G'morning Ronnie, sleep well? I hope you said your prayers.

"JamesH sent me to a sexist anti-feminist religious site."

There is not a single link I posted which goes to a religious site!

Tom's Tale
www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0922rolph.html

Glenn Sacks on Hisside has a few interesting programs

Men and fatal attractions
www.hisside.com/1_18_04.htm

Darkness at Noon: Soviet-Style Re-education in State Mandated 'Batterers' Classes
www.hisside.com/12_7_03.htm

"It doesn't matter that you're innocent. Or that she attacked you first. Or that you both went over the line and that both of you want to put it behind you and work it out. The system will prosecute you and persecute you until you've confessed your sins--even if you've none to confess. And you're not cured until they say you're cured--even if you were never sick to begin with."

Angry Harry follows with
www.angryharry.com/esOfCourseTheresnoBloodyCure.htm

www.angryharry.com/esDomesticViolenceItsAlwaysTheSameWomen.htm

www.angryharry.com/eswerewomenoppressedinthewest.htm

(warning AngryHarry is likely to offend some people)

Researching domestic violence a disturbing pattern started to emerge. I began to notice comments about how researchers investigating domestic violence perpetrated against men were subjected to intimidation and threats of violence. Not only were there threats of violence, their books and research papers were also subjected to censorship.

Erin Pizzey founder of the first refuge had to leave the UK because of threats of violence by feminists.

It is not men who need to examine their attitudes, it is the misandry feminists.

James, a recurring theme. I referenced an article earlier in the discussion by Gelles - http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html (thanks to Happy Bullet for the link that lead to this) which includes the following

"The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present. Suzanne received the brunt of the attacks—individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant finding be rescinded. All three of us became ”non persons” among advocates. Invitations to conferences dwindled and dried up. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to use. Librarians publicly stated they would not order or shelve our books."

I've also heard (but not seen anything by the authors on this subject) that the authors of the "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN AUSTRALIA:ARE WOMEN AND MEN EQUALLY VIOLENT?" were subjected to a lot of abuse for their work. De Vaus seems to be the only author of that study who still makes a link to it available via his web site and neither Headey or Scott seem to reference it amongst their research work any more (both did when I first came across it). I guess it could also be argued that they have identified some fundamental flaw in their research and want to distance themselves from it.

It seems that there are very real consequences for researchers who are silly enough to ask the wrong questions.

R0bert

Robert,
There is a lot of money tied up in the domestic violence industry and the family law or divorce industry. Of course both are inter-related.

For some people there is a lot of money at stake if / when the myth (or blatant lie) that males are the only perpetrators of domestic violence is finally exposed.

Tommie,

Your openness about recent events is admirable. Personally, I have found that the acknowledgement and feedback one can get from a site such as this to be of enormous benefit. Also, kudos for adding a fresh voice to the discussion, re. childhood development.

On fresh ideas,

I would like to repeat an earlier suggestion:

Regarding penalties for false DV accusations,

I can understand that this could reduce the abuse of AVO orders, and lend more weight to the credibility of convictions, but I think it may also deter genuine victims, both male and female, from prosecuting. If the standard of proof for DV conviction or AVO grants is raised, is there a need to impose penalties for false accusations? Such a move may be unnecessary and counterproductive.

Alternative opinions welcome.

Ronnie,

“I never accused you of that (bullying).” True, but you have complained (12/12/06, 12:37:36PM) that you have been called “bully.” Can you name your accuser, and what is your defence?

You have accused others of “bullying behaviours” as I pointed out (11/12/06-5:02:53PM.) In the context of the rest of your (12/12 12:37) post, where you personalised arguments that had nothing to do with you, it appeared you were turning my comments that you have accused others of “bullying behaviours” into an accusation from me that you had been the bully.

On physical presence,

Firstly, the internet gives posters the choice of anonymity, an opportunity to debate, and search for knowledge. Claiming the moral high ground for giving your real name is beside the point. It is a tacit accusation that we are likely to hunt you down, (which we most definitely are not.)

Secondly, my comments ”It is nigh on impossible to bully someone engaged in a debate over the internet,” and “bullying behaviour does not require physical contact,” do not mutually exclude each other. It is a subtlety, not spin. Furthermore, “bullying behaviour does not require physical contact,” was in response to “where I claimed you gave me a physical injury over the internet.” I have already shown that this comment has no basis in fact.

cont...

You now appear to have admitted making that bit up (as a joke?) You haven’t shown much sense of humour previously. Surely my comments on the dessert-dish and the spoon demonstrates my own.

Films,

Sexist attitudes against both sexes in films and TV, today are at best equal. Should we get over it, or avoid any ribbing of the opposite sex whatsoever?

(Suggestions from all-comers welcome.)

My favourite,

“Dozer: Peters has… said that … opponents of WRD as being anti-feminist, anti-equality, misogynist, rage-aholics, and cynical abusers who either perpetuate or cannot face their own crimes – no I haven’t said all that , except for anti-feminist.” (12/12/06-3:40:15PM)

I introduced the sentence (07/12/06-12:10:02PM) as follows:

“Peters and Flood have variously described opponents of WRD…

I understand that you are independent of Flood and his arguments, yet it was more than reasonable to point out that together, you were using typical tactics to avoid engaging directly with our arguments.

Also, you mentioned in the directly preceding paragraph you earlier suggestions that certain people need anger management counselling. Should you not then say “except for anti-feminist and rage-aholics?”

Your intellectual dishonesty continues. I have known a number of people, (old girlfriend included,) who use tactics such as these. Designed simply to obfuscate, they work to bamboozle an opponent trying to engage in a rational, face to face discussion, with the aim of winning the argument at any price. But they come unstuck when your comments are recorded.

ABS- Do you now accept that DV is committed at equal rates by both sexes?

Regarding Peters’ gender,

My question appears to have been answered. I did some digging and came across Peters’ comments on Winter’s previous apocrypha, “Uncovered Meat meets Mr Lust.” He states openly that he is a male, and argues against Winter’s assertion that many Aussie blokes share Hilali’s view, but also makes a comment which I find interesting given his attitude to “religious” sites:

“I can recall one time about 14 years ago when a Baptist preacher asserted that Bible okays raping one’s wife. That created outrage from other Christians (myself included).”

(I’ve been away from this debate for a couple of weeks. I was on holiday, then injured my back, and I’ve got a backlog of work to catch up on. But here’s at least a brief comment.)

Happy Bullet writes that I make false claims about the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). He notes that the *revised* CTS does include sexual coercion, and that it does ask about the frequency of violent acts. That’s true. However;

Many studies which use CTS-style methods either were undertaken before such revisions, or don’t adopt the full revised CTS if undertaken after these revisions. Focusing on Australian data for example, Headey et al. don’t include sexual coercion, and from memory, they don’t ask about the frequency of violent acts. Similary, the ABS’s Personal Safety Survey uses only a very crude measure of frequency: once or more than once. And its injury data don’t tell us what type of perpetrator (other than their sex) was involved. And it doesn’t tell us much at all about less and more severe forms of physical aggression.

Can you tell me for example: *which* of Fiebert’s many studies use the pre-CTS2 version of this method?

This means that many of the existing criticisms of the CTS which Straus rejects do apply to many of the studies which use his method of versions of it, such as equating acts of different seriousness.