I don’t know how and why it happened but the original post of the recent DV debate seems to be missing on A Voice for Men and so my comments on the topic are gone too. (The current link) I will be commenting here from now on :|
It’s evident that the debate boils down to Independent Statistics vs Feminist Statistics. I think it’s a no-brainer already since if one side is politically and monetarily interested in different results than independent researchers then their “statistics” don’t have any credibility from the get-go. Independent researchers of DV are not interested in skewing the results, but feminists are, so if there’s a difference in findings it’s clear who’s cheating. I think there’s not much to debate here, but nevertheless I’ll analyze manboobz’ response, and man, this will be a monster of an article.
“your argument depends on a highly selective reading of the scientific literature on DV”
Not unlike your argument, David…
“You’ve ignored the serious methodological flaws of the studies you cite”
We all know how feminist studies are made, so let’s not even go there. Methodological flaws? You mean like when a “researcher” goes into a battered women’s shelter and ask the women there wassup, and then she reports that all victims of DV are women?
“and drawn conclusions from the research that the researchers themselves have stated explicitly are completely false”
I very much doubt that any researcher in any field of science ever published a study in which he presented his findings and then stated they are false, but with some strange twist of trickery he then insisted that they are right.
“Anyone looking into the vast literature on the subject will be struck at once by the radically different conclusions researchers have drawn from their data.”
Of course. We have just arrived to the point where I began this post: independent vs feminist research, ie. disinterested vs interested “research”.
“One group of studies, the one that you relied on almost exclusively, advances an idea called “gender symmetry.” That is, they seem to show that men and women start fights, and land blows, in roughly equal percentages.”
How strange… Are we all human beings? Are we all capable of violence? Is it possible that women are not better than men?
“A second, and much larger, group of studies, finds men responsible for the overwhelming majority of DV.”
Nah. Women are better, men are scum. Women are angels, men are devils. And this is objective scientific research!
“There’s a good reason why we should take these studies more seriously than the ones you cited. Most of the “gender symmetry” studies are surveys conducted using a methodologically flawed research tool called the Conflict Tactics Scale”
With all due respect, I honestly feel we shouldn’t start an argument about whose methodology is (more) flawed. Feminist “researchers” usually don’t ask women if they were violent and most of the times don’t ask any men at all. And it’s not uncommon for them to use sample groups already influenced and/or to ask loaded questions. All these facts are well known. OTOH most of the critics of the CTS are feminists themselves.
Let’s look into this CTS: “the CTS has since been widely used by scientists and scholars. As of 2000, the CTS has been used in over 70,000 empirical studies and about 400 peer reviewed scientific or scholarly papers, including longitudinal birth-cohort studies; at least ten books reporting results based on the CTS were published.” (source) It’s easy to see that it’s not some small group of misogynists who use the CTS but the very majority of all the independent researchers.
“Researchers using the CTS ask survey respondents about an assortment of specific acts of violence. What the CTS doesn’t ask about are the causes, contexts, or consequences of these acts of violence.”
Well, yeah, because “acts of violence” are objective facts while “causes, contexts, or consequences” are subjective matters blurred by feelings, cognitive dissonances, memory distortions and a host of other things. Science deals with facts, not feelings. If you try to find out who commits violence you have to ask who commits violence, not how anyone felt at the time or what the consequences turned out to be. And to be frank, if one consideres the CTS to be flawed, it’s just as possible that it’s all the better this way for women. Because the assumption that it would favor women if you’d take into consideration the causes and contexts is a sexist one based on nothing but victorian belief in the goodness of women.
On a side note, “cause” is a dodgy business in itself because we can see every day that if the perpetrator is a woman, the media tries to find justifiable causes for her, but if the perp is a male then nothing in the world is an acceptable cause, most of the times not even self defense.
“As a result, one critic notes, the CTS…”
And here comes a ton of loaded bullshit I won’t quote. Typical feminist drivel about exactly what I said in the previous paragraph about “causes”. “Women only commit DV in self-defense”, yeah-yeah, we’ve all heard that a thousand times.
Just one interesting example though: “It combines categories such as “hitting” and “trying to hit” despite the important difference between them.” What is that difference exactly? If she tries to hit me but I step back and her punch misses then she’s not violent? Come on, gtfo.
“a number of studies show that men are far more likely to use domestic violence to control their victim”
I very much doubt that feminist researchers ever asked men “did you hit her because you were angry or because you tried to control her?” and then the men answered “I was just trying to control her”. So I’m pretty sure that those “number of studies” are just feminist fantasizing about why men beat women. (The very similar example of rape comes to mind, where despite all the hard evidence feminists insist that it’s not about sex, because… well because they said so. I very much doubt that any rapist ever said he was not interested in sex, just “controlling”.)
“Other studies that look at motivation find that much female “violence” is in fact self-defense.”
LOL… The makers of these “other studies” should have asked me, I’ve experienced reciprocal DV with more then one women but I think that even they would admit that for them it was never self defense. Of course I know that personal anecdotes are not scientific evidence but still… There are tons of evidence that women are initiating DV, like the now-famous jezebel article where feminists talk about how and why they punched their BFs – let me tell you, self defense is not a common theme there. This self-defense myth is just feminist day-dreaming not backed up by any credible research.
“The first version of the [CTS] questionnaire left out sexual assaults by current or former intimate partners, which according to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) make up nearly 20% of all spousal assaults”
If you talk about methodological errors you should be aware that the NCVS is criticized for them: “This methodology has some disadvantages for surveying domestic violence crimes, since the entire selected household (above age 12) is interviewed instead of just one member selected.” (source) But what’s more important is noticing the words “the first version” in manboob’s post. What he criticizes is not the CTS in use. Also, I reckon the original CTS didn’t “left out” sexual assault, it just didn’t deal with it as a separate category.
“And the CTS also ignores violence that happens after partners separate”
…for which there’s no reason whatsoever for us to think is male-only. But let’s make this clear: DV in relationships is not really common, but it is very-very rare after the relationship has ended, so this objection is rather illusory.
“violence tends to escalate, sometimes quite dramatically, after a separation”
It might escalate in very rare cases but his framing is quite misleading because he seems to suggest that violence after separation is more common than in relationships while the opposite is true. With all the restraining orders and whatnot around it would be more than a miracle if ex-spouses would be abusive towards their ex-partners. Violence does not “tend to” escalate, it just sometimes does.
“The NCVS found that separated women are 8 times as likely to face violence from an ex-partner than married women are from their husbands.”
That is freakin’ bullshit. You’re trying to make me believe that for every husband who beats his wife there’s 8 who beats his ex? They’d be thrown in jail faster than you can say GET REAL FOR FUCK’S SAKE. That might be a common fear of women which they tend to project, but it’s not reality. Men get thrown in jail for speaking with their children on the phone; don’t tell me they’d be walking free after abusing their exes. And I’m quite surprised that you didn’t see the obvious mathematical impossibility of it already since it’s been claimed that more than 1/8th of husbands are abusive towards their wives, so if you say that it’s 8 times more likely for ex-husbands to be abusive it’d be more than a 100%. But let’s suppose only one in ten husbands is abusive; than it would mean that 8 out of ten exes are abusive. I’d try to be polite but there’s no other way to put it: fuck off. So much for feminist credibility. The only possible way for this “statistic” to be true would be if the number of abusive husbands would be so low that if you multiply it by 8 then the number of abusive exes would still be “acceptable” – but then there comes the question that if the number of abusive husbands are so low, what’s all the hysteria about? And how come all men are demonised on billboards and such?
“Researchers who use the CTS and similar surveys have acknowledged that their surveys provide only a limited look at DV as a whole, and that they do not capture much of the most serious kinds of abuse.”
Did they? All of them? Care to link?
Where’s the proof that feminists do indeed provide a “complete” look at DV as a whole?
What are the most serious kinds of abuse? Murder? Then what about those women who hire hitmen to kill their husbands? They don’t show up in DV statistics. How about Lorena Bobbitt or Mary Winkler? Was the abuse they commited “serious” enough? How about mothers killing their own children? They sure as hell do it more often than fathers. Is that “serious” enough?
“Murray Straus, for example, has noted that “the statistics are likely to be misused by misogynists and apologists for male violence.””
Please show us where we act as “apologists for male violence”. What we say is not that male violence is good. What we say is females are violent too. And this is proven by the numbers, one does not have to be a misogynist to see that.
“The statement that men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers is true, however, it cannot be made in a vacuum without the qualifiers that a) women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men and b) that women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men…. [W]hen we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of “battered” men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men… The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.” Richard Gelles
“men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers” – oh. What are we talking about then? Are women as violent as men? Yes.
“women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men” – that is possible but does not justify the current trend of neglecting male victims. All it means is that yes, men are stronger, and when both partners hit the other, most of the times it’s the women who ends up worse. And no, it doesn’t mean that women perps of DV should be let off the hook.
“women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men” – let’s not forget that women often hire or incite other men to do the dirty work. Also worth mentioning is that men are falsely accused by their partners a lot more than two times the rate of women and this also doesn’t show up in DV statistics, but can result in incarceration and a lot of other nasty stuff.
“it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of “battered” men as there are battered women” – so what’s important is not that women initiate violence as often as men do, but that the visible reminders are different. Men are not “battered” because that slap in the face didn’t left visible marks – and who gives a fuck about that it was humiliating and unprovoked? When a women slaps her husband, well, it’s not so serious, why is he whining, he doesn’t even have a black eye, right?
“The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.” – If you mean strictly physical violence, maybe. But if you talk about any other form of DV, women are just bad as men, if not worse. We all know husbands personally, or have heard stories about women making the life of their husbands a living hell. Also, let’s again make it clear that these cases of “most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence” are so exceedingly rare that it really does not warrant a mass DV hysteria. It’s a common feminist routine to suggest that behind every other door lives a Josef Fritzl but that’s just their usual bullshit.
“Straus, meanwhile, urges those citing his research to remember that women suffer far more from the consequences of abuse”
It’s a f*cked up fallacy to believe that because the scars on men are less visible they don’t suffer. It’s just a variation of the common theme that the souls of men doesn’t matter. The psychological effects of a slap in the face can be devastating to a men too. It’s not only women who have emotions or suffer emotional consequences; it’s just that they are a lot more talkative about it. Men are told to suck it up and get over it, but that still does not mean that women are less violent.
“The solution to DV against men is not to publish articles with titles like “When is it OK to Punch Your Wife,” filled with explicit fantasies of male retribution against women.”
The authors of such pieces always explicitly stated themselves that they were not serious so there’s no point in trying to act like they were.
“attempt to get them to stop funding the shelter, as Glenn Sacks did to The Family Place, a DV shelter that ran some ads he deemed “misandrist.””
A lot of shelters don’t need deeming, so to speak; they are misandrist. And it’s quite natural for a sane person to try to redirect funds to better solutions.
“how is trying to make life harder for female victims of abuse possibly going to help male victims of abuse?”
First of all, if we lessen the institutional misandry we’re already much better off because the less the hatred the better. OTOH, as I already said, the intent is not to make life harder for battered women but to give the money to those who want to help all victims, not just the properly plumbed ones.
“Shelters for women did not fall from the sky. They were not set up by a feminist matriarchy. They exist because individual women activists”
LOL… Ever heard of Erin Pizzey? You should have. Feminists threatened to kill her a couple of times despite the fact that she founded the first shelter ever.
“Most shelters today run on shoestring budgets”
Erm, you mean they refuse to help men while operating on taxpayer’s money? How’s that for ekvalitee?
“Most, while not set up to handle male victims, try to help as best they can”
Sure, feminists are renown for that everywhere. Erin Pizzey tried that but feminists destroyed her.
“if you really want DV shelters for men, and aren’t simply interested in scoring rhetorical points against feminists, build them”
Nice try, genius, but I couldn’t help noticing that feminists do get help from the government and they’re fighting tooth and nail so that we won’t. And you completely missed the point anyways. What we primarily want is not shelters for men but the laws to be fair – of which you said nothing. Must-arrest laws, sexist laws like VAWA, uncontrolled restraining order handouts, etc. Like Rob Fedders said, the solution is not asking the government to help us too. The solution is to repeal bad laws. How can anyone talk about equality or fairness when there are police officers out there with orders that in cases of DV they should arrest the man regardless of who committed the violence?
A couple of questions to close this post: How about the fact that children are safer living with a separated father than with a separated mother? What about lesbian DV, which is more common than heterosexual DV? How about the common knowledge that a lot of women punch men in the face without fear because they know the man won’t hit back – and that these women could spare themselves a lot of black eyes if they themselves weren’t so arrogant?