Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 20, 2014, 12:29:10 PM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Men's Health Network

+  Stand Your Ground
|-+  Stand Your Ground Forums
| |-+  Main
| | |-+  Feminist needs some facts thrown at her
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Print
Author Topic: Feminist needs some facts thrown at her  (Read 7567 times)
dr e
Administrator
Member
*****
Posts: 10437



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2010, 07:47:12 PM »

dr e - your comment has been deleted!  angryfire

Hmmm seems like it is still there to me.
Logged

Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.
Captain Courageous
Member
*
Posts: 4355



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2010, 07:48:47 PM »

Sorry, my mistake!
Logged

dr e
Administrator
Member
*****
Posts: 10437



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2010, 07:50:54 PM »

It really is amazing the sorts of crap these folks come up with.  Women murder their children since they spend more time with them?  LOL!  That's just anemic and pathetic.
Logged

Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.
The Biscuit Queen
Member
*
Posts: 5371



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2010, 08:30:43 PM »

She actually answered my questions. Maybe incorrectly, but she did at least try. In the morning I will continue the conversation. Thank you to John for encouraging me to let her take the first step rather than hammering her with facts she would ignore.

Logged

he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.
Captain Courageous
Member
*
Posts: 4355



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2010, 09:25:54 PM »

Suggestion: We may be able to add Mens Rights to this site. To get the details, click Issue Briefs on the tool bar.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2010, 09:32:26 PM by Captain Courageous » Logged

gwallan
Member
*
Posts: 2394



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2010, 09:35:12 AM »

Right at this moment posts ARE being deleted. It's dropped from 55 to 50 in just the past hour.
Logged

In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.
Captain Courageous
Member
*
Posts: 4355



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2010, 12:15:19 PM »

They managed to lose one of the paragraphs in the author's original article as well!
It's just been reinserted. Swell.

This comments section is getting hot and heavy. Whew! gwallan and dr e are givin' them
"what fer!"

Those women do get snotty when cornered, don't they?
Logged

John Dias
Member
*
Posts: 1310


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2010, 01:32:57 PM »

On the feminist's claim that men's rights activists fixate on milder violence in order to jack up the percentage of female perpetrators, I found a study by Stets and Straus from 1989 which measured severe vs. mild violence.  On both severe and mild violence, there was higher perpetration by women in all relationship types (dating, cohabiting and married).

"The Marriage License as a Hitting License:  A Comparison of Assaults in Dating, Cohabiting and Married Couples" (1989)
By Jan Stets and Murray Straus
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/VB20.pdf


Minor violence defined:
1.  Threw an object
2.  Pushed, grabbed or shoved
3.  Slapped

Severe violence defined:
4.  Kicked, bit, or punched
5.  hit or tried to hit with an object
6.  beat up
7.  threatened with a knife or gun
8.  used a knife or gun


RESULTS:

SEVERE VIOLENCE VS. NON-VIOLENT VICTIM

Dating:
Male severe violence perpetration w/ non-violent female victim:  0.1%
Female severe violence perpetration w/ non-violent male victim:  12.5%

Cohabiting:
Male severe violence perpetration w/ non-violent female victim:  7.3%
Female severe violence perpetration w/ non-violent male victim:  13.4%


Married:
Male severe violence perpetration w/ non-violent female victim:  5.7%
Female severe violence perpetration w/ non-violent male victim:  9.6%


SEVERE VIOLENCE VS. MINOR VIOLENCE

Dating:
Male severe violence perpetration w/ female minor violence perpetration:  4.8%
Female severe violence perpetration w/ male minor violence perpetration:  13.5%

Cohabiting:
Male severe violence perpetration w/ female minor violence perpetration:  1.2%
Female severe violence perpetration w/ male minor violence perpetration:  6.1%

Married:
Male severe violence perpetration w/ female minor violence perpetration:  2.4%
Female severe violence perpetration w/ male minor violence perpetration:  7.1%
Logged
John Dias
Member
*
Posts: 1310


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2010, 01:59:53 AM »

They seem to have sat on the approval of my registration.  And I had so many nice things to say.
Logged
dr e
Administrator
Member
*****
Posts: 10437



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2010, 05:10:48 AM »

They seem to have sat on the approval of my registration.  And I had so many nice things to say.

John -  The registration should be immediate.  They email you a password to the email account you provided.  You might want to start over and try again if there was no email from them after registering.  I've been wondering where you were!
Logged

Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.
dr e
Administrator
Member
*****
Posts: 10437



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2010, 05:47:06 AM »

UNSOLICITED AND OPINIONATED SUGGESTION: Note to Irving if you are here:  I would urge you to not fall for their bait.  They are trying to get you into an argument over who called who what and who is the bigger name caller etc.  This is a ploy to avoid the issue and make you into the bad guy.  If you are the bad guy and the argument escalates they will get the thread closed and can blame you for the problem.  I would urge you to apologize for the name calling and move on irregardless of what they say.  After that don't get sucked into their web of petty crap.  Stick to the issues. Leave a clear record of them not answering the most basic of questions.
Logged

Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.
dr e
Administrator
Member
*****
Posts: 10437



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2010, 06:15:44 AM »

I was struck by the a post on the first page of the thread that linked to a study on "Research on reproduction coercion by abusers":

Here's the link and the text offered:

http://www.mariestopes.org/Press/International/Study~_Men_%60sabotage%60_birth_control.aspx

Quote
Study: Men 'sabotage' birth control

Teenage girls and young women have been forced into becoming pregnant by abusive male partners who damage condoms or stop them taking birth control, according to research.

A study at the University of California-Davis (UC-D) found that about 20% of young women had suffered "reproductive coercion", when a man used physical or sexual violence to make women have children.

Questioning 1,300 English and Spanish-speaking women aged 16-29, researchers discovered 15% had experienced birth control sabotage, and 53% had received sexual or physical violence from a partner.

Of these, 35% also reported birth control interference or reproductive coercion, and risk of unintended pregnancy doubled in such cases.

"What this study shows is that reproductive coercion likely explains why unintended pregnancies are far more common among abused women and teens," said Jay Silverman, study co-author and associate professor at the Harvard School of public health.

Study leader Elizabeth Miller, from UC-D Children's Hospital, said it revealed "an under-recognised phenomenon where male partners actively attempt to promote pregnancy against the will of their female partners."

The computerised survey took place at five reproductive health clinics in northern California between August 2008 and March 2009, and the findings were published in the journal Contraception.

Copyright Press Association 2010


When I read this I smelled a rat.  Those numbers are just too PC.  I started looking for the original reseach to see how they came to these numbers and had a tough time.  Each article I found about this "study" had the same template as the one above.  It generally stated that this phenomenom was widespread and tacitly implied that these numbers were relevant to a general popoulation.  At least they never made any reference to the numbers NOT applying to a general population.  If you read the article above you will get a sense of how they are framing men as abusers, how this happens more than most people think, etc etc.

Then I finally found an article which talked in a little more detail about the design for this study.  I was thinking that either it was a non-representative sample or the questions being asked were designed to get the numbers they sought.  I still don't know about the questions but the issue of the sample has been addressed.  Check this out:

http://theaggie.org/article/2010/02/11/ucd-study-shows-abusive-partners-sabotage-birth-control

Quote
"The five clinics surveyed were in impoverished neighborhoods with Latinas and African Americans comprising two-thirds of the respondents."


Okay, that says it all.  This was not a sample that reflects the general population, this was a sample that reflects impoverished blacks and hispanics.  Sorry, but this is vital for anyone to know when they read these numbers and to leave out such an important bit of data seems to me to be intentionally misleading.  We all know that DV occurs much more frequently at lower socio-economic levels.  We know that the probability of a girl dating a convicted felon skyrockets in impoverished neighborhoods.  We also know that the probability of DV goes way up if you date a convicted felon.  Duh.  These numbers might tell us about these neighborhoods but are in no way able to generalize  to men and women in general.

It turns out this same researcher, Elizabeth Miller of UC-D, had done a previous study on this topic.  I checked out her sample for that research and guess what I found?  LOL!  Her sample was ONLY abused women!  I mean you simply can't make this stuff up!  I would bet that she has tried to generalize that one too.  It seems to me that this "research" is a good example of the PC bias that we have grown to know and expect.  This is not science.  This is ideology trying to pat itself on its back.  I find it disgusting.

I simply can't believe that scientists would allow the media to print articles that are so misleading.  I can believe it only when I assume that they have done this purposefully. 

Logged

Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.
The Biscuit Queen
Member
*
Posts: 5371



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2010, 06:35:52 AM »

Wow. It should be considered libel. That is so sleezy I don't even know what to say.
Logged

he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.
John Dias
Member
*
Posts: 1310


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2010, 09:03:39 AM »

Why not attack the credibility of the publication that published the study?  Ultimately it comes down to the publication. 
Logged
John Dias
Member
*
Posts: 1310


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2010, 12:21:56 PM »

They seem to have sat on the approval of my registration.  And I had so many nice things to say.

John -  The registration should be immediate.  They email you a password to the email account you provided.  You might want to start over and try again if there was no email from them after registering.  I've been wondering where you were!

I never received the confirmation e-mail.  I think that tbe domain name in my e-mail address (misandryreview.com) tipped them off, and they probably embargoed my registration.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!