, if you haven't already sent something, please do so!"

There.
Are you happy?
Will you be able to sleep now?

Douse yourself with cool water, and assume the lotus position. Maybe then your pulse rate will fall below 240.

-ax

I do. You also failed to "worry about what Ax is doing" and continue telling others what they should be doing. Even though you have no idea whether they did something or not.

You'll learn someday...hopefully.

----------
Mr. Reality's new story - Sir Alan: Why I have to think twice before employing a woman

"Hopefully the other circus act won't come online and start cheerleading"

I decided not to engage because its none of my business but I do feel as if I've been alienated. Am I not worthy of such debate? Am I simply the MANN peon? What about ME!!! I feel ignored and disrespected. What did I ever do to deserve such abuse? I finish this post while I wipe the tears from my eyes.

...........................................................

"Oh the gal I'm to marry
Is a bow-legged sow
I've been soaking' up drink like a sponge"

[Rolling Stones]