Quentin0352 and gwallan I don't know where you guys come from, but thank god you are here and thank you for your contribution.

Eeva Sodhi (please note she is a woman) in Manufacturing Research wrote "begin their research "with women's experience as they (the women themselves) see it". They then turn around and say that, after all, that is not what they meant. What they really meant is that women research subjects need to be educated to realize that feminist researchers, with their superior intellect and training, are in the best position to interpret what women's experiences are.

This is best described by D. Millen (1997) in her 'Some Methodological and Epistemological Issues Raised by Doing Feminist Research on Non-Feminist Women' [in: Sociological Research Online, vol. 2, no. 3]. She quotes Maynard and Purvis:

[I]ndividuals do not necessarily possess sufficient knowledge to explain everything about their lives (Maynard and Purvis, 1994: p. 6).

The above, if nothing else, infantilizes women and makes any gender based research meaningless as all that is given at the end is the researcher's personal bias.

Contractors are further instructed to "make a careful choice about which indicators are going to be applied" because the indicators have to reflect the gendered approach they are developing. Under no circumstance is it permissible to conclude that Canadian women are not subjected to a systemic bias. Every undertaking must be premised on an understanding of the "historical and continuing reality of women's inequality" in Canadian society."
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115735/www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

Artic dog
In a previous post you said that “women are still largely being victimised by men” without any evidence.

Then go on to say “'poor little bloke me, me missus did me wrong' nonsense”.

Then you describe VFL players as “over-testosteroned blokes” that are “underendowed with brain-power”

Then you go on to say “stop the whingeing”, and then describe men as living in an “knock-down, drag-em-by-the hair-to-the caves” era, when no such era ever existed.

Now you have let it slip that you are involved in support groups.

I would think you would be the least likely person that should be involved in any type of support group.

You are biased to the core, have no regard for men, and use emotion and propaganda rather than scientific fact.

I believe you should be resigning from any support group you belong to.

R0bert, TRTL (and others on the DV thread)

I have only just come to this discussion, so apologies if I repeat what others have already said. Claims of equal gender battering are based on CTS (Conflict Tactics Scale) methodology, which has been pretty much discredited, even by the original researchers. Both Richard J. Gelles and Murray Straus, two of the original CTS authors, have categorically rejected such interpretations of their work.

Among the main faults of CTS are:

• The surveys are voluntary, which excludes those too terrorised by DV to participate, and the most abusive individuals are unlikely to agree to participate for fear of exposure.
• Only ongoing relationships are included – a significant omission when approximately three-quarters of male-initiated DV assaults occur after the end of a relationship.
• Privacy was not always assured. Often significant others were present when the surveys were conducted.
• No questions were asked about rape or sexual assault, where male abusers predominate.
• Interpretations of DV are woefully limited and context is ignored. For example, a push in self-defense is weighted on an equal level to pushing someone down the stairs; a kick is weighted higher than a shove, so a playful kick while kidding around is rated higher than shoving someone up against a wall.
• Mental impact is ignored. Due to the disparity in physical strength, women are likely to be much more frightened and disempowered by violence from a man, compared to vice versa.
• Differences in reasons for gender violence are ignored. For example, men are often violent as a method of control or response to rejection, whereas women are often violent when their lives or their children’s lives are threatened.

My question would be: Why is such a discredited research method still being used as the basis for so many studies and articles designed to ‘prove’ equal battering rates between men and women? Certainly men are being battered and should be listened to and supported, but making false claims and misinterpretations about the extent to which they are being battered does not help their case.

Excellent post SJF. I agree particularly with your final paragraph.

Now I hope you're wearing a digital raincoat...

SJF,

That's a really interesting post, and I'm sure you and the others will argue till the cows come home who's references are more valid.

But Some of it sounds like pure propaganda to me. i.e. 'men are often violent as a method of control or response to rejection, whereas women are often violent when their lives or their children’s lives are threatened.'

I think this illustrates huge bias on how men and woman are treated. Women are just so wholesome, even when they do bad, it's only because they are protecting their children or themselves, and it's really a mans fault somewhere. Men should be punished when they do wrong, women should be helped. If you really want equality, you have to take away all this rubbish about women being so virtuous by nature, and men being violent by nature.

'Mental impact is ignored. Due to the disparity in physical strength, women are likely to be much more frightened and disempowered by violence from a man, compared to vice versa.
'
This I can understand. But is it really relevant? Violence is violence, and leads to more violence. It never occurs to you that a man who has been brought up not to hit women and finds himself under attack is disempowered? A man who knows full well if he does hit back he will lose custody of his children and be foced to leave the family home? Is he not disempowered?

Women are so keen to ensure the men remain the villian. In those DV adverts, in an attempt to not give any excuse for male violence against women, they end up giving the message that female violence against men DOESN'T HAPPEN, or is CONDONED. It also absolves TOTALLY a womans responsibility in the following case...

Couple argues. Woman gets hysterical. Woman slaps man in face, woman pushes man against wall. Woman throws dangerous objects at man, woman kicks man. Man finally punches woman in face and breaks nose. Why is it not possible to give the woman some responsibility for this without excusing the mans behaviour?

@SJF...

You suggest Murray Strauss now rejects CTS? He has done no such thing and is still using it. The only "rejection" comes from those within the DV establishment whose incomes and influence depend on maintaining the status quo.

The CTS was denounced only AFTER men were included in the research. Prior to that there was no objection to it's use. Statistics gathered using the CTS methodology were widely referenced in DV advocacy and still are.

It's an example of shifting the goalposts. A similar thing occurred with the shift to referencing "intimate partner violence" after attention was drawn to the fact that "domestic violence" should include the abuse of children and elders in which women lead men significantly. Notably the highest rates of intimate partner violence occur among lesbians.

All of the "faults" you list can be easily countered or equivalent limiting factors for male victims can be shown.

You ask...
"Why is such a discredited research method still being used as the basis for so many studies and articles designed to ‘prove’ equal battering rates between men and women? Certainly men are being battered and should be listened to and supported, but making false claims and misinterpretations about the extent to which they are being battered does not help their case."

Hyperbolic claims seem to have worked quite well for women’s advocates.

Why does the majority of advocacy research not include men at all? Why are there no services or support for men apart from those that assume a default position that they are abusers? While you admit that there are men being abused I can guarantee that virtually every one of them thinks he's the only one.

Frankly I'm surprised that ANY research picks up male victims at all. Men have a much higher threshold for what they would consider abusive to them. They’re constantly told that only women are victims. In the US over a quarter of abused men who call police are themselves arrested. They are also well aware that any admission that they were abused by a woman will result in their being ridiculed