Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:45 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1417

Heres what one of the greatest linguist, paradigm architects of the century has to say about the current state of women-as-victim propaganda..and the lace curtain against male friendly media attention!!

Quote:
<b>"Our hypothesis is that worthy victims will be featured prominently and dramatically, that they will be humanized, and that their victimization will receive the detail and context in story construction that will generate reader interest and sympathetic emotions. In contrast, unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and little context that will excite and enrage."</b>

—E. S. Herman and N. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent:1



I know Ian can disagree with me, but with Noam Chomsky.........?!?!?!?!

What do i have to say? (I have mostly cut and pasted).......I simply say that men (and boys) have become the designated 'unworthy victims' that chompsky refers to........



Quote:
Dissident Domestic Violence Experts Announce Ground-Breaking Conference: 'From Ideology to Inclusion'

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=778

As I've noted on many occasions, <b>the domestic violence establishment is not telling us the full truth about domestic violence, and many destructive family law and criminal law policies have been based on misinformation. </b>

Research clearly establishes that <b>women are frequently the aggressors in domestic combat, often employing the element of surprise and weapons to compensate for men's strength. Yet arrest and prosecution policies are stacked against men, as is the public dialogue on this important issue. Perhaps worst of all, misguided women's groups' distortion of the domestic violence issue has been the leading impediment to passing shared parenting legislation.</b>


"The founding members of NFVLRC have recognized for some time that <b>current polices are politically driven rather being based on scientifically sound information, and are seeking to change them. As a result of flawed policies, many children are being denied the same range of services simply because of their victimized parent's gender.</b> Current policies have in many instances also resulted in a loss of civil liberties, and research indicates that they have sometimes resulted in increased danger to victims...NFVLRC believes that unless domestic and family violence policies are reformed, victims, children and future generations will continue to suffer from this social problem."

<b>Last year over 50 of these authorities signed a letter urging the California legislature to stop the state's policy of excluding male victims and their children from domestic violence services. </b>


http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/NFVLRC_2008. ... _flier.pdf


"It should be pointed out that <b>the National Violence Against Women Survey was designed, conducted and analyzed by feminist researchers, </b>whose intentions from start to finish were to make the case that violence against female intimate partners is a serious social problem, and one that is much more serious than violence against male intimate partners. This, I believe, lends quite a bit of added credibility to Felson's findings."

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
TV News Reports Woman's Excuse for Her Domestic Violence Even Before It Mentions the Violence

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1509

When women commit domestic violence, we see that she a reason to be violent (and thus to be excused).

Some of my earliest memories in childhood (I was two or three y/o) are of my mother throwing a coffee cup at the wall near where my father was having breakfast (she, of course, had a resson for her violence and thus my father can be blamed for the violence that my mother perpetrated).


Quote:
Husband wakes to hot grease from wife

Tampa, Florida - Tanesha Young, 24, thought her husband was cheating on her, so she poured hot grease all over him. That's according to a report from Tampa Police.

After Antone Neely fell asleep, Young poured hot grease on him that burned the majority of his body.

Young is being held without bond at the Hillsborough County Jail and has been charged with aggravated battery with great bodily harm.

The husband remains at Tampa General Hospital.




And no mention oof Domestic Violence (is that so we can continue to pretend that men are always at fault?)...

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
My, you get upset easily. Still.

1) I'm not wedded to Noam's work, not 1%, and can't recall reading any of it. That aside, his quote appears to be completely unrelated to the issue of the relative severity of DV, so it is irrelevant.

2) Most of what you posted isn't research but the opinion of an advocacy group you like. Super! But so what.

3) Two articles are mentioned. One has selective quotes that don't really iluminate the issue at all--just says men or women can be violent, dur--and the other has an abstract attached and concludes,

"Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5)."

This requires some analysis. YOU might want to look into the details before trumpeting the results, however, I will remind you of a story from med school when I was tasked with researching injury risks. I found that a lot of the reported "abuse" of women included telling them they were fat, etc, which may have been mean, or may have been intended to help, but for sure doesn't deserve to be lumped into violence IMHO. I threw out most of the "research."

Here, we have similar potential for problems. What is the threshold for violence? Screaming a lot? Contact? Intent? Force? What counts? What countED in the study? Heck, my spousal equivalent side kicked me and hurt my elbow during our relationship, but we were both kareteka and he was showing affection actually, and it was unintentional. (PS: male! :) ) Anyway, if women are more often "violent" in nonreciprocal relationships, does that mean that they pushed the men a few times? Stabbed them? Punched them? Shot them? Makes a difference. A person who gets pushed may actually be the controlling person in the relationship. We need to look at intensity not just number. The higher male injury rate is worth pointing out, but again, what injuries? A bruise? A break? Death? It matters. I will point out a 1.3x risk is a minimal difference, but I'd be very interesting in finding out what the relative rate of ER requiring, serious, and fatal attacks are between the genders. Have that data? SHOULDN'T YOU??

4) Lastly, if you EVER, ever find a quote from me saying anything OTHER than agreeing that violence in intimate relationships is always wrong, should be prosecuted fairly, and can come from both men and women, I'll donate you my kidney. I have always been fair and reasonable about this and you merely delight in vaguely implying I'm antimale because it feeds into your fetish about being a persecuted member of society. PROVE IT.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
Oh--and a lot of people would look at that last article about the grease attack and see something else. YOU believe the world is out to excuse violent women and blame innocent men, so you see an excuse; a lot of people, on the other hand, believe the media is out to cast women as irrational, jealous, insecure, compulsive and hormonal as all heck. So, maybe it was antimale to lead in with an "excuse," but maybe it was sexist / antifemale to lead in with a line about how touchy and suspicious and vindictive women are. Notice they said she thought she was being cheated on, not that she was--for one.

And heck, all sorts of "weird news" ministories like this emphasize the tawdry details. Haven't you watched any daytime television in the last ten years? The infidelity and violence rises to the top--its sales, not maneating rage, responsible.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 329
Location: Los Angeles,CA USA
IJ wrote:
Oh--and a lot of people would look at that last article about the grease attack and see something else. YOU believe the world is out to excuse violent women and blame innocent men, so you see an excuse; a lot of people, on the other hand, believe the media is out to cast women as irrational, jealous, insecure, compulsive and hormonal as all heck. So, maybe it was antimale to lead in with an "excuse," but maybe it was sexist / antifemale to lead in with a line about how touchy and suspicious and vindictive women are. Notice they said she thought she was being cheated on, not that she was--for one.

And heck, all sorts of "weird news" ministories like this emphasize the tawdry details. Haven't you watched any daytime television in the last ten years? The infidelity and violence rises to the top--its sales, not maneating rage, responsible.


I think no one would deny that women get the lion's share of sympathy, weather from the media, the general public or the courts in domestic violence cases. In other words, if a woman initiates violence (and it DOESN'T matter what it is, a slap in the face, a burn with an iron, a thrown glass, pot, plate, spear) and the man responds with self defense resulting in the woman being injured, who's going to jail?

I have a close friend who used to show up to work with burns, scars, bruises etc. His wife at the time would get drunk and go on rampages; He often took the brunt of her violent rage. I got a call from him with her screaming in the background one time. That was the point when I started to really believe his stories about her.

Of course you'll dismiss all this as being one, isolated, anecdotal accounting. But its not. No way. Another friend, a councilor, has helped quite a few couples with domestic violence issues. Well, helped them separate at once. A violent man is far more dangerous, agreed, and deserves what he gets, if caught. But women who instigate reciprocated violence, or just perpetrate violence themselves get away with it for the most part. No one wants to talk about it. My friend, for example, never struck back out of male defrance to the female gender, and the code of "never hit a woman".

Next time she won't be so lucky, but then the guy will spend ten years in the clink, so she'll win again.

_________________
"Well, let's get to the rat killing..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
NEB wrote:
A violent man is far more dangerous, agreed, and deserves what he gets, if caught. But women who instigate reciprocated violence, or just perpetrate violence themselves get away with it for the most part.


NEB, not trying to split hairs here.

my concern is the mythology we have created.

1) Domestic violence has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with Violence (DV stats have indicated that violence is most prevalent in lesbian relationships where there is no man to blame).

2) Women are smaller than men ON AVERAGE. That does not mean that all men are bigger than all women. Many men and women are evenly matched and others have the woman exceeding the man in power & weight.

3) Women can do everything men can do (and that includes the good as well as the bad). Just cuz we have created a mythology that women are always the victim (and likewise, men are always the oppressor) does not make it so.

4) Women, while smaller on average, tend to use weapons & surprise as their mo. While a man might attack his So while she is awake, the women will tend to attack their man while he is sleeping, use a weapon, or use poison. Thus, they make up for discrepancies of size by surprise, weapons, poisons.

5) DV shelters exist all over this country for women and almost nowhere for men (since we have created the myth that men are not DV victims, ever, even when the man is smaller or when the woman uses a weapon or attacks him in his sleep) not that we should embrace empathy for men as we have done for women. (Ian would have you believe he supports equality, but he does not have equal empathy for men as for women-I know this cuz i was raised as a feminist, still support feminism to the extent that it supports TRUE equality for men as well as women).

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
NEB, did your acquaintance take his evidence of abuse to the police and get ignored? Because that would be truly noteworthy. Maybe women utilize the police more often when injured; that doesn't, in itself, indicate any bias, except their own.

ATH, can you reference your claims that women tend to use weapons and surprise? That their DV is frequently characterized by poisonings? And that lesbian relationships are the most violent? I'd be interested to see the quality of the references you can produce. I'll believe any good data I see.

As for your claim I'm not empathetic toward male victims of attack, that's nonsense. I merely won't share in your delusion that there's an antistraightwhitemale holocaust going on. You interpret that as not caring if men are beaten. Sounds like the hysterics of the feminists you critique.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Hey Ian,

Never mentioned a holocaust, but i did notice that straight white males have been excluded from the OFFICIAL victims list created by hysterical myopic haters and yup i dare to stand up and say I am male, straight, white and proud and see no need to change that (I was raised on a steady diet of liberalism and progressivism). We straight white males have been credited on the oppressor list (oh wait, we are the oppressor list, outside of straight white males, there are no other oppressors that rate mention).

Now, while it may be true that men are the majority leaders of the country, men also make up the vast majority of the homeless.

That you seek evidence is commendable (dont just rely on your prejudices; check out the evidence).

http://www.batteredmen.com/batresrh.htm

Every year, 1,510,455 women and 834,732 men are victims of physical violence by an intimate. This is according to a

Nov. 1998 Department of Justice/Centers for Disease Prevention and Control report on the National Violence Against Women Survey.

What does that mean? Every 37.8 seconds, somewhere in America a man is battered. Every 20.9 seconds, somewhere in America a woman is battered.

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Thank you Ian (hope you are enjoying spring) for doing what so few would do...

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is sexist in its name and in its application. It is, in fact, unconstitutional, but resolving issues of constitutionality can take years if not decades.

I am gonna go out on a limb here and assume we are all equally concerned with protecting men as women and yet the act of congress was not the Violence against people act, it was instead an EXCLUSIVE act that ignored violence against men and focused EXCLUSIVELY on the violence against women (until they were sued for sexism which is still illegal even if you do it to men).

Now, if we refuse to admit that violence against men in the home exists, how are we gonna see it?

If we create a mythology that only women are victims of violence in the home, HOW do we expect battered men to come forward? To report what? To report a crime that the federal government isn't even willing to admit exists?

Such battered men would NOT be taken seriously much of the time; clearly, they (and their children) get turned away from all the battered women's shelters (which would be fine if there were an appropriate number of shelters for battered men).

If men who report being battered are NOT taken seriously, then it would seem that large numbers of battered men's stories have been ignored (and thus have been ignored by the stats as well).

When I was young (20 to 30 years ago), DV was considered a hidden epidemic (back then very few battered women's shelters existed and ER doc had no training with regard to DV).

I suggest that, in some ways (not in every way the same, but similar), we do have a hidden problem. The promoters of the VAWA act, our VP being one of them, IGNORED the violence that men face in their own homes.

The VAWA act created funding for education of all kinds of public servants, like police & judges & ER docs. The VAWA act helped promulgate a mythology surrounding DV (that only men were responsible and that only women were victims).

What kind of training do ER`docs get where yo live, Ian? Are they trained to see only women as victims and only men as the abusers? If so, that is sexist and if saying that makes me shrill like a feminist, then so be it.

And here is the kicker, IAN, if you are still listening. Let us assume that the stats of 2 to 1 ratio of women to men victims of DV are not right and in fact there were 10 women victims of DV for every one male DV victim.

Would that justify our ignoring male victims of DV (and their children-men often stay in abusive relationships to protect the children just like women victims)?

thanks again to our infinitely patient moderator

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why Women Assault
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Quote:
College Women Who Initiate Assaults on their Male Partners and the Reasons Offered for Such Behavior.

http://www.batteredmen.com/fiebertg.htm

Responses from 978 female college women indicate that, within a 5-year period, 29% (n=285) admitted to physical aggression against their male partners. Younger women in their 20s were significantly more likely to aggress physically than women who were 30 years and above.

National Family Violence Surveys (Straus & Kaufman-Kantor, 1994) that indicates that from 1975 to 1992 severe assaults by men toward women have decreased, while the rate of assaults by women have remained the same.


Thus, men's violence has been addressed and has decreased and women's violence has been ignored and it stayed the same.

Quote:
McLeod (1984) reported (6,200 cases of domestic assault in Detroit) that women were three times as more likely than men to use weapons. In a similar vein, a look at the type of assault reported in the most recent National Violence Against Women survey (Hoff, 1999) shows that men are more likely than women to experience serious assault by being hit with an object, threatened with a knife or being knifed. When one combines the more serious forms of assault (hit with an object, beat up, threatened with a weapon, victim of a weapon) 96.8 percent of the women assaulted and 90.5 percent of the men assaulted experienced one of these dangerous forms of assault.

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
Whew! Lots of stuff. Comments:

1) What "official list" is created by "hysterical myopic haters?"
2) I looked at your link and at the study it cites. Worth noting:

52% of women were assaulted by an adult caretaker in youth. What does that mean, "assaulted?" My step mother slapped me once, and that's been my lifetime caretaker abuse experience. But I'd be among the abused, right? One has to ask what qualifies / what were the methods?

Yes, 25% of women, 8% of men reported lifetime abuse and and estimated 1.5 million women, 0.8 million men were abused in the last year.

39 and 25% of men were injured in the last assault. What kind of injury? Only 1/3 of the raped women required medical care. Why? I'd say ANYONE who was raped needs contraceptive / STD counseling and or treatment.

1 in 6 women (18%) had been raped; 1 in 33 (3%) men had been.

The TOTAL violence chart indicates men suffer more than women. Trumpet that?

TWICE as many native americans had been attacked as whites. FIVE times as often as asians. Why have you been unwilling to sympathize with these overlooked victims?

I'll just quote this one: "It is important to note that differences between women’s and men’s rates of physical assault by an intimate partner become greater as the seriousness of the assault increases. For example, women were two to three times more likely than men to report that an inti- mate partner threw something that
could hurt or pushed, grabbed, or shoved them. However, they were 7 to 14 times more likely to report that an intimate partner beat them up, choked or tried to drown them, threatened them with a gun, or actually used a gun on them (see exhibit 8)." I'm not sure this supports your claim that women are more prone to using weapons. That claim was made based on a sample in Detroit; obviously this varies, but I think one has to favor the national survey.

Here's another: "Violence against women is primarily male violence. The survey
also found that most violence perpe- trated against adults is perpetrated by males: 93 percent of the women and 86 percent of the men who were raped and/or physically assaulted since the age of 18 were assaulted by a male. In comparison only 11 percent of these women and 23 percent of these men were assaulted by a female (see exhibit 10)."

This fact affects other reporting in the survey, as explained: "It is important to note that because women are prima- rily raped and physically assaulted by intimate partners, the injury and medi- cal utilization estimates for women presented in exhibits 13 and 14 pertain mostly to rapes and physical assaults perpetrated by current and former hus- bands, cohabiting partners, dates, and boyfriends. Because men are primarily raped and physically assaulted by male strangers and acquaintances, the injury and medical utilization estimates for men pertain primarily to violence perpetrated by men other than intimate partners."

Feel free to also just look at the conclusions, which include the observations that DV is primarily male on female, and that females are significantly more likely to be injured when it occurs.

That should round out the picture you painted a little bit. As for some of your other comments, some of them are a bit much, right? For example:

"HOW do we expect battered men to come forward? To report what? To report a crime that the federal government isn't even willing to admit exists?"

Wait, are you saying the federal government believes that a female can push, punch, stab, beat, or poison her mate at will? REALLY? This is a good example of your hyperbole and how it wastes time and annoys people who might otherwise listen to you. The federal gov't didn't say that; they passed a law about male on female violence. They're also embroiled in getting back AIG bonuses while we passed a 700 billion stimulus package and bailed out the financial industry and the fed just purchased a TRILLION in securities. That doesn't mean all those other dollars were perfectly spent or that they would claim they were. Why not make the more limited, but true, claim: that female on male violence is underappreciated by our country and that the response hasn't been proportional? Simultaneously, admit how we got there: men are usually more physically capable, men more often control the finances and ability to leave a relationship, men kill far more often, men attack more often, and men injure more often. I'll second your motion when it calms down a bit.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Ian,


That likely is not the best reference (it was one of the first i found).....Thanks for being patient and I hope the rest of your weekend to be stellar :)

I'm off to ride the mountain bike and try to keep up with a gaggle of twenty somethings (and no we do NOT have real mountains in Tallahassee, but I have heard they are among the largest hills in all of Florida. I was supposed to go ride 68 miles today (the longest I had ever ridden was 49 miles), but got a reprieve last night when they suggested we ride off road instead.

I'll be thinking good thoughts about you and our esteemed moderators (plural) and GM while out riding. I wish everyone well and cannot thank everyone enough for taking the time to discuss what is among the most difficult issues of our day (for those who struggle with tough issues like these).

This first reference is interesting cuz it does NOT come from some men's rights web site, but from LEO organizations. The officer who wrote this article is from Qunincy, MA

The 2nd one is of particular note as well since it is kind of hard to refute since it is NOT one study of DV, but a study of over 247 studies of DV.

The following may be of greater interest and/or value:

you may be familiar with the terminology, but for anyone else....IPV intimate partner violence

http://www.policeone.com/writers/column ... -violence/

Quote:
selected excerpts from Exploring law enforcement's response to "intimate partner violence"

...which explores, among other issues, four “problematic views” of why law enforcement officers “often dislike, resist responding to, or are easily frustrated by intimate partner violence (IPV) calls…”

An Implicit Gender Bias

Some states have provided “primary or dominant aggressor” laws and IPV training programs that are based on what the POPIPV refers to as “gender clues.” The intent of the “gender clues” is to suggest to officers which gender is the offender. These primary or dominant aggressor laws or training imply that when there is little physical evidence or it is difficult to determine who is guilty, the officers should make an arrest based on the difference in size and strength of the partners or which partner of the two appears most fearful.


A U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) funded study documents a high rate of IPV conviction for females arrested and a much lower conviction rate for males. This may demonstrate that officers continue to arrest females based on traditional and proper “probable cause” but they arrest males based on IPV “gender clues” and an IPV training curriculum that creates a gender bias about who is guilty and who is innocent. That may be coupled with the hypothesis by IPV trainers that all of these incidents will become a serious problem for females.


Of the 461 incidents reviewed in the POPIPV, the authors report only a small handful of officers, some of them female, that suggest serious victimization is ignored or that there is “victim blaming” by the officer. The POPIPV seems to document that these perceptions appear to differ depending on the officer and is not a problem induced by an institutional bias.


There are now an ever growing number of studies that document the fact that females can often be as assertive and aggressive in IPV incidents as males. A 2004 NIJ Journal documents that females often initiate IPV. The POPIPV documents that not once did the officers arrest a female.


http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Quote:
REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach

Last updated: February 2009


SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 247 scholarly investigations: 188 empirical studies and 59 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 240,200.

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
A little precision can go a long way. What is a "much lower conviction rate" and how many is "some states?" How where the 416 events reviewed by the POIPV (the what?) selected, such that a female was never arrested? How many men were arrested? What does it mean that females "can often be as assertive and aggressive," and what does "females often initiate IPV" mean? That when men do injure, the woman started it?

It's also worth reading through some of the references in the annotated bibliography. There's a wide mix of studies and the violence is rarely defined. One early on notes that women slap or throw things but that men more often beat up or strangle their victims. It doesn't appear that any methdology is listed, ie, how were these papers selected, and are the included reviews duplicative of the other works listed? What papers were excluded, if any? Were there criteria for selection?

I don't doubt, ATH, that there's a bias against men in these matters (as there appears to be for custody issues). But it is difficult to come across real pictures of what is happening from these relationships from aggregate numbers. For example, back in 1998 I was asked to review the medical literature on injury to select questions that would be used in a health questionnaire to identify at risk persons. I thought the literature on abuse (most of it fingered men significantly more than women) was pretty dumb and didn't paint a real picture of what was happening. Abuse sometimes meant that a person called their mate fat--what does that mean? What if it's true, and it's a statement of concern? What if the person has let themselves go and is no longer the person their partner agreed to live with forever and they have intimacy issues because of it? There are so many ways that is not "abuse," and the study in question had these aggregate data that made it hard to tell whether people were getting seriously abused or whether it just meant most us us aren't continually pampered and praised from birth to death. As they teach us in evidence based medicine sections, the methods section is key, and we haven't seen ANY methods sections except the one in the survey I highlighted items from above. And if we want black and white, well, we still have the homicide rates. However you feel about them, I think they're clearly the most objective and least likely to be corrupted info we have. It pertains only to the worst violence, but then, that is the most important violence to consider.

Keep in mind that I ALWAYS believe women and men should be treated equally, that no situation should be prejudged by the police or legal system, and that no one should be abused.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Gay bashing ain't so bad

Right? let's go back 50 or a hundred years and check out the research.

What do statistics and studies of gay bashing from 50 or a hundred years ago say about gay bashing?

It wasn't so bad. Or it did not exist, Right?

Of course no one was even asking the right questions back then?

If no one did research about gay bashing, then I guess gay bashing just did not exist until some researcher studied it, right?

Now, if there is no reported gay bashing, then it must not exist, right?

That men DO NOT report their beatings is not the same as saying that the beating of men by their so's does not exist, it merely means that thy are not reported or not studied.

If a woman poisons her husband and it is reported as death of natural causes, I guess it is non-existent. We as a a society ASSUME that women do not kill their husbands and thus we ASSUME that the dead men we find were NOT killed by their wives/so's and thus the cause of death i often not investigated with the thought that maybe it wasn't natural causes or accidental, but maybe foul play.

Quote:
52% of women were assaulted by an adult caretaker in youth. What does that mean, "assaulted?" My step mother slapped me once, and that's been my lifetime caretaker abuse experience. But I'd be among the abused, right? One has to ask what qualifies / what were the methods?


Yes, Ian, I'll have to agree that feminist definitions of assault and rape are vague and undefined and Ill argue for purposes of disinformation, not for clarity sake.

For example, the stats that have been used to show that 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 women have been raped are so vague in their definitions that many of the women whom feminist have defined as being raped actually went back to living with their supposed rapist for months and years (and while this might happen every once in a while the prevalence with which this occurs is impossible).

The studies and stats that have been used to show that men do less housework than women typically EXCLUDE the types of housework that men do most frequently on a cultural basis.

These studies should have the headline, "Men do little or no housework when we ignore or overlook housework traditionally done by men".

My point is simply that when we ignore the good men do, it sure looks like men are bad people.

And conversely, when we ignore the bad women do, it sure looks like women are just full of sugar and spice and everything nice, when the truth is far from it.

We may be great at excusing women's bad deeds and we may be equally successful at refusing to empathize with anything we do not like that men do, but the evidence is in that men are not treated equally in this society.

That is why:

1) Much higher incarceration rates for men (but let's blame the victim since it is men).

2) Women attempt suicide more often than men, men KILL themselves more often than women (but let's blame the victim since it is men).

3) While we fret over women earning less than men, we overlook the FACT that men die on the job 92.4% of the time (where I come from, equal work deserving of equal pay is EQUALLY dangerous, not far less dangerous (but let's blame the victim since it is men).

4) While some claim oppression of women, they are eager to ignore the FACT that men live shorter lives than women by an average of 5 to 7 years (this has not always been the case, it has come in being only recently and for some strange reason, many want to blame the victim and the victims are male in this case).

5) Many want to get excited because there are fewer women in math/science careers and educational paths, but they tend to ignore that boys/men drop out of high school and college in greater numbers such that women outnumber men in higher education (but let's blame the victim since it is men).

6) There are more men at the top of society. Few women have been CEO's and presidents, but men make up the vast majority of the homeless. If looking up gets you upset to see o few women at the top, make sure you do not look down and see how many men are at the bottom (but let's blame the victim since it is men).

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 801
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Straight from the gay lesbian times....

http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=10134

Male rape: when Mr. Nice turns nasty

Quote:
Men less likely to report rape

Often in male rape cases, though, it’s the male victims’ perception of their own behavior or actions during the assault that leads male rape to be so grossly underreported.

Paul Sussman has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology and works in the area of sexuality, sexual orientation, and violence and trauma. Sussman suggests there is a series of events or variables that are different for male victims of rape than for female victims of rape.

“First of all, when we think of rape, we generally think of women,” Sussman says. “And so our services are generally set up to treat women victims. Men might not even know there are resources for them. Secondly, often men don’t even think in terms of male rape victim, and so it might not even occur to them that they were a victim of rape, per se.”

Physical strength not a factor in avoiding rape

Gay rape myths

Myth 10: Male victims don’t suffer as much as female victims
All victims suffer, and the variables that may contribute to the trauma experienced vary a great deal. And while male victims are not at risk of pregnancy, there is a much higher risk of internal damage and tearing, and, with that, comes a higher possible HIV-transmission risk.


When a man and woman are drunk and have sex, Why is he assumed to be the aggressor and she the innocent victim? I guess when you are a man the presumption of innocence goes out the window.

if a woman has sex with a man who is passed out, how often is she convicted of rape if he is not taught that he can be raped?

Quote:
Society is becoming increasingly aware of male rape. However, experts believe that current male rape statistics vastly under-represent the actual number of males age 12 and over who are raped each year. Rape crisis counselors estimate that while only one in 50 raped women report the crime to the police, the rates of under-reporting among men are even higher (Brochman, 1991). Until the mid-1980s, most literature discussed this violent crime in the context of women only. The lack of tracking of sexual crimes against men and the lack of research about the effects of male rape are indicative of the attitude held by society at large -- that while male rape occurs, it is not an acceptable topic for discussion.

http://www.rape.co.za/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=64

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group