Hard News: It's not OK to just make stuff up
430 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
Didn't they have a series of women getting drunk ads a few years back. One of the ads featured a women who had too much to drink calling up a former boyfriend asking why he broke up with her.
It wasn't until much later that a female explained to me that this is apparently a fear a lot of women have...
-
Russell, why do you not look at the facts rather than criisise someone competent as Bill Ralston.
Non nan hating women can even look at the facts such as those below by Cathy Young, author of Ceasefire.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n9_v29/ai_20417670
-
Is that 'nan' as in Nan/ Nanna' or 'naan'-hating women Chuck?
Your English is abyssmal.
-
Naan-hating women. Heh.
-
"Chuck Bird. That article you linked to is a decade old."
And how is that relevant?
-
And Chuck, where on earth do those adverts - or any others on New Zealand tv - come close to resembling this passage from that American article:
The battered women's advocacy movement, which has led the campaign against domestic abuse, is heavily influenced by radical feminist politics and tends to frame the issue in terms of a male "war against women."
The mission statement of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence links "violence against women and children" to "sexism, racism, classism, anti-semitism, able-bodyism, ageism and other oppressions."
Booklets funded by government and by charities such as United Way assert that "battering is the extreme expression of the belief in male dominance over women."
Sounds a bit 90s Backlash from here, although I suppose the perpetual relevance of Palestine gives you points for the anti-semitic reference.
-
...why do you not look at the facts rather than criisise someone competent as Bill Ralston.
He was criticising Ralston based on argument over the facts. You and David seem to want to portray this as some sort of ad hominem. It isn't.
And as has been pretty clearly demonstrated, Ralston's initial premise (that the ad campaign is exclusively about men hitting women; that Labour's strategy was to place the burden of responsibility for domestic violence entirely on men) isn't even accurate.
-
A decade is a long time in gender politics. Imagine what those adverts might have looked like ten years ago.
-
Naan-hating women. Heh.
You know what I blame for this whole mess? Roti. And don't even talk to me about paratha. I don't care how many delicious cheeses you put inside: stuffed bread of any kind is clearly a tool of the patriarchy.
-
O damn. Danielle hath spoken. Ahm justa havta putta asida ma - no!no! not my beautiful fried breads!Noooo....
-
Never mind, Islander. You've still got your whitebait
-
Fried n'butter & v. light batter- stability back in ma life- thanks Mark-
-
Russell, why do you not look at the facts rather than criisise someone competent as Bill Ralston.
Chuck, that really is a very odd thing to say.
I thought I'd looked at quite a few facts -- and for that matter, figures. It was pretty much the point of the blog post.
-
I think they should get some celebrity model to do an ad with the slogan:
don't smoke / stick to the coke -
Also, I believe that one day there will be a (possibly reggae) gig called "Rockfree Smokequest".
-
Non nan hating women can even look at the facts . . .
What's the matter Mr. Bird, cat get your little parrot's tongue? Can't you say feminazi?
-
3410,
Also, I believe that one day there will be a (possibly reggae) gig called "Rockfree Smokequest".
:) There was; Sat. 23 Aug 2003.
-
Also, I believe that one day there will be a (possibly reggae) gig called "Rockfree Smokequest"
..and we could have "New Zealand's Next Top Role Model"?
Is 'Chuck Bird' a pseudonym, or an instruction?
-
3410,
..and we could have "New Zealand's Next Top Role Model"?
Don't laugh. I predict about a 60% chance of that actually happening.
-
These ideas have consequences. By 1982, largely due to lobbying by advocacy groups, a majority of states expanded police authority to make arrests in misdemeanor assaults which the officers had not actually witnessed
Ahhh, I love the logical leap that states that police have to witness a crime to make an arrest for it.
To paraphrase the bullies from the Simpsons:
"Shoplifting is a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark!"
-
Russell, I will try to be more specific and be sure to do a spell check. I have no doubt some on your blog will make still make silly comments like the study I am quoting is from overseas and 10 years old.
At the end of this post I have cut and passed an article by Cathy Young at the end of this post as I do not have a source I can refer to on the internet.
Firstly, you quote Women’s Refuge as a source. How can that be relevant to the relative violence imitated by men against women versus violence imitated by women against men? They only look at the former as did the expensive taxpayer funded “Hitting Home” report that received a bent spoon award by the NZ Skeptics.
Secondly, you quote police complaints. If you read Straus and Gelles they explained why while police complaints were about 14 to 1 made by women unbiased random studies show that domestic violence is initiated roughly equally by men and women.
Another point you should consider is lesbian violence. If spousal violence is mainly initiated by men how do you explain lesbian violence that is at the very least as great as violence in heterosexual relationships and greater than for married couples?
The following is from an intelligent non man hating women, author of Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality.
http://www.menweb.org/ceasefir.htm
Cathy presents arguments far better that I could hope to. Do you dismiss her views in the same way you do with Bill Ralston?
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 19:18:30 EDTFrom: Cathy Young [71774.1305@COMPUSERVE.COM]
Subject: Injury in domestic violence cases
Another point to ponder about domestic violence:
It has been commonly said -- by those who concede that the rates of violence are roughly equal -- that, at the same time, women are six or seven times more likely than men to be seriously injured by their partners. Straus and Gelles themselves have said this. This is based on their finding that about 3% of female victims of domestic violence, but about 0.5% of the male victims, reported having sought medical care as a result of a dom. violence incident.
I have no doubt that women are more likely than men to be injured (let's face it, if we take the average man and the average woman and she punches him in the face as hard as she can, it's likely that the worst that will happen is a bruise and/or a sore jaw; if he responds in kind, he's likely to knock some of her teeth out). But I'm beginning to doubt that the discrepancy is _that_ great. I think the 7-to-1 or 6-to-1 figure is partly due to the fact that more women than men may seek medical care for minor injuries such as a swollen lip or a superficial cut. I think it is generally true that females are somewhat more likely than males to seek medical attention for the same problems; this would be especially true, I think, in cases of domestic violence. The male with a bruised lip or a cut on his face may be especially reluctant to seek medical aid if he thinks medical personnel may find out he was hit by his wife. Some females, of course, may also be embarrassed to admit that they were hit by a partner; OTOH, if the woman is considering filing charges, she may go to the emergency room in order to have her injuries documented.
Studies that have asked about specific injuries rather than seeking medical assistance usually yield a smaller gap. In the recently published book THE VIOLENT COUPLE by Anson Shupe, Lonnie Hazelwood, and William Stacey (Praeger), based on case studies from the Family Violence Diversion Network in Austin, TX, the overall "injury index" (combined score of the percentages who have sustained a given type of injury) is 158 for men and 335 for women. In particular, 4% of men and 17% of women sustained broken teeth or bones (i.e., about 4 times as many women as men); 10% of men and 38% of women had a split lip; 4% of men and 21% of women had a black eye; and 10% of men and 47% of women had multiple bruises. Cuts were sustained by 22% of men and 31% of women; the same percentage of women and men -- 4% had cuts requiring stitches. More men than women (53% compared to 49%) had scratches.
Overall, the differences are obviously there but they are not as pronounced.
In the study "Determining Police Response to Domestic Violence Victims" (AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, May 1993), based on police records from Detroit, MI, Eve Buzawa and Thomas Austin conclude that while 85% of the victims in the reported cases were female, only 14% of the female victims compared to 38% of the male victims had "serious injuries." 85 x 14% = 11.9; 15 x 38% = 5.7. Thus, according to those numbers, women are about twice as likely as men to be seriously injured in a domestic violence incident.
If I had to guess, I'd say that 20 to 30% of serious injuries in domestic violence incidents are sustained by males. A minority, yes; but hardly an insignificant number. And it certainly doesn't justify 100% of public attention to domestic violence going to female victims.
Cathy Young is a free-lance writer specializing in women's issues. Her work has appeared in the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Reason and The New Republic.
-
Chuck, feel free to argue the underlying facts - but wouldn't you concede that the advert Ralston is bitching about does not unfairly demonise men? That's what attracted my attention.
-
What is with the 'man-hating women' thing, Chuck? No one is brandishing the SCUM manifesto at you, for goodness' sake.
-
Another point you should consider is lesbian violence. If spousal violence is mainly initiated by men how do you explain lesbian violence
You explained it yourself by using the word "mainly". There would only be a contradiction if we were claiming that all spousal violence is intiated by men (nice that you acknowledge a lesbian partner as a spouse, though).
-
Chuck,
[from the comments by Cathy]: But I'm beginning to doubt that the discrepancy is that great. I think the 7-to-1 or 6-to-1 figure is partly due to the fact that more women than men may seek medical care for minor injuries ...
"I'm begining to doubt..." "I think..." - this is speculation on her part. Which is alowed, but must be noted as such.
[Cathy]: A minority, yes; but hardly an insignificant number. And it certainly doesn't justify 100% of public attention to domestic violence going to female victims.
And 100% of attention doesn't go to females victims - as has been pointed out many times here in this thread. So what's your point?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.