In any case, other key criticisms of the CTS still stand;

It is used only with intact couples, when much violence occurs during and after separation.

It asks only one partner in each couple about violence by them and to them, despite well-documented problems with interspousal reliability.

Perhaps most importantly of all, it ignores issues of initiation, intent or motivation, and context. It does not ask whether violent acts were initiated first or in self-defence. It does not ask about non-physical controlling behaviours. It often does not ask about fear.

One final point here. Because the CTS is a poor method, it’s poor whether we’re looking at violence against women or against men. If a guy is being systematically abused by his wife, and he hits her once in response, many applications of the CTS will treat them as equal. While other methods, e.g. which collect more data, will document the inequality in violence and the fact that he’s the one being abused.

Cheers,

michael.

Flood.

Most of these criticisms of CTS, even the false ones, are nitpicking about "how it could be better". The key point about this is that the studies used by feminists do not hold up to the same sort of scrutiny in the slightest. The most valid criticisms you put forth *are* false.

"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;"

I'll concede that the first edition of the CTS does not have a sexual assault scale, but it DOES collect data on frequency as a KEY aspect. Asking how often the person used that act in the last year has been included since the beginning. Saying that CTS1 did not include data about frequency is one of your false claims.

Saying "many studies don't" is deliberate distortion and a fallacy if used to generalise. Most studies do follow the methodology. There were *153* studies cited by Fiebert. If some don't, then that is a drop in the ocean.

So Strauss made it better, and CTS2 is producing the same results:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emas2/ID41E2.pdf

You should have a look at:

http://www.ncfmla.org/

Domestic violence researchers are getting pretty tired of their research being dismissed based on nitpicking and blatantly false claims.

"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."

False. The CTS *never* equated acts of differing seriousness. The physical aggression scale is a SCALE. It had a set of acts and a choice as to whether it was mild or serious.

I suggest you have a look through the papers at Murray Strauss' site. You've just read that paper by Kimmel and taken his word as gospel.

So you *have* made false claims. Look at Strauss site.

I'll have to answer two of your other points in a later post.

RObert: You want to understand - read my posts. I’ve said my piece and you lot have a real problem accepting others disagreement graciously. Your “understandings” have a bias to them that leads to weak assumptions.

YesRObert. Men have a responsibility for women. That doesn’t mean they share guilt ( biased assumption). The criminals are guilty. I’ve said that. Also my response to JamesH’s guilt- trip attempt should have led you to understand this.

You say: “You have the impression that the number of male victims are too small to worry about.” NO. I stated that I don’t dispute YOUR specific concerns. RObert if it is 80/ 20 or 50/50 isn’t the point. If it was 20/80 I’d still hold my gendered, experience-influenced position-like you. I haven’t attacked your concerns for male victims. You’re undermining concern for women to gather support for your concern.

Equality for men - No. Must be needs based. Construction of a female on male- rape-victim centre probably isn’t needed; and taking such men into a women’s crisis centre at such a time is insensitive. Stop this pretentiousness - embrace your gender and work for a male-only refuge.

RObert you say: “…and that you may hold men responsible for the times when men are hit by women.” You must think I am such a hypocrite to suggest that. My non-gendered views on provocation and disproportionate violent responses have been stated. Don’t waste my time with baited questions. That I accept some responsibility for my fellow males abusive behaviour is just the way I am.

Our life informs yours/my decisions - both are (albeit you deny) gendered approaches. My direct concern is with an article that was helpful in drawing attention to some problems with WRD. Your male-victim response is to be critical of Bronwyn’s feminist response. Gendered! I am not hassling you for not supporting feminists; so don’t attack me for not supporting your endeavour. I am opposing (defending) here because you are helping to undermine something that can lead to positive outcomes for women and men. You eventually just have to accept/reject this opinion

RObert: “As for ronnies comment regarding males being vilified less than mossies maybe that perception is based on never having tried to get help regarding an abusive spouse (but then I've never been mossie either).” RObert I have, among other experiences, first hand experience with trying to get justice and help for my daughter when an abusive partner bashed her. I’ve had my front teeth knocked out as a lad defending my sister against her first husband – later killed in a fight (JameH too wrapped in your conditioning to consider this possibility). RObert I don’t need to use my imagination to empathise. I get upset that certain women are still treated like dirt in our society too.


Bullet attributed this quotation to Ronnie Peters.

RP: "So then you are blaming women for having no indication that men acting
like Elvis [ on television no less ] would act in a way I percieve to be
violent, but finding out they would later. HOW COULD THEY HAVE KNOWN?!?"

That claim is misleading. It is hypocritical to accuse others of tactics. I know Bullet and JamesH don’t represent people who are more genuine in trying to find (rather than bully through) solutions to the problems affecting male victims of violence.

RObert that you went to another thread and claimed that I was “nasty” was mischievous and unfair. However another example of your unconscious bias is seen when you say that I am “nasty” (boosted) Bullet is just “name calling” (downplayed). Honestly compare my posts to Bullets. I am not a red-faced bull dyke (HB’s hateful, sexist and biased assumption) and a retard (derogatory and pointless assertion). Bullet’s behaviour suggests a deep irrational hatred of anything that he think is inferior to him.

RObert’s Post 12 December 2006 10:20:22 PM was the last one that I have read. I am not going to expose myself to any more of these abusive, misleading and nonsensical posts. The excuses for this behaviour are just that – excuses. You all complain that feminists and academics won’t engage you in debate and now I understand why.

Ronnie Peters,

You have written many words, but you havent answered my questions.

Could you please point out just one example where the several authors of this article have carried out the following: -

Attempted to not marginalise and demonise the male gender.
Attempted to write a balanced and non-gender prejudiced article.
Attempted to not mislead the public.

Michael Flood,
Would you like to answer those questions. I hope your back is feeling better, and I also hope you are not going to malign males in the future.

ronnie peters

If you want to honestly portray the care and attention to DV in Australian society post the number of refuges for females and the number of refuges for males and how the government funding is allocated. As long as there are people like you and others who argue to keep DV an issue of sex and female victimization and support the feminist dominated administration of care providers DV will never be more than a political ploy to advance feminism and the demonization of men.
I have worked in the health industry for 30 years and for the last two years my institution has worked with a womans refuge and outreach programme. We're not allowed to mention the name of the woman only refuge and we're not allowed to talk to the women. It's our job if we do either. I don't like the idea of any care facility working in secret and argued this point from the beginning but, to no avail. Money talks. truth walks. Then I began to hear the what and how of their consultation. Way too much anti-male rhetoric, way too much anger being transmitted by the all female staff to be helpful once the patient is back in society.
By making and supporting DV as an issue of sex and making statements that men are responsible for women, is a guarantee that the numbers of hateful women and hateful men will increase and that any true and practical measures for healing and social care will be left to the whim of the ongoing feminist battle of the sexes. Your position might be politically correct but, it isn't morally or ethically correct. DV is not an issue of sex. Both sexes contribute to DV. DV is an issue of human psychiatry. Men and women share the burden equally. Men and women should share in the care and treatment equally and not be segregated by sex to be treated in isolation.