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

[who me?]

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

You're the one who wishes to look at the group who COMMITS violent crime NOT the group victimized by violent crime so I merely show stats showing that violent crime is declining. Again, when its a beneift then its men AND women. When its a detriment its JUST MEN.

But NOW that we have cleared up your attitude about the perpetrators of violent crime and you now admit BOTH men and women are culpable then we can get past this nonsense of dismissing the larger percentage of men who are victims because the perps are men.

The original article in this thread was about 30% women AND 40% MEN who are victimized during pregnancy. So why does the article ignore the larger 40% of men in favor of the smaller 30% women?

It wasn't an article for beginners.  It is an abstract theory that was somewhat written but not backed up.

How much do you want to bet that it's a sale's pitch for a study they are trying to get funding for at the moment?

I haven't claimed that women are incapable of violence.  If you think that it is only because you are not reading what I post.

Women are far more likely to die as a result of domestic violence than men.  You all howled like a pack of dogs when I brought up the fact that domestic violence is the second leading cause of death as a result of injury in pregnant women.  But it is the truth.

Ignore the deaths and then rant and rave over the slap?  Is that the thesis?

Like I said early into this thread that is equal to going to the emergency room for a stubbed toe and then screeching because they take the gun shot victim into treatment first.

Neither issue is mutually exclusive.  But one is without a doubt free bleeding right now.

Ignore the free bleed though.......treat the stubbed toe instead.

Yep, that's the ticket!

[Cordell Walker]

I dont get where you surmise that we are saying anything of the sort who me?,  this analogy is inaccurate  because there is already a huge goverment and private sector working on issues concerning women as victims of violence, yet no corresponding  spending for men, ergo, most  men's issues boards/organization are not going to worry too much about  women as victims of violence because they are trying to focus on men

[who me?]

I am still waiting for you to answer my question:  How could a 2-1 ratio of women to men in the sample skew the results of the studies in question?  I suggest you answer my question.  You have made a claim and now you need to back it up.  This is a direct request for the admin.  If you don't reply you will get a warning.

I am waiting to hear this.

Why don't you explain why it wouldn't since you like to pretend to have all the answers?

If it didn't skew the results why would so much effort be put into setting the "study" up in such a way?

If you need to give me a warning because you feel I'm breaking a rule of the forum; go ahead.

But you may want to examine this thread for abusive posts.  I think Gonzo may have stepped over a line or 2 or 3.  There is a rule against that you know.

Edit to add link:

http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=13627.msg150159#msg150159

Is there a rule about not answering to a question to your approval?

[The Gonzman]

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

This bibliography examines 196 scholarly investigations: 153 empirical studies and 43 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 177,100.

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.

    Capaldi, D. M. & Crosby, L. (1997).  Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at-risk couples.  Social Development, 6, 184-206.  (A sample of 118 young men and their dating partners were surveyed regarding their own physical aggression as well as that of their partners.  Findings reveal that 31% of men and 36% of women engaged "in an act of physical aggression against their current partner.")

Even

    Feather, N. T. (1996).  Domestic violence, gender and perceptions of justice.  Sex Roles, 35, 507-519.  (Subjects <109 men, 111 women> from Adelaide, South Australia, were presented a hypothetical scenario in which either a husband or wife perpetrated domestic violence.  Participants were significantly more negative in their evaluation of the husband than the wife, were more sympathetic to the wife and believed that the husband deserved a harsher penalty for his behavior.)

Damn near even.

    Grandin, E. & Lupri, E. (1997).  Intimate violence in Canada and the United States: A cross-national comparison.  Journal of Family Violence, 12 (4), 417-443.  (Authors examine data from the 1985 U.S. National Family Violence Resurvey and the 1986 Canadian National Family Life Survey.  Report that "although the United States exhibits significantly higher rates of societal violence crime than Canada, Canadian women and men were more likely than their American counterparts to use severe and minor intimate violence."  This finding is counter to the "culture of violence theory."  Moreover, in both cultures the rates of violence of wives to husbands were higher than husbands to wives.  Specifically, the overall violence index for men in America was 10.6 and in Canada it was 18.3; while the overall violence index for women in America was 12.2 and in Canada it was 25.3.)

And from your beloved government studies, no less.   

Wow.

And that's just "scroll and randomly pick."

I'm just not finding those "2 to 1 and 3 to 1 ratios" in "each and every one" of those studies you claimed to have thoroughly looked at.  Perhaps I'm just actually reading it, instead of talking out my twat?

Sucks for you to be caught LYING again, eh?

[who me?]

I dont get where you surmise that we are saying anything of the sort who me?,  this analogy is inaccurate  because there is already a huge goverment and private sector working on issues concerning women as victims of violence, yet no corresponding  spending for men, ergo, most  men's issues boards/organization are not going to worry too much about  women as victims of violence because they are trying to focus on men

The logical approach is to bring up the issue again.  Resorting to violence to fight violence?  How stupid is that?

Threatening to kill to bring an issue forward?

Sounds familiar doesn't it?  Seems I remember there are groups that call it jihad.

If that's what you want to align yourself with don't expect much result.

[Cordell Walker]

are you deliberatly  doing that or just misinterpreting me.........I meant that among men's groups,  the priority isnt to adrress issues about women as victims of violence , but on adressing the needs of male victimes, thats all

[The Gonzman]

Women are far more likely to die as a result of domestic violence than men.  You all howled like a pack of dogs when I brought up the fact that domestic violence is the second leading cause of death as a result of injury in pregnant women.  But it is the truth.

Who cares?

You want to have someone look into this and "help?"

Already being done.

We're not here to reinvent the wheel.  Let feminist groups help women.

We're not going to do their work for us, and thus free up time and funds to oppose us.

Let them burn their resources.

Ignore the deaths and then rant and rave over the slap?  Is that the thesis?

Who cares?

We're MEN's advocates. We also don't devote resources to saving the Lesser Botswanan Clubfish or something like that.  But then again, we're not Lesser Botswanan Clubfish advocates, either.

Like I said early into this thread that is equal to going to the emergency room for a stubbed toe and then screeching because they take the gun shot victim into treatment first.

Neither issue is mutually exclusive.  But one is without a doubt free bleeding right now.

Ignore the free bleed though.......treat the stubbed toe instead.

Yep, that's the ticket!

Who cares?

Heal yourself.  To a podiatrist, the foot is the concern.

We're here to be podiatrists, not ER trauma surgeons.

[who me?]

are you deliberatly  doing that or just misinterpreting me.........I meant that among men's groups,  the priority isnt to adrress issues about women as victims of violence , but on adressing the needs of male victimes, thats all

I misrepresented nothing.

I just gave you an honest assessment of your post.  It isn't the first I've read of your posts that smacked of threats of violence as a means to an end.

I just pointed out that there are other groups that share that mindset.

The means do not justify the end.

[Cordell Walker]

wrong thread  who me?, on this thread we are talking about stats, and  explaining why  we dont see dead pregnant women as wotrthy of discussion  ON A MENS ISSUES B OARD

[The Gonzman]

I am still waiting for you to answer my question:  How could a 2-1 ratio of women to men in the sample skew the results of the studies in question?  I suggest you answer my question.  You have made a claim and now you need to back it up.  This is a direct request for the admin.  If you don't reply you will get a warning.

I am waiting to hear this.

Why don't you explain why it wouldn't since you like to pretend to have all the answers?

If it didn't skew the results why would so much effort be put into setting the "study" up in such a way?

If you need to give me a warning because you feel I'm breaking a rule of the forum; go ahead.

But you may want to examine this thread for abusive posts.  I think Gonzo may have stepped over a line or 2 or 3.  There is a rule against that you know.

Edit to add link:

http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=13627.msg150159#msg150159

Is there a rule about not answering to a question to your approval?

Why don't you address it to me, instead of running to a man to save you, you strong, independent woman, you?

Add "Crybaby" to Troll, liar, feminist, and hypocrite.

And as far as libel goes - truth is the ultimate defense, eh wot?

[The Gonzman]

I dont get where you surmise that we are saying anything of the sort who me?,  this analogy is inaccurate  because there is already a huge goverment and private sector working on issues concerning women as victims of violence, yet no corresponding  spending for men, ergo, most  men's issues boards/organization are not going to worry too much about  women as victims of violence because they are trying to focus on men

The logical approach is to bring up the issue again.  Resorting to violence to fight violence?  How stupid is that?

Threatening to kill to bring an issue forward?

Sounds familiar doesn't it?  Seems I remember there are groups that call it jihad.

If that's what you want to align yourself with don't expect much result.

We're getting results - but that is your real problem, isn't it?

Watching that female privilege go bye-bye....

[Cordell Walker]

and also who me, I said misinterpreted, not misrepresented...........................I think  you were thrown off by our discussion on the child support thread

[Garak]

and also who me, I said misinterpreted, not misrepresented...........................I think  you were thrown off by our discussion on the child support thread

..or thrown off by the big word. 

[who me?]

and also who me, I said misinterpreted, not misrepresented...........................I think  you were thrown off by our discussion on the child support thread

Yeah, whatever.  Misinterpreted, misrepresented.  Either way it isn't the first post of yours that I've read where you were  screaming that violence is the way to handle it.

Storm Front..........yep, I read that post you did with the use of the "n" word.  Unneeded it was, uncalled for............you bet.   Bigoted, you got it.

Then there was the DEA reference.  Comparing blowing up the DEA wasn't it?  Comparing that to the man murdering his wife?  Trying to make it sound as if he was making a political stand?  Oh yeah, something to cheer about.

Like I said, the mindset is the same used to validate the jihad garbage.  But if that's the can you choose to live in; enjoy the company.  I'm sure ossama will love your support.

If you don't mean it that way; don't say it that way.  But since you did, don't get upset when someone calls you on it.

And uh, I have not been thrown by anything you post.  Your posts are waaaaaaaaay too simple to throw anyone.

[Cordell Walker]

and also who me, I said misinterpreted, not misrepresented...........................I think  you were thrown off by our discussion on the child support thread

Yeah, whatever.  Misinterpreted, misrepresented.  Either way it isn't the first post of yours that I've read where you were  screaming that violence is the way to handle it.

Storm Front..........yep, I read that post you did with the use of the "n" word.  Unneeded it was, uncalled for............you bet.   Bigoted, you got it.

Then there was the DEA reference.  Comparing blowing up the DEA wasn't it?  Comparing that to the man murdering his wife?  Trying to make it sound as if he was making a political stand?  Oh yeah, something to cheer about.

Like I said, the mindset is the same used to validate the jihad garbage.  But if that's the can you choose to live in; enjoy the company.  I'm sure ossama will love your support.

If you don't mean it that way; don't say it that way.  But since you did, don't get upset when someone calls you on it.

And uh, I have not been thrown by anything you post.  Your posts are waaaaaaaaay too simple to throw anyone.

Who Me?, serveral things you  said in previous post are outright false

1. I have NEVER used the "n word" on this forum, that was another poster
2. I NEVER said anything about blowing the DEA up.........................what you are talking about  was when I compared  twhat the child support dude  did to   me going out in the woods and doing a nazi cook and turning myself in at the reigeonal DEA office

you really owe me an apology for indicating I a) used racial insults and B)advocating the blowing up of a building