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

Garak


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.



If I were you Dr E, I wouldn't put lunch on the back burner waiting for her to answer.
I will stop staring at your boobs when you stop staring at my paycheck!

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


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.



fair enough......but I can tell you this...................there aint a statistical study  done on any social issue that isnt pre  skewed to  prove a point......studies are used to get funding
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

.

#392
Jul 18, 2007, 10:24 AM Last Edit: Jul 18, 2007, 10:26 AM by johndias
Here's a link to all the studies in the Fiebert bibliography that:

1.  Contain an empirical sample
2.  Exclude "dating violence"

Some may still include college students in the sample.

The Gonzman

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


The already debunked "each and every one" lie again.

"If a lie is repeated often enough, soon it will come to be accepted as truth."  - Josef Goebbels, Propaganda minister to Adolf Hitler
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.

typhonblue


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.



What is your concern regarding the sample sizes? The researchers are comparing _weighted_ rates, not absolute. (If they were comparing absolute they would say somthing like "women are twice as violent as men".)

Do you think that the researchers are dividing the absolute instances in the male sample by the size of the female sample?

Or are you concerned that the sample sizes for the men are too small to generate sufficent confidence in their accuracy as applied to the general population?

In that case I would say both male and female sample sizes are too small for high degrees of confidence.

You'd need a sample size of 16000+ to get a 99% confidence level with a +/-1% interval, for a population as large as the US.

The Gonzman

#395
Jul 18, 2007, 10:41 AM Last Edit: Jul 18, 2007, 10:44 AM by Gonzokid
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? :laughing6:


No, I was just good enough to get a professorship.  And tenure.

You might get more if you weren't a proven liar.
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.

The Gonzman


Here's a link to all the studies in the Fiebert bibliography that:

1.  Contain an empirical sample
2.  Exclude "dating violence"

Some may still include college students in the sample.


Wow.

That proves again that the whole "each and every one" is not merely a lie, but a bald-faced lie.
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.

Men's Rights Activist

Quote
Quote
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?


Please don't assume.  It says "responded," please provide "proof," that the study "questioned" women two to one.  If an equal number of men were "questioned," but half did not respond, that may also account for the results.   Also, was the number of incidents equal in percentage or actual numbers.  Please don't be sloppy like a gender feminist, but report honestly.
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

Mr. X


Our society is becoming more violent over a period of time.  In my opinion one of the reasons for that is the excuse making that goes on.  You know the........oh that happened because she is home with the kids more than he is or he was upset over child support..........etc...etc...etc.


So how do you explain violent crime rates DECLINING since 1994

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Property crime rates declined
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm

Rape has gone from 2.5/1000 to .5/1000 which is a decline of 500%
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm

And violent crime against both sexes have dropped
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm

Sorry but your claim doesn't prove out. Society isn't getting more violent. Maybe this shows men do listen and act.
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

who me?



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.



What is your concern regarding the sample sizes? The researchers are comparing _weighted_ rates, not absolute. (If they were comparing absolute they would say somthing like "women are twice as violent as men".)

Do you think that the researchers are dividing the absolute instances in the male sample by the size of the female sample?

Or are you concerned that the sample sizes for the men are too small to generate sufficent confidence in their accuracy as applied to the general population?

In that case I would say both male and female sample sizes are too small for high degrees of confidence.

You'd need a sample size of 16000+ to get a 99% confidence level with a +/-1% interval, for a population as large as the US.


I would tend to agree that there were not enough respondents to draw a strong conclusion in any direction.

The best you could hope for is the statement.......a certain percentage of those who responded.  But that of course would fall far short of any goal.

I am perplexed by the 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 ratios used in the posted studies.  Based on the consistency of use there is a reason for it.  Like I said, when you set out to prove a specific theory you can cherry pick the respondents and almost guarantee results.

It's the reason I prefer hard data.

But even that is unreliable because as we all know a man that is abused in a relationship is far less likely to press charges than a woman that is abused in a relationship.

The number of convictions of women for violent offenses does point to the fact that women are more likely to act out violently now than they have been in years past.

But then the same can be said for any group at this point.  Violence in general is more widespread than it was in days before and the level of violence is now more savage than in days passed.

My advice to a man that is being abused is press charges and carry through with those charges.  But then my advice to a woman in that situation would be the same.  Domestic violence (and I use that term because I do not see harsh language as violence) should not be tolerated.  It doesn't matter who is on the receiving end and who is dishing it out.

No excuses, no tolerance.

Men's Rights Activist

Quote
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.


Quote
ad·junct  

ad·junct [ájjungkt]
n (plural ad·juncts)
1.  something extra added on: something inessential added to something else  
2.  assistant: somebody who assists and is subordinate to somebody else  
3.  grammar inessential part of sentence: a part of a sentence that is not the subject or predicate  


adj
attached temporarily to a staff: assigned temporarily or as an auxiliary member to the staff of an institution
an adjunct professor of art history



[Early 16th century. From Latin adjunctus , the past participle of adjungere (see adjoin).]


-ad·junc·tion [ə júngksh'n], n
-ad·junc·tive, adj
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

who me?



Our society is becoming more violent over a period of time.  In my opinion one of the reasons for that is the excuse making that goes on.  You know the........oh that happened because she is home with the kids more than he is or he was upset over child support..........etc...etc...etc.


So how do you explain violent crime rates DECLINING since 1994

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Property crime rates declined
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm

Rape has gone from 2.5/1000 to .5/1000 which is a decline of 500%
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm

And violent crime against both sexes have dropped
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm

Sorry but your claim doesn't prove out. Society isn't getting more violent. Maybe this shows men do listen and act.


If what you posted is accurate............wouldn't it point to people in general listening?

Or is it your contention that men alone were responsible for violent acts in days gone bye?

I based my claim on the types of crimes we now see.  When I was a child you did not read about people being convicted of torture at the frequency of conviction for that crime today.

Maybe you are right and we are as a society on the right track.  Considering some of the trash you see in the local news and national news; you could easily come to a different conclusion.

It could be more of a level of violence over a frequency thing.

Either way; neither frequency or level should be ignored, excused, or tolerated.

.

#402
Jul 18, 2007, 11:00 AM Last Edit: Jul 18, 2007, 11:44 AM by johndias
I think those who would question the validity of this research owe it to themselves to read the actual studies.  There is a subtle (and sometimes overt) insinuation that academic research that reveals the pain men are living in -- and the double standards that they face as they express their pain -- is some political charade.  This has got to stop.

I ask that anyone who wants to throw out such charges actually read some of the studies.  Attached is an excellent study that I personally have read, and recommend (in PDF format):

"Deconstructing self-defense in wife-to-husband violence"
Published in The Journal of Men's Studies on March 22, 2004
Author:  Sarantakos, Sotirios

This is a fantastic study.  It takes on several myths promoted by gender feminists, namely:

1.  Domestic violence is perpetrated only by women
2.  If women perpetrate violence, it is only in self-defense against male violence
3.  If women initiate violence, it is only in self-defense against a pervasive patriarchal environment based on male power and privilege

There is an actual sample that goes beyond interviews of just the husband and wife (in determining female-on-male violence).  They also included members of the family, as well as the mother of the wife.

Again, fantastic study.  Please take a look (see attached PDF).

Cordell Walker




Our society is becoming more violent over a period of time.  In my opinion one of the reasons for that is the excuse making that goes on.  You know the........oh that happened because she is home with the kids more than he is or he was upset over child support..........etc...etc...etc.


So how do you explain violent crime rates DECLINING since 1994

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Property crime rates declined
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm

Rape has gone from 2.5/1000 to .5/1000 which is a decline of 500%
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm

And violent crime against both sexes have dropped
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm

Sorry but your claim doesn't prove out. Society isn't getting more violent. Maybe this shows men do listen and act.


If what you posted is accurate............wouldn't it point to people in general listening?

Or is it your contention that men alone were responsible for violent acts in days gone bye?

I based my claim on the types of crimes we now see.  When I was a child you did not read about people being convicted of torture at the frequency of conviction for that crime today.

Maybe you are right and we are as a society on the right track.  Considering some of the trash you see in the local news and national news; you could easily come to a different conclusion.

It could be more of a level of violence over a frequency thing.

Either way; neither frequency or level should be ignored, excused, or tolerated.


a lot of  that has to do with the globalization of media, you see more of the seedy side now, its always been ther
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

CaptDMO




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.

Depends, fresh from school is one thing, but even college grads learn SOMETHING eventually.
Quote

I'm as conservative as you can get.
In My Humble Opinion, your posts contradict
that position.
Quote
My political views have little to do with my educational background.
Apparently the inverse holds true as well.

Quote
Teaching is a secondary career for me.  In case you missed it; I work with a research and development group for a defense contractor.
Let's seeee....where do I remember this claim from....oh yeaaah!. Oh! Nope, it was a "research for petrochemical polymers in a Louisiana plant, It was a different name too, I'll look it up! .
Quote
You won't find many libs doing that type of thing for a living.
True, "humanities" and "Contemporary Cinema Administration" ill prepares one for such a trade. What does that have to do with um...anything?

Quote from: whome
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.

Quote from: whome
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.

Sorry, you're only allowed to use a monkey wrench in one direction at a time.



Go Up