Hard News: It's not OK to just make stuff up
430 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
silly comments like the study I am quoting is from overseas and 10 years old.
Silly? Seems like a pretty reasonable comment to me, since the context of this discussion was domestic violence in New Zealand now.
-
Cathy Young begins;
It has been commonly said -- by those who concede that the rates of violence are roughly equal -- that, at the same time, women are six or seven times more likely than men to be seriously injured by their partners. Straus and Gelles (1986) themselves have said this. This is based on their finding that about 3% of female victims of domestic violence, but about 0.5% of the male victims, reported having sought medical care as a result of a dom. violence incident.
Strauss and Gelles (1986) also refer to evidence indicating that injuries may be the result of defensive and retaliatory actions thus, the actual picture is somewhat less clear than has been suggested above. It should furthermore be noted that there appears to be little or no real evidence with respect to self inflicted injuries.The middle section of Cathy Young’s argument is either speculative or refers to non-peer review material which might arguably be placed in the same category as reports from local refuges and anecdotes (I’m also too lazy to track this stuff down).
I took the time however to actually read the paper cited at the end by Cathy (please see the correct citation below). Even by the standards of the time, this was a poor study of limited design. It should be noted above all that this was a study of response satisfaction and response preference not a study of injury or incitement. Specifically, it was based on a relatively small (n=168) convenience sample and was lacking many important validity checks that would lend credibility to more far reaching or more general conclusions not specifically prompted in the title. This is a particular problem with respect to the injury statistics discussed. The statistics reported refer to injuries sustained there is no reference made to the cause or origin of these injuries (there is no definition for seriousness either, hence my avoidance of the term). We might reasonably assume that these injuries were the result of the incident, but to suggest that all of these injuries were inflicted by an opposing party in a dispute would be wrong. That is say the data is insufficient with respect to identifying self-inflicted injuries or in fact injuries sustained consequently in retaliation or self defence.. A compelling but un-provable explanation of the male injury statistics here, is that the numbers were inflated as a consequence of self inflicted injury (from punching walls etc) being reported as a part of overall injuries. I repeat, this conclusion is speculative, it cannot be supported or disproved on the basis of the statistics provided in this paper. Equally any conclusion that suggests males suffer more injuries inflicted by their spouses is equally speculative and un-provable.
I think it fair to say that Cathy Young made an emotive and slightly partisan argument here and failed to reflect effectively on all the evidence available to her. Consequently estimates of 20-30% may well overstate the case and have little or no subsequent evidence to support them. Generally speaking it is better to stick with a research consensus based on primary sources; it is also beneficial to acknowledge more current research when discussing such propositions. As stated up thread; no one has suggested that domestic violence is a unidirectional phenomenon, but arguments about degree and proportion are a distraction when set a against a basic issue of domestic violence - not OK. In this case the simpler message is appropriate and effective and should be employed.
BUZAWA ES & AUSTIN T
DETERMINING POLICE RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS - THE ROLE OF VICTIM PREFERENCE
AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST 36 : 610 1993 -
Pwned.
-
@ Stephen Judd
Oh, please! That would require Chuck to recognise logic and that's just not going to happen.But nice analysis, all the same, 81stcolumn
-
But nice analysis, all the same, 81stcolumn
Yes. Thanks for addressing the substance of the argument. It makes the place useful.
It also makes it easier for me to grab a little family holiday time.
Back in AK now though. It's warmer than Wellington. By why is Te Papa so stuffy?
-
You're just squidding around, aren't you?
-
From what I've read of Herald opinion pieces, their entire purpose is to say controversial things without any evidence as a dog-whistle to some reader base. Whoever it is out there that would like what Ralston wrote will find it a much better reason to continue reading the paper than the people who don't like it will find it a reason to stop reading it. It is much easier to stop reading a column than it is to find another newspaper (for all those people who still read newspapers in print). The only articles that seem to be filtered out are those in direct conflict with the political views of the owners.
As for Ralston's actual views.
Whether or not the "It's not OK" campaign actually succeeds in reducing domestic violence, it will not be a waste of time or money. To think that is akin to thinking that it would be a waste of time to talk to a friend involved in domestic violence, if it had no effect. Some things just need to be said, for their own sake, and the effects are worthy if they take weeks or centuries to come about.
I have a friend who was nearly killed by his girlfriend in a fairly clear case of domestic violence (she deliberately collided into his much smaller car head on, when they were both traveling at about 50kmh, after a very loud argument in which she had been drinking). I know this friend well enough to also know that it could have been seen coming months earlier. I regularly tell this friend my opinions on his crazy choices of women and his shoddy treatment of them. He has never changed. Should I not say anything about it, because of that? When he got back together with her after the court case I told him it was crazy. Should I have said nothing?
He certainly was hoping to sweep the whole thing under the carpet, but the police don't allow that. She was charged, found guilty, and punished. So the idea that the police are PC and anti-men in cases of domestic violence is total BS in my very limited experience of it. Far more likely is that the higher rates of reporting and conviction for domestic violence by men are actually because they do it more. Which stands to bloody reason to any adult who has ever confronted the opposite sex in any physical contest, as most acts of violence are.
-
Great post Ben.
-
Cheers. This friend has been enlightening to me on the subject of domestic violence over the years. I've known him since we were 10, and he has always been dead set against physical violence, to a degree I found extraordinary as a teenager. Extraordinary because violence between kids around me at that age was commonplace. But somehow, as an adult, he has been a domestic violence magnet. His first wife gave him regular beatings and far worse psychological abuse. He's spoken of being kicked and punched by almost every female partner he has lived with, and just the other day he told me a pretty shocking story of a beating his grandmother had given him. A couple of years back his Dad, who is a pretty old guy, even tried giving him the bash.
This guy is actually quite big, too. He could certainly fight back if he wanted to, but he has a moral problem with it.
I'm absolutely not saying he is asking for it. But it's crazily coincidental how much it has happened to him, that you have to think his choices somehow have led to it. Perhaps it is in his choices of partners? But that doesn't explain his family doing it. Perhaps he goads? In arguments I've had with him he has certainly made me very angry, but so has just about everyone I've known for a long time at some time or another. Or perhaps it is in the failure to refuse the violence? This is my own opinion, that in some way he feels that he deserves it, and this is conveyed to people who then do things that they shouldn't (and always regret, in the long run). Perhaps in some way they actually feel that it's what he wants them to do, and he has never managed to convey that he does not want it.
Which brings me to a point about the "It's not OK" campaign. Only half of it is about trying to convince perpetrators of violence that they should stop. The other half is to convince victims that they don't deserve it, and shouldn't take it. Maybe you could translate that to "they shouldn't ask for it" but with quite a different meaning. The "asking for it" is not just in provoking volatile people, it is also in feelings of low self worth that lead some people to accept it as some kind of perverted form of cosmic justice.
I don't know how typical this is. It's just one case study, but it's over a very long and close friendship.
I'm also extremely guarded about how successful the campaign can be. But that doesn't mean it's a bad or worthless campaign. I will never stop telling my friend he doesn't deserve the treatment he gets, even if he never learns. What else can I do? At least I'm trying.
-
81stcolumn, Strauss and Gelles and other studies such as the one here in New Zealand Russell referred clearly show that women initiate violence roughly equally. None of you have been able to show a study based on a random sample that shows otherwise.
I believe Cathy like many people have underestimated the damage a woman can do with a hard punch. I have seen a photo of the damage one women did to another. The photo was for a court case. The victim did not look to pretty.
The demonising of men over the last 30 to 40 years has done a lot of damage to society. Very few men will teach young children as a result. If a little girl is lost and looking for help many if not most men will keep walking fear of false accusations.
The not OK campaign that says it is never okay to hit a woman clearly implies it is sometimes okay for a woman to hit a man. This has been reinforced for years in the movies. If man refers to a woman as a slut even if she is one it is justification for a slap in the face and a real man is not meant to respond.
Unfortunately, some women think that domestic violence is okay as long as they are doing the hitting. They get away with it a few times before the man finally snaps. If women were told it is never acceptable for them to respond to verbal abuse with physical violence you would see fewer women getting bashed up.
It would be interesting to see how some of you left wing men respond. I suspect many would be like Tim Shadbolt. He would preach peace and love to others but kicked the crap out if his missus in private. I know this is on the public record.
I am against violence either way in a relationship. If it happened to me I would not respond aside from ending the relationship.
Josh, lesbian violence is greater the heterosexual violence. I cannot be bother looking up a source of which they are many as it would be out of date, done overseas or not peer reviewed or some such nonsense.
If men and women were treated equally before the law this would not be an issue. However, false or greatly exaggerated claims of domestic violence can affect a man’s custody or access.
I will copy this to Kiwiblog. Most lefties are not prepared to debate an issue so I do not think I will get a response there.
-
The not OK campaign that says it is never okay to hit a woman clearly implies it is sometimes okay for a woman to hit a man
Chuck I don't know what planet you are on but the campaign says no such thing. Deal with it.
-
If man refers to a woman as a slut even if she is one it is justification for a slap in the face and a real man is not meant to respond.
Please define what you mean by "slut".
-
custody or access
<checks card> "Bingo!"
Hey, Emma, what was the prize in that game? -
... and there you go, three responses within one minute. Who said lefties can't ... no, hang on, you actually said you wouldn't get a response on Kiwiblog!
-
And Max (whoever you are) if I want to post stuff on Kiwiblog then I will do it myself - kindly stop feeding what I post here to our rude and rather dim troll.
-
The English Chuck Bird uses is still bloody awful
"I believe Cathy like many people have underestimated..."
And anyone who called me a slut (which originally meant a kitchen slavvy/skivvy) they'd get a lecture on origins of words. Unless I just felt like killing him of course.
-
Chuck's English = not OK
Chuck's argument = not OK
but still: Killing Chuck = not OK, OK? -
Linger, totally agree with first two propositions.
But the 'him' (and it's most likely to be a him using the word 'slut' - unless you're a 14yrold girl of course - some of them seem to use it as a term of endearment) is a nebulous entity & is not, *not*, tied to the Chuck Bird entity. -
Chuck, no one is denying that women sometimes initiate violence. There may be dispute over the extent of this, but it's beside the point. The
"It's not OK" campaign is about domestic violence generally. If they lean on the "man beats woman", it's hardly letting women off the hook or encouraging them. That would be willfully perverting the message. Certainly it is not demonizing men. It is demonizing violence, which is a demon. -
I'm all for discussing gender and family violence. I just can't for the life of me see how anyone could watch that advert and claim it even "leans" towards demonising men.
Heck there are enough cleaning product adverts that do, and the irony is that I have some sympathy for that complaint from Chuck and others. I just have little tolerance for fools.
-
I just can't for the life of me see how anyone could watch that advert and claim it even "leans" towards demonising men.
That's why I was careful to use the word IF. I'm hoping to convey to Chuck that he's missing the point entirely, that disputing the extent of man vs woman initiated violence will not invalidate the campaign.
I think he's totally wrong, and that men are responsible for the bulk of it. But EVEN IF he is right, it doesn't matter. The message is still spot on.
Will it work? Time will tell. And we'd never know if it was never tried.
-
The demonising of men over the last 30 to 40 years has done a lot of damage to society.
This from someone who uses the word 'slut' seriously. Heh.
-
The reason I kept committing myself to unhealthy relationships, was because I was unhealthy.
What made you healthier, in the end?
-
Interesting post and thread, peaked somewhere in the middle for me with Craig and Emma setting the gender issue aside. Out of interest, Do ALAC make many ads illustrating the positives of drinking or are they all mainly just demonising?
As I recall from my brief time out of prison in NZ, the only ads concerned with drinking were either violent, deeply emotional scarring illustratons of worst case scenarios, or liquor ads featuring buff larrikans or rugged hard men with not a chick in sight. Is it still all scare tactics? or have they subsequently offered some positive scenarios as guides?
secondly, and rather sadly, i was struck by this from Kyle;
Actually one of the primary ways to prevent domestic violence, is to prevent people doing it again. Domestic violence offenders are very repetitive in their behaviour, they will repeat offend against their partners and their children, and they will carry their behaviour into new relationships and situations.
It's one of the reasons that as much as possible, an environment is created where every incident is reported. That puts people in front of the court system which can order them to do various courses, puts victims in touch with victim support, womens refuge and other support organisations.
It's about breaking the cycle. So absolutely getting more prosecutions is a desired outcome, we know there's a lot more domestic violence going on than is reported to the police, that gap needs to be reduced from both ends.<quote>
and this
<quote>Yes, people need to take responsibility for their actions and front up to improve. But society needs to recognise it for what it is - something that we need to work as hard as possible to fix. If for no other reason, that if we put someone on a different path, they're less likely to hurt others.
curiosuly preceded by this;
I saw a man smack a kid - probably 2 or 3 - on the interisland ferry a couple of weeks ago. Or my girlfriend saw it, I happened to be looking the other way and saw the aftereffects. He slapped her across the face.
We debated whether to say something among ourselves, but the moment passed and we lost the opportunity.
Are we expecting some kind of a miracle here?
Good on you Steve Parks for at least saying something,
-
All the other bread winners continued merrily chirping..
Post your response…
This topic is closed.