What, no one coming to the defence of the incompetent Michael Flood? I can't seem to find anything from the White Ribbon people decrying the blatant misquoting of statistics to create an impression that is directly opposite to the real findings of the NCP2001 report. I wonder why?

Where are the cries of outrage that 1 in 3 girls considers it no big deal to hit a boy? SJF, Pynchme, you seem to have gone all coy all of a sudden.

What a bunch of hypocritical lightweights.

Michael Flood has just demonstrated his high level of integrity by drawing attention to an error.

That doesn't detract from the large body of additional information provided or from findings in other studies that cite similar figures regarding negative attitudes towards women of one sort or another. In fact, the idea that 1/3 of boys thought that violence against women was acceptable might represent an improvement from earlier statistics. One project done some years ago, if I recall correctly, cited a figure somewhere around 50%.

Michael Flood and his cohorts represent men who seek to establish respectful relationships. I doubt that he or they would support any violence from one partner to another, regardless of the sex of the perpetrator.

Anitseptic,
thought you may be interested in this link,

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20050426-0000/www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/2004mag/02_feb04mag/jamesh_09.htm

<Many people who deal with computers on a daily basis know that the quality of the information input, directly influences the quality of the analysis - garbage in, garbage out. Simple isn’t it?

For decades now research results have driven social policies. In areas from child support to domestic violence>

Pynchme:"Michael Flood has just demonstrated his high level of integrity by drawing attention to an error."

Michael Flood had no choice: his integrity is non-existent.

Pynchme:"the idea that 1/3 of boys thought that violence against women was acceptable might represent an improvement from earlier statistics"

Are you stupid or just dishonest? The statistic was that 1/3 of girls regard it as acceptable to hit boys, not the other way around. How many more times doyou need that repeated before it sinks in?The success of Flood's misquote is that dimwits like you will still seek to use it, regardless of the fact that it's wrong. If Flood and the rest of his bandwagon-riders were serious about correcting the error, they'd have published a great big press release saying "1 in 3 girls regard it as acceptable to hit boys" and had it front page, just as their original (I suspect deliberately misquoted) press release was front page.

Now, how about that howl of outrage that 1/3 of girls regard boys as a reasonable target for violence?

Antiseptic, I said the "idea" - I didn't quote that as a statistic. Are you stupid or just dishonest (as usual) ? You're the one constantly misquoting.

Here's another stat for you that, if you read some of the links provided, you'd know by now: not ONE male participant in a study of teenage attitudes thought that girls hitting boys was problematic - they were "amused" by it. You could, of course, join with Michael Flood and Co. in seeking to change socio-cultural attitudes that support violence and that set men up both as perpetrators and as targets (mostly of each other).

Here are a couple of links for you, obtained from the post by James. Do make an effort to read them and I urge you to be less hysterical and more objective when weighing them up:

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20050426-0000/www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti82.pdf

and this:

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20050426-0000/www.kittennews.com/cgi-bin/kn_opinion/opinioncf7d.html?topic=999966

versus:

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/25849/20081113-0034/www.bullyingnoway.com.au/talkout/profiles/researchers/michaelFlood.html

Information from the first link is hardly disputable - concrete facts about homicide/suicide in the context of DV - twenty families per year.

The next link - the writer to whom James referred.

The last link - Michael Flood.

Now ask yourself: what is the first writer contributing to stopping violence as cited in the study (1st link). Then ask yourself what, in all reasonableness, anyone could object to in Michael Flood's exposition.

Which writer is doing most to stop violence - which approach makes more sense? I wonder if you are capable of being intellectually competent, honest and rigorous enough to objectively weigh that up.

Pynchme:” I said the "idea"”
Well, your “idea” is wrong, just as the original article was wrong.

Now, to your links: the first is in relation to murder-suicides (in general, not “in the context of DV”). While these are tragedies, they’re hardly a mainstream problem. If they are, then the 1500-odd men who die each year through suicide are an even bigger problem and nobody seems terribly concerned about them, unless they also kill or hurt a woman, of course. The report is also low on any kind of analysis of such incidents involving female perpetrators, which is typical of many such reports.

The second is a comment on a disgraceful mistreatment of such a tragedy by Four Corners. Enough said about that.

Pynchme:” Then ask yourself what, in all reasonableness, anyone could object to in Michael Flood's exposition.”

The fact is that Flood and his fellow-travellers take the distinctly non-rigorous approach of deciding on a result and doing what they can to make data fit, whether it’s real data or not. If anyone other than a “pro-feminist” tried that, they’d be laughed off the faculty. Fortunately for Flood, there are enough dim-bulbs who want to believe what he’s saying for him to get away with it.
As for objections, I object to the fact that he holds women entirely blameless for escalation of violent behaviours, that he never mentions women’s violence against men except to attempt to minimize it and he never mention female violence against other females at all. In the world of Flood, women are pure and innocent (and always hapless victims) while men (except him, of course) are brutes who have no capacity for self-control, but are nonetheless responsible for their actions (and those of women). Frankly, it’s insulting to both genders and panders to the weak-minded.
I look forward to the outcomes of the research being undertaken at ECU. It may show some of the impact on men of the violence that 1/3 of girls think is acceptable to use against them. Flood is no doubt preparing some more fairy-stories to confuse the issue.