Study: 30% of mothers and 40% of fathers are abused during a pregnancy

[The Gonzman]

Let's stop a minute, brothers, and take a look at the dynamic here.

Just this morning, the very feminist inspired bill to ban mention of parental alienation in California was defeated.

This is the latest in the incremental, but steady, list of victories we have achieved.

These victories have come not from being quiet, respectful, and compliant - but from being loud, angry, and vocal.

Or - what our feminist troll terms - "Whining."

Why do you think, then, that she shows up wanting us to stop "whining?"



Visualize a world where feminine privilege is removed.  Where "chivalry" is something to be earned, and not a birthright.  Where "Sugar and spice and everything nice" is snickered at as the myth it is.

Where the above becomes the the option for women who don't want to be treated "equally."

Where the high trump cards of false accusation and stealing a man's livelihood, property, and children isn't removed from the deck and handed to the female before the cards are dealt.

It took fifty years for men to be effectively disenfranchised, so fixing it isn't going to happen over night, but when you look at the big picture, it is moving inexorably there.  The pendulum is returning.  The backlash has begun.

I notice many fine and strong women, like Jen TBQ, who treats her husband with respect, do not fear this.  They don't want or urge us to return to the days of standing meekly, hat in hand, asking nicely and keeping civil; of re-embracing strategy and tactics that did not work.

Others, though, want to shame us into that - into abandoning what works, and returning to things which didn't.

Hmmm.

Wonder why that is?

What are they afraid of?

"You could try being nice to them?"

[.]

I've been reading through the thread this morning and have noted a couple of post claiming that women have an equal tendency of violence as do  men.  I wish someone would post the hard data to prove the claim.  It's easy to make a statement.....a bit tougher to back the statement.

Let's see the numbers.

I created one Web site to give you a birds eye view of ALL the major studies in this vein:

DVstats.com
http://www.dvstats.com/

This is a search engine that will let you sort and filter the studies on a variety of levels.

[typhonblue]

Yes it would skew the numbers.  But then that was the reason they chose to do their little "studies" in such a fashion.

What a shame you fell for it.

And no, I don't teach high school.  You did read earlier what it is I do huh?

I do teach on an adjunct level for Tulane's engineering department.  Third and fourth year classes only though.

Just a bit above the high school level.  No problem with your assumptions.  They are amusing.

Wow. You teach _engineering_ and you don't even have _any_ grasp of statistics?

These studies may have more women but they are comparing _precentages_ not absolute instances.

[who me?]

Yes it would skew the numbers.  But then that was the reason they chose to do their little "studies" in such a fashion.

What a shame you fell for it.

And no, I don't teach high school.  You did read earlier what it is I do huh?

I do teach on an adjunct level for Tulane's engineering department.  Third and fourth year classes only though.

Just a bit above the high school level.  No problem with your assumptions.  They are amusing.

Wow. You teach _engineering_ and you don't even have _any_ grasp of statistics?

These studies may have more women but they are comparing _precentages_ not absolute instances.

Yes I do understand stats very well.  I understand them well enough to comprehend there is a reason each and every one of the "studies" that were cited used the ratio female to male for a reason.

Percentages can be manipulated using such a strategy.  The "studies" cited are evidence of just that.

Too bad you fell for it.  It doesn't follow that everyone has to do the same.

[typhonblue]

Yes it would skew the numbers.  But then that was the reason they chose to do their little "studies" in such a fashion.

What a shame you fell for it.

And no, I don't teach high school.  You did read earlier what it is I do huh?

I do teach on an adjunct level for Tulane's engineering department.  Third and fourth year classes only though.

Just a bit above the high school level.  No problem with your assumptions.  They are amusing.

Wow. You teach _engineering_ and you don't even have _any_ grasp of statistics?

These studies may have more women but they are comparing _precentages_ not absolute instances.

Yes I do understand stats very well.  I understand them well enough to comprehend there is a reason each and every one of the "studies" that were cited used the ratio female to male for a reason.

Percentages can be manipulated using such a strategy.  The "studies" cited are evidence of just that.

Too bad you fell for it.  It doesn't follow that everyone has to do the same.

What the hell are you talking about?

If they find that 10% of 400 women are violent and 10% of 200 men are violent, how are these _not_ equal rates of violence in the populations studied? The implication is that when you take this statistical analysis to the general population, you find that 10% of men _and_ women are violent.

You might argue that having a sample size of 200 gives less confidence to say that it is representational of the general male population--although I doubt the difference in confidence is anything more then a fraction of a precent.

As for there being more women then men... often these studies are based on psychology undergraduate volunteers. I'll leave it to the imagination the sex-ratios in the average pyschology undergraduate class.

[The Gonzman]

Yes I do understand stats very well.  I understand them well enough to comprehend there is a reason each and every one of the "studies" that were cited used the ratio female to male for a reason.

Percentages can be manipulated using such a strategy.  The "studies" cited are evidence of just that.

Too bad you fell for it.  It doesn't follow that everyone has to do the same.

Wow.

I didn't even have to scroll past the first page of the Fiebert Bibliography to find out that "each and every one" is a lie.

Archer, J. (2000).  Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review.  Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680. (Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression indicate that women were more likely than men to "use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently."  In terms of injuries, women were somewhat more likely to be injured, and analyses reveal that  62% of those injured were women.)

No Numbers listed.  Lie number 1.

    Archer, J. (2002).  Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review.  Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 213-351.  (Analyzing responses to the Conflict Tactic Scale and using a data set somewhat different from the previous 2000 publication, the author reports that women are more likely than men to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object.  Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners.)

No Numbers cited.  Lie number 2.

     Archer, J., & Ray, N. (1989).  Dating violence in the United Kingdom: a preliminary study.  Aggressive Behavior, 15, 337-343. (Twenty three dating couples completed the Conflict Tactics scale.  Results indicate that women were significantly more likely than their male partners to express physical violence.  Authors also report that, "measures of partner agreement were high" and that the correlation between past and present violence was low.)

Equal numbers - not 2:1.  Lie number 3.

     Arias, I., & Johnson, P. (1989).  Evaluations of physical  aggression among intimate dyads.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 298-307. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale-CTS- with a sample of 103 male and 99 female undergraduates. Both men and women had similar experience with dating violence, 19% of women and 18% of men admitted being physically aggressive.  A significantly greater percentage of women thought self-defense was a legitimate reason for men to be aggressive,  while a greater percentage of men thought slapping was a legitimate response for a man or woman if their partner was sexually unfaithful.)

MORE men than women.  Lie number 4.

You'd think someone who was going to lie would use something not easily checked! 

Whoopsie!  Maybe you should actually read them - instead of invoking lie number 5 - and you might not look like a fucking idiot.

And yet look who keeps demanding "honesty?"

Add "Liar" and "Hypocrite" to "Troll."

[The Gonzman]

Yes it would skew the numbers.  But then that was the reason they chose to do their little "studies" in such a fashion.

What a shame you fell for it.

And no, I don't teach high school.  You did read earlier what it is I do huh?

I do teach on an adjunct level for Tulane's engineering department.  Third and fourth year classes only though.

Just a bit above the high school level.  No problem with your assumptions.  They are amusing.

Wow. You teach _engineering_ and you don't even have _any_ grasp of statistics?

These studies may have more women but they are comparing _precentages_ not absolute instances.

Higher education - academic dishonesty.

Kind of a tautology anymore, sad to say.

[who me?]

Yes it would skew the numbers.  But then that was the reason they chose to do their little "studies" in such a fashion.

What a shame you fell for it.

And no, I don't teach high school.  You did read earlier what it is I do huh?

I do teach on an adjunct level for Tulane's engineering department.  Third and fourth year classes only though.

Just a bit above the high school level.  No problem with your assumptions.  They are amusing.

Wow. You teach _engineering_ and you don't even have _any_ grasp of statistics?

These studies may have more women but they are comparing _precentages_ not absolute instances.

Yes I do understand stats very well.  I understand them well enough to comprehend there is a reason each and every one of the "studies" that were cited used the ratio female to male for a reason.

Percentages can be manipulated using such a strategy.  The "studies" cited are evidence of just that.

Too bad you fell for it.  It doesn't follow that everyone has to do the same.

What the hell are you talking about?

If they find that 10% of 400 women are violent and 10% of 200 men are violent, how are these _not_ equal rates of violence in the populations studied? The implication is that when you take this statistical analysis to the general population, you find that 10% of men _and_ women are violent.

You might argue that having a sample size of 200 gives less confidence to say that it is representational of the general male population--although I doubt the difference in confidence is anything more then a fraction of a precent.

As for there being more women then men... often these studies are based on psychology undergraduate volunteers. I'll leave it to the imagination the sex-ratios in the average pyschology undergraduate class.

I doubt it.  There is a reason that each and every one of those "studies" was skewed the way they were.

Also you have no idea where the respondents came from.  You ASSume a psychology undergrad group but we have no way of knowing that for sure.

There's a reason for the ratio discrepancy.  I do not know that in my line of work "studies" using such outrageous ratios would not be taken seriously.  The ratios speak for themselves.

If you set out to prove a specific abstract instead of letting the numbers fall where they may.............you can manipulate the results quite well.

Maybe you do not understand that?   But then like someone said earlier..........there are some that like "studies" as long as they feel the numbers work in their favor to prove some abstract theory.

Kind of like the abstract theory that became the thesis of the OP.  Just more blather that can not be proved.

If that's what floats your boat.........happy sailing!

[.]

Guys, I think it's a fair question.  I too have noticed the pattern, where a large portion of the studies do have a substantially larger female component in the sample.  I think it's a bit premature for "Who Me" to assume that the numbers have been cooked, as there are proper controls built in to the studies to compensate for the disparity.  That is also why such studies are published in peer-reviewed journals and subject to professional criticism.  If the larger scientific community has not made an issue of this (but ideologues have), that tells you about where the true bias is coming from.  These studies have been around now for several years, and have had more than enough opportunity for undergoing peer review.  They are still valid and have not been discredited, which tells you something!

To shed more light on the subject, I have contacted John Hamel, a licensed clinical social worker who has done extensive research into this field.  He is helping to put on the February 2008 conference entitled, "From Ideology to Inclusion:  Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence":
http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/NFVLRC_2008.Pre_Anounce__conf_flier.pdf

John also put together a conference on the mutuality of domestic violence some time in late 2006, which I attended.  Both conferences were created to provide education to social workers, first-responders, DV counselors, and others in the system in order to see the problems in light of the data, rather than through the lens of gender bias.  When I receive his response to the question of why women in the samples outnumber men (and how this is accounted for), I will post it here.

[who me?]

Yes it would skew the numbers.  But then that was the reason they chose to do their little "studies" in such a fashion.

What a shame you fell for it.

And no, I don't teach high school.  You did read earlier what it is I do huh?

I do teach on an adjunct level for Tulane's engineering department.  Third and fourth year classes only though.

Just a bit above the high school level.  No problem with your assumptions.  They are amusing.

Wow. You teach _engineering_ and you don't even have _any_ grasp of statistics?

These studies may have more women but they are comparing _precentages_ not absolute instances.

Higher education - academic dishonesty.

Kind of a tautology anymore, sad to say.

Nope, guess you missed what my primary career is all about.  I only teach on an adjunct level.  If you do not understand that word...........dictionary.com is a wonderful thing.

What's wrong Gonz?  Didn't go to college at all?

[Cordell Walker]

does not going to an acedemic college  make you stupid or something in yoru eyes, who me?

and I wouldnt dispute your claim that the results MIGHT be different  if the control groups were equal as far as gender...but then again the results would vary if  the age of the control group was changed, race, or sociaoeconomic class

[who me?]

Guys, I think it's a fair question.  I too have noticed the pattern, where a large portion of the studies do have a substantially larger female component in the sample.  I think it's a bit premature for "Who Me" to assume that the numbers have been cooked, as there are proper controls built in to the studies to compensate for the disparity.  That is also why such studies are published in peer-reviewed journals and subject to professional criticism.  If the larger scientific community has not made an issue of this (but ideologues have), that tells you about where the true bias is coming from.  These studies have been around now for several years, and have had more than enough opportunity for undergoing peer review.  They are still valid and have not been discredited, which tells you something!

To shed more light on the subject, I have contacted Dr. John Hamel, a licensed clinical social worker who has done extensive research into this field.  He is helping to put on the February 2008 conference entitled, "From Ideology to Inclusion:  Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence":
http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/NFVLRC_2008.Pre_Anounce__conf_flier.pdf

John also put together a conference on the mutuality of domestic violence some time in early 2006, which I attended.  Both conferences were created to provide education to social workers, first-responders, DV counselors, and others in the system in order to see the problems in light of the data, rather than through the lens of gender bias.  When I receive his response to the question of why women in the samples outnumber men (and how this is accounted for), I will post it here.

I would also be interested to find out just where they get their respondents.

A psychology undergrad group would not give a good overall when you are talking about such issues.  There's a good possibility that the majority have never been married.

[dr e]

I am still waiting for who me to tell us how a 2 to 1 female to male sample can skew the results.  Explain this for us will you?  Don't spare the detail.

[who me?]

does not going to an acedemic college  make you stupid or something in yoru eyes, who me?

and I wouldnt dispute your claim that the results MIGHT be different  if the control groups were equal as far as gender...but then again the results would vary if  the age of the control group was changed, race, or sociaoeconomic class

No, I wasn't saying that anyone is stupid.  But to assume that anyone that has been to college would have one political slant or another is a bit more than ignorant.

I'm as conservative as you can get.  My political views have little to do with my educational background.

Teaching is a secondary career for me.  In case you missed it; I work with a research and development group for a defense contractor.  You won't find many libs doing that type of thing for a living.

[.]

I would also be interested to find out just where they get their respondents.

A psychology undergrad group would not give a good overall when you are talking about such issues.  There's a good possibility that the majority have never been married.

"Who Me," I invite you to visit my search engine, DVstats.com.  You can filter out studies that pertain only to "dating violence," as well as limiting results only to those studies with a sample.  In addition, I provide links to the actual studies.  Every empirical study that expects to survive peer review is required to explain its sample, its methods of data collection, etc.  You'll learn the answer to these questions by reading the actual studies, which you can get to by clicking on the "Read Me" link next to each study.

And yes, it is true that in a lot of these studies, only college students are surveyed.  But there are also government studies, especially one done in Canada with a sample of 26,000.  These widen the scope a little.