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

Started by ., Jul 06, 2007, 09:32 AM

previous topic - next topic

Is "Who Me" a troll who is not truly debating?

Yes, she's a troll.  Ban her!
2 (10%)
Yes, she's a troll.  Refute her.
9 (45%)
Yes, she's a troll.  Ignore her.
4 (20%)
She's a thoughtful and fair debater.
5 (25%)

Total Members Voted: 20

Go Down

dr e

Hard data about women being as violent?  Here's a start:

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

Here's a taste of what you will find there:
Quote

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.)


World famous researcher, renowned journal, important message. 
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

who me?


Hard data about women being as violent?  Here's a start:

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

Here's a taste of what you will find there:
Quote

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.)


World famous researcher, renowned journal, important message. 


And exceptionally nice cherry picking.  You didn't think I would read did you?

From your link:

Quote
Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988).  The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women.  Journal of College Student Development, 29, 305-311.  (A sample of actively dating college students <204 women and 140 men> responded to a survey examining courtship violence.  Authors report that there were no significant differences between the sexes in self reported perpetration of physical abuse.)


You DID notice the difference in the figures for the first "study" here right?  Women questioned 2 to 1 compared to men and wow, the number of incidents equal?

It gets better though:

Quote
Arias, I., Samios, M., & O'Leary, K. D. (1987).  Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 82-90. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 270 undergraduates <95 men, 175 women> and found 30% of men and 49% of women reported using some form of  aggression in their dating histories with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.)


Here again, a 2 to 1 ratio.  Is that the only way they can get equal numbers?  Something is wrong here.

Quote
Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983).  Violent intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships.  Family Relations, 32, 283-286.  (Surveyed 461 college students, 168 men, 293 women, with regard to dating violence.  Found that 15% of the men admitted to physically abusing their partners, while 21% of women admitted to physically abusing their partners.)


What is it with this 2 to 1 ratio anyway?  Got to even those numbers out for the resulting data somehow I guess.

Interesting thing is they used this 2 to 1 ratio for each of these studies......well, not each of them.  Some of the studies employed a 3 to 1 ratio.  3 women compared to 1 man responding and then they reported the results as if it was an even response ratio?

Oh, you may need to know.  I'm a senior engineer for a research and development group for a major defense contractor.  I have an extremely thorough understanding of hard data and how it can be manipulated.

Let's try starting with studies that utilize data gathered from the same number of respondents from each gender pool.

You wouldn't want to try to employ skewed data now would you?


Cordell Walker

 skewed data like your feminist buddies at NOW or these VAWA lobby groups
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

who me?


skewed data like your feminist buddies at NOW or these VAWA lobby groups


I have no buddies in either group.............but nice try I guess.

And yeah, the date dr e posted was horribly skewed.

Care to deal with real numbers and data that isn't stacked to "prove" some point?

dr e

O.h.  m.y   :yikes:

Cherry picking?  You have got to be kidding.  I give you a link with abstracts of over 150 studies and you call it cherry picking?  If we were giving grades here you would have to get an F.  Do you even know what a meta-analysis is?  If you did you wouldn't be barking about cherry picking.  Perhaps you can explain to us what a meta-analysis is.  LMFAO  Here's a clue:  Meta analysis looks at data from numerous previous studies and looks at trends in the data.  Most of these studies are peer reviewed.  You know what that means right?

I guess it was too much to ask to expect you to say something like, "Oh, thank you for providing the data I requested that would give a start in helping me understand that men and women are both perpetrators of violence."  Yeah, that would be what one might expect from someone who had integrity and maturity.  Enough said.


Quote
What is it with this 2 to 1 ratio anyway?  Got to even those numbers out for the resulting data somehow I guess.

Interesting thing is they used this 2 to 1 ratio for each of these studies......well, not each of them.  Some of the studies employed a 3 to 1 ratio.  3 women compared to 1 man responding and then they reported the results as if it was an even response ratio?


Okay, now this has me doubled over in laughter.  Are you serious?  Do you think the results are skewed because the samples contain more women then men?  Where did you go to school and what degree did you get?  What stats courses did you take?  I mean really.  Seriously, you are showing a profound ignorance of the basics of research.  I would guess that most high shcool students would know this sort of thing.  Please give us a lecture on sample size and it's impact on results.  I think that would be most entertaining.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

The Gonzman


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.

And in response to yet another post..........nope the stats speak for themselves.  They do not get ignored just because they do not back a certain idea being pushed.  But here again that poster is arguing about an abstract theory as opposed to hard data.

If there is any hard data to prove the men and women are equally violent please post it.  I'd be interested in reading the study that backs the data.

Otherwise it is just a theory with no more validity than that of the moon landing being a hoax.


It's already been posted.  You dismissed it.  Or rather, THEM.

Don't Know:  Ignorant.
Can't Learn:  Dumb.
Don't wanna know:  Stupid.  Or Dishonest.

You poked at two.  And dismissed the rest of them based on that.  And you accused the Doc of Cherry Picking.

Funny - it's two of the same handful of cites that feminists ALWAYS cherry-pick out of the Feibert list.

But of course, you're not a feminist.

Yeahsureyabetcha.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

Cordell Walker



skewed data like your feminist buddies at NOW or these VAWA lobby groups


I have no buddies in either group.............but nice try I guess.

And yeah, the date dr e posted was horribly skewed.

Care to deal with real numbers and data that isn't stacked to "prove" some point?


and if the sudies he cited are skewed, what about the studies cited by   the NOW lobbyists about  "1 in 4 women raped" all that...........if us evil men can skew a stat, would your virtuous  oppressed sisters at NOW know how to skew a stat also
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

dr e

Don't worry Tony, the studies are fine.  The problem is that she/he is flailing for anything to criticise in order to not have to admit that the research makes him/her look like an uninformed, biased and brainwashed idealogue.  It's a diversion technique to draw attention away from the original question.  Parents have seen this maneuver over and over from their little kids. 

And so it goes.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

The Gonzman


Don't worry Tony, the studies are fine.  The problem is that she/he is flailing for anything to criticise in order to not have to admit that the research makes him/her look like an uninformed, biased and brainwashed idealogue.  It's a diversion technique to draw attention away from the original question.  Parents have seen this maneuver over and over from their little kids. 

And so it goes.


Since she's done nothing but lie from the get go here, she also acts all offended that people call her on it, too.  And then acts all smug with "None of you guys will debate me fairly!"

Feminition:  "Fairly" = Accepting my premises however unproven.

Troll.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

who me?


O.h.  m.y   :yikes:

Cherry picking?  You have got to be kidding.  I give you a link with abstracts of over 150 studies and you call it cherry picking?  If we were giving grades here you would have to get an F.  Do you even know what a meta-analysis is?  If you did you wouldn't be barking about cherry picking.  Perhaps you can explain to us what a meta-analysis is.  LMFAO  Here's a clue:  Meta analysis looks at data from numerous previous studies and looks at trends in the data.  Most of these studies are peer reviewed.  You know what that means right?

I guess it was too much to ask to expect you to say something like, "Oh, thank you for providing the data I requested that would give a start in helping me understand that men and women are both perpetrators of violence."  Yeah, that would be what one might expect from someone who had integrity and maturity.  Enough said.


Quote
What is it with this 2 to 1 ratio anyway?  Got to even those numbers out for the resulting data somehow I guess.

Interesting thing is they used this 2 to 1 ratio for each of these studies......well, not each of them.  Some of the studies employed a 3 to 1 ratio.  3 women compared to 1 man responding and then they reported the results as if it was an even response ratio?


Okay, now this has me doubled over in laughter.  Are you serious?  Do you think the results are skewed because the samples contain more women then men?  Where did you go to school and what degree did you get?  What stats courses did you take?  I mean really.  Seriously, you are showing a profound ignorance of the basics of research.  I would guess that most high shcool students would know this sort of thing.  Please give us a lecture on sample size and it's impact on results.  I think that would be most entertaining.


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.

who me?




skewed data like your feminist buddies at NOW or these VAWA lobby groups


I have no buddies in either group.............but nice try I guess.

And yeah, the date dr e posted was horribly skewed.

Care to deal with real numbers and data that isn't stacked to "prove" some point?


and if the sudies he cited are skewed, what about the studies cited by   the NOW lobbyists about  "1 in 4 women raped" all that...........if us evil men can skew a stat, would your virtuous  oppressed sisters at NOW know how to skew a stat also


Could be, that's why I do not use figures from NOW.  Figures used by groups that have a set agenda usually stay within the scope of that agenda.

Like the men's rights groups.  They do the same thing.  But please post more and ignore the hard data derived by the Department of Justice, FBI, and the CDC.

Now would you like to quote a single post where I've sited anything to do with NOW?

Or do you just prefer to throw out a little more straw?  Makes for a nice nest I guess but does nothing for the debate.

Cordell Walker



O.h.  m.y   :yikes:

Cherry picking?  You have got to be kidding.  I give you a link with abstracts of over 150 studies and you call it cherry picking?  If we were giving grades here you would have to get an F.  Do you even know what a meta-analysis is?  If you did you wouldn't be barking about cherry picking.  Perhaps you can explain to us what a meta-analysis is.  LMFAO  Here's a clue:  Meta analysis looks at data from numerous previous studies and looks at trends in the data.  Most of these studies are peer reviewed.  You know what that means right?

I guess it was too much to ask to expect you to say something like, "Oh, thank you for providing the data I requested that would give a start in helping me understand that men and women are both perpetrators of violence."  Yeah, that would be what one might expect from someone who had integrity and maturity.  Enough said.


Quote
What is it with this 2 to 1 ratio anyway?  Got to even those numbers out for the resulting data somehow I guess.

Interesting thing is they used this 2 to 1 ratio for each of these studies......well, not each of them.  Some of the studies employed a 3 to 1 ratio.  3 women compared to 1 man responding and then they reported the results as if it was an even response ratio?


Okay, now this has me doubled over in laughter.  Are you serious?  Do you think the results are skewed because the samples contain more women then men?  Where did you go to school and what degree did you get?  What stats courses did you take?  I mean really.  Seriously, you are showing a profound ignorance of the basics of research.  I would guess that most high shcool students would know this sort of thing.  Please give us a lecture on sample size and it's impact on results.  I think that would be most entertaining.


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.


your from louisana, that explains alot
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

who me?




O.h.  m.y   :yikes:

Cherry picking?  You have got to be kidding.  I give you a link with abstracts of over 150 studies and you call it cherry picking?  If we were giving grades here you would have to get an F.  Do you even know what a meta-analysis is?  If you did you wouldn't be barking about cherry picking.  Perhaps you can explain to us what a meta-analysis is.  LMFAO  Here's a clue:  Meta analysis looks at data from numerous previous studies and looks at trends in the data.  Most of these studies are peer reviewed.  You know what that means right?

I guess it was too much to ask to expect you to say something like, "Oh, thank you for providing the data I requested that would give a start in helping me understand that men and women are both perpetrators of violence."  Yeah, that would be what one might expect from someone who had integrity and maturity.  Enough said.


Quote
What is it with this 2 to 1 ratio anyway?  Got to even those numbers out for the resulting data somehow I guess.

Interesting thing is they used this 2 to 1 ratio for each of these studies......well, not each of them.  Some of the studies employed a 3 to 1 ratio.  3 women compared to 1 man responding and then they reported the results as if it was an even response ratio?


Okay, now this has me doubled over in laughter.  Are you serious?  Do you think the results are skewed because the samples contain more women then men?  Where did you go to school and what degree did you get?  What stats courses did you take?  I mean really.  Seriously, you are showing a profound ignorance of the basics of research.  I would guess that most high shcool students would know this sort of thing.  Please give us a lecture on sample size and it's impact on results.  I think that would be most entertaining.


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.


your from louisana, that explains alot


Wrong again.

But then if you know nothing of the college network in this country; I'll understand your ignorance.

Tulane is based in LA, but has a variety of satellite campuses.  You see they are way up the ladder when it comes to the engineering world.

Now what does that have to do with your silly assertions anyway? 

Does it really bother you that I don't have to ask..........do you want fries with that?..........in order to earn a living?  Or are you attempting to compensate for some shortcoming here?

Do you understand the difference between an abstract theory on which to base a study and hard data?

Do you comprehend that if you stack respondants by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 that it will skew the results?

Have you even tried to question why these "studies" were done using such a method?

See if you can stay on topic please.

Cordell Walker

Huey LOng, one of my favorite historical figures , went to TUlane.

and no it doesnt bother me  that you dont have to say  "do you want fries with that"
I dont like seeing anybody poor, regardless of weather I really like them are not.
congrats on being able to have a good career.
and yes I "comprehend" that the larger group in a study is going to have more incidence of whatever the studiers are looking for. I just find it Ironic that not so many pages earlier, who me?,  when I was trying to  say that stats werent gospel, this is not the tune you were singing
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

dr e

Okay who me?, now it is time for you to show off your academic skills and statistical knowledge and explain to us how having twice as many females in the sample will skew the results.   :happy1:
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Go Up