Posted by ChazP, Thursday, 23 December 2010 8:52:30 PM

I think it says it all. A rigid black and white thinker.

The above post does show a extreme degree of Maternal Gatekeeping.

It is relatively easy to manipulate research findings and whilst ChapZ post this

<2) Research findings of 'gender symmetry' in domestic violence have been criticised for flawed methods including problems with sampling, a focus on physical violence only and ignoring the context in which the violence occurs - see Paradine and Wilkinson>

Even a casual glance of feminist advocacy research questions, show a larged degree of prejudice and bias in the types, structure and the manner the questions are asked.

So the same criticism of flawed methodology can be said of feminist research and more accurately it would apply to feminist research.

Such research findings have been used a propagande tools, and as in sophistry, appeals to the emotions.

Daphne Patai pointed out the use of inflammatory annologies are used to manipulate our perceptions.

Even in an intact family there will be times that children do not like either parent, because the children did not get their own way.
ChapZ brings out all this research about how poorly children are doing in contact arrangements, yet much of the behaviour is normal child behaviour that occurs within an intact family at times.

But what the research does, is simply take this behaviour and exaggerate and magnify it. Not all children behave in the same way, some will toss temper tantrums, not unlike some adults here.

However in the primary carer can have a huge influence over the behaviour of a child, subtley rewarding behaviour and thus reinforcing that behaviour. Thus manipulating many situations.

chazP, still scab-picking, I see. You go grrrrl, but those old wounds don't seem to be attracting too many flies. Perhaps a bit of self-excoriation might be required? Maybe a bit of clothes-rending? I'm sure an experienced beggar can do better.

happy, I recall the case. It was a tragis case of a pair of no-hopers who should have never been allowed to have a child, ler alone several. Both parents were long-term drug-users for a start.

However, this was an intact family, not a Family Law matter. What relevance do you think it has to the subject?

happy:"Feminism is actually rejected by those that stand the most to gain from a white male landed elitism."

Actually, it's rejected by those who see the tragic consequences for families and children. It is an ideology of the damaged, designed to pander to the weak of mind and the feckless.

It cannot inform a true debate because it does not recognise that any other than the dogmatic viewpoint exists.

As for a "white male landed elitism", I have a small business that I started from scratch about 6 years ago when the CSA forced me out of regular employment. I have a couple of casual employees. I don't own any property at all, thanks to the prolonged post-divorce legal shenanigans that legal aid funded.
I spent all of my savings and then had to represent myself, while my ex never had to spend a cent. After nearly 7 years I'm almost back to where I was then, while my ex has been living in a 3 bedroom Housing Commission property on an income always just below the threshold.

I have never put my hand out for a freebie. How many taxpayer dollars have you taken, Patricia? Oh, that's right, you're "entitled" - how silly of me to forget.

Personally, I reckon Feminism as you do it is nothing but a scam designed to perpetuate the idea that women need never be responsible for their own lives. you go grrrrl...

<A U.S. document called “National Crime Victimization Survey. Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates” (April 1997, NCJ-164381) shows how, if scientific methodology does not produce required results, the methodology will be changed to include suggestive and leading questions. That, of course, will increase the number of respondents who have a personal axe to grind, or who do not comprehend the ulterior motives, or who wish to embellish their experiences.>

http://web.archive.org/web/20050308195640/www.nojustice.info/CollectingInformationforPropagandaisnotResearch.htm

Of course ChapZ, Liz and others will fight tooth and nail and continue to grind their axes.

Oh I forgot.

Merry Christmas everyone and have a happy New Year.

That means everyone is included, even if I disagree with you.

We are unique’s suggestions are mere appeasement. Its rather like concentration camp inmates appealing to Hitler or the Kurds appealing to Saddam Hussein for clemency. Sociopaths treat such responses as further signs of weakness and increase their abuse and violence and control. You cannot appease sociopaths!.
Septic Ant – your lack of ability to analyse and interpret research has already been exposed and has no credibility and your Patriarchist bigotry is well-renowned, even to the point of notoriety. So any response to your comments would give them credibility they do not deserve. So just keep yourself busy playing in your shed.
JamesH - If research findings are such rubbish as you claim, then why do Father’s Rights groups rely so heavily on them in their propaganda?. For example they have promoted the `research’ of Richard Gardner as the definitive position on `Parental Alienation Syndrome’ despite it being strongly rejected by the relevant professional community as completely lacking in scientific methodology, completely lacking in academic rigour, and to indicate a prejudicial view in favour of paedophilia and child sexual abuse.
Your comment that, “Such research findings have been used a propaganda tools, and as in sophistry, appeals to the emotions” applies very correctly to the FR Groups adherence to Gardner’s conjectures.
You might also care to explain how former Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson and former Justice Richard Chisholm agree with the research findings into domestic violence and child abuse, or are they just a part of the RadFem activists you fear and loathe so much, from your Patriarchist bigotry viewpoints.
The only axe I have to grind JamesH is the safety and protection of children in Family Law proceedings as do Nicholson and Chisholm, and yes I will continue to fight tooth and nail to achieve that goal. If it involves trying to educate the ineducable who blather in such threads as this, then that is a cross I shall continue to have to bear

ChazP:"We are unique’s suggestions are mere appeasement"

Riiight...

ChazP:"your lack of ability to analyse and interpret research has already been exposed "

Actually, my ability to analyse and interpret research is all too embarrassingly good. Never mind, you can keep scab-picking and we'll all get on with discussing things like adults.

Sounds like a reasonable division of labour to me.

BTW, whatever made you think that "I know you are but what am I?" was a reasonable basis for an argument? Is the rain giving you cabin fever?

ChazP:"You might also care to explain how former Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson and former Justice Richard Chisholm agree with the research findings into domestic violence and child abuse"

Nicholson is a "lion of the left" as John stapleton described him. He knew and knows upon which side his bread his buttered. Likewise, Chisholm was appointed because he knew the result that was required and he produced it.
Moreover, Chisholm was adhering over-enthusiastically to the "precautionary principle" in the absence of adequate data. The data has since been collected and it points to shared care as the most desirable.

Thanks for letting me clear that up for you.