Wednesday, July 04, 2007

More Good Stuff for your Reading Pleasure

From an article by Richard Gelles, the noted family violence researcher:

". . .To enhance the understanding of family violence, my colleagues Murray Straus and Suzanne Steinmetz and I conducted the First National Family Violence Survey in 1976.

"We interviewed a nationally representative sample of 2,143 individual family members. The results were reported in a number of scholarly articles and, finally, in the book Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. . .

"The most controversial finding was that the rates of female-to-male and male-to-female intimate violence were the same. Even the rates of abusive female-to-male and male-to-female violence were the same. When my colleague Murray Straus presented these findings at a conference in 1977, he was nearly hooted and booed from the stage. When my colleague Suzanne Steinmetz published a scholarly article, The Battered Husband Syndrome, in 1978, the editor of the professional journal published, in the same issue, a critique of Suzanne's article.

"The response to these findings sparked not only heated scholarly criticism, but intense and persistent personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to speak.

"Suzanne bore the brunt of the attacks. People urged her university to deny her tenure, and urged government agencies to rescind her grant funding. All three of us became "nonpersons" in our field; invitations to conferences dwindled. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to us. Librarians publicly stated that they would not order or shelve our books.

"The more sophisticated critiques were not personal but methodological, focusing on how we had measured violence. We had developed an instrument, the Conflict Tactics Scales, which met all the scientific standards for reliability and validity, so the criticisms focused on content. First, the measure assessed acts of violence, not outcomes -- so it did not reflect the consequences of those acts. Second, it did not assess who struck whom, or whether the violence was in self-defense. These two criticisms became a mantra-like refrain over the next two decades.

"Meanwhile, Murray Straus and I conducted the Second National Family Violence Survey in 1986, seeking to address the two methodological criticisms. We interviewed a nationally representative sample of 6,002 individual family members by telephone, and this time, we asked about the outcomes of the violence, and who started the conflict and how.

"This study also produced surprises. As expected, women were found to be much more likely than men to be injured by acts of domestic violence. But we also found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men. In order to correct for a possible bias in reporting, we re-examined our data, looking only at what women had reported. The survey had asked subjects about the last time there was partner violence: "In that particular instance, who started the physical contact, you or your spouse/partner?" And the women we interviewed reported similar rates of female-to-male and male-to-female violence; they also said they were as likely to initiate the violence as men.

"When we reported the results of the Second National Family Violence Survey, the personal attacks continued, and the professional critiques simply ignored the methodological changes we'd made. This round of personal attacks was much more insidious -- including charges that Murray had abused his wife. This is not unusual in the field of family violence -- men whose research results prove contrary to political correctness are labeled "perps."

"It's important to note that our findings have been corroborated numerous times by many different researchers, using many different methodological approaches. Reviewing more than 30 such studies, my colleague Murray Straus found that every study not based on a "self-selective" sample has reported comparable rates for female-to-male and male-to-female assaults on partners. . ."

Read the whole article here:

http://www.mountainx.com/opinion/2000/0322gelles.php

This is only the tip of the iceberg, of course. But perhaps it will sharpen your appetite for a more enhanced understanding in this crucially important sector of feminism's anti-male propaganda offensive.

P.S. The article doesn't mention it, but apparently Suzanne Steinmetz recieved threats to her children!

4 Comments:

Anonymous paul parmenter said...

Everyone with an interest in this field needs to be aware of the Fiebert bibliography:

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

11:59 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Yee-haw! It's on the link bar over yonder, to the right.

Fiebert's list is a classic, of course. Which means that the other side has been attacking it.

How/why have they been attacking it? They have been attacking it because so many of the studies listed on it make use of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). . .

Therefore. . .they have been attacking the CTS instrument itself on various grounds. Their main criticism of the CTS is that it fails to address "context", as they put it.

What they fail to realize, or at least fail to mention, is that the CTS does not pretend to be a perfect instrument, however: it does certain things extremely well.

AND. . . data gathered by means of the CTS has seriously undermined the tenability of feminist claims. Thanks to the CTS, the feminist paradigm has less ground to stand upon.

All that the feminist apologists have done is to point out certain "gaps" in the CTS picture of reality. But this is merely a negative criticism which does NOTHING to regain any lost credibility. If the feminists wish to regain their lost credibility, they need to assert a POSITIVE knowledge claim.

The contextual gaps in the CTS data are like blank spots on a map. All that the feminists have done so far is to speculate upon what "might be found" in those blank spots. But they need to do more; they need to shine a light and PROVE what is actually in the gaps. They need to get to work and build an actual case to back their claims, and turn their "mere speculations" into positive knowledge.

Which so far they have not effectively done, to my knowledge.

Meantime, various researchers have done a LOT to answer femininst criticisms of the CTS, and to shrink the size of the gaps.

All of which means that the feminists must work harder than ever to uphold the primacy of their knowledge claims - which now appear very much open to question.

6:00 PM  
Anonymous paul parmenter said...

I also maintain that anyone who mistrusts the "experts" in this field can do a very simple piece of research themselves. It won't be accepted by academics but it will open your eyes and give you an insight into what is really going on.

Just take a pen and notepad and go to any place where large numbers of people of both sexes gather in roughly equal numbers. Bars, clubs, whatever. It will certainly help the research if there is plenty of alcohol available.

Then just sit quietly in a corner or where you have a good view, and look for acts of physical violence against people. Score the "hits" on your notepad. You can use a very simple system, like just recording numbers; or make it as sophisticated as you like, such as distinguishing types of violence (kicks, slaps, pushes, hitting with objects etc), where aimed (face, head, ribs, groin) and the scale (low level, medium, hard, full-on - based on any criteria you choose). But be sure to record which sex perpetrates the violence, and which sex is on the receiving end, in each case.

Be honest, don't cheat, and record everything. Don't let anybody off just because their physicality is low-level, or there is no sign of damage; and certainly not because they are female. Leave your prejudices at home. Even if it is just a mild push, still record it. Any contact with any degree of force behind it and with obvious intent should go down on your pad. Ignore playful stuff, but use your judgement over whether something is serious or not. You should be able to tell from the faces of the two parties, and the verbal exchanges that are certain to precede and follow it.

At the end of the night, you will have your own sample that you can trust because you have chosen the circumstances and the venue, seen the action with your own eyes, and recorded it in your own fair hand.

It is unscientific, crude and partially subjective; as I say, it would never be accepted by serious scholars in this field. The purpose is not to prove anything to anyone else, but only to yourself.

But I can guarantee that if you make a number of these records, in different locations at different times, you will see a distinct pattern emerging. And that pattern will show women as the main initiators of violence. They will be the ones throwing the first punch or aiming the first kick, in a very decided majority of cases.

How do I know? Because I have made many such casual observations myself, and the results are always the same.

Why is it consistently so? Because women have no constraints on their behaviour at all. There is no taboo, no social disapproval, no punishment, and very little risk of adverse consequences, let alone retribution. But men have all of those constraints. And if men do "kick off", then 99% of the time it will be against other men. I can assure you that the column in your notepad headed "male on female" will be the emptiest.

Don't take my word for it; try it yourself. You might learn something you had never believed could be true.

1:10 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Excellent comment you have made here. I think I will post it as a "guest column", so that nobody will miss it!

4:25 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home