Doughnut the mad Yank has no original though whatsoever due to his
brain dead state:
> "repo"  farted into cyberspace:
Regurgitated "REPO" shit removed!

How about this Doughie boy:

[Source: http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/malevictims.pdf]

Male Victims of Domestic Violence:
A Substantive and Methodological Research Review
A report to:
The Equality Committee of the Department of Education and Science
by:
Michael S. Kimmel
Professor of Sociology
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA
2001
(Please note that this has since been been published as: Kimmel,
Michael S. (2002).
‘Gender symmetry’ in domestic violence: A substantive and
methodological research
review. Violence Against Women, Special Issue: Women’s Use of Violence
in Intimate
Relationships, Part 1. 8(11), November.)

.....

The Idea of Gender Symmetry
Reports of gender symmetry have come to dominate the public and media
discussions of
domestic violence. Since these reports run counter to existing
stereotypes of male-female
relationships, they often have the headline-grabbing value of a “man
bites dog” story.
3
Even some police departments are surprised by the recent percentages
of women who are
charged with assault of their partners. In Concord, New Hampshire 35%
of domestic
assault arrests are of women, an increase from 23% in 1993. In
Vermont, 23% of
domestic assault arrests in 1999 were of women, compared with 16% in
1997. And in
Boulder, Colorado, 25% of those charged in domestic assaults were
women (Goldberg,
1999, p. A16).
A 1997 review of the literature by psychologist Martin Fiebert found
79 empirical
studies and 16 reviews of literature that demonstrated gender symmetry
among couples.
In a meta-analytic review of this literature, Archer (2000) looked at
82 studies that found
gender symmetry.
These empirical studies raise troubling questions about what we “know”
to be true of
domestic violence – that it is something that men overwhelmingly “do”
to women and not
the other way around; that domestic violence is among the leading
causes of serious
injury to women every year; and, that worldwide, men’s violence
against women is one
of the world’s most widespread public health issues.
The questions they raise are indeed troubling -- but the questions
they, themselves, ask
are far from clear. For example, does gender symmetry mean that women
hit women as
often as men hit women? Or does it mean that an equal number of men
and women hit
each other? Or does it refer to men’s and women’s motivations for such
violence, or
does it mean that the consequences of it are symmetrical? These
questions are often
lumped together in reviews of literature and “meta-analyses” (which
review existing data
sets).
The two large-scale reviews of literature that demonstrate gender
symmetry are useful
indicators of the types of evidence offered and the arguments made by
their proponents.
Of the 79 empirical articles that Fiebert reviews, 55 used the same
empirical measure of
“family conflict,” the Conflict Tactics Scale as the sole measure of
domestic violence.
This same scale was also used in 76 out of the 82 studies that Archer
(2000) examined.
In addition, 28 of those studies noted by Fiebert discussed samples
composed entirely of
young people – college students, high school students, dating couples
under 30) – and not
married couples. (These two groups overlap somewhat, as nearly half of
the studies of
young, dating couples (13) also used the CTS.)
As a result, I will discuss the CTS at some length below, and also
examine some of the
reasons that studies of college-age and dating couples yield different
rates of violence and
aggression than studies of somewhat older married couples.
Of the remaining 9 studies in Fiebert’s sample that used neither the
CTS nor sampled
only young, dating, unmarried couples, 2 were based on people’s
perceptions of violence,
but offered no data about violence itself, while another was based on
reports of
witnessing violence that contained no useful data (Feather, 1996;
Fiebert, 1996,
Mwamwenda, 1997). Another was a study of spousal homicide that did not
include
homicides by ex-spouses (to which we shall also give some attention).
One was a study
4
of young people that had no comparisons by gender (Mihalic and Elliot,
1997). And one
was based on violence in American comic strips in 1950 (Saenger,
1963).
Of the three remaining studies, two were based on clinical samples
undertaken by
colleagues of this author at State University of New York, Stony Book
(Tyree and
Malone, 1991, and O’Leary, et al., 1989). While these two studies do
suggest that
couples that seek clinical therapeutic help have high rates of mutual
aggression, O’Leary
has insisted that the age of the individuals dramatically changes the
data (O’Leary, 1999,
2000), and that clinical samples cannot necessarily be generalized to
a national
population. Even so, as Fiebert notes, the study by Tyree and Malone
(1991) found that
women’s violence was a result of a “desire to improve contact with
partners,” by which
they meant that the women tended to slap or push their partner in
order to get him to pay
attention, but not to hurt him.
Gonzalez’s unpublished Masters thesis (1997), written apparently under
Fiebert’s
supervision, is the sole survey that purports to find gender symmetry.
While it may be of
interest that most of the women said their violence was a “spontaneous
reaction to
frustration,” Gonzalez did not survey males nor administer to a sample
of males the same
questionnaire. Unfortunately, one can make no inferences whatever
about gender
symmetry when one surveys only one gender.
Fiebert’s scholarly annotated bibliography thus turns out to be far
more of an ideological
polemic than a serious scholarly undertaking. But since it has become
a touchstone for
those who argue for gender symmetry, it is important to consider the
studies on which it
is based. Despite the angry polemics, there are serious and credible
social researchers
who have used specific measures and found gender symmetry. Below, I
examine (1) the
Conflict Tactics Scale, and especially what it measures and what it
does not measure;
and, (2) the effects of age and marital status on domestic violence.
Those who insist on gender symmetry must also account for two
statistical anomalies.
First, there is the dramatic disproportion of women in shelters and
hospital emergency
care facilities. Why is it that when we begin at the end of the
domestic violence
experience – when we examine the serious injuries that often are its
consequence -- the
rates are so dramatically asymmetrical? Second, claims of gender
symmetry in marital
violence must be squared with the empirical certainty that in every
single other arena of
social life, men are far more disproportionately likely to use
violence than women. Why
are women so much more violent in the home that their rates approach,
or even exceed,
those of men, while in every other non-domestic arena men’s rates of
violence are about
nine times those of women (on rates of violence generally, see Kimmel,
2000)?
How Do We Know What We Know: Types of Data
Our understanding of domestic violence has typically relied on two
types of information
(see, for example, Nazroo, 1995). These are “crime victimization
studies,” which rely
5
on large-scale aggregate data on crime victimization and “family
conflict studies” which
measure the prevalence of aggression between married or cohabiting
couples. These two
sources of data find very different rates of domestic violence – in
part because they are
measuring two different things.
Crime Victimization Studies. Data about crime victimization are
gathered from a variety
of sources. Some are obtained from household surveys, such as the
National Violence
Against Women in America Survey (NVAW), sponsored by the National
Institute of
Justice and the Centers for Disease Control (see Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 1998). This
nationally-representative sample surveyed 8,000 women and 8,000 men
representing
16,000 households in the United States. Other crime studies are
compiled from police
statistics, the National Crime Survey, and the National Crime
Victimization Study
(NCVS) in which 60,000 households are surveyed annually. Police data
typically relies
on calls to domestic violence hot lines or calls to police
departments.
Crime victimization studies have large sample sizes, in part because
they are funded by
national, state, and local government agencies. Crime victimization
studies include a
wide range of assaults, including sexual assault in their samples. And
they ask not only
about current partner (spouse or cohabiting partner) but also about ex-
spouse. But they
ask only about those events that the person experiences - or even
reports to municipal
authorities - as a crime, and therefore miss those events that are
neither perceived as nor
reported as crimes.
They also find significantly lower rates of domestic violence than
family conflict studies
-- ranging from significantly less than 1% to about 1.1% of all
couples. Analysis of the
period 1973-1975 found an extremely low rate of violence, about 2.2
per 1,000 couples
or 0.2%. (This was explained by the fact that the couples were
interviewed together, and
victims may have been reluctant to respond out of fear of further
violence.)
Some of the reasons that they find lower rates of violence are that
crime victimization
studies include all individuals in a household over age 12, even
though rates of domestic
assault are far lower for women over age 65 and between 12-18. All
family members
were interviewed, which also may prevent some respondents from
disclosing incidents of
violence out of fear of retaliation.
These studies uniformly find dramatic gender asymmetry in rates of
domestic violence.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, of the one million cases
of “intimate partner
violence” reported each year, female victims outnumber male victims by
more than five
to one. In their analysis of police data, Dobash and Dobash (1979) for
example, found
that only 1% of all domestic violence cases in two cities in Scotland
were assaults by
wives. The National Crime Victimization Survey (1994) found females
reported ten
times as many incidents of violence as men did – 3.9 incidents per
1,000 population for
male perpetrators, and 0.3 per 1,000 women (see also Dawson and Logan,
1994). The
NVAW found that men physically assaulted their partners at three times
the rate in which
women assaulted their spouses.
6
Crime victimization studies report high rates of injury to women from
domestic assault,
from 76% (NVAW), 75% (NCS) and 52% (NCVS).
Crime victimization studies further find that domestic violence
increases in severity over
time, so that earlier “moderate” violence is likely to be followed by
more sever violence
later (Johnson and Ferraro, 2000). This emerges also in discussions of
spousal homicide,
where significant numbers of people murdered by their spouses or ex-
spouses were also
earlier victims of violence.
In sum, crime victimization studies typically find that domestic
violence is rare, serious,
escalates over time, and is perpetrated by men.
Family Conflict Studies. By contrast, Family Conflict Studies are
based on smaller-scale
nationally representative household surveys such as The National
Family Violence
Survey (Straus and Gelles, 1990) or the National Survey of Families
and Households, and
the British and Canadian national surveys. These surveys interview
respondents once,
and ask only one partner of a cohabiting couple (over 18) about their
experiences with
various methods of expressing conflict in the family. Other survey
evidence comes from
smaller scale surveys of college students or dating couples, and some
draw from clinical
samples of couples seeking marital therapy. Still other data are drawn
from convenience
samples of people who responded to advertisements for subjects placed
in newspapers
and magazines. According to Fiebert, the total number of respondents
for all of the
gender symmetry studies is slightly more than 66,000 – that is,
slightly more than the
single annual number of one of the Crime Victimization studies in any
one year.
These surveys both expand and contract the types of questions asked to
the respondents.
On the one hand, they ask about all the possible experiences of
physical violence,
including those that are not especially serious or severe, and that do
not result in injury --
that is, those that might not be reported, or even thought to be a
crime. On the other
hand, they ask questions only about cohabiting couples (and therefore
exclude assaults by
ex-spouses or partners) and exclude sexual assault, embedding domestic
violence within
a context of “family conflict.” So, for example, the Conflict Tactics
asks respondents
about what happens “when they disagree, get annoyed with the other
person, or just have
spats or fights because they’re in a bad mood or tired or for some
other reason” (Straus,
1997, p. 217)
Family Conflict Studies tend to find much higher general rates of
domestic violence than
Crime Victimization Studies – typically about 16% of all couples
report some form of
domestic violence (Straus, 1990). One summary of 21 of the
approximately 120 studies
that have explored Family Conflict, found that about one-third of men
and two-fifths of
women indicated using violence in their marriages (Sugarman and
Hotaling, 1989).
As surprising as it may be to see such high levels of violence, the
most surprising finding
7
From Family Conflict Studies has been the gender symmetry in the use
of violence to
resolve family conflicts, that, as Fiebert writes, “women are as
physically aggressive, or
more aggressive, than men in their relationships” (Fiebert, 1997, p.
273).
These studies also find much lower rates of injury from domestic
violence, typically
about 3% (Stets and Straus, 1990). When “minor” forms of injury (such
as slapping,
pushing, and grabbing) are excluded from the data, the yearly
incidence falls
significantly, from 16% noted above to around 6% of all couples
(Straus and Gelles,
1986).
These studies also find that violence is unlikely to escalate over
time (see Johnson and
Ferraro, 2000).
In sum, then, Family Conflict Studies tend to find high rates of
domestic violence, stable
levels of severity, low rates of injury and find it perpetrated
equally by women and men.
How are such different conclusions to be reconciled?
A first step is to make the sources of data similar and make sure they
are asking similar
questions and comparing the same sorts of events. Crime Victimization
Studies rely on
two types of data – surveys of national probability samples that are
representative of the
population at large and “clinical” samples – calls to police and
shelters and visits to
emergency rooms. Family Conflict Studies are based on three sources of
data: nationally
representative probability samples, clinical samples and convenience
samples based on
responses to advertisements.
Nationally representative probability samples are the only sources of
data that are
consistently reliable and generalizable. While clinical samples may
have important
therapeutic utility, especially in treatment modalities, they are
relatively easy to dismiss
as adequate empirical surveys, since they do not offer control groups
from the nonclinical
population, and therefore offer no grounds whatever for
generalizability.
Therefore, I shall omit from further discussion both types of clinical
data – police, shelter
and emergency room data and data drawn from marital therapy cases.
-----

Hey Doughnut boy, what kind of lazy propagandist are you?
Can't you even make a little effort to assemble an original
Islamophobic propaganda piece by yourself?
Pathetic!

Ördög
(The friendly Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and Usenet)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!

Fup...you know the drill