A lie, that appeals to our prejudices is far more palatable than the truth in some instances.

Take for example the research that was conducted by Lenore Weitzman, that found mens income increased whilst women's fell after divorce.

Because his corrected figures may actually still overstate the inequalities in the
<economics of divorce, Peterson's revision of Weitzman's numbers may ironically
< continue the distortion of the truth. As the media slowly begins to use Peterson's
<calculations to correct its uncritical acceptance of Weitzman's 73/42 statistic,

http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

So Sarah as a researcher, have you ever asked yourself why men and women are asked different questions in domestic violence research?

Take for example the screening questions for pregnant women.

"When was the last time he hit you?"

When men are asked;

"When was the last time you hit her?"

If you look at the first women safety survey, there was never any research conduct into male safety, asking men about their domestic experiences.

Interestingly there is a very rare piece of research that was conducted in Canada in about 1987. That actually did ask men and women the same questions.

http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

Women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and women are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship, according to a new Canadian study that deals a blow to the image of the male as the traditional domestic aggressor.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the study, however, is the source of the data -- a 1987 survey of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses.

Although the original researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now.

Sarah:
Phanto – I am sorry that you think my articles are “juvenile”. As a colleague once said to me, “I will keep talking about this issue until things change”.

If they are not juvenile then you do not need to apologise. Nor is it logical to feel sad or ‘sorry’ – you are under no obligation to please me. Perhaps the word juvenile has hit a nerve.

Well, it is your right to keep on talking and saying things that have been said thousands of times before but it cannot be construed as anything else but nagging. Some people who nag do so because they enjoy the nagging. They do not want things to change because they enjoy the sense of power that they feel from belittling others. Their worst fear is that change will occur

Antiseptic, I was incorrect when I stated "men are often in senior positions and less inclined to start again and retrain for a job in a new profession." When putting forward a possible explanation for a larger number of mature age female students than male, I should have said "it is possible that some men may be in senior positions".

Phanto, I will be explicit about why I am sorry: your description of my articles as "juvenille" is a technique used to negate my views. This has made me loose interest in further discussion with you. I am sorry because I was interested in your comments on my earlier article.

Wolly B – I have never undertaken research into domestic violence, but if the questions are as you state in your post– the research question is most definitely biased. It is sexist to have different questions for men and women.

Antiseptic – I have defined gender equality in a previous post. You may be interested to know who are Victoria’s Male Champions of Change.
John Cain, former premier of Victoria
Glyn Davis, vice-chancellor, University of Melbourne
Chris Eccles, secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet
James Fazzino, CEO, Incitec Pivot
Adam Fennessy, secretary, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
Tony Frencham, managing director, DOW Chemical (Australia and New Zealand)
Gareth Goodier, CEO, Melbourne Health
Peter Hay, chair, Newcrest Mining
Doug Hilton, director, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Damon Johnston, editor-in-chief, The Herald Sun
Brian Kruger, CEO, Toll Group
Ken Lay, former chief commissioner, Victoria Police
Gillon McLachlan, CEO, AFL
Chris Maxwell, president of the Supreme Court of Appeal
George Savvides, managing director, Medibank Private
Luke Sayers, CEO, PwC Australia
Steven Sewell, CEO, Federation Centres
Ian Silk, CEO, Australian Super
Andrew Thorburn, CEO, NAB

I do not know how these men were selected. If you decide you would like to be a Male Champion of Change, you should perhaps contact the Victorian Human Rights Commission.

Sarah:
There is no need to be so defensive. When I said “what is the point of these juvenile articles” I was referring to all the articles like this of which this one of yours was an example. There have been many such articles like this written here in the past. I was not referring to all your articles.

Calling them juvenile is not a technique it is an expression of an opinion. Not every opinion you disagree with is a technique to negate your views. I cannot negate your views even if I wanted to – you are free to say what you like on this forum.

I think these type of articles are juvenile because nagging is juvenile type behaviour. It is an immature response to a set of circumstances that someone does not want to have to deal with.

“This has made me loose interest in further discussion with you.” There is no need to tell me this. Why should it matter to me? I express my views not simply to engage with you but to engage with everyone who reads and writes on the forum. I can express exactly the same views whether you engage with me or not.

Why all this waffle about "equality"?
Men and women are different, not the same.
If each gender treated the other with equal respect, there would not be
complaints about "dominance".

Dr Russell, you're obviously a skillful and well-qualified person, with the personal integrity to acknowledge when you have made a mistake and you have repeatedly stated your commitment to seeking to support your views with good data.

However, it is also pretty obvious from your articles and some of your comments that you are strongly influenced in your analysis of gender relations by some flawed assumptions that have become somewhat axiomatic in feminist discourse.

There are two fundamental flaws that I see in your approach.

The first is that you set up a false class dichotomy between men and women while ignoring the much larger class distinctions that exist across society. A woman employed as a professional, or a woman married to a professional man is likely to be, on any measure of social wellbeing, better off than a man working as a casual labourer, for example. However, that man and his female partner are probably quite similar in all such measures. Similarly, a wealthy couple who divorce don't suffer much in the financial fallout, but a couple at the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum might well be both devastated financially with no hope of recovery.

The second is that you don't seem to have a well defined model of what is meant by equality between genders, with respect. The genders are intrinsically different, with some significant overlaps, but there are essential aspects in which most men differ from most women, without even considering reproduction. The genders are complementary in very many ways.

I am a big fan of Barbara Pocock's excellent AWALI series, which has shown a steady decline in self-reported life satisfaction for both genders since its inception. Are we racing to be equally miserable?