MY LIE: A True Story of False Memory by Meredith Maran
Hello, I’m the author of a new book about my false accusation against my father, and thought you might like to know about it/post it on your site.
Here’s the page on Amazon.uk
And here’s my website page with details about the book: meredithmaran.com
Meredith Maran lived a daughter’s nightmare. At age 37, she accused her father of sexual abuse. Eight years later she realized, nearly too late, that he was innocent.
Maran wasn’t alone. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, a sex-abuse panic spread across the country, beginning with the infamous McMartin preschool trial. Tens of thousands of Americans became convinced that they’d repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse, and then recovered those memories in therapy. Hundreds were falsely accused. Families were destroyed.
MY LIE is the story of this modern-day witch-hunt as it played out in one woman’s life and family. It’s also a tightly wound psychological, cultural, and neuroscientific portrait of a shameful time in recent American history.
Maran presents blurbs about memory from biased sources in her book, but scientific sources have proven that people can repressed traumatic events and remember them years later. Many of these child abuse survivors’ memories have been corroborated. And she never really had any actual detailed memories.
Some believe that many of the crimes of the 80’s and 90’s did occur and there was no “panic.” Tunnels were found at McMartin that corroborated the children’s stories and most of the jurors believed that the children were abused.
http://eassurvey.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/day-care-and-child-abuse-cases/
Comment by Recovered Memories — Thu 28th October 2010 @ 2:50 pm
Your correspondent “Recovered Memories” is confused and speaks about myths, not science. The Sex Abuse Industry is the main source of such myths, amongst them being the absurdities of Repressed/recovered Memory, Multiple Personality Disorder and Satanic Ritual Abuse. Those, and other equally inane constructs, are its life-blood
Put simply, there is no testable, credible, reliable scientific evidence to show that the human brain is capable of “repressing” memories of traumatic events and then being able to “recover” them years later. It is widely accepted that memory is reconstructive, not reproductive. Memory is not like a tape recorder.
Your correspondent could learn a lot from recent books such as :
50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology : Shattering Widespread Misconceptions
about Human Behavior. By Scott O Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio, Barry L Beyerstein. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009
The Trauma Myth : The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children and its Aftermath. By Susan A. Clancy
Remembering Trauma by Richard McNally. Harvard University Press
Remembering Our Childhood: How Memory Betrays Us by Karl Sabbagh. Oxford University Press
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Thu 28th October 2010 @ 4:22 pm
The myth is that recovered memory doesn’t exist. Many recovered memories have been corroborated. The DSM-IV-TR states that dissociative amnesia exists.
http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/suggestedrefs.html Research discussing corroboration and accuracy of recovered memories
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/Recovmem/archive.html101 Corroborated Cases of Recovered Memory
http://www.jimhopper.com/memory/ Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse Scientific Research & Scholarly Resources by Jim Hopper
“Amnesia for childhood sexual abuse is a condition. The existence of this condition is beyond dispute. Repression is merely one explanation — often a confusing and misleading one — for what causes the condition of amnesia. At least 10% of people sexually abused in childhood will have periods of complete amnesia for their abuse, followed by experiences of delayed recall.”
Comment by Recovered memory corroboration — Thu 28th October 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Your “Recovered Memories” correspondent needs to learn how to discriminate between fact and fiction.
The core of this matter is belief versus science, and opinion versus fact. The True Believer articles mentioned by “Recovered Memories” cannot withstand scientific or common sense scrutiny. They are best categorised as drivel, balderdash or claptrap.
They are largely based on retrospective surveys and belief-based analyses. Their main inputs are usually uncorroborated self-reports, often in response to deliberately leading or ambiguous questions. Their results and conclusions are inherently biased, fatally flawed, misleading and entirely unreliable.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Thu 28th October 2010 @ 6:58 pm
I am always more impressed by the comments of people who show their willingness to be responsible for their comments, by giving their name (and it is real too!).
It seems to me that Gordon Waugh and the person who hasn’t recovered their name are speaking past each other, that there may be some (or at least a little?) truth in what both are saying, but each has failed to address what the other is saying.
Is justice putting one person into jail, for each crime detected? (perhaps except for perjuring policemen?)
Could a cardboard cutout fill a space in a jail cell, as well as a real person?
This could save the cost of the districtcaught drama and its absurd running costs? Running costs, they don’t do anything at a realistic speed, let alone be reliable at getting it right, or done at a professional cost!?
This may assuage the public pressure onto the police, in the short term, but is very expensive in lives wasted and Government compensation in the long term too – David Dougherty being just one example. I am sure that many more examples come quickly to mind. Then there are many who have suffered wrongly, but have never received cold cash of Government compensation.
It seems to me that each child knowing accurately who their parents are, is a bit similar to putting the actually guilty person into jail. Similarly, the cost of getting it wrong is cruelty to the child, possibly cutting off access to ancestor medical information and maybe Government compensation for wrongful charging of child [and spousal] support.
Similarly, the spectacular Domestic Violence Act injustices are sooooo gross, that the extent of the abuse of justice is visible in Government published statistics!
See protection-orders-the-quantitative-figures Look down to 7 and 10.
Further down at 17, there is information about the consequences of these multi-thousands of abuses of justice.
May I suggest that we try pretty hard to get things right first time?
I guess evidence is worth looking at, not just being pulled around by the heartstrings of sympathy.
evidence-is-easily-swept-away-by-sympathy
Getting rid of our actor/”judges” and getting real ones would be a good start. It is cheaper in the long term to employ people who have the basic competencies for these jobs, not just OK looking actors.
Thanks Gordon, for your contributions.
Best regards, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon - axe murderer — Thu 28th October 2010 @ 7:01 pm
Calling people “True believers” or calling research “drivel, balderdash or claptrap” only weakens the person’s argument that uses these techniques. The websites given have research from strong peer reviewed articles and even legal cases.
Comment by reply to name calling — Fri 29th October 2010 @ 12:02 am
Recovered memories certainly occur, but there is no good evidence they arise from actual repression of those memories. One theory with some research support is that recovered memories are simply memories that the person has forgotten they ever remembered. A person may be expected to avoid thinking about unpleasant experiences even while they can readily remember them, and after a time those memories can be forgotten. If through discussion and reminiscing many years later the person then remembers the experience but doesn’t remember previously remembering it, then he believes this is the first time he has been aware of the memory. That’s generally what people refer to as recovered memories that they believe were previously repressed. An invalid assumption is probably involved that the experience was too significant to forget so it must have been repressed.
Most of us will have numerous experiences in our childhood that we don’t remember, even including accidents, injuries and embarrassments, and most of us have had the experience of recalling some long-forgotten experience whilst reminiscing.
More importantly, a great deal of research over the last few decades has shown how easily false memories can be manufactured or implanted. I will write a piece on this soon.
“Recovered” memories fully and suddenly arising from hypnosis or psychotherapeutic exercises are more likely to be false memories than are those that arise more gradually through simple discussion or reminiscing.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 29th October 2010 @ 12:14 am
I link to an important brief above that discusses at depth the research around recovered memories. I highly recommend that people read the pdf file at this link. It was used in a legal case against Paul Shanley in Massachusetts USA, where Shanley lost his appeal in the state judicial court.
The brief states:
“In summary, not only is there is ample evidence that traumatic amnesia and recovery of memories is accepted by major scientific organizations, there is also strong support for the conclusion that dissociative amnesia is generally accepted among mental health practitioners.”
A couple of excellent articles on the psychobiology of traumatic memories are at:
http://www.trauma-pages.com/a/vanderk4.php
http://www.trauma-pages.com/a/vanderk2.php
These articles show the differences between traumatic memory and regular memory.
Studies about “false” normal memory have been misapplied to traumatic memory, which has been shown to be stored differently in the brain.
Comment by Shanley recovered memory clergy abuse case — Fri 29th October 2010 @ 1:35 pm
Thanks for your comments, Folks. We must be very careful about definitions in this discussion. The other correspondent believes in “recovered memories”. I do not.
My position is that reliable information is available. For example, The Royal College of Psychiatrists Working Party Report on Recovered Memories investigated the matter. Here are a few comments of its about so-called “recovered memories” which I use here for illustration.
The Brandon Report is an authoritative review of the current knowledge of the reliability of recovered memories of child sexual abuse and their source. It confirms that there are no good or safe ways of practising recovered memory therapy since all methods are prone to inducing false memories of abuse. This is the case regardless of the training or status of the welfare professional. The report has become the leading authority tendered in expert evidence in the courts.
“Recovered memory” can be said to be “…the emergence of an apparent recollection of childhood sexual abuse of which the individual had no previous knowledge.”
‘Recovery’ of memory should be distinguished from ‘retrieval’ of memory by active recall or simple ‘remembering’, which are normal everyday occurrences. Do not confuse them ! Despite widespread clinical support and popular belief that memories can be ‘blocked out’ by the mind, no empirical evidence exists to support either repression or dissociation.
There is no evidence to support the wholesale forgetting of repeated experiences of abuse, nor of single episodes of brutality or sadistic assault, apart from the normal experience of infantile amnesia. No evidence exists for the repression and recovery of verified, severely traumatic events, and their role in symptom formation has yet to be proved.
Given the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse, even if only a small proportion are repressed and only some of them are subsequently recovered, there should be a significant number of corroborated cases. In fact there are none.
Those who prefer to rely on unscientific, ideological beliefs, assumptions and opinions – and the claimed validity of recovered memories – are welcome to do so, but that does not in any way alter the reliable science already available to us. By the same token, I do not care much for theories about UFO’s, werewolves or hobgoblins. I prefer to call a spade a spade. Pseudo-science, psychobabble and flawed “research” remain “drivel, balderdash or claptrap”.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Fri 29th October 2010 @ 1:49 pm
The Royal College of Psychiatrists states:
“There is no evidence that memories can be ‘blocked out’ by the mind, either by repression or by dissociation.”
This statement is out of step with most of the field of psychology and almost all of the pertinent research available. The best compilation and diagnostic interpretation of the field is available in the DSM-IV-TR – Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR by American Psychiatric Association.
300.12 Dissociative Amnesia
“The essential feature of Dissociative Amnesia is an inability to recall important personal information, usually of a traumatic or stressful nature, that is too extensive to be explained by normal forgetfulness. This disorder involves a reversible memory impairment in which memories of personal experience cannot be retrieved in a verbal form (or, if temporarily retrieved, cannot be wholly retained in consciousness)….Dissociative Amnesia most commonly presents as a retrospectively reported gap or series of gaps in recall for aspects of the individual’s life history. These gaps are usually related to traumatic or extremely stressful events.”
In reply to:
“Given the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse, even if only a small proportion are repressed and only some of them are subsequently recovered, there should be a significant number of corroborated cases. In fact there are none.”
This statement ignores all of the corroborated cases available.
One of the best Internet websites on substantiated cases is available at:
search for
“The Recovered Memory Project
101 Corroborated Cases of Recovered Memory”
Comparing anothers’ theories to “UFO’s, werewolves or hobgoblins” or calling them “pseudo-science, psychobabble and flawed “research” “drivel, balderdash or claptrap” whether intended or not is just a propaganda technique used to discredit anothers’ arguments without addressing the actual facts involved.
Comment by Dissociative Amnesia — Fri 29th October 2010 @ 3:04 pm
Oh dear ! The True Believers are certainly coming out of the woodwork !
I disagree with the anonymous correspondents who support the theories of RM and Dissociative Amnesia as they apply to CSA. Inclusion of an item in the DSM does not prove it is factual or real, any more than if a Judge rules the RM theory is reliable and admissible. Do they include (for example) Multiple Personality disorder (now conveniently renamed DID) – in some of those cases, there are supposedly several thousand different “personalities” in individuals. Gee whiz !!
If such theories don’t stack up, they are not a lot of use to man nor beast. None of the cases or the “research” which supposedly supports those ideological constructs can withstand proper scientific and/or evidential scrutiny. The individual cases lack vital elements of proof.
Given the vast numbers of alleged repressed/recovered memories of alleged CSA, one might well ask why there have been no reported cases of genuine pregnancy, and no reported cases surgery to very young girls (some as young as babies in their cots, if one believes the tales !) to repair serious damage resulting from full penetrative sexual abuse by those who later claim to have recovered their memories of the alleged abuse !! According to some True Believers, those girls actually repair themselves without any later signs of damage visible to the naked eye. (Yep ! I heard it in the High Court in Auckland).
C’mon, people – the earth is not flat. And the moon is not made of green cheese.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Fri 29th October 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Using Hoffer’s concept (true believer) in a debate is simple name calling and reflects poorly on the user.
“Inclusion of an item in the DSM does not prove it is factual or real”
Actually it does. The DSM is the best, most well renowned researched diagnostic manual possibly in the world. It has a lengthy scientific review process.
DID/MPD does exist and is acknowledged as a legitimate diagnosis by the majority of the scientific community.
“The individual cases lack vital elements of proof.”
Actually, many recovered memories do have clear proof.
Here is one of several studies showing this.
Recall of childhood trauma: a prospective study of women’s memories of child sexual abuse.
(see link above)
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994 Dec;62(6):1167-76.
“One hundred twenty-nine women with previously documented histories of sexual victimization in childhood were interviewed and asked detailed questions about their abuse histories to answer the question “Do people actually forget traumatic events such as child sexual abuse, and if so, how common is such forgetting?” A large proportion of the women (38%) did not recall the abuse that had been reported 17 years earlier. Women who were younger at the time of the abuse and those who were molested by someone they knew were more likely to have no recall of the abuse.”
“girls actually repair themselves without any later signs of damage visible to the naked eye”
According to the scientific research, this is possible:
Evaluating the Child for Sexual Abuse
Am Fam Physician. 2001 Mar 1;63(5):883-893.
Physical Findings
Results of a physical examination will be within normal limits in 80 percent of child victims of sexual abuse. The absence of physical findings can be explained by several factors. Many forms of sexual abuse do not cause physical injury. Although the lay public and law enforcement representatives may be fixated on vaginal penetration, sexual abuse may be nonpenetrating contact and may involve fondling, oral-genital, genital or anal contact, as well as genital-genital contact without penetration. Mucosal tissue is elastic and may be stretched without injury, and damage to these mucosal surfaces heals quickly. Finally, many victims of sexual abuse do not seek medical care for weeks or months after the abuse, and superficial abrasions and fissures can heal within 24 to 48 hours.
Comment by Corroboration of recovered memories — Sat 30th October 2010 @ 12:31 pm
I used to work as a counselor in NZ.
I’ve seen with my own eyes the blatant cynical methods used there to provide ‘proof’ of childhood sexual abuse.
I recall walking into Miriam Saphira’s feminist cult headquarters in Hamilton and seeing dolls in children’s play rooms which had MASSIVE bright red felt cocks on them.
So imagine the scenario – child goes into room for observation, sees massive red object and touches it – bingo! another case of ‘sexual abuse’ having taken place gets written up.
Then there’s her infamous ‘research’ using less than 0.01% of the total adult female population, ALL self selected respondents to a questionnaire she extrapolates outwards to tell us all and get a masters degree for saying 1 in 4 adult women has been sexually abused sometime in their lives.
Having a major in Social Sciences I’ve seen over the decades more bogus feminist ‘research’ than I care to recall (perhaps I’m repressing memories of the trauma!)
So I’m reading all of this with a pinch of salt thrown in especially when I see statements like ‘previously documented histories of sexual victimization’.
My eyes are rolling and I’m thinking ‘more bullshit paraded as social science research’.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 30th October 2010 @ 2:36 pm
Here’s a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States (see link above)
Prevalence of Individual Adverse Childhood Experiences
Collected between 1995 and 1997, the prevalences (%) presented below are estimated from the entire ACE Study sample (n=17,337).
Abuse
Emotional Abuse
Women Men Overall
13.1 7.6 10.6
Physical Abuse
Women Men Overall
27.0 29.9 28.3
Sexual Abuse
Women Men Overall
24.7 16.0 20.7
These statistics show that almost one in four women and almost one in six men were sexually abused in a sample of over 17,000 people in the study.
Peer reviewed studies are the best we have for data in this area. The CDC and Wiiliam’s studies are strong studies.
Comment by Child abuse prevalence statistics — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 3:25 am
Quote :
“the prevalences (%) presented below are estimated ”
“The CDC and Wiiliam’s studies are strong studies”.
Yeah right.
Questionable research methodology used to provide an estimated result from a sample group representing less than 0.0001% of the USA population of over 300,000,000!
Worthless propaganda.
Thanks for giving us chance to have a good laugh.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 4:16 am
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume 14, Issue 4 , Pages 245-258, May 1998
Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults:
The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study
(see link above)
An N of over 17,000 is a very large sample. The CDC study uses a strong research methodology. It appears that some on this board have fixed opinions and would prefer using insults and name calling rather than admitting that there is research to refute their positions.
Comment by Research Methodology of the CDC — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 6:31 am
Let’s cut to the chase. In the space limitation here, I’ll deal with just one aspect — Recovered Memories.
If those who believe so reverently in the theory of Recovered Memories experienced just one case that proved the memories of alleged sexual abuse were false, they should be deeply concerned. But there are tens of thousands of them. At the least level, the validity of the theory is questionable. Brownmiller’s claim that “only two percent of allegations are false” has long since been discredited, as has the silliness that 1-in-3 or -4 girls, and 1-in-6 boys have been sexually abused by age 16. Good grief ! At least give such claims a slash with Ockham’s Razor !
The writer who cited the study of 129 women (presumably the Linda Meyer Williams study “Recall of childhood trauma, 1994) demonstrates a typical case of flawed methodology leading to invalid conclusions. Williams is regularly cited as the single most powerful piece of evidence that it is possible to repress memories. But it is a seriously flawed opus, subject to many forms of bias. Psych 101 informs us of the Tuscon Garbage Project – it is relevant to this matter, as are the various studies of non-disclosure. The conclusion that some of the women “repressed” memories of alleged sexual abuse is invalid. Many other erudite analyses of such material exist, showing the theory of RM has no empirical scientific evidence to support it.
Let’s make it personal. My eldest daughter (then 33) “recovered her memories” of alleged sexual abuse during counselling. These pseudo-memories, and the explanations by the counsellor, appeared (to her) to explain why she behaved in an abnormal and disturbing way. She was very unsettled and unhappy. Over a short time, her allegations mushroomed to involve about a dozen men who allegedly abused her from infancy to age 14 or 15. Amongst her claims was that I had regularly raped her since she was an infant; others had also raped her many times; she lost her virginity to at least three different males at various ages… ad nauseum.
My middle daughter also attended the counselling sessions to support her. She too came to agree with her elder sister’s allegations – and embellished them – despite earlier having declared her to be a Drama Queen. Both made allegations to the police.
But the memories they “recovered” in counselling had no substance. It was easily proven by documentary and witness evidence that their claims were actually impossible, incredible or plainly ludicrous. They were products of ideological, destructive, belief-based sex abuse counselling. No person was ever arrested, charged or convicted af any crime in this matter. The counselling claim that over 700 effects of sexual abuse exist is utter nonsense ! None are unique to sexual abuse. Each has myriad causes. The causes of my daughter’s mental condition and her behaviour are in fact medical ones with known, provable, definable effects, nothing at all to do with CSA. Police said the two daughters and the counsellor were all “flaky and irrational”.
From either a scientific or a personal point of view, tell me why I should believe that “recovered memory of CSA” is a valid construct.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 10:13 am
I don’t think it’s about having an opinion but rather not being gullible.
How do you estimate research? We have software that can accurately work out queries on this size sample so there’s no excuse to present less than accuracy.
A little while back I was reading about research in the UK stating 1 in 4 children are abused. Turns out the research concluded 6 out of 100 children were somewhat abused so the researchers added things like, ‘A sibling takes a toy off a child’ and ‘parents withheld pocket money’ as child abuse.
If we don’t have people reading the fine print (so to speak) we’ll be blindly following all sorts of bogus research.
Comment by julie — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 10:43 am
With an experience like that it’s understandable that you take such a strong stand on these issues.
You are correct in highlighting the terrible damage that has resulted from gullible acceptance of memories claimed to be recovered through suggestive counselling and manipulative psychotherapy techniques. That is not to say that dissociation never happens or that experiences are never forgotten and later remembered. It is difficult to distinguish between false and valid memories whether recovered or otherwise. This article by Geraerts et al in the journal Legal and Criminological Psychology (2008), 13, 165-176 considers factors that may assist in assessing whether recovered memories are likely to be false or accurate. For example, memories that spontaneously return to a person are more likely to be accurate than those arising in agreement with a counsellors diagnosis. But our knowledge in this area is at an early stage of development.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 10:45 am
Such studies often use self-report, broad and subjective definitions of sexual abuse that may not match what most people imagine as sexual abuse, and interview methods designed to maximize false positives. See my critique of the WHO methodology used by many international studies in this area.
If an unwanted attempt to kiss you, hold your hand or even touch your body on a date or at a party is to be defined as sexual abuse, even when that attempt is made by a similar-aged peer and is immediately stopped when you indicate your unwillingness, then the “1 in 4” kind of figures may be almost accurate. For example, on a date a young woman might engage in passionate kissing and her partner might then place his hand on her breast which she immediately removes without further problem. In the research interview years later this becomes “unwanted sexual touching” and is then further reframed as “sexual abuse”. But keep in mind that there is no way to measure the validity of anonymous self-report. It’s reasonable to assume that some respondents will give false positive answers because they believe it’s a big problem and they want to help the cause, and/or that they will distort what they previously thought of as mutual and innocent events in order to fit those events into an abuse model.
There is no doubt that the studies giving rise to the highest estimates of sexual abuse have taken little care concerning the external validity of their definitions, and further in their mission to provide “advocacy research” they have used suggestive questions and other methods to elicit sensationalist figures. Unfortunately this will bring the research into disrepute and ultimately will work against the desirable aim of elucidating and reducing real violence.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 10:47 am
You might like to add a ‘wolf whistle’. It was considered part of ‘unwanted sexual attention’ i.e rape, back in the 80’s. I’d say it’s still on the list.
Comment by julie — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 11:05 am
Like I said less than 0.0001% of the total population of USA.
Now as you think that’s a very large sample, then I shudder to think how twisted your definition of sexual abuse could be.
Keep going though.
You’re giving us great opportunities to debunk feminist propaganda and educate newcomers to men’s issues.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 1:31 pm
Thank you for your comments Hans. You also said : “That is not to say that dissociation never happens or that experiences are never forgotten and later remembered.”
We must be clear about our definitions, otherwise the wires get crossed. I directed my comments at the creation of pseudo-memories of events which never happened, produced as a result of suggestive counselling, and about which the owner had no previous knowledge.
They are of especially dubious validity when the “memories” refer to events which allegedly occurred during the period of infantile amnesia, or are of event which are impossibilities – very common among the tens of thousands of cases. RM is akin to MPD/DID, in which the “symptoms” and “effects” only appear because a counsellor found them during “therapy”, but they were never displayed or known about prior to counselling.)
That is very different to forgetting about real events, and later spontaneously remembering them. There are many examples, perhaps the most common is at school reunions held many years after leaving school – a real event occurred but was forgotten, (a name, a face, an event) and was suddenly recalled because of the circumstances and the company (at least the key points of it, as memory is not a tape recorder).
The memory was not “forgotten” but the elements of it were stored away because the owner never had occasion to recall them. Sometimes, events are so insignificant we don’t bother to encode them in memory. Those are normal memory functions. We should not need to discuss here such topics as episodic memory, autobiographical memory, implicit memory and the like.
I say that pseudo-memories (‘recovered memories of CSA”) created by suggestive counselling are not real and are not “memories”.
And for similar scientific reasons, I am highly sceptical about whether people can develop amnesia for traumatic experiences, usually known as repression, “dissociative amnesia” or “psychogenic amnesia”. Prospective data as yet fail to demonstrate such dissociative conditions.
My point of view is that beliefs about “dissociative disorders”, RM, SRA and etc lack scientific proof and common sense, and are like sanctified snake oil – ideology, junk science, psychobabble – because they have all the hallmarks of a moral panic.
Strong words ? I think those topics deserve a bit of an airing in the harsh, clear light of empirical science.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 1:47 pm
Perhaps an important issue is “fitness for purpose”.
Publishers of academic research like it to advance the state of knowledge, which sometimes steps forward and fairly often steps backwards too. So judging feminist research as sometimes being weak and not rigorous, well this is fairly commonplace among research.
When research is used to form part of the basis for making a caught judgement, then we would hope that the research considered had been carefully chosen by someone experienced in the field at issue.
When the judgement may lead to execution, then we perhaps would hope for an even more rigorous selection of research to be used. The USA DNA Exonerations Project shows that caught process often work far outside of evidence, perhaps more like a sausage machine.
I suspect that the “arguments” above are created when people are having quite different quality expectations from the research. I feel sorry for the multiply-dissociated and individuated individual above, who “needs” to defend and hide his(her) conflicts of interest behind psuedonyms, whereas the more level headed contributors seem to lie on the side of having a healthy degree of scepticism about claims based on repressed memories.
I had the experience of being on a jury, hearing claims based on long lost repressed memories. Some witnesses had lives showing many symptoms of being caught out as repeated compulsive liars. Not to say that I didn’t feel sympathy for their plights in life. However, not withstanding one hanging member who brought her own private conflicts of interest to the table, the rest of our group considered the claims to be worrying, but falling a distance short of “beyond reasonable doubt”. One police witness had serious credibility problems too.
Maybe I had some sympathy for the accused too, although my ex-spouse was also a social worker and well practiced at in-caught manipulation and deception. I could have been tempted by the possibility of a bit of representative hanging.
Neither the prosecution nor the defense addressed the evidential power of the circumstances, in statistical terms. The situation called out for such an analysis. This seemed a worrying lack of competence on the part of the defense and prosecution. Such maths is nowadays routinely used in analysing evidential power of DNA evidence.
Wikipedia: Prosecutor fallacy
Defense attorney’s fallacy – see further down in the same Wikipedia article.
When the circumstances permit evidence to be statistically analysed, then surely it is incompetent, to fail to make such an analysis. The prosecutor did address some of the issues that are needed to create a statistical analysis, but left off at about the 10% mark. Arthur Tompins, the old highcaught judge published a paper a quarter of a century ago, discussing Baysean Analysis and how it could be usefully applied in the analysis of evidence. To my knowledge, after carefull searching, the only times it has been applied in NZ caughts, is where the formal analysis has been performed by scientific DNA staff, never by any legal-worker, up a bench or down a bench.
Wikipedia: Bayes Theorem
It seems that the trickle down theory in NZ covers human waste through cesspit outlets, but not really diffusion of knowledge through the legal-workers “profession”? Maybe they are just too dense or self absorbed (narcisistic?) to put in the effort to apply a few adds and multiplies, for analysing conditional probabilities? Besides, appeals are soooo profitable for all concerned (conflict of interest).
I ended up feeling like a serious criminal, for sitting silently on a bench, when the legal-worker’s performances cried out to be challenged.
Second bite of the same cherry obviously got a jury less cautious in weighing evidence and the outcome was totally different, a sort of gambling I guess?
I hate to think how many legal-workers who by rights should be gracing the insides of cells are drifting around outside and how many citizens who should never have been incarcerated are still inside?
When decisions are being taken, which have a large impact onto people’s lives, then public accountability is important. Our anonymous cowards are best left to inconsequential tasks.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon - axe murderer — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 5:13 pm
Studies’ definition for sexual abuse was:
Sexual Abuse
An adult or person at least 5 years older ever touched or fondled you in a sexual way, or had you touch their body in a sexual way, or attempted oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you or actually had oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you.
This definition is straight forward and in no way would maximize a false positive.
Here are the actual questions:
Sexual 22.0
(Did an adult or person at least 5 years older ever …)
Touch or fondle you in a sexual way? 19.3
Have you touch their body in a sexual way? 8.7
Attempt oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you? 8.9
Actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you? 6.9
This study was definitely not advocacy research, as its primary purpose was to look at the Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults, not the frequency of abuse.
The CDC studies results replicated the results of another study:
Contact sexual abuse was reported by 22% of respondents (28% of women and 16% of men) in our study. A national telephone survey of adults in 1990 using similar criteria for sexual abuse estimated that 27% of women and 16% of men had been sexually abused.
(Finkelhor D, Hotaling G, Lewis IA, Smith C. Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women (prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors). Child Abuse Negl. 1990;14:19—28)
It is more likely that respondents would answer negatively to abuse questions than positively, as many people are ashamed of discussing their abuse or may have forgotten it happened.
Comment by CDC study validity — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 5:42 pm
**
In response to the comment about “feminist propaganda,”
it is not feminist propaganda to discuss abuse rates. Men are also abused in families and a discussion of abuse rates also helps men that were abused. Minimizing abuse rates actually hurts the men’s rights movement.
According to the Leadershipcouncil.org
How often do children’s reports of abuse turn out to be false?
Research has consistently shown that false allegations of child sexual abuse by children are rare.
Jones and McGraw examined 576 consecutive referrals of child sexual abuse to the Denver Department of Social Services, and categorized the reports as either reliable or fictitious. In only 1% of the total cases were children judged to have advanced a fictitious allegation. Jones, D. P. H., and J. M. McGraw: Reliable and Fictitious Accounts of Sexual Abuse to Children.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 27-45, 1987.
In a more recent study, investigators reviewed case notes of all child sexual abuse reports to the Denver Department of Social Services over 12 months. Of the 551 cases reviewed, there were only 14 (2.5%) instances of erroneous concerns about abuse emanating from children. These consisted of three cases of allegations made in collusion with a parent, three cases where an innocent event was misinterpreted as sexual abuse and eight cases (1.5%) of false allegations of sexual abuse. Oates, R. K., D.P. Jones, D. Denson, A. Sirotnak, N. Gary, and R.D. Krugman: Erroneous Concerns about Child Sexual Abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 24:149-57, 2000.
Everson and Boat interviewed child protective service workers and found an estimated rate of false allegations that fell between 4.7 to 7.6% of all child and adolescent reports of sexual abuse. Everson, M.D., and B.W. Boat: False Allegations of Sexual Abuse by Children and Adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 230-5, 1989.
After reviewing the empirical literature concerning the frequency of false allegations of sexual abuse, Mikkelsen, Gutheil, and Emens concluded: “False allegations of sexual abuse by children and adolescents are statistically uncommon, occurring at the rate of 2 to 10 percent of all cases.” Mikkelsen, E.J., T.G. Gutheil, and M Emens: False Sexual-Abuse Allegations by Children and Adolescents: Contextual Factors and Clinical Subtypes. American Journal of Psychotherapy 46: 556-70, 1992.
When four different states (Florida, Missouri, Vermont, and Virginia) reviewed Child Protective Service (CPS) records to determine the extent of false reporting, they found intentionally false reports to comprise less than 1% of all unsubstantiated reports of child abuse (0.00999634 or less than 1 out of 100 unsubstantiated reports)
Comment by ** False Allegations of Abuse — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 6:07 pm
In reply to:
“RM is akin to MPD/DID, in which the “symptoms” and “effects” only appear because a counsellor found them during “therapy”, but they were never displayed or known about prior to counselling.”
According to the research, it is rare that memories of abuse are retrieved in therapy.
Iatrogenic memory change. Examining the empirical evidence – Leavitt Frank – American Journal of Forensic Psychology (19)2 : 21-32, 2001 Certainty of sexual abuse predated treatment in 33% of the cases. Therapeutic causation was unlikely in another 26% because personal certainty of abuse emerged on average 4.1 years after termination of treatment. The pattern was similar for groups treated with and without hypnosis. Remarkably few patients recovered first memories in therapy with the help of hypnosis. This study places the percentage at 4%. Thus, in the direct study of patients who recovered memory of childhood sexual abuse, hypnosis was not an important factor in the emergence of sexual abuse memories….
The results do not support widespread implanting of novel memories of sexual abuse by therapists.
Suspected repressed childhood sexual abuse: Gender effects on diagnosis and treatment. Sullins – Psychology of Women Quarterly 1998 Sep – Vol 22(3) 403-418 These results do not support reports that many therapists neglect clients’ current symptoms and instead focus on memories, use controversial techniques, make suggestive statements regarding abuse, or immediately assume that their clients have repressed memories.
There is no evidence that MPD/DID can be created in therapy.
Due to frequent harassment – it is unfortunately necessary for that those doing child abuse research need to post anonymously.
Comment by Recovered memories not from therapy — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 6:26 pm
Gosh. Interesting.
Yep, these are the main questions then there’s more details asked. It’s about the first 18 years of your life – that’s not exactly child sex and anything 16 and over wouldn’t be considered rape or sexual abuse in NZ.
I still don’t understand how they were unable to put the answers together and come up with an accurate count. You either say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ unless you count how many times it happened.
Thanks for sharing this.
Comment by julie — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 6:43 pm
In no way would maximize a false positive.
Yeah right.
And whose to say the respondent’s appraisal of the touch being sexual is accurate?
Oh that’s right, sorry I forgot, according to doctrinaire feminism the ‘victim’ is always to be believed! Duh!
Not advocacy research eh?
Yeah right.
Finkelhorn – Mr CALCASA – a nice feminist gravy train there.
Google it and check out the site folks.
Notice anything missing amidst the women’s rights this, girls empowerment that ad infinitum?
Jeepers! Tiny samples, all this 1990s ‘research’ from the hysterical feminist decade trotted out as if it’s valid.
Who’d have thought? Peter Ellis?
Keep going though.
It’s fun to debunk.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 7:09 pm
Dear recovered but not enough to stand the light of day or the noontime sun,
Due to frequent harassment — it is unfortunately necessary for that those doing child abuse research need to post anonymously.
Are you confusing needs and wants?
What other ethical issues are you confusing?
Could you handle being on the receiving end of a complaint, or see your son or daughter be the target of an unfounded complaint?
I am not saying that all complaints are founded or unfounded. The trouble is, there are plenty of partly unhinged people out there, who do generate false complaints and it is a difficult task to reliably weed out the genuine complaints, from the false accusations, especially when there is little or no hard evidence.
smear-campaign-against-dr-goodyear-smith-continues
the-sex-abuse-counselling-empire-strikes-back
I do support quality researchers, who stand up and are willing to be accountable to the public.
I hope that you can, one day, see that accountability may be uncomfortable at times, but there are rewards in terms of feedback (constructive and destructive), that seems to be an indispensible part of progress.
I can also see that there may be some reasons for choosing a quieter life, but this does seem to be sacrificing protection of children, which is fairly high up the priority list for most good researchers. Where is your heart?
I appreciate your references, but you leave yourself looking more like a sniper than an intellectual, who faces off with “enemies” and gets into the too and fro of constructive debate, with cards pretty much on the table.
May your god go with you… don’t leave him lying around here!
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon - axe murderer — Sun 31st October 2010 @ 7:11 pm
And you actually believe all that the so-called Leadership Council promulgates ??? Of course they have to say that stuff. It is the lifeblood of their belief-system. What else can they say.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Mon 1st November 2010 @ 8:58 am
Recovered memories not from therapy says: “According to the research, it is rare that memories of abuse are retrieved in therapy.”
You have to be kidding !! So where do they come from ?
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Mon 1st November 2010 @ 9:01 am
CDC study validity says:
“Sexual 22.0
(Did an adult or person at least 5 years older ever …)
Touch or fondle you in a sexual way? 19.3
Have you touch their body in a sexual way? 8.7
Attempt oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you? 8.9
Actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you? 6.9”
These are a form of leading question because they seem to assume that participation was unwanted, actively discouraged and abusive. They are also ambiguous because the can be treated in a reverse sense. If one was to respond to most of those questions in the affirmative, it thus does not mean the person was abused. Participation might have been desired and willing.
And why is it that the questions are couched in terms of one participant being “an adult or person at least 5 years older ever …? It is legitimate in NZ for a 19 yo (male or female) to indulge in sexual congress with a 16 yo (male or female). That does not constitute sexual abuse. But a 16 yo male can sexually abuse a 19 yo female, and vice versa. Test the conditions by taking each participant up and down the relevant age scale.
I don”t think this set of questions adds anything at all to our body of knowledge of sexual abuse. They fail to justify the claims made by the anonymous correspondent. The use of them here is pointless.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Mon 1st November 2010 @ 9:22 am
CDC study validity also says:
“The CDC studies results replicated the results of another study:
Contact sexual abuse was reported by 22% of respondents (28% of women and 16% of men) in our study. A national telephone survey of adults in 1990 using similar criteria for sexual abuse estimated that 27% of women and 16% of men had been sexually abused.”
That claim demonstrates the uselessness of retrospective surveys in the serious study of a topic like sexual abuse. Corroboration and verification by external evidential means of the responses of those contacted by telephone is imperative, but in this study it was apparently not undertaken. There have been masses of surveys like this.
I am appalled that the authors have the temerity to “estimate” an abuse rate from that shockingly flawed methodology. And I am equally appalled that others would uncritically believe such “research”.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Mon 1st November 2010 @ 9:37 am
I had not heard the words, ‘maximize a false positive’ before your comment. I didn’t know you could do this.
Thanks.
Comment by julie — Mon 1st November 2010 @ 11:00 am
It is interesting that my posts are critiqued in part due my anonymity, yet someone named “Skeptik” is allowed to use name calling and insults and is not questioned at all.
Skeptik says:
“CALCASA — a nice feminist gravy train”
CALCASA stands for “California Coalition Against Sexual Assault”
Their goal is to end sexual violence. This is an appropriate goal.
I do not believe that Men’s Rights includes subjugating others.
Men’s Rights should include Women’s Rights and Children’s Rights. All human beings deserve to live in safety.
In reply to:
“Tiny samples, all this 1990s ‘research’ from the hysterical feminist decade trotted out as if it’s valid.”
The 90’s was definitely not a “feminist decade.” It was the decade of the backlash. The research came out of an awareness of child abuse issues. A sample of 17,000 is not a “tiny sample.”
In reply to:
“(Did an adult or person at least 5 years older ever …)
Touch or fondle you in a sexual way? 19.3
Have you touch their body in a sexual way? 8.7
Attempt oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you? 8.9
Actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you? 6.9?
These are a form of leading question because they seem to assume that participation was unwanted, actively discouraged and abusive. They are also ambiguous because the can be treated in a reverse sense. If one was to respond to most of those questions in the affirmative, it thus does not mean the person was abused. Participation might have been desired and willing.”
A child cannot consent to sexual activity. Therefore sexual activity with a child is child abuse.
““According to the research, it is rare that memories of abuse are retrieved in therapy.” You have to be kidding !! So where do they come from ?”
As the studies above show, many abuse memories are not recovered in treatment.
Comment by quick replies — Mon 1st November 2010 @ 3:11 pm
The anonymous “quick replies” should read the replies with care !
quick replies says : “A child cannot consent to sexual activity. Therefore sexual activity with a child is child abuse.” We all know that, and it is not in dispute.
But relative to CSA and the several questions, define “child”.
Here in New Zealand, the sections in our Crimes Act dealing with Offences Against the Person specify sexual crimes in three main age-brackets, being crimes against those under the age of twelve, those between 12 and 16, those over the age of 16. Other categories involve (eg) violent sexual offences and non-violent sexual offences, including victimless crimes.
However, it is lawful to conduct sexual congress between consenting persons aged 16 and over. And do be careful over the word “consent” ! Hence, a 16 yo in this context is not a “child” and can give lawful and valid consent.
A person “5 years older” than 16 is 21 years old. If a 16 yo male or female has valid consenting sexual congress with a person over 21, it cannot be “child abuse” – at least not here in NZ.
So it seems the validity of the questions on which you rely so heavily are misleading and apply differently in different countries and legislative frameworks. That lack of universality, and the inherent ambiguity, are very good reasons to NOT use those questions as a basis for “research” into CSA. Also note there does not appear to be a mechanism to validate and corroborate the accuracy of the responses. In that arrangement, the results will always be highly dubious and unreliable. A well-conducted scientific study would avoid those amateur errors.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Mon 1st November 2010 @ 4:48 pm
What you call insults (CALCASA – California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, being a nice feminist gravy train) I call common sense.
Their website is chockablock with links to feminists and feminist organizations.
What you call a decade of men back-lashing I call a decade of untiold further men being shafted by institutionalized feminism.
What you call reliable research I call politicizes propaganda.
Sadly I believe you’ve been duped.
All the needless 1 in 4 type hateful hysteria,
I want no part of such a mindset.
It is a sickening, divisive and vicious paradigm,
And then there’s the hackneyed tedious feminist mantra of standing up for men equating to somehow subjugating women and children.
Talk about irony!
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 1st November 2010 @ 5:15 pm
According to “Skeptik”
what I call insults are considered to be common sense
Insults and name calling are simply insults and name calling.
—
I am against male bashing or the bashing of anyone. Men deserve equal rights in court.
An online definition of feminism is:
The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.
I agree with this.
A feminist philosophy can be misused for male bashing just like a men’s rights group can be misused for women bashing. Both are wrong.
—
The studies cited are valid. If anything, people would lie about child abuse in a study due to embarrassment. These studies have been validated by other studies.
from the New Zealand Ministry of Health Family Violence Questions and Answers:
Prevalence of child abuse in New Zealand
About 4—8% of New Zealand children experience physical abuse. Of this group:
* 8% regularly experience physical punishment
* 4% have experienced severe or harsh and abusive treatment
* punches around the head and body (65%)
* beatings with a cane, strap or other object (57%)
* kicks (52%)
* 80% suffer injury as a result of physical abuse
* 37% are also sexually abused (Ferguson et al 1997).
—
* Twenty two percent of girls and 11% of boys experience sexual abuse, excluding non-contact sexual abuse (e.g. being forced to watch pornographic material) (Ferguson et al 1997).
Comment by Prevalence of child abuse in New Zealand — Tue 2nd November 2010 @ 3:07 pm
” Prevalence of child abuse in New Zealand” should do a few sums.
Unless there has been independent external validation and corroboration of the responses to the survey, the figures have no validity. Of course, the quotation is prefaced by the word “About” so it is not a definitive data set, but an estimate. And the estimate as so broad as to be pointless.
In round figures taken from Government stats, the annual live-birth cohort is about 64,000 pa, approx equal M & F. The number of children (M and F) in NZ in the age bracket Birth – 16 is thus about 1,024,000. 4% is 40,960. 8% is 81,920, and if 37% of those are sexually abused as is claimed, the numbers of CSA cases could lie somewhere between 15,155 and 30,310.
The variance in the two figures cited is vast. One says 37%, the other 22% and therefore meaningless. If 22% is used, the numbers become 9,011 and 18,022.
When annualised, the figures are 947 and 1,894, and if the 22% level is used, 563 and 1,183. Such estimates are absolutely useless. They seem to bear no relationship to reality.
In the face of all that has been said above on this topic, I cannot understand why reasonable, educated people could or would believe that “recovered memories” are real (and are not created by “therapy”), that MPD/DID is not produced by therapy, that dissociative disorders are not constructs, and that there are immense numbers of CSA cases. There is far too much doubt, and far too little genuine evidence, to be able to accept those theories and claims as being valid. It takes a modicum of courage to acknowledge such doubt. Once the doubt is accepted, it opens the mind to wider and more scientific enquiry.
I have said before in other forums that Sex Abuse Industry practitioners are intellectually arrogant and cowardly – arrogant because they claim perfection and certainty of knowledge, and cowardly because they do not have the courage to accept that scientific evidence, which they are generally incapable of understanding, says they are more likely to be wrong than right. It bears repeating here.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Tue 2nd November 2010 @ 5:16 pm
I’m not surprised that statistical gobbledegook AKA misandric insult gets dressed up as being OK in feminist circles. 40 years of unfortunate experience which I share with many here at MENZ informs me of such.
It’s one thing to mention a THEORY called feminism. It’s totally another to see feminism in ACTION over several decades.
It’s also a tired old Nazzi-Stalinist-Maoist-now feminist tactic to repeat a lie over and over until enough people come to believe it and they in turn naively and unquestioningly repeat it themselves until you get the power you crave with enough social support and approval.
Fortunately many of us here aren’t intellectually lazy or challenged enough to swallow the feminist lie.
We have rational logic and self esteem.
A quick browse through the New Zealand Ministry of Health Family Violence web page and it’s links shows it’s stacked with familiar old feminist money grubbing hysteria-mongers touting their ‘research’ as if it were gospel.
It’s kind of like watching a cult only not funny as you know you as a man are the target of their demonizing through false stats used to feather feminist nests.
No doubt though these folks and their ilk who I’m sure had golden days during Helen Clarke’s reign of terror are feeling a might under threat now that sensible men and women are speaking out against their so called ‘valid research’. So threatened that they’re bringing their ideology to the MENZ to try and blind us with their ‘brilliance’ and references to this and that ‘research’ and authoritative website.
Whoopdeedoo.
In return they’re being shown up as fools and charlatans – bluntly by some like myself (I’m long past mincing words with man haters dressed up as respectable), by others more eloquently and in greater detail – like Gordon Waugh and Hans Levin.
Bring it on I say.
These are splendid opportunities to educate the wider audience of readers about the abuse industry’s corrupt shenanigans.
1 in 4 indeed!
Now if you’d said that 1 in 4 men had been badly traumatized during the last few decades of contact with feminists and their white knight supporters that’s another matter entirely!
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 2nd November 2010 @ 8:41 pm
Actually 1 in 4 is probably an accurate estimation of the numbers of men who have suffered serious trauma from the emotional abuse, dished out by women in their ruthless manipulations of the feminist orientated family court and police system based upon numbers already discussed on this site.
50% of marriages result in divorce.
90% of the time the woman gets the children.
40% of the time the father losses all meaningfull contact within 2 years.
Assuming that all marriages result in children and remembering that the above stats do NOT include relationships where the couple does not marry we get the following.
50% of marriages result in divorce, therefore 50% of men are hurt from this alone. Divorce can be a devastating experience to some men even without other issues involved. And 75% of the time the woman will initiate this, often without warning.
90% of the time the woman gets the children. Which means anytime a man gets married and has kids, he has a 45% chance of loosing his wife & daily contact with his children in the family court.
Given that he has a 40% chance of loosing all meaningfull contact we can quickly deduce that a man has an 18% chance on entering marriage of loosing his wife, and all contact with his children, and 75% of the time, she will initiate this.
Loosing all meaningful contact with his own children is likely to result in a level of trauma comparable to experiencing their death.
An 18% chance is close to 1 in 5. That is appoximately 1 in 5 men have or will suffer serious trauma as a result of relationship break-up and the manipulation of the feminist family court and legal systems by women.
And then women wonder why many men don’t want to marry and have children?
Remember there is a 50% chance that he will get hurt at some level and a 75% chance his WIFE will initiate this.
As already stated this does NOT include defacto couples or the devastating effects financially that men face when relationships break up, which are in addition to contact issues with his children.
It also does not include additional trauma from false domestic violence charges, false rape accusations etc. which can destroy a man’s reputation and ruin his life. It also does not include paternity fraud or the many other abuses of men that take place on a daily basis.
So 1 in 4 is almost certainly a good estimation of the number of seriously traumatised men and it would be no surprise whatsoever if the numbers are acutally much worse.
Comment by Phoenix — Tue 2nd November 2010 @ 9:55 pm
Where are the figures which support the quoted statistics?
Why do 40% of the fathers lose meaningful contact after two years?
Are only men hurt from divorce? Not children? Not women?
What do you mean by initiating the divorce “without warning”? If a battered woman escapes to a refuge, and starts proceedings, is that “without warning”?
Interesting to see how the masculinist movement in New Zealand, obtains and uses scientific fact that is valid and robust.
Comment by Excellent use of scientific fact — Tue 2nd November 2010 @ 11:42 pm
Wow! the femis are really getting so worried now they’re coming here to try and browbeat us with ‘stats’ and guilt trip us with accusations that because we’re pro-male we’re anti female (yawn!).
Lazy and immoral too.
They want us to do research to prove our innocence!
Wake up call!
In a humane world a person or group (i.e. males) are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round.
In your self selected, tiny sample, ill defined terms for ‘research’ world we Men’s Rights Activists seemingly have no place.
The fact that you even need to ask why as many as 40% of men lose meaningful contact with their children in NZ in this day and age is staggering!
It means to me you’re extremely naive and/or horribly insensitive and provocative towards a very damaged group.
I think that’s a great shame. But given the amount of feminist misandric demonizing propaganda around not too surprising.
Now let’s cut the crap, as we can all play my stats are more valid than yours ad infinitum.
Instead, go like some of us who blog here regularly have to any family court and witness for yourself the all too often breaking of men therin.
You’ll have to play close attention mind you, as they have all manner of sanitizing jargon used there to disguise the abuse of fathers.
They don’t keep ‘court’ ‘records’ either, so please be especially alert.
There was a man in Brisbane recently who may have been able to enlighten you about western hemisphere ‘family’ ‘courts’, but unfortunately he was so emotionally devastated after visiting his local ‘family’ ‘court’ he self immolated outside the court.
In case you didn’t know the term that means he poured inflammable fluid all over himself and set himself on fire.
Not as interesting to many as footy or lady Gaga’s latest hairdo I know, but just to make sure you’re in the loop.
Get back to us when you’re done interviewing growing numbers of guys as to why they’ve joined Fathers4Justice in USA, Canada, Israel, UK and Italy.
Sorry, I almost forgot our friends in India (but hey, I see I’m starting to bail you out by doing your research work for you! tsk! tsk! shame on me!)
Or here’s another challenge – do as I’ve done – go to some of the many formal and informal men’s support groups up and down the country and try listen without filtering through feminist ‘stats’.
Then you just might come across as credible.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 3rd November 2010 @ 12:27 am
Statements like these above only hurt and discredit the men’s rights movement:
“I’m not surprised that statistical gobbledegook AKA misandric insult gets dressed up as being OK in feminist circles.”
“It’s also a tired old Nazzi-Stalinist-Maoist-now feminist tactic to repeat a lie over and over”
“familiar old feminist money grubbing hysteria-mongers”
“they’re being shown up as fools and charlatans”
“that Sex Abuse Industry practitioners are intellectually arrogant and cowardly”
It is not “man hating” to ask that all people be treated fairly and equally. Men need to be treated fairly too. Nor is anyone citing any “feminist statistics.” The statistics cited come from several legitimate organizations and researchers that have researched incident rates of child abuse. Calling those that present child abuse statistics names and simply equating them with one’s negative view of feminism is a ploy to create divisiveness and a false creation of a strawman that one can attack while misrepresenting their argument or position.
In reply to the minimization of the significant statistical information that shows high rates of child abuse and the veracity of recovered memories, many scientific studies take a percentage of the population and then extrapolate the data accordingly. An example would be studying the common cold. A study of 1000 people in a random sample may find that 400 get sore throats and 550 get blocked sinuses. One could then estimate 40% and 55% in the general population. Though there are limitations to these types of studies, most would not question the extrapolation of this data.
Here’s more statistics:
A CHILD is abused every 13 minutes across Australia, a new report has revealed.
The Childhood Abused study, to be released today, reports there were 40,416 substantiated child abuse reports in 2002-03 – a rate of one child every 13 minutes.
The study, a joint initiative of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation (AMF) and Melbourne’s La Trobe University, sought to present current data and opinions related to child abuse in Australia.
Former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson QC said the study demonstrated “the enormity of the problem” of child abuse and domestic violence.
“The figures collected in this paper are truly frightening,” Mr Nicholson said in his foreword to the report.
“They point to the fact that in 2003-04 there were 219,384 reports of suspected child abuse and neglect made to state authorities.
“This amounts to one child being reported as abused or neglected in Australia every two minutes.”
More than five per cent of the population younger than 18 live with and witness domestic violence, the study found, of which between 30 and 60 per cent also suffer some form of abuse.
An estimated one report of child abuse for every 25 children was recorded in 2002-03.
Emotional abuse was the most common, accounting for 34 per cent of reports, with physical abuse and neglect both at 28 per cent.
Sexual abuse accounted for 10 per cent of claims.
Mr Nicholson said the figures reflected “tragic levels” of abuse, but warned they were still an underestimation.
“Even when notifications are made most, if not all, child protection authorities in Australia are seriously understaffed, have insufficient trained staff and high staff turnover which means that reports may not be dealt with or be dealt with in an unsatisfactory manner,” he said.
“This immediately calls into question the figure for cases that are regarded as substantiated by departments as being grossly understated.”
Victims of childhood abuse were at greater risk of anxiety, depression, dissociative disorders, post traumatic stress disorder, drug and alcohol abuse as well as homelessness and juvenile delinquency.
Comment by Statistics and Statements — Wed 3rd November 2010 @ 1:26 pm
Statistics and Statements says: “Mr Nicholson said the figures reflected “tragic levels” of abuse, but warned they were still an underestimation.”
That quotation and the others, are advocacy nonsense. They are estimates based on estimates, all without validation or corroboration. Mr Nicholson has no way of knowing whether the estimate is under or over. The conclusions being drawn are baseless. And it is silly to attempt to extrapolate such results into the general population.
Instead of uncritically believing these surveys and reports, this correspondent would do well to challenge and test the claims made, and demand corroborative proof of the evidence underlying the claims (and/or responses) of abuse. As well, he/she should demand specific details of actual numbers, not simply accept percentages, ratios and extrapolations.
As an example of the stupidity of using that sort of false data, the inane bunch who call themselves Rape Crisis claims with absolute certainty that in New Zealand “Only 10% of rapes are ever reported, and of those, only 10% go to Court, and of those, only 10% result in convictions.” Utter Codswallop !!!
Applying those ratios and percentages to the actual number of convictions for rape leads to the totally false conclusion that there are tens of thousands of rape cases. Worse, the conclusion suggests that hundreds of thousands more rapes are never reported.
As well, Rape Crisis also claims that “most victims never disclose their abuse to anyone.” So if the alleged rapes and the alleged abuse events are never reported, how on earth does Rape Crisis know about them ? Clairvoyant, perhaps ?
If one believed that sort of pathetic advocacy nonsense, one would also have to believe that every female in NZ has been raped or otherwise sexually abused several times over.
Please don’t bother babbling on any further about so-called “statistics” drawn from fatally flawed methodology.
Reasonable people with open, enquiring minds know such “statistics” and the related conclusions are junk-science and psychobabble. What we are interested in is EVIDENCE and FACTS. You know, real life stuff.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Wed 3rd November 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Precisely Gordon,
Advocacy nonsense.
Not feminist eh?
yeah right.
Tui billboard moment!
As I see it emotionally charged statistics way way overinflated to get yet more funding for feminists and their crumbs from the top table lackeys.
The corrupt merry go round of much NZ and other western ‘academia’ ‘justice’ and ‘welfare’ ‘social’ ‘services’.
Let’s play them at their own game now.
One child supposedly abused (whatever that’s vaguely or even nefariously defined as!) every 13 minutes in Australia.
So extrapolated out that’s 4.6 children per hour,
that’s 110 children per day,
that’s 770 children per week,
that’s 40,320 per anum,
that’s 403,200 per decade!!!!! Almost half a million kids!!!!
And you expect us to believe such pomposity!
What heinous money-grubbing scare-mongering!
What misery you create by propagating such lies which instill unnecessary fear in the many decent folks who get beguiled by such!
I suppose if you’re going to tell a lie you might as well make it a big one!
Trouble is there’s such a thing as the boy who cried wolf principle.
That means one day you might say something truthful but folks won’t believe you!
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 3rd November 2010 @ 4:35 pm
Dear quick replies,
I apologise if you feel that I have singled you out for criticism and ignored Skeptik. You have presented yourself as an anonymous “researcher”, whereas I believe that skeptik presents himself more as a critic. Critics are not taken as seriously as researchers, so a lower level of public disclosure would seem appropriate? (Also, I guess that he may feel he wants to protect himself from any leverage that might be used against him in familycaught proceedings, as a result of his comments?)
My own experiences show that being alive, is normally somewhat abusive. I am not meaning to complain too much, but life is a bit like a rugby scrum and shoulders do bang shoulders, unless you are running away from being alive. I am not looking forward to being forced to lie down quietly for millions of years.
Interestingly, it seems that the worst abuse that a child can suffer (apart from torture or murder), is to be neglected, rather than to be treated somewhat violently by otherwise loving and caring parents.
I apologise if I neglected skeptik and abused you?
I believe that you have neglected to respond to my challenge as to whether you have any conflicts of interest, in these areas?
Thank you for your contributions and your information. I hope that you may provide some of your own research in due course. Best regards, Murraybacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon - axe murderer — Wed 3rd November 2010 @ 8:40 pm
Murray,
I have absolutely no intention of going into another NZ ‘family”court’ ever again. I do write under a pseudonym to protect my identity from vengeful feminists.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an answer to the question about any conflict of interests, nor necessarily believe the answer if it ever came either.
Many years of life experience have informed me that feminists who tout the kind of misandric pseudo stats I’ve seen bandied about on this thread aren’t going to suddenly change their stripes and become honest about their self serving motives.
We on the other hand can claim upfront our motives – preservation of due respect and integrity for men as a group and freedom from emotional abuse for children alienated from said group by hateful feminist propaganda.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 3rd November 2010 @ 8:53 pm
Quite so, Skeptik. Good sums, for Aussie. But our NZ advocates can beat them hands down – they claim our rate of abuse is much bigger ! Perhaps the advocates should enter a new game in the Olympics or TV or something. They might even make it into a Survivor program. The mind boggles.
One ever so sad thing about these advocates is that they seriously expect ordinary, sentient, reasonable people to believe their tripe, and constantly attempt to justify their claims by using the “Tip of the Iceberg” argument.
And of course, the “Statistics and Statements” correspondent also tells us of the incredible underestimation of abuse levels (Tip of the Iceberg stuff here) :
“Mr Nicholson said the figures reflected “tragic levels” of abuse, but warned they were still an underestimation.
And a little later in that post : “This immediately calls into question the figure for cases that are regarded as substantiated by departments as being grossly understated.”
An estimate based on underestimated estimates. I wonder how the guy knows it is an under-estimation, and by how much ? Definitely calls for a Tui billboard moment.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Thu 4th November 2010 @ 8:41 am
It appears that many on this board ignore almost all statistics presented to them and find any presumed weakness in an attempt to discredit them. Yet, the statistics of the high incident rates of child abuse come from study after study.
One poster in this board wrote:
“One child supposedly abused (whatever that’s vaguely or even nefariously defined as!) every 13 minutes in Australia.
So extrapolated out that’s 4.6 children per hour,
that’s 110 children per day,
that’s 770 children per week,
that’s 40,320 per anum,
that’s 403,200 per decade!!!!! Almost half a million kids!!!!
And you expect us to believe such pomposity!”
In other words, the poster doesn’t want to believe the statistics. This is opinion only and has little scientific backing.
Another poster wrote:
“Please don’t bother babbling on any further about so-called “statistics” drawn from fatally flawed methodology.
Reasonable people with open, enquiring minds know such “statistics” and the related conclusions are junk-science and psychobabble. What we are interested in is EVIDENCE and FACTS. You know, real life stuff.”
The studies presented are “real life stuff.” Actual data from actual studies. Just because some posters don’t want to believe these studies or that the methodology isn’t strong enough for them as opposed to other studies they may encounter, doesn’t mean the data isn’t accurate. From the studies presented, the data proving high incident rates of child abuse has been validated.
Here’s another study
Study: Most Child Abuse Goes Unreported
Time Magazine 2 December 2008
Children in highly developed countries suffer abuse and neglect much more often than is reported by official child-protective agencies, according to the findings of the first in a comprehensive series of reports on child maltreatment, published Dec. 2 in the British medical journal The Lancet.
Based on a review of research conducted on child abuse between 2000 and June of this year, researchers estimate that 4% to 16% of children are physically abused each year in high-income nations, including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. As many as 15% are neglected, and up to 10% of girls and 5% of boys suffer severe sexual abuse; many more are victims of other sexual injury. Yet researchers say that as few as 1 in 10 of those instances of abuse are actually confirmed by social-service agencies – and that measuring the exact scope of the problem is nearly impossible.
Indeed, the second study in the Lancet analysis, citing previous research, reveals that physicians reported only 6% of children’s injury cases to protective services, even though they suspected the injury was a result of abuse 10% of the time. Further, researchers say that many more cases of maltreatment – particularly of sexual abuse – are never even suspected, and the victimized children never come forward to report the assaults.
From childmatters.org.nz
* New Zealand has the fifth worst child abuse record out of 31 OECD Countries
* On average one child is killed every 5 weeks
Most of these children are under five and the largest group is less than a year old
* Ninety percent of all child deaths are perpetrated by someone the child knew
* Nearly 9,000 children per year are born “at risk” (1 in every 30)
* 124,921 notifications were made to Child Youth and Family year end June 2010
* Child Abuse costs NZ around $2 billion each year
Comment by Statistics are stronger than opinions — Thu 4th November 2010 @ 2:20 pm
This post does not really warrant a reply, other than to say its another boring advocacy report using figures that are estimates based on suspected, not proven, claims of abuse, and studies of other studies. Hundreds like it exist. They will remain junk-science until facts and testable evidence are used as their basis.
“Most Child Abuse Goes Unreported” is an advocacy myth. It is simply impossible for a researcher or anyone else to know of unreported events.
Same goes for “Child Abuse costs NZ around $2 billion each year” That nonsense figure is probably based on the so-called “research” by a Shirley Julich – not worth the paper on which it was written.
Again – Please don’t bother babbling on any further about so-called “statistics” drawn from fatally flawed methodology.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Thu 4th November 2010 @ 3:56 pm
on the other hand 47.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot
Comment by mits — Thu 4th November 2010 @ 4:23 pm
Now we’re even been told suspected abuse should count as a statistic.
Oh lordy lord! And feminists and their white knights wonder why they’re such a laughing stock!!!!!
Comment by Informed opinions are stronger than bogus statistics — Thu 4th November 2010 @ 7:02 pm
I agree entirely Gordon.
These people are living in cloud cuckoo land.
They’re here no doubt because they sense their gravy train is under threat by rational thought. As if they haven’t sucked enough off the taxpayer’s nipple already. Bludgers! Sadly I see that their self serving statistical bullshit has gotten them funding – which could have been spent on real social necessities.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 4th November 2010 @ 8:32 pm
There is a reason for the saying ‘Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics’.
See if you can find a ‘strong research methodology’ investigating the link between men’s health and well-being and government size, taxation and health spending. Or the relationship between male incarceration rates and cultural diversity. Or the significance of gender in rates of prosecution and punishment for similar crimes.
Out of thousands of universities the world over, there is not a single academic study evaluating the relative well-being of men, country by country. Try Googling ‘Status of Men’. The response you will get is ‘Don’t You Mean Status of Women?’
Statistics do not represent the truth. They represent the kind of questions being asked. If there are enormous voids in the variety of questions allowed, the answers are worthless.
Comment by rc — Thu 4th November 2010 @ 8:33 pm
In regard to:
“Please don’t bother babbling on any further about so-called “statistics” drawn from fatally flawed methodology.”
“They’re here no doubt because they sense their gravy train is under threat by rational thought.”
There is no evidence that there is anything wrong with the methodology in these studies. And there is no evidence that any funding comes from these.
from childhelp.org
Child Abuse in America
Children are suffering from a hidden epidemic of child abuse and neglect. Over 3 million reports of child abuse are made every year in the United States; however, those reports can include multiple children. In 2007, approximately 5.8 million children were involved in an estimated 3.2 million child abuse reports and allegations.
* A report of child abuse is made every ten seconds.
* Almost five children die everyday as a result of child abuse. More than three out of four are under the age of 4.
* It is estimated that between 60-85% of child fatalities due to maltreatment are not recorded as such on death certificates.
* 90% of child sexual abuse victims know the perpetrator in some way; 68% are abused by family members.
Comment by more statistics — Fri 5th November 2010 @ 3:47 pm
Wrong on both counts.
More cloud cuckoo land thinking.
The sort of toxic ‘1 in 4’ feminist junk-science you peddle has been used far and wide to get funding for feminist agencies such as rape crisis, battered women’s support etc, as well as funding grants for yet more slippery femi-‘research’ to keep the money rolling in for the sistas and their white knight brethren.
A cursory flip through Mens rights websites will show this amply over and over again. I’d give you some links but that would only encourage further laziness, so I’ll let you take responsibility for that.
You seem so fond of quoting stats I’m sure some further research won’t harm you.
For someone claiming to be an authority on the subject you have an awful lot of homework to do to catch up with the rest of the class.
A+ for deluded passion.
F for analytical content.
F for promoting misandry.
Warning – when the fog lifts and you realize how terribly misandric you come across it will be embarrassing and painful. Many of us former pro-feminists now know this having gone through it ourselves. But rest assured the pain will only be temporary. We made it to a saner place and with some effort and the right support you can too.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 5th November 2010 @ 4:26 pm
“more statistics” says : “There is no evidence that there is anything wrong with the methodology in these studies.”
Oh Golly gosh ! Do stop prattling. Do go to school. Do learn to differentiate between belief and science, between fact and fiction. Do learn about the scientific method. Do try to open your eyes and your mind. Do learn about critical thinking and the meaning of “empirical”. And a lot more.
And do stop parroting the unsavoury nonsense bruited about by other advocates – it does you no favours.
It is foolish, amateurish and naive to attempt to draw valid conclusions from untested data based on flawed methodology, but that is what advocates of “recovered memory”, multiple personality disorder, satanic ritual abuse and the like, have been doing for years. They have bombarded us with “estimates of estimates of estimates” of sexual abuse, while also claiming “most victims never disclose their abuse to anyone” (thus automatically at least doubling the size of their estimates !!!). Sadly, they expect to be believed by rational people. I suggest you refrain from joining their ranks.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Sat 6th November 2010 @ 8:48 am
I support what skeptik is saying above.
It is necessary to look carefully at research, who is performing it, what their interests are (and thus conflicts of interest too).
It pays to stand back from a table full of conflicting research and say “so what?”, does it add up to something meaningful, that can lead to constructive decisions?
Example: The NZ DV Act was based on a small selection of the research that was available at the time. It was a very poor selection of the research available and the other research available gave fairly clear warnings what the actual impact of passing the DV Act would be. However, due to conflicts of interest issues not being addressed, the DV Act was passed.
Not only was it passed, but after passing the evaluations that were made, were based on the assumption that it was working properly, as intended and that perverse effects were non-existent. These assumptions were highly wrong. Thus these evaluations were steered away from where the problems were occurring, so that they would not be found. (Horatio Nelson putting his blind eye to the telescope.)
I believe that about 1000 suicides have occurred, mostly men, quite a few of their children and some women too, that would not have occurred if an DVAct that was based on natural justice was passed. Also, legal-workers have received several $100 million in added invoices, as a result of this DV Act. Not just money, but blood money.
The largest single occupational group among parliamentarians, is legal-workers. Outright corruption, just hidden under a “respectable” veneer of “the right honourable”. The legal-worker parliamentarians who voted on that act should be jailed.
Makes you respect sex-workers, at least by comparison?
So what?
What can be achieved by recovered memories? ABC documentary Over The Edge
Comment by MurrayBacon - axe murderer — Sat 6th November 2010 @ 9:22 am
The posts above by GW and “Skeptic” simply make the same unsubstantiated arguments, one even giving grades without any criteria for these.
The studies are substantiated and their results have been repeated. There is no evidence the studies were made for any motive other than research. One poster above talks about suicides, without any evidence.
from yesican.org
In 1999, an estimated 3,244,000 children were reported to Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies as alleged victims of child maltreatment. Child abuse reports have maintained a steady growth for the past ten years, with the total number of reports nationwide increasing 45% since 1987 (Nation Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse (NCPCA) 2000 Annual Fifty State Survey).
Neglect represents the most common type of reported and substantiated form of maltreatment. In 1996, 25 states provided the following breakdown for reported cases: 62% involved neglect, 25% physical abuse, 7% sexual abuse, 3% emotional maltreatment and 4% other. For substantiated cases, 31 states gave the following breakdowns: 60% neglect, 23% physical, 9% sexual, 4% emotional maltreatment and 5% other (NCPCA’s 1996 Annual Fifty State Survey).
In 1999, an estimated 1,401 child abuse and neglect related fatalities were confirmed by CPS agencies, nearly 4 every day. Since 1985, the rate of child abuse fatalities has increased by 39%. Based on these numbers, more than three children die each day as a result of child abuse or neglect (NCPCA’s 1996 Annual Fifty State Survey).
According to information from at least 18 states that were able to report the type of maltreatment which caused the child’s death for at least one of the past three years. Approximately 54% of the deaths were due to physical abuse while 43% resulted from neglect. Young children remain at high risk for loss of life. Based on data from all three years, this study found 82% of these children were under the age of five while an alarming 42% were under the age of one at the time of their death (NCPCA’s 1996 Annual Fifty State Survey).
In over 9000 divorces in 12 states, child sexual abuse allegations were made in less then 2% of contested divorces involving child custody (Association of Family Conciliation Courts, 1990).
Survivors:
It is estimated that there are 60 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse in America today (Forward, 1993)
Abusers:
The typical child sex offender molests an average of 117 children, most of who do not report the offence (National Institute of Mental Health, 1988).
It is estimated that approximately 71 % of child sex offenders are under 35 and knew the victim at least causally. About 80 % of these individuals fall within normal intelligence ranges; 59% gain sexual access to their victims through, seduction or enticement (Burgess & Groth, 1984).
Comment by more studies — Sat 6th November 2010 @ 2:10 pm
Gosh alleged!
As have ever expanding definitions of the term abuse under the feminist empire!
I could go on analyzing this but I’m sure intelligent people can by now see the pattern emerging.
Hint for those challenged – read the bits I’ve highlighted in bold text!
I’m beginning to think this is just another attempt as with ‘Mary Poppin’s’ recent multiple postings to spam and thus clog up threads at MENZ with a deluge of junk science.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 6th November 2010 @ 2:22 pm
Dear Morestatistics,
if you would agree spend a little time with me, sometime in the next few months, I would be interested to try to make sense of the apparent conflict between your claims and those of other posters here?
This offer is equally open to Skeptik and other posters too, still better if we could meet in one place together?
I am concerned about abuse of children, men and women. I try to study these issues and make sense out of how we could use research to improve our Government policies.
I have laid out my own attempt at research into the quality of the Domestic Violence Act and made this publicly accessible (and criticisable too!).
protection-orders-the-quantitative-figures/
If anyone would like to take me up on this invitation, please call me on (09) 638 7275.
Best regards, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon - axe murderer — Sat 6th November 2010 @ 5:11 pm
rc, I think you might be confusing the terms methodology and the studies being carried out. A methodology is the way in which the study is carried out e.g. quantitative, qualitative etc, whereas I think you are meaning that you’re wanting people to name studies which are being carried out to look at the status of men. If you look at studies which address Education, Criminology, Families etc, you will find that there are many addressing boys and men. As for overviews, there are also books which address masculine issues and theory.
Statistics, have inherent dangers, as do nearly all research methodologies. This is why there is blind peer-review and multiple methodologies used for an increasing number of studies.
While your issue with leading questions, are dealt with in the Ethics Committee stage.
Comment by What about the many studies done? — Sat 6th November 2010 @ 7:01 pm
What empirical evidence do you want Gordon?
Empirical research has flaws – the theory being tested is determined by the researcher. That opens itself up to bias, leading methodology and observing only what will fit with the researchers desired results.
The most robust research is from those who come into it with an open mind, strong ethics and few biases. These are the people who will use a research methodology that is transparent and fair.
Comment by What emperical evidence do you want? — Sat 6th November 2010 @ 7:13 pm
If it comes across as a confusion, it wasn’t intended.
While I have no argument with anything you’ve said, only your last sentence – viz.: “While your issue with leading questions, are dealt with in the Ethics Committee stage.” – seemed to address my point (though not adequately).
There is a pronounced paucity of research into a wide range of subjects concerning the welfare of men and boys – and a clear hostility to investigating these issues in academia. Simply raising certain topics (eg false rape accusations, incidence of paternity fraud) is enough to label whoever is asking as being politically motivated, whereas raising similar issues of concern to women is seen as not only as uncontroversial, but socially responsible.
Social Science is currently contained within a paradigm (using Kuhn’s meaning), the barriers to its further development being cultural values set outside of the paradigm, and not subject to any authoritative degree of scrutiny.
When investigating natural and physical phenomena, scientific methods, studies and statistical analyses are all useful in furthering (sometimes by completely undermining!) existing understanding only when the field of inquiry is open. As soon as restrictions are placed on what can, or can’t be, questioned or challenged, everything is contaminated with doubt. There is no way of knowing what is a feature of the reality we are trying to probe, or simply a reflection of how we choose to see things and weight their importance. Social Science is particularly prone to this, considering the threat to personal interests certain results could present.
This is not something that Science, or academia, can resolve.
Comment by rc — Sat 6th November 2010 @ 9:11 pm
My response to ” What emperical evidence do you want?” is that there is no argument about everything having flaws. Perfection is an ideal, unattainable by humans. But good research can provide good answers.
Within its obvious limitations, I agree with your idea that the “most robust research is from those who come into it with an open mind, strong ethics and few biases. These are the people who will use a research methodology that is transparent and fair.”
But by their very nature, purpose and intent, Sex Abuse Industry (SAI) “researchers” and advocates cannot match that description.
At best, they can only fit your former description : “…. the theory being tested is determined by the researcher. That opens itself up to bias, leading methodology and observing only what will fit with the researchers desired results.”
Such methodology is indeed fatally flawed and that is a major problem with the host of retrospective surveys and studies, and studies of other studies, and estimates of estimates, and the like, so commonly (virtually universally) used by Sex Abuse Industry advocates. The design, testing, and data acquisition and verification processes their research is unacceptably poor and the results unreliable and often unbelievable. Advocates call it “valid research”.
I say it is not feasible that 1 in 3 girls, and 1 in 6 boys will be raped or otherwise sexually abused by age 16. Do you know how many children that actually involves ? To that, please add in the incredibly large number of adults who, according to the advocates, have also been sexually abused.
For good measure, add in the vast numbers of alleged rapes based on the Rape Crisis formula “Only 10% of rapes are reported, and of those, only 10% go to Court, and of those, only 10% result in convictions”.
Now factor in veritable hordes of people who, it is claimed by advocates, apparently suffer from the nonsense of “recovered memory”, MPD/DID and so on, all based on sexual abuse. Add in all the ones who make claims on our ACC for alleged mental injury resulting from alleged sexual abuse, including the number of failed claims.
Oh – and don’t forget to add in the huge numbers, according to the advocates, of complaints made to the police. Also include the huge number of complaints made to the police which are shown to have no valid or factual basis.
The total thus amassed is at least a couple of times greater than our total female population.
Now I want you to factor in the claim that “Most victims never disclose their abuse to anyone” – this will automatically at least double your initial fictitious number.
All these figures come from “research” done by SAI “researchers” and advocates.
Of course, if those astronomical numbers were true, every man would also be a rapist or sexual abuser. Does that ring any bells in the orchestra of radical feminist mantras ?
And perhaps the advocacy claims are just a teeny weeny bit exaggerated, eh ? Too OTT for my taste. But such claims are based on so-called “research” which uses shonky methodology. What I want is realistic, factual material, based on known fact and done according to valid research techniques, not estimates of someone else’s estimates, inside piles of advocacy gobbledegook.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Sun 7th November 2010 @ 9:09 am
If someone estimates there are more than 3,000,000 children that were reported to Child Protective Services, this shows there is a very big problem.
In regard to:
“most robust research is from those who come into it with an open mind, strong ethics and few biases”
The criteria for this is mostly subjective.
In regard to:
“I say it is not feasible that 1 in 3 girls, and 1 in 6 boys will be raped or otherwise sexually abused by age 16. Do you know how many children that actually involves ? To that, please add in the incredibly large number of adults who, according to the advocates, have also been sexually abused.”
There is no evidence showing it is “not feasible.” This is a subjective opinion only and there is no research or evidence backing it.
In regard to:
“the theory being tested is determined by the researcher. That opens itself up to bias”
All studies have limitations. But to deny the repeated studies that show high rates of child abuse is to ignore the massive amounts of research on the topic.
In regard to:
“if those astronomical numbers were true, every man would also be a rapist or sexual abuser.”
No, studies show that that fairly low percentages of men and women abuse children or sexually assault others. One problem is that some abusers have many victims.
Future Child. 1994 Summer-Fall;4(2):31-53.
Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse.
Finkelhor D.
Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
Abstract
Approximately 150,000 confirmed cases of child sexual abuse were reported to child welfare authorities in the United States during 1993. This number represents about 15% of the more than one million confirmed cases of all child abuse and neglect. But the true scope of this problem is better reflected in retrospective surveys of adults, and this article summarizes data from 19 of these surveys. Considerable evidence exists to show that at least 20% of American women and 5% to 10% of American men experienced some form of sexual abuse as children
From ptsd.va.gov
US Dept of Veteran Affairs
National Center for PTSD
“Researchers estimate that in our country about 1 out of 6 boys and 1 out of 4 girls are sexually abused.”
“Most often, sexual abusers know the child they abuse but are not family. About 60% of abusers fall into that group. For example, the abuser might be a friend of the family, babysitter, or neighbor. About 30% of those who sexually abuse children are family members of the child. This includes fathers, uncles, or cousins. The abuser is a stranger in only about 10% of child sexual abuse cases.”
Comment by research — Sun 7th November 2010 @ 10:54 am
All studies have limitations. But to deny the repeated studies that show high rates of child abuse is to ignore the massive amounts of research on the topic.
What more evidence of bias does one need?
Comment by rc — Sun 7th November 2010 @ 11:20 am
research says:
“If someone ESTIMATES there are more than 3,000,000 children that were reported to Child Protective Services, this shows there is a very big problem.”
“APPROXIMATELY 150,000 confirmed cases of child sexual abuse were reported…”
“…reflected in RETROSPECTIVE surveys of adults, and this article summarizes data from 19 of these surveys.”
“APPROXIMATELY 150,000 confirmed cases….”
“….represents ABOUT 15% of the more than one million confirmed cases of all child abuse and neglect.”
“RESEARCHERS ESTIMATE that….”
“…the abuser MIGHT be….”
“ABOUT 30%….”
But wait ! There’s more ! Suddenly, with apparently absolute certainty, we have “The abuser IS a stranger in only ABOUT 10% of child sexual abuse cases.”
This sort of stuff shows the hallmark of Sex Abuse Industry “researchers” and advocates. It is estimates, guesses, possibilities and beliefs wrapped inside piles of advocacy gobbledegook. Barren of fact, rich in belief. It fails to enlighten anyone or shed serious light on a serious topic.
That the article cited “summarizes data from 19 of these surveys” is a condemnation of the other 19 papers, not an accolade. Please go and find some verifiable data and FACTS.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Sun 7th November 2010 @ 12:15 pm
“more statistics” and the other alter-egos that you operate under:
You fail to address fundamental research weaknesses that others here have highlighted. One of the most basic weaknesses is that the main dependent variable in the studies is usually self-report or unsubstantiated allegation. The studies would at least show some effort to respect scientific principles if they were careful in reporting their findings as “1 in 5 of those interviewed reported they had experienced one of the behaviours here defined as sexually/physically abusive“. But no, most such studies blithely make the logical leap from anonymous self-report to actual population events, even arguing spuriously that the subjects were more likely to hide their abusive experiences (despite leading questions, repeating the question if the desired response wasn’t forthcoming, selective reinforcement of desired “disclosures” and many other manipulative vehicles of bias).
Let’s look closely at your most recent quote:
Firstly, even assuming that the figures about “reports and allegations” were collated in a sound way from some sound source, they are only “reports and allegations”. But this doesn’t stop the author from claiming that “children are suffering” from what is was reported and alleged. No acknowledgement by the researcher or by your good selves that such reports and allegations are often dishonestly made in the context of custody and property disputes, or incorrectly divined by over-enthusiastic indoctrinated neighbours or teachers, or made by children to show loyalty to the other parent or for other reasons. In fact, the majority of such reports and allegations when investigated are found to be unsubstantiated.
Secondly, the exaggeration in this particular research report is highlighted by its illogical claim that the abuse is a “hidden epidemic”. If it’s an “epidemic” because of a large number of reports, how then can it also be “hidden”?
Thirdly, 3 million reports out of a U.S. population of 310 million is 1%. While it may be true that some of those reports involve multiple children, it will also be the case that a good proportion of those reports will be multiple reports about the same children. It’s typical for such studies to throw around figures out of context to create sensation. That is continued here by the ploy of recalculating the figures as “one report every ten seconds”, a reframing that provides no new information but is simply designed to sensationalize.
Fourth, more unhelpful statistics in the claim that “five children die every day as a result of child abuse”. Even assuming that the figure is based on any valid definition and calculations, that’s 0.0000058 of the population each year. About 20 times that number of men suicide each year.
Fifth, the old “it is estimated…” ploy is here used to claim that a large proportion of false death certificates cover up abuse when this was the cause of death. This claim is not credible. Death certificates are legal documents that will generally be treated with great care as to accuracy. I could equally say “It is estimated that 95% of allegations against men are false and the result of feminist propaganda” simply because I decided to make that estimate. Although my claim will probably be more accurate than the many of the estimates fabricated by the abuse industry, it is no more soundly based.
Your ongoing quotes from the abuse research simply show more and more clearly how poor that research is for providing an accurate picture of reality.
Have you read my critique (referenced above) of the World Health Organization “violence towards women” research? This research has been replicated all over the world and is routinely published in peer-reviewed journals, yet it epitomizes the scientific faults and unwarranted conclusions that are rife in abuse research. The peer reviewers are as captured by feminist propaganda as most of the population and as your selves clearly are. The risks of remotely criticizing such worthy sounding movements as protecting women and children against violence and the anti-violence religion generally are too great for most people to take. Witchhunts are like that; dare to speak up and risk being seen as a witch sympathizer, damaging your career or worse.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 7th November 2010 @ 12:23 pm
Awesome dissembling of feminist propaganda Hans. Well done.
Repeat Warning for feminists — when the fog lifts and you realize how terribly misandric you are it will be deeply embarrassing and painful. Many of us former pro-feminists now know this having gone through it ourselves.
But rest assured the pain will only be temporary.
There may be moments of slipping back into old misandric patterns of thinking and behaving, but we Men’s Rights Advocates (MRA)stand as role models for you.
We made it to a saner place and with some effort and reaching out for the right support you can too.
You can rehabilitate yourself by joining us in helping men and boys to overcome subjugation and have equal rights.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 7th November 2010 @ 1:59 pm
Excellent comments putting forward excellent arguments, G, M, H, S, RC and M. Comment #27 reminded me of a couple of short videos about America’s answer to child abuse and I thought I’d share them.
Also, here is an interesting link to England’s state control. Sweden’s well past both of us and I’m wanting to write about it.
Comment by julie — Mon 8th November 2010 @ 12:29 am
After 70-odd posts, it’s time for a summary. Thank you to all who participated. Very briefly :
This began with publication of a synopsis of Meredith Maran’s book “My Lie….” In which she has debunked the ”recovered memory” beliefs, and withdrawn the wrongful allegations of sexual abuse she made against her father. She finally came to realise the pseudo-memories she had acquired were of events which did not occur.
True Believers.
On one side of the debate is the group that believes in repressed/recovered memory, multiple personality disorder and the like. They have not produced any credible evidence of those believed-in phenomena, but instead, have cited many so-called “statistics” gleaned from retrospective surveys which claim to support their assumptions and opinions. They claim the methodology used in those studies and surveys is sound, and that it has been (in part or all) “peer-reviewed” (of course, it has been peer-reviewed by like minded fellow travellers). They express absolute acceptance, and claim a zero error-rate. It appears from their comments that many of them are associated directly or indirectly with the Sex Abuse Industry, and therefore carry a burden of vested interest. As they have made claims, they also carry the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Sceptics.
The other side (of which I am a part) does not believe in the above theories for the reason that they do not withstand scientific or common sense scrutiny. The theory and practice fail the primary tests expressed by the Daubert criteria — (1. Verifiability & Falsifiability. 2. Soundness & “Peer Review”. 3. Potential Error Rate. 4. General Acceptance.) This is a method science uses to distinguish between conjecture and fact.
At the lowest level, we want the True Believers to conclusively prove by impeccable scientific research processes that the human brain is capable of routinely “repressing” memories of traumatic events, and years later in “therapy” that such memories can be “recovered” in pristine condition. Then we want them to prove by similar means that their estimates of the immensity of the prevalence of sexual abuse is based on reliable data. And (at this point, perhaps lastly) we want them to prove that each and every one of the more than 700 effects, which they claim result from sexual abuse, is scientifically valid and unique to sexual abuse.
MurrayBacon — Axe Murderer – has suggested we get together to resolve such fundamental differences. An excellent idea ! We could then use the zero method (others outside Electrical Engineering might know it as the null method). That will allow us to remove all the base assumptions, re-establish the chain of data-substantiation, and re-assemble the proof. In short, we should de-construct the theories of repression/recovery of memory, and of MPD/DID and examine, in the clear light of empirical science, their components, data, methodology and conclusions….E&OE of course.
How many of those in the first group (the True Believers) will put their hands up for this ?
And a question for MurrayBacon – does the sobriquet “axe murderer” imply you murder axes ?
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Mon 8th November 2010 @ 9:17 am
The above post misrepresents the debate from the perspective of one side of the debate.
Maran did not “debunk the ”recovered memory” beliefs.” She pulled a few quotes mostly from one side of the debate in her book, and in reality she only speaks for herself. We have no evidence if she was or wasn’t abused. If she was influenced by social influence before (which she claims), perhaps she is being influenced now as well.
As previously stated, the use of the term “True believer” is pejorative, and the above discussion mischaracterizes the position of those that believe that dissociative amnesia, dissociative identity disorder and high rates of child abuse do exist.
“Skeptics” in some of the posts above, deny all evidence contrary to their beliefs.
The above poster states “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” Yet, the term “extraordinary” is subjective. Some “skeptics” hide behind this statement no matter how much evidence is presented. All one needs to do is review the many articles and links presented above to realize that:
1) Recovered memory exists and has often been corroborated
2) Child abuse rates are higher than most skeptics would like to admit.
A major misconception in several of the posts above is that “Men’s Rights” does not equate with feminism or with the acknowledgment of children’s rights or in dealing with the enormity of the child abuse problem.
The rights of men must include the rights of women and children.
It hurts the men’s rights movement when some of its advocates label arguments to protect children and women as simply feminism.
A poster above writes:
“The theory and practice fail the primary tests expressed by the Daubert criteria”
The two articles below refute this statement.
Ground Lost: The False Memory/Recovered Memory Therapy Debate, Alan Scheflin, Psychiatric Times 11/99, Vol. XVI Issue 11, “The appearance in the DSM-IV indicates that the concept of repressed memory is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. This satisfies courts following the Frye v United States, 293 F.1013 (1923) or Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993) rules regarding the admissibility of scientific testimony into evidence in court.”
“Although the science is limited on this issue, the only three relevant studies conclude that repressed memories are no more and no less accurate than continuous memories (Dalenberg, 1996; Widom and Morris, 1997; Williams, 1995). Thus, courts and therapists should consider repressed memories no differently than they consider ordinary memories. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1158280 http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p991137.html
Recovered Memory and the Daubert Criteria : Recovered Memory as Professionally Tested, Peer Reviewed, and Accepted in the Relevant Scientific Community , Constance Dalenberg , Alliant International University , California School of Professional Psychology , Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, Vol. 7, No. 4, 274-310 2006
Research during the past two decades has firmly established the reliability of the phenomenon of recovered memory. This review first highlights the strongest evidence for the phenomenon itself and discusses the survey, experimental, and biological evidence for the varying mechanisms that may underlie the phenomenon. Routes to traumatic amnesia from dissociative detachment (loss of emotional content leading to loss of factual content) and from dissociative compartmentalization (failure in integration) are discussed. Next, an argument is made that false memory is a largely orthogonal concept to recovered memory; the possibility of one phenomena is largely irrelevant to the potential for the other. Furthermore, some aspects of the false memory research offer supportive data for the recovered memory researcher. Finally, the issue of error rates in making the Daubert case is explored. It is concluded that the weight of the evidence should allow the recovered memory victim to come before the court. http://tva.sagepub.com/content/7/4/274
Comment by clarifying the debate — Mon 8th November 2010 @ 11:55 am
It’s not a misconception – it’s a recognition of the fact that women’s and children’s rights are being used as proxies for the disenfranchisement of men.
This reads like one of the opinions you seem averse to in us. One could equally argue that
Comment by rc — Mon 8th November 2010 @ 12:32 pm
It’s not a misconception — it’s a recognition of the fact that women’s and children’s rights are being used as proxies for the disenfranchisement of men.
This reads like one of the opinions you seem averse to in us. It also implies that there should be no minimum voting age. One could more convincingly argue that the rights of women and children must include the rights of men (though not with the Human Rights Commission).
It must be patently clear by now that fundamental beliefs and values are more influential in motivating yours and our positions. The appeals to scientific studies are simply oblique ways of re-expressing your obviously strongly held opinion.
As for science and its ability to answer all questions, here’s something from Max Planck, whose scientific standing amongst the greats makes him worth considering:
“a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Comment by rc — Mon 8th November 2010 @ 12:50 pm
Wow. Where to start. I’ve been following this debate with keen interest and would now like to throw in my 2 cents worth.
Firstly, I’m assuming that all of these anonymous responses are from the same individual who claims to be a researcher. Now I always thought that a good researcher would question the results of the studies he, she or it is researching. It seems to be counter productive to blindly accept research purely on the basis of its support for a particular (political) viewpoint.
Now if you are serious (it’s OK I’ll do some of your work for you) I recommend you investigate some of the information on this blog.
http://recoveredmemorytherapy.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html
In particular I would suggest you read the letter co-authored by Lynley Hood. You’ll see that it is a good deal more relevant than some of your ’90’s pseudo science.
And while on the subject of Lynley Hood let us not forget the subject her book and the uncovering of the Mickey Mouse recovered memories technique used to convict Peter Ellis.
You might also note that there was some research done in the UK a few years back that indicated that women were the main abusers of extremely young children. It was noted that as primary carers women were able to molest under the guise of parental care (nappy changing, bathing etc.).
And finally (and probably most logically). If as a researcher you blind yourself to other outcomes you must surely realise that you are in fact perpetrating a form of abuse on children yourself. Because if we continue to paint this picture as man the aggressor and woman the nurturer, we stand to force half of our children into a sort of captivity where Stockholm Syndrome will be their only release.
By all means please do your research but try to keep enough of an open mind to work towards making all of our children safe. Seriously, do it for the children and not feminist dogma.
Comment by G A Waghorn — Mon 8th November 2010 @ 3:12 pm
Here’s one I missed.
“The rights of men must include the rights of women and children.”
You are kidding aren’t you. I mean when was the last time Womens Refuge turned away a woman because she was the cause of family violence? Oh that’s right, they just help bury the bodies. How many men actually get to share in the care and custody of their children? About 20%, that’s how many. How does that help children?
That’s an F for equality and human rights I’m afraid.
Comment by G A Waghorn — Mon 8th November 2010 @ 3:30 pm
Despite the supposed provenance of the articles cited by “clarifying the debate”, these are the very issues which beg for critical examination.
The comment “ALTHOUGH THE SCIENCE IS LIMITED ON THIS ISSUE the ONLY THREE relevant studies conclude that repressed memories are no more and no less accurate than continuous memories (Dalenberg, 1996; Widom and Morris, 1997; Williams, 1995). Thus, courts and therapists should consider repressed memories no differently than they consider ordinary memories.” gives the lie to the belief in “recovered memories” and shows precisely why it is necessary to examine the data, the method and the findings.
Science is dynamic, not static. We continually test old knowledge and where appropriate add new knew knowledge. The world has moved a long, long way since those articles were published in the 1990’s. In the light of current methods and knowledge, such old material is redundant. It is naive to hang one’s hat on outdated information which is acknowledged to be limited, and which has been replaced by much better research and science.
In particular, the data and findings on “recovered memories” by Williams has long since been revealed as seriously flawed. She got it wrong mainly because of her inept methodology. I am unable to accord Dalenberg’s work any better outcome.
Constant repetition of dubious claims based on questionable methodology and flawed data will not improve its value or make it somehow more reliable and attractive. It is necessary to strip away all the beliefs, the assumptions and the opinions created by such shonky and outdated “research” and lay all the facts on the table for critical examination. All the data and the methods must be questioned and tested.
“Clarifying the debate” should take on board the context of the sage words of G A Waghorn, above. Researchers worth their salt must not blind themselves to outcomes other than want they expect or want. He also said “Now I always thought that a good researcher would question the results of the studies he, she or it is researching. It seems to be counter productive to blindly accept research purely on the basis of its support for a particular (political) viewpoint.” I applaud him for those comments.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Mon 8th November 2010 @ 4:46 pm
Oh !! I forgot to include “clarifying the debate’s” comment :
As previously stated, the use of the term “True believer” is pejorative, and the above discussion mischaracterizes the position of those that believe that dissociative amnesia, dissociative identity disorder and high rates of child abuse do exist.
Please feel at liberty to believe in those theories. My information scientific and personal knowledge is very different from yours.
And I really don’t mind that you think the term “True Believer” is pejorative. It’s a case of “If the cap fits, wear it !”
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Mon 8th November 2010 @ 4:53 pm
Why do you assume that the statistics indicate that it is only men who are abusive? They don’t give the gender of the abuser.
Comment by Who said that men are the only abusers? — Mon 8th November 2010 @ 10:03 pm
In reply: Who said that men are the only abusers?
“Why do you assume that the statistics indicate that it is only men who are abusive? They don’t give the gender of the abuser.”
If you read with that open mind I suggested you might realise that I haven’t said anything of the sort.
This single post of yours shows that you’re more interested in promoting a feminist argument than reducing the incidence of child abuse.
You should be a little more careful when you opt to throw red herrings into the mix.
Comment by Grant Waghorn — Tue 9th November 2010 @ 8:02 am
I said in my brief summary above :
“In short, we should de-construct the theories of repression/recovery of memory, and of MPD/DID and examine, in the clear light of empirical science, their components, data, methodology and conclusions….E&OE of course.
How many of those in the first group (the True Believers) will put their hands up for this ?”
I’ve been holding my breath waiting for some of those in the True Believer group to volunteer to participate in the offer to conduct a open-minded, face-to-face, table-top scientific examination of the issues (along the lines suggested earlier by MurrayBacon – axe murderer). Can’t hold my breath any longer, so I’ve had to let it out with a whoosh like a whale surfacing.
Not a soul amongst them even commented on the suggestion, let alone volunteered their services ! They did no more than drag out and repeat more and more of the same old, same old “statistics” and advocacy articles, once again showing they stand on the side of belief, not science. Why am I not surprised ? It’s a pity they are so limited and introspective – some progress towards sanity and rationality might have been made.
Nevertheless, I urge them to open their minds, let in some light, find the courage to question, examine and test the data and findings on which they rely so heavily. And when the errors become visible to them and doubt about validity appears, begin asking questions of the authors and the advocates. Don’t believe them just because they say it is true.
There are plenty of examples (some good, some bad) on which to base your concerns. What about the weight-change in people living in the Hudson Bay area ? What about reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field ? What about Cold Fusion ? And claims like “Heavier than air machines cannot fly” ? “Phrenology predicts personality”. And what was Frontal Lobotomy supposed to do ???? Dream Analysis, UFO Abductions…….ad infinitum.
We learn and confirm through science. Strip away the assumptions, the opinions, the beliefs and consider the issues from a neutral, impartial, and above all, factual standpoint. I am always willing to help them understand why, relative to alleged CSA, “recovered memory” and “dissociative disorders” etc. are beliefs and social constructs, as will others on the science side of the debate.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Tue 9th November 2010 @ 9:24 am
Here’s a different view of the Ellis case, from the Ellis website
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2003/2003-0816_DominionPost_IAmSickOfBeingCalledALiar.htm
The Dominion Post
August 16 2003.
‘I am sick of being called a liar’
by Linley Boniface
A decade after the Christchurch Civic Creche sex abuse trial, two of the children whose evidence has now been called into question by supporters of Peter Ellis tell Linley Boniface why they feel betrayed.
…Many of the children involved in the case were said to have suffered behavioural problems, including nightmares, tantrums, bedwetting, separation anxiety, fear of men, sexual disorders and toileting problems. For a year and a half before the abuse was uncovered, Katrina was terrified of going to the toilet. She also lost her coordination. “I used to play ball with Dad, but I froze up. I couldn’t catch a ball, and I couldn’t kick a ball, and I couldn’t climb the bars. I’d call Mum out to watch me on the bars, but I’d just hang there without being able to move my hands,” says Katrina.
The day after Katrina told her parents she was being abused, she called her parents outside to watch her on the bars again. Her mother assumed that, as always, she’d be unable to move. “But I was wrong–that day she was able to move,” Sarah remembers.
“For a week after her disclosures, we had our happy, jocular little girl back again. Then it got worse. And then she told us she wanted to kill herself because she was so frightened.”
Like Katrina, Tom was frightened of going to the toilet – the smell of toilets was, for a long time, unbearable to him. He had eating problems, insisted on being fully dressed at all times and became a perfectionist. He was terrified of baths–Ellis was convicted of abusing him in a bath – and found large groups of children and certain children’s games extremely frightening.
But is it the memory of the abuse that frightened him, or just the recollection of being told he had been abused? Now, at 17, can he honestly say that he remembers the abuse itself?
“Yeah. I remember lots of it vividly,” says Tom….
Both families ask repeatedly why everyone seems to believe Ellis, despite the fact that his case has already been through a jury trial, two appeals and a ministerial inquiry And they ask why so many journalists seem happy to report everything Ellis and his supporters say without bothering to ask the victims’ families for comment.
They also point out the irony in the fact that Ellis has a well-run and well-bankrolled campaign behind him, while the families don’t even have a legal representative.
The families believe A City Possessed tells only half the story –Ellis’ half – and were particularly angered by a recent comment by Hood that the children deserved to “know the truth and go forward into adulthood with the whole thing sorted”.
Tom says the matter is sorted already “We were there, we know it happened. It’s not easy to live with, but I could live with it if everyone didn’t keep bringing it up all the time. The only closure I want is for Peter Ellis to admit he did it.”
Comment by Ellis case - victims' perspective — Tue 9th November 2010 @ 4:20 pm
“if we continue to paint this picture as man the aggressor and woman the nurturer”
I agree this is wrong. Anyone in power has the potential to be the abuser.
“women’s and children’s rights are being used as proxies for the disenfranchisement of men.”
This is not always the case. Men deserve equal rights. But getting equal rights for men shouldn’t include weakening the rights of women and children.
“Science is dynamic, not static. We continually test old knowledge and where appropriate add new knew knowledge.”
There is no evidence the old studies weren’t valid. The 1990s
were the decade when most of the studies were done on this topic.
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm#Child
Child Abuse & Child Sexual Abuse ~ Substantiated
Composition of substantiated child abuse in 2000:
879,000 children were victims of child maltreatment.
Neglect ~ 63%
Physical ~ 19%
Sexual ~ 10%
Psychological ~ 8%
Victimization rates declined as age increased.
Rate of victimization per 1,000 children of the same age group:
Birth to 3 years old = 15.7 victims per 1,000.
Ages 16 and 17 = 5.7 victims per 1,000.
Except for victims of sexual abuse, rates
were similar for male and female victimization:
11.2 and 12.8 per 1,000 children respectively.
Rate of sexual abuse by gender:
1.7 victims per 1,000 female children
0.4 victims per 1,000 male children.
Source: US Dept of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children & Families,
Child Welfare Information Gateway (formerly Nat’l Clearinghouse on Child Abuse & Neglect), 2000.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4906.0
In the 12 months prior to the survey, there were an estimated 443,800 (5.8%) women who experienced an incident of violence compared to 808,300 (11%) men. People were three times more likely to experience violence by a man than by a woman.
During the 12 months prior to the survey 1.6% (126,100) of women and 0.6% (46,700) of men experienced an incident of sexual violence.
* Of the women who experienced sexual violence 81% (101,600) experienced an incident of sexual assault and 28% (34,900) experienced a threat of sexual assault
* 22% (22,100) of women had experienced sexual assault by a stranger in the most recent incident, 21% (21,500) by a previous partner, 39% (39,700) by a family member or friend and 32% (32,500) by an other known person
CHILD PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE
Child physical abuse includes any deliberate physical injury (including bruises) inflicted on a child, before the age of 15, by an adult. Child sexual abuse is any act, by an adult, involving a child under the age of 15 years in sexual activity.
* The proportion of women and men who experienced physical abuse before the age of 15 was 10% (779,500) and 9.4% (702,400) respectively
* Women were more likely to have been sexually abused than men. Before the age of 15, 12% ( 956,600) of women had been sexually abused compared to 4.5% (337,400) of men
Comment by statistics — Tue 9th November 2010 @ 4:33 pm
Thanks for the meaningless DV propaganda.
So full of estimates, undefined forms of this and that type of ‘abuse’.
So arrogant. So hollow.
It’s good to see where so much of it comes from.
What’s waste of time and resources.
It reads like allot of CYPS or Rape crisis training material.
Still, at least you didn’t write using paper.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 9th November 2010 @ 7:35 pm
The anonymous correspondent calling himself/herself “statistics” has dumped yet another great blob of nonsense figures onto the heap. Yuk !!!
Ever the optimist, I harbour the hope that perhaps one day he/she might come to realise that hierarchical evidence is a house of cards. When the underlying assumptions and estimates are removed, the tower collapses. Consideration of the theoretical, possible, probable and factual aspects would be much more productive. And measuring the actual numbers involved would be a great help.
As Skeptik says, just as well you didn’t waste paper by writing that silly stuff on it !
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Wed 10th November 2010 @ 8:52 am
When I look back on all the posts from Ms Right (first name Always) I realise that it’s all a regurgitation of other people’s work. There’s nothing akin to research being contributed by our anonymous for safety’s sake “researcher”.
I think the scariest thing here is that if indeed you are a legitimate researcher we taxpayers are probably picking up the bill.
Unless of course you are one of those Womans Weekly “researchers”. Then it’s meaningless anyway.
Comment by Grant Waghorn — Wed 10th November 2010 @ 9:17 am
Several of the posts above are just ad hominem attacks or name calling. These type of attacks only hurt the men’s rights movement. But what hurts the movement the most is the denial of the statistics showing crimes against children and violence against women. Men deserve equal treatment in the legal system. But all people deserve to be safe from violence and abuse.
Comment by men's rights — Wed 10th November 2010 @ 4:48 pm
Many of the ‘statistics’ posts above are just ad hominem attacks or name calling. These type of attacks only designed to hurt the men’s rights movement.
But what hurts the movement the most is the denial of the statistics showing feminist crimes against children and violence against men.
Men deserve equal treatment in the legal system as they are also people and so deserve to be safe from violence and abuse.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 10th November 2010 @ 9:39 pm
Reply to “men’s rights”:
I don’t think anyone here is “denying” crimes against children or violence against women. The fact that you omitted to mention violence against men, who are more often than any other group the victims of violence, suggests “denial” is a word applying more to your good self.
I’m sure everyone who has contributed to this debate is concerned about the violence that really happens, and I would venture that contributors here would be more likely than average to intervene in order to protect a child, woman or fellow man from harm. But informed men are tired of exaggerated and unbalanced claims about such violence and the extent to which it has been attributed to only men and to men in general. A degree of scepticism and indignation must be understandable when men have long been insulted with “All men are rapists” and numerous other feminist slurs.
The debate in this thread has been about scientific rigour in the research quoted, the accuracy of the statistics generated, and integrity in how findings are reported. The multiple-personality poster who has quoted these statistics has not been prepared to acknowledge any methodological weaknesses and essentially asserts that the reported findings provide an accurate portrayal of what truly happens. It’s all very well throwing around statistics but unless we know exactly what definitions were used, what exactly interviewers said to and asked of subjects and other crucial facts those statistics will be suspect, especially given what we know about the methodological details in similar studies that we have previously taken the trouble to scrutinize closely. And, frankly, most of those quoted studies made claims about actual rates of violence when they only measured self-report. Authors that don’t even take care to report their findings realistically but prefer leaps of extrapolation show themselves immediately to be more interested in generating propaganda than in discovering reality.
I note that the last quoted research from Australia reported that 12% of girls “had been sexually abused” (more correctly: “as adults said that they had been involved when they were children in some sexual activity by an adult”). Aside from problems with this definition of sexual abuse that might have encouraged over-inclusiveness (e.g. innocent experiences mistakenly seen or suspected by the respondents as sexual, or sexual experiences they had been exposed to but were not deliberately involved in such as inadvertently seeing something), and aside from the problem of memory distortion, and aside from the possibility that some respondents might have fabricated false positives because they wanted to support the good cause, and aside from a myriad of other threats to the accuracy of the statistics, these figures are much lower than those reported by other studies. 12% is not “1 in 4”. Will the real statistic please stand up? Studies using more sensible methodology are known to generate much lower figures than most of the studies quoted in this thread, and perhaps this particular study was more sensible than others.
12% or 5% or 0.1% of children being damaged is still significant and worthy of attention. Nobody here has suggested otherwise. But that doesn’t mean they will support fear-mongering notions of an “epidemic” or the feminist tradition of denigrating all men and maleness itself on the basis of the misbehaviour of a minority.
The multiple-personality poster who has dumped all these statistics on MENZ may have set a trap. Throwing statistics around without details of how those statistics were generated then brushing aside all objections about biased methodology has provoked contributors here into increasingly strong reactions, so that now these aware men can be portrayed as “deniers” of violence against women and children. But in fact, nobody has denied such violence.
I agree that the increasingly hostile ad hominem attacks in this thread have not amounted to good debating, but the same can be said for the statistic-dumper’s proselytizing bombardment accompanied by blithe dismissal of others’ reasonable criticisms.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 10th November 2010 @ 10:09 pm
Some of us aren’t prepared to accept that academia is the one and only source of truth. Even less are we ready to accept that someone’s portfolio of personally selected studies and statistics represent anything more significant than their own priorities – and that’s without needing to verify that these chosen figures are collected in a verifiable, or bogus, manner.
To gain a sense of perspective when someone presses urgency on a matter on which few of us can speak with any authority, it’s useful to develop some kind of personal insight using simple – if crude – tests of our own devising. Take domestic violence and the toll on women, for example. There are some rather fantastic figures out there, some going as far to suggest that 1 in every 3 women lives in fear of it. Even those who might shrink from this extreme claim will still insist on there being an ‘epidemic’.
Now, the notion that domestic violence is epidemic is easily testable. An epidemic is by definition something that is widespread – something that is in all likelihood going on around you. That is, all the people you know and see every day, right down to strangers you pass by on the street, represent a very large sample from which you should be guaranteed multiple instances of ‘domestic violence’ (people you see on the TV do not count).
Let’s confine ourselves to those women so battered that their injuries are visible to others, and cannot be disguised: black-eyes, broken limbs, missing teeth, smashed in noses, severe bruising. Of all the women I know personally, only one has a missing tooth. She’s pretty old now and complained about its looseness for years, until one day it fell out. Of all the others, injuries of this kind are extremely rare and all have been accounted for by other causes.
When I go out on the street, I see elderly women stricken by arthritis, severely obese women barely able to keep their breath when they walk, and sometimes disabled women in wheel-chairs. All of these afflicted women far outnumber the very, very few who show signs of possible beating. I can recall one woman I worked with who smoked a great deal, spent every night at the pub and had a very vicious temper. She had one of those noses that you see on front-row forwards, though I don’t know how she came about it. She’s the only woman I can recall distinctly looking as if she had her face punched in in my entire life.
If there’s an epidemic of women beating, where are they all hiding? In this day and age, most women are now working. They can’t just stay at home and hide behind the curtains every time something happens to them that they would like to keep secret and would take weeks to repair – and would be questioned on every single day.
So my conclusion is simple, and I trust it. There is no epidemic of women battering. It is an extremely rare occurrence. I don’t doubt that there are some women who are battered, but I also don’t doubt that some people get killed by falling aircraft. If women battering is extremely rare, then claims of a high incidence of domestic violence are substantively referring to behaviours other than physical battery – yet the posters and campaigns against domestic violence all show women bruised, black-eyed and cowering with fear.
The domestic violence ‘epidemic’ appears to be a swindle of massive proportions, brought about because most of us are prepared to believe that other people are behaving in ways foriegn to us, in ways we don’t actually see in our own lives. All we need to see is a few photos, or Jake the Muss giving his wife the bash on the movies, and we’re happy to accept the possibility. Then we trust the claims of others simply because they claim authority, accept their numbers, and the scam is complete.
But what’s that you say? the research is peer-reviewed! There are independent longitudinal studies!
Hasn’t the financial crisis and the ongoing collapse of one finance company after another, the revelation of trillions of dollars of bad-banking practice and the corruption in both the government and corporate worlds not taught us anything? ‘Experts’ are fallible. Some are even dirty. Why would you expect truth from total strangers on matters affecting family when only a fool would expect it on matters financial? The last thing any of us should be wanting is less authority to make our own judgments, and more authority for experts to make judgments for us.
Comment by rc — Thu 11th November 2010 @ 12:42 pm
“Some of us aren’t prepared to accept that academia is the one and only source of truth.”
Research and studies are probably the best source of truth we have. They are better than subjective opinions.
“If there’s an epidemic of women beating, where are they all hiding?….So my conclusion is simple, and I trust it. There is no epidemic of women battering. It is an extremely rare occurrence.”
Women may hide their injuries (under makeup and clothes), call in sick if they work, etc. Many attacks don’t leave long lasting bruises or scars. Like most family dysfunctions, the abuse is hidden from society, partly due to skepticism it occurs, shame or fear of the abuser.
“The fact that you omitted to mention violence against men, who are more often than any other group the victims of violence”
I did state “but all people deserve to be safe from violence and abuse.”
I believe I did cite a statistic that men are the victims of violent crime more than women. Here’s one:
http://social.jrank.org/pages/1253/Violent-Crime-Gender-Differences-in-Violent-Crime-Offenders.html
Violent crime is very much the domain of men. Men are responsible for most criminal acts and they are the victims more often than women. This is true even in the acutely tragic cases of the murder of a child. Of murder victims aged 5 years or under, most are males and most are killed by a man.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Homicide Trends in the U.S.,” a series of statistical tables and graphs published online, January 2001
“It’s all very well throwing around statistics but unless we know exactly what definitions were used, what exactly interviewers said to and asked of subjects and other crucial facts those statistics will be suspect, especially given what we know about the methodological details in similar studies that we have previously taken the trouble to scrutinize closely. And, frankly, most of those quoted studies made claims about actual rates of violence when they only measured self-report.”
I did cite some studies that looked at crime reports and did mention peer reviewed studies that could be looked up on the web for details in research and methodology.
“Throwing statistics around without details of how those statistics were generated then brushing aside all objections about biased methodology has provoked contributors here into increasingly strong reactions, so that now these aware men can be portrayed as “deniers” of violence against women and children. But in fact, nobody has denied such violence.”
I have shown how many of the studies came from objective sources with nothing to gain from the research presented.
“Many of the ‘statistics’ posts above are just ad hominem attacks or name calling. These type of attacks only designed to hurt the men’s rights movement.”
The poster that stated this is the main poster making ad hominem or name calling attacks. None of the statistics posts use either of these techniques.
I am a firm believer in men’s rights. But it is important to admit that some men are responsible for violent and abusive acts and to be careful not to minimize these violent acts. Women are also responsible for violent and abusive acts and this needs to be made better known also.
Comment by statistics — Thu 11th November 2010 @ 4:06 pm
Spot the dumb tautology in this statement –
Bear in mind the magnitude of the claims of DV being touted then spot the pigheaded oneyed hysteria here –
If we were to beleive this makeup sales would be going through the roof, as would also women’s absenteeism and the sale of baggy women’s clothing!!!
Keep going though.
Every useful idiot statement issued is a chance to educate with some common sense reality.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 11th November 2010 @ 4:47 pm
There is no tautology in the above statement. Research studies attempt to use a scientific method to measure data. Subjective opinions are just that, opinion often without strong evidence.
The statement above about makeup, absenteeism and clothing makes no sense. How would an increased incidence rate of DV do any of this?
The post above with its name calling and insults only discredits the men’s rights movement and hurts others perceptions of it.
Comment by name calling — Thu 11th November 2010 @ 5:05 pm
I specifically confined myself to cases of black-eyes, broken limbs, missing teeth, broken noses and severe, visible bruising. The kind of injuries that cannot be explained away with the excuse you just offered up. They are all high-profile injuries that cannot be disguised, and remain conspicuous for long periods of time. Have you ever actually seen an assault victim? They are unmistakeable. Do a google search for images of them, then try and tell us it can be hidden with make-up and well-placed clothes.
The reason for my concentrating on this subset of domestic violence victims is precisely because their presence is not subjective. Although I have never been anywhere where women bearing such injuries are seen, I allow they may exist. Someone else here may be able to tell us where they have seen them. Outside of a hospital, where bodies banged-up from all manner of causes tend to congregate, in my experience the actual incidence of such injuries is extremely low (and I mean from all causes, not just D.V.). 1 in 3? Don’t make me laugh.
Interesting that you readily respond adversarially to my changing of the subject from child abuse to intimate partner violence, and entirely consistent with your being at this site. What could you possibly fear from us, if we are so very wrong?
Comment by rc — Thu 11th November 2010 @ 5:42 pm
Thanks rc,
You said it as it is.
I too notice the flip flopping from one kind of abuse to another.
It seems pretty clear our ‘statistician’ associate (LOL!) is simply another feminist trolling on this thread.
Jesus wept, I’ve seen clearer thinking about statistical thinking from newcomer undergrads!
Still, Keep it coming I say.
Excellent chances to show up feminist thinking for the kind of deluded poisonous BS it is.
Hoist in their own petard is the expression that comes to mind.
In relation to your excellent point I can also add that having lived in NZ for a couple of decades I’ve NEVER seen a woman with the kinds of injuries you mention (black-eyes, broken limbs, missing teeth, broken noses and severe, visible bruising) except for a couple of women who were in a car crash.
Please bear in mind also that for about ten of those years I had no motor vehicle either.
So I was out and about on foot and public transport or on my bicycle where I’d see many more people up close than had I been whizzing by driving a car.
By contrast if our ‘learned’ poster’s laughable statistics were to be believed I’d expect to see plenty of women in such condition regularly.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 11th November 2010 @ 8:29 pm
In the personality of “CDC study validity” (above) you stated the following:
Your example effectively highlights the very problems you seek to dismiss, problems typical for much of this self-report research.
These questions are far from straightforward and they are very likely to generate a high level of false positives. What does “in a sexual way” mean? It could include an affectionate touch on the bottom on parting, or an unwelcome attempt to hug you on greeting, or almost any touch anywhere on the body that you interpret as having sexual or romantic motivation. The next question has the same problem; it could include someone you know is romantically interested asking you or guiding your hand to adjust his collar or to feel how hot his forehead is after running. Yet all “yes” answers referring to any such reported experiences will be included by the researchers as “sexual abuse”.
Then in the third question what is meant by “attempt”? It could include memories of someone asking you for sex, or tentatively moving a passionate mutual petting session towards any such “intercourse” in the hope that you are also keen but then desisting as soon as you indicate otherwise, or even your mistaken interpretation that someone’s lewd joke about such intercourses amounted to an invitation for you to do it. Yeah, it’s all sexual abuse.
The last question is less ambiguous for events at young ages. Yet all we know is that 6.9% of the respondents said “yes” when asked whether, presumably as children or teenagers, someone 5 or more years older had oral, anal or vaginal intercourse with them. We don’t know how many of those who answered “yes” to this question were referring to sex they had as 17 year-olds (the legal age in most US states is 18) that they willingly participated in. Even under US law I doubt that an average person would consider that to be sexual abuse, and of course in many countries it would be perfectly legal, consensual behaviour for both parties.
Further, we have no way of knowing how honest the replies were. Your claim that abused respondents are more likely to deny than admit such experiences due to embarrassment is conjecture, and anyway it doesn’t address the issue of non-abused respondents giving false positives. I would claim that people anonymously responding to a survey will be more likely to falsely report remembering such experiences, for various reasons including false memories, the respondents’ understanding of what the researchers are looking for, and respondents’ belief it’s a big problem so they should help to get it taken seriously. Unless the study took great care to avoid or to control for interviewer demand characteristics and other factors that may cause bias towards false positives, in my opinion such over-estimation will be inevitable.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 11th November 2010 @ 8:46 pm
To clarify –
What is your definition of domestic abuse?
What is your definition of sexual abuse?
What is your definition of childhood sexual abuse?
Comment by sam smith — Fri 12th November 2010 @ 7:53 am
I would consider physical assault a form of domestic abuse, and a criminal act – I note also that the term ‘domestic abuse’ actually confuses our perception of the crime. For anyone who has witnessed or been victim to a serious assault, there is no need for such distinction – all such assaults are equally repugnant.
Other examples of domestic abuse:
-chronic nagging
-infidelity in marriage
-deceiving an intimate partner into believing another man’s child is his
-marrying purely for pecuniary gain (ie lying about affection in order to gain property)
-similarly, marrying purely for citizenship purposes
-reckless expenditure threatening a family’s financial security
-alienating children from the other parent
-making false accusations and involving police and courts
-furnishing and decorating a residence in such a way that one partner’s presence is not obvious to a third party
-publicly chastising and humiliating a partner
-destroying or selling off possessions of importance to a partner
This is by no means an exhaustive list, nor is every item on it appropriate for criminal charge.
I think you can appreciate that there is a common theme to what I have listed – namely, a betrayal of trust, failure to reciprocate and lack of the goodwill that is requisite in any functional partnership.
I doubt that such a sketch of a definition, as manifestly reasonable as it is, would gain much acceptance amongst those currently invested in D.V. law as it now stands.
I make no attempt on definitions of sexual abuse, or indeed sexual propriety, other than to observe that as difficult as it might seem to accuse sexually abstinent men of some kind of sexual abuse, still the attempt will likely be made.
Comment by rc — Fri 12th November 2010 @ 10:25 am
If this is your definition of domestic abuse, why are you defining it elsewhere in this thread as only those who have obvious injuries?
Comment by sam smith — Fri 12th November 2010 @ 12:29 pm
Why do you think domestic abuse is limited to only those with obvious injuries?
Comment by rc — Fri 12th November 2010 @ 2:34 pm
Most of the posters above are debating fairly and intelligently and are bringing up good points for discussion. It is unfortunate that the poster above “skeptik” keeps using name calling and ad hominem attacks that only discredit all men and their advocates. This type of posting allows others reading this thread to brand all men’s rights advocates like this one, which is untrue.
“These questions are far from straightforward and they are very likely to generate a high level of false positives.”
Most of these questions are straight forward and most people would not interpret these in the following way:
Touch or fondle you in a sexual way?
“What does “in a sexual way” mean? It could include an affectionate touch on the bottom on parting, or an unwelcome attempt to hug you on greeting, or almost any touch anywhere on the body that you interpret as having sexual or romantic motivation.”
Most would interpret this to mean being touched in a sexual part of their body, not a “hug.”
Have you touch their body in a sexual way? 8.7
“The next question has the same problem; it could include someone you know is romantically interested asking you or guiding your hand to adjust his collar or to feel how hot his forehead is after running.”
Most people would not consider a touch to one’s forehead or collar as sexual.
These questions are very straight forward and cannot be misinterpreted:
Attempt oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you? 8.9
Actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you? 6.9
“Further, we have no way of knowing how honest the replies were. Your claim that abused respondents are more likely to deny than admit such experiences due to embarrassment is conjecture, and anyway it doesn’t address the issue of non-abused respondents giving false positives. I would claim that people anonymously responding to a survey will be more likely to falsely report remembering such experiences, for various reasons including false memories, the respondents’ understanding of what the researchers are looking for, and respondents’ belief it’s a big problem so they should help to get it taken seriously. Unless the study took great care to avoid or to control for interviewer demand characteristics and other factors that may cause bias towards false positives, in my opinion such over-estimation will be inevitable.”
Both positions above are only conjecture. But it is much more likely that people will deny abuse due to denial, social embarrassment and fear of familial sanctions. Wanting to please a simple survey would not override these concerns.
“I specifically confined myself to cases of black-eyes, broken limbs, missing teeth, broken noses and severe, visible bruising. The kind of injuries that cannot be explained away with the excuse you just offered up. They are all high-profile injuries that cannot be disguised, and remain conspicuous for long periods of time. Have you ever actually seen an assault victim? They are unmistakeable. Do a google search for images of them, then try and tell us it can be hidden with make-up and well-placed clothes.”
The study below shows a more balance view of the visibility of injuries in a sexual assault. It appears that the severe injuries you mention above are a minority of the injuries in the study below.
Severity of injuries among sexual assault victims
Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine
Volume 14, Issue 5, July 2007, Pages 266-269
We noted one or more extra-genital injuries in 64 victims (63.4%), no injuries in 36 victims (35.6%), whereas for one victim the medical records were inconclusive. Injuries, predominantly bruises, were located on limbs (32%), face (23%), and torso (7%). Abrasions and contusions were less frequently present, while two victims sustained lacerations. The Clinical Injury Extent Score was used to rate the physical severity of the assault. The majority of victims (44%) sustained light injuries, 18% were moderate, while one victim had severe injuries.
“Interesting that you readily respond adversarially to my changing of the subject from child abuse to intimate partner violence….”
My response was no different than any of my other responses. I believe that all forms of abuse and violence are wrong against men, women and children.
http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx
In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, at iii (2000)
Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000)
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:
* Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
* 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
* Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
* 50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.
Matthew R. Durose et al., U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 207846, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances, at 31-32 (2005)
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=183781
Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey
Survey findings are presented on the prevalence and incidence of rape, physical assault, and stalking; the rate of injury among rape and physical assault victims; and injured victims’ use of medical services. Physical assault was found to be widespread among adults in the United States, with 51.9 percent of surveyed women and 66.4 percent of surveyed men reporting they were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker and/or as an adult by any type of attacker. Of the 17.6 percent of all women surveyed who said they had been the victim of a completed or attempted rape at some time in their life, 21.6 percent were younger than age 12 when they were first raped, and 32.4 percent were ages 12 to 17.
Comment by violence and abuse — Fri 12th November 2010 @ 3:41 pm
Far from discrediting the Men’s movement naming things helps men and women to identify misandric feminist brainwashers and their sympathisers. A cursory look through Men’s Rights websites will prove the point.
Your assertion that most people would interpret the terms as you define them is stupid beyond belief!
Do you really expect us to believe that you’ve interviewed most people to ascertain that. Reading such drivel gives me a compelling reason to ignore the rest of your inflated posting.
Keep going though.
As I keep saying you’re proving a useful role as easy to discredit naive feminist which gives folks reading a chance to hone up their skills of ridiculing the kinds of ‘research’ you peddle.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 12th November 2010 @ 3:50 pm
The statistical claims by the True Believers above look like a case of “Torture statistics long enough and the WILL confess”.
The attempted justification of “recovered memory” MPD, and “statistics” showing incredibly vast amounts of child sexual abuse (CSA) and others stuff brings to mind a 1998 paper called “Moral Panics, Witchhunts and the Satanic Abuse Scare”.
It began with the opening remark that from time to time, societies are gripped by what sociologists call “moral panics” — periods of frenzied fear about certain social developments which spread rapidly through a society. CSA is one such. It is driven more by fear and on the part of ideologues, in a forlorn bid to acquire some sort of imagined “power”.
That situation is reminiscent of the Malleus Malificarum and a couple of other more recent books “Michelle Remembers” and “The Courage to Heal”. A comparison of these shows the Malleus Malificarum has three parts.
1. Proves the existence of witches and argues that anyone who denies witchcraft is either a victim of witchcraft or a witch themselves.
2. Explains how to identify witches and how to recognise the symptoms of witchcraft.
3. Describes how to investigate and punish witchcraft, and how to cure its victims.
The other two books “Michelle Remembers” (1980), and “The Courage to Heal (1988) were similar.
1. They helped establish the belief in the existence of phenomena such as “recovered repressed memory” and “satanic ritual abuse”.
2. They advise the reader how to recognise the vast range of symptoms of childhood sexual abuse.
3. They instruct the reader how to “recover repressed memories” of sexual abuse and how to apply “therapeutic” techniques to deal with the consequences.
Toss in a bit of religion, a lot of radical feminism and a whole raft of people who do not understand the sciences, and we have a large pile of True Believers. I make no apology if some might think this to be pejorative. To me, those things are just facts of life.
The concepts and beliefs underlying all that nonsense gave rise to an entire industry looking for abuse which never was there, and then treating the alleged victims of nothing using techniques which are unscientific, unproven, unethical and unsafe.
“Michelle Remembers” — a story about a Canadian, Michelle Smith, and her claims to have “recovered her memories” of childhood atrocities suffered at the hands of a satanic coven – was a sensational success and led to tens of thousands of “survivors” coming forward. The “Me Too”
syndrome. Those who doubted the truth of the claims were accused of being part of the great conspiracy of witches and covens, which included government officials, police, the media and the alleged perpetrators.
Not long after that, there were more than 300 USA Daycare Centre cases alleging satanic ritual abuse of the children. The moral panic spread to England, Scotland, the Orkney Islands, Canada, Australia, and of course, NZ with the Peter Ellis case. Scores of Daycare cases !
The USA FBI completed an in-depth study over more than 12,000 alleged satanic ritual abuse cases. None were verified.
“The Courage to Heal” was written by a couple of idiots, but it unfortunately led to tens upon tens of thousands of mainly young and middle-aged women claiming to have “recovered memories” of CSA at the hands of their fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, cousins, nephews and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and All. I cannot recall even one case where the so-called “victim” got pregnant as a result of the immense amount of alleged sexual intercourse. I find that astonishing.
And so today, we have a raft of True Believers who will not even countenance the possibility that even some of their so-called “statistics” might be out of whack. The fact is those so-called “statistics” are based on frivolous, ambiguous and unproven data. They insist their claim to know of more than seven hundred “effects of CSA” is credible, but the glaring anomaly is simply that none of those 700+ items are unique to CSA, and all have myriad possible causes.
I think that situation turns the True Believers into Luddites or worse.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Fri 12th November 2010 @ 4:10 pm
Yes Gordon.
I concur.
Idiots is also a term I’d use for these brainwashed cult members who incidentally often cloak their own name calling in ‘statistics’ as though such a thin veneer of ‘academic respectability’ gives them the moral high ground.
Add condescending and two faced hypocrites to the list.
What’s even more pathetic and sadder is such folks reckon those of us who think more clearly in common sense ways and speak plainly as we find are somehow harming the Men’s Rights Movement.
To put the sword to that stupidity it’s only necessary to point out that combined Angry Harry’s, Men’s News Daily and The Spearhead to mention but a few Men’s Rights websites are read by literally millions.
Let’s read that again shall we – millions.
AND they don’t mince around using politically correct wussy language either.
Nor do they get swamped with limp complaints about – gasp! ad hominim attacks!
Oh no! call out the femiguard! Arrest that man for his testosterone-speak!
On the contrary if they think someone is being a misandric feminized idiot they say so.
I’m really glad my ancestors were free to call Hitler a deluded madman, a fascist idiot and a megalomaniac.
Where would we be without such freedoms eh?
Right where the feminist want us I suppose.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 12th November 2010 @ 4:54 pm
How do you know that? If the researchers wanted to measure whether people has been touched on a sexual part of their body, why did the question not specify this and/or provide some more specific clarification to ensure that positive responses were not over-inclusive? I have often heard women including teenagers express disgust about some approach made by an older male they see as undesirable (usually this means “poor” but can include homeless, smelly, drunk, ugly or much older than the woman). They will say something like “Yuck, he came right up close with bad breath and tried to hold my hand; he even asked to kiss me”, screwing up their faces and shivering with disgust. I would venture that many or most women have experienced some approaches in that way. What they experienced was definitely a sense of violation by an unwanted, sexually motivated touch, and I would bet money that if those women are asked years later if they were ever touched in a sexual way by an older person they will recall perhaps vaguely that something of that nature happened and answer “yes”, to be counted by the researcher as another sexual abuse experience. But it was not sexual abuse. (Incidently, the same feminist broadening of the definition of sexual abuse is now reflected in law. Convictions of indecent assault are now common even though no sexual or intimate part of the complainant’s body was ever touched. And you claim that survey respondents asked the above question would limit their answers to touching of sexual areas!)
Regardless, even your convenient dismissal of the obvious ambiguity in the question does not refute my argument. Even if “most” people might interpret the question as you claim, whatever proportion interpreted the question to include experiences well outside anything that could reasonably constitute “sexual abuse” will introduce false positives. Also, the problems of age and consent also apply to this question. Respondents who honestly reported being touched or fondled in a sexual way when they were 16 or 17 in mutual petting with their older boyfriend will be portrayed in that study as having been sexually abused.
…………………..
How do you know that? The comments above apply equally to this question.
………………….
Correct when they apply to experiences at younger ages, as I conceded. But you have conveniently ignored the problem in this question when it comes to consenting experiences at 16 or 17 years old. To allow those positive responses to be categorized as “reports of sexual abuse” is simply misleading.
………………….
How do you know this? And you haven’t actually addressed my argument. It may be that some respondents who had been sexually abused might not want to admit it (though in an anonymous survey probably not many), but this is not relevant to the false positive error rate to which my concerns referred: those respondents who never experienced sexual abuse but decided to claim they had.
You have brushed aside every single criticism of the research with blithe assertions and expect us to accept that it provides an accurate representation of what’s really happening (even though those very studies provide widely-varying figures). Responsible dissemination of research involves acknowledging the limitations of the studies and any flaws in their representation.
I am happy to keep pointing out the methodological weaknesses and why the conclusions in many of these studies are suspect at best. But what’s the point of all this? Nobody here disputes that violence and sexual abuse happens and I haven’t heard anyone argue that we should tolerate or ignore it. But measuring these social phenomena deserves much greater scientific care than we have generally seen. Exaggerated figures and ever-widening definitions of violence contribute to stereotyping, discrimination, witchhunts, false convictions and other injustice.
Your confidence in research ethics committees and peer-review processes is sadly misplaced. Ethics committees usually come from the same universities that for decades have prioritized feminist ideology. Research ethics committees have long been more concerned that studies will forward their own ill-founded notions of social improvement than about scientific rigour. The “World Health Organization Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence” was designed to be replicated all over the world and this process continues as we speak. It must be one of the most frequently replicated research designs in the area of physical and sexual violence. Pages of distinguished professors and research ethics advisors were listed as contributing (alongside representatives of women’s groups and services) to the methodology. The replications have been published in leading journals purporting to value science. Yet the methodology is blatant advocacy research that seeks to maximize positive responses and provides neither corroboration of responses nor controls against false positives. And I found it difficult to locate any critical analysis of the studies; are social scientists too frightened of appearing politically incorrect? This was the methodology that generated findings on which the “1 in 3 women live in fear of domestic violence” slogan was based in a recent NZ campaign. Clearly, scientific infrastructure was not sufficient to ensure scientific rigour in this research or to protect society from misinformation. Yet you assert that the claimed findings of your studies must be reliable and valid because of research ethics committees and peer-reviewed journals. Yeah right.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 12th November 2010 @ 10:13 pm
Thank-you Hans and Gordon!
for taking the time and effort to dissemble the nut bar ‘statistics’ being promoted as valid social science research on this thread.
I long ago lost patience to do such and hence my broad brush stroke approach. However I see it as very important that the detail gets filled in to complete the misandric / abuse industry picture.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 12th November 2010 @ 10:34 pm
And if we need any further evidence of the damage caused to our society by the abuse industry……
http://www.3news.co.nz/Default.aspx?TabId=367&articleID=186075&ce8273=1#comment
Kendall Langston – a good and loving father
Comment by Grant Waghorn — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 5:13 am
Thank-you very much for explaining this. I found this wiki article interesting.
Comment by julie — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 10:28 am
Great example of a simple test to assess the likelihood of a claim.
Comment by rc — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 10:47 am
I didn’t rc. I am referring to you limiting the definition of domestic abuse to severe violence in your previous comments:
“Let’s confine ourselves to those women so battered that their injuries are visible to others, and cannot be disguised: black-eyes, broken limbs, missing teeth, smashed in noses, severe bruising. Of all the women I know personally, only one has a missing tooth. She’s pretty old now and complained about its looseness for years, until one day it fell out. Of all the others, injuries of this kind are extremely rare and all have been accounted for by other causes.”
“So my conclusion is simple, and I trust it. There is no epidemic of women battering. It is an extremely rare occurrence. I don’t doubt that there are some women who are battered, but I also don’t doubt that some people get killed by falling aircraft.”
“I specifically confined myself to cases of black-eyes, broken limbs, missing teeth, broken noses and severe, visible bruising. The kind of injuries that cannot be explained away with the excuse you just offered up. They are all high-profile injuries that cannot be disguised, and remain conspicuous for long periods of time. Have you ever actually seen an assault victim? They are unmistakeable. Do a google search for images of them, then try and tell us it can be hidden with make-up and well-placed clothes.
The reason for my concentrating on this subset of domestic violence victims is precisely because their presence is not subjective.”
I understand these statements to be challenging the DV posters which show a woman “cowering with fear”. You use the lack of personally witnessing people walking around with black eyes as proof of a lack of DV. Hence my query about your definition of domestic abuse. The definition you provided is quite subjective. I find that curious.
I also find it curious that I’ve never seen any illegal drugs exchanging hands, or seen someone murdered; yet they are reported frequently in the newspaper as fact.
Comment by sam smith — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 3:31 pm
“I cannot recall even one case where the so-called “victim” got pregnant as a result of the immense amount of alleged sexual intercourse.”
The rate appears to be around 5 percent.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Aug;175(2):320-4; discussion 324-5.
Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women.
RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.
http://www.hopeforhealing.org/preg.html
The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%. This information, in conjunction with estimates based on the U.S. Census, suggest that there may be 32,101 annual rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.
Taken from Center for Diseases Control Rape Fact Sheet 2/2000
*
“Responsible dissemination of research involves acknowledging the limitations of the studies and any flaws in their representation.”
Though you make good arguments at times, many of your statements are primarily based on conjecture, not the knowledge of the actual participants in the studies.
*
“Ethics committees usually come from the same universities that for decades have prioritized feminist ideology.”
There is absolutely no evidence that this is true.
*
“Exaggerated figures and ever-widening definitions of violence contribute to stereotyping, discrimination, witchhunts, false convictions and other injustice.”
There is no scientific evidence this is true. One could also argue that the minimization of these abuse and violence statistics could lead to an increase in abuse and violence.
*
“Yet the methodology is blatant advocacy research that seeks to maximize positive responses and provides neither corroboration of responses nor controls against false positives.”
In many studies, especially journal studies, this is definitely not true. Many of the studies I have presented are not from advocacy organizations, use neutral questions and at times do corroborate their data (especially those using criminal cases).
*
“The statistical claims by the True Believers above look like a case of “Torture statistics long enough and the WILL confess”.
The attempted justification of “recovered memory” MPD, and “statistics” showing incredibly vast amounts of child sexual abuse (CSA)…”
Another way to look at it is that there is overwhelming statistical evidence that there are high rates of child abuse and violence in different societies in the world.
*
“sociologists call “moral panics”
Fifty years ago, some researchers believed that child abuse happened in one in a million cases. The increased awareness of child abuse could be the real cause for the data now coming out in the last 20 years.
*
“Malleus Malif icarum”
It is incredible that a poster would compare child abuse self help and autobiographical books to a book connected to the inquisition.
Obviously they have nothing in common. There is scientific evidence proving that dissociative amnesia exists and legal evidence proving that people can be abused in cults.
There is no real proof that any moral panic ever spread or that any one country was influenced by another on this issue. One would have to show that the accusers knew about the other cases and this has never been done. I already posted an article from the Ellis website from the victims’ point of view on his case.
*
“The USA FBI completed an in-depth study over more than 12,000 alleged satanic ritual abuse cases. None were verified.”
The FBI never completed a study, but one of its members wrote a paper on their own. This member apparently never talked to any of the victims of these crimes.
*
“The Courage to Heal” was written by a couple of idiots, but it unfortunately led to tens upon tens of thousands of mainly young and middle-aged women claiming to have “recovered memories” of CSA”
There is no scientific evidence of this either, nor any controlled studies, just conjecture from advocacy groups.
*
“Oh no! call out the femiguard! Arrest that man for his testosterone-speak!”
Testosterone is not an excuse for abusive behavior. If you want to attract people to the men’s rights movement, this is not the way to do it. Name calling only reflects on those doing the name calling.
*
“And if we need any further evidence of the damage caused to our society by the abuse industry”
This has nothing to do with “the abuse industry” but it is about taking pictures in a private business without permission of the private business against the private business’ rules (I am not stating whether I agree or disagree with these rules).
*
What appears to be going on in this comment section is two standards of evidence. Very high standards for those that believe in high rates of child abuse and violence and much lower standards for those skeptical of these claims.
Comment by standards of evidence — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 3:34 pm
Interesting, considering that universities are the traditional domain of the upper class, white male. While the ethics committees are established to cover the university from ethical breaches, and the associated legal ramifications.
Agreed, peer review can be flawed. That is why you look at the impact factor of the journal the article in published in, and the other factors surrounding the study – including bias.
I think we can all agree that any study can be flawed. It is the ethical researchers who are transparent about the flaws that are more likely to be carrying out good quality research.
Comment by sam smith — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 3:43 pm
He may well be a good and loving father. But, he took photos in an indoor facility (i.e. no longer a public area), which had rules stating that no photos were to be taken without the consent of management, players or their legal guardians. He broke the rules, he should face the consequences.
Comment by sam smith — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Last time I checked a father is a legal guardian and the arena is a public area even though it’s indoors.
I would wage good money that parents from the team of this vigilante took photographs at the event.
I hope CYFs check what sort of damage the woman is doing to her kids by filling them with this sort of paranoia.
Comment by Grant Waghorn — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 4:57 pm
Look up the meaning of the word ‘subset’. I mentioned it in the text you quoted here:
The reason for my concentrating on this subset of domestic violence victims is precisely because their presence is not subjective.”
Comment by rc — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 5:20 pm
The facility had rules about photography. The consent of management, the guardians of the other players or the players themselves weren’t sought. He broke the rules, he should face the consequences.
Talking about the wager is a good way to rile up an emotive group of people. As is the statement about CYFs.
Comment by sam smith — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 5:28 pm
Here you begin to appreciate the point I’m making.
I haven’t seen anyone murdered either. If it was claimed that we were currently suffering an ‘epidemic of murders’, would you accept it and ignore your own experience? Would you not be suspicious of claims like ‘1 in 3 people were at risk of being murdered’?
Speaking for myself, I would need to see bodies in the streets before I would take a claim like this seriously.
Comment by rc — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 5:34 pm
Yes, you used an extreme subset as the only example to prove, beyond subjective interpretation, that DV as presented in the posters is false. Just as I used having never seen a drug deal, or a murder, to indicate that using this subset is misleading and tenuous.
Comment by sam smith — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 5:39 pm
This has everything to do with the abuse industry. It is only in recent years that restraints like this have appeared in our society. Before that we could photograph our children in exactly the same situation and enjoy the experience.
I recently took a holiday in Surfers with my young son and visited a few theme parks. You now what? Not one of those parks have a rule banning photographs. Plenty of kids there.
Hey, catch a legitimate paedophile and I’ll gladly chip in for the rope. But this kind of paranoia needs to be stopped.
Comment by Grant Waghorn — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 5:41 pm
Awwww who’s a cheeky little anonymous researcher?
I’m flattered.
Comment by Grant Waghorn — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 5:48 pm
You seem to have difficulty retracting this false statement. Earnest people would acknowledge they were indeed wrong.
But instead, you ignore the courtesy of my answer to you, and come up with this beauty:
As in your first challenge, you will nowhere find me saying such a thing.
I could answer you again, but that would reflect very badly on my judgment.
Comment by rc — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 7:05 pm
If we catch folk whipping up hysteria that leads to the charging and conviction of the innocent, I’ll gladly chip in for the rope for them too.
Comment by rc — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 7:14 pm
How so rc? You were portraying DV as an extreme subset, and I queried this. You clarified your viewpoint, and I gave an example to indicate why using such an extreme subset is tenuous.
As I posed a question, rather than stated a fact, I’m not quite sure how I can retract anything.
As I have never heard any statements about “1 in 3 people were at risk of being murdered”, I’m not quite sure what context you are talking about. Although, having driven around Auckland, I would say that is a fairly accurate statement, possibly even an understatement.
Comment by sam smith — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 8:19 pm
standards of evidence reproduced…
Estimated?
Does this include women who became pregnant BY committing rape?
Notably, and even if it’s a boy who is the victim, these women have all the choices and can even get child support from their victims.
Comment by gwallan — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 8:20 pm
‘He broke the rules, he should face the consequences.’
yeah; he should be dipped in tar and covered in feathers and run through the town. Or should we just cut off his b*ll*cks perhaps as ‘he broke the rules’.
Normal consequences of a situation like this are that someone complains to the centre and the centre manger takes that person to one side to discuss the policy.
But of course we live in New feminist zealand so that ‘consequences’ are more extreme – because of course it was a man that took those photos.
Sick; as I’ve seen this type of vigilante behaviour and its very worrying trend. The consequences should have been the feminist women who blocked him from leaving the place should have been arrested. Imagine how scared his daughter was.
Comment by noconfidence — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 8:56 pm
I didn’t mention what those consequences should be. That is not for me to decide. I might be mistaken, but in this case the police mentioned something about air being needed in the man’s tires.
I hope that he was indeed a good and loving father who concentrated on keeping his daughter calm and occupied while they waited for the police to arrive. Getting angry wouldn’t have served any purpose in this case. Quiet assurance is always so much more powerful.
Who is to say that the woman was a feminist?
Do you consider me a feminist, based on my interactions here?
Isn’t that making generalisations, similar to the accusations that women apparently demonise all men?
Comment by sam smith — Sat 13th November 2010 @ 10:26 pm
julie says:
“Thank-you very much for explaining this. I found this Wiki article interesting.”
Hope the following helps to clarify the issues.
I had a look at part of the Wiki article you mentioned. While it was interesting, I found it was way off beam.
The article attributes “recovered memory therapy” to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF). It was Sigmund Freud who first postulated the idea of “repression” circa 1893. See, for example, Freud S. (1893) The psychotherapy of hysteria, and also Freud S. (1896) The aetiology of hysteria. Although Freud later came to acknowledge he was wrong about “repression of memory”, feminist advocates later used his false concept to subsequently cause irreparable harm to millions of families and individuals around the world. They made a lot of money out it by peddling snake oil.
And besides, the Wiki article is very confused about the definitions it uses. Accurate and widely used definitions which can be relied upon are :
The Freudian concept “repression” is said to occur when a memory is actively kept out of consciousness because it is unacceptable to the conscious mind, to which its admission would generate anxiety. “Robust repression”” allegedly permits individuals to lose all recollection of major life events, extremely long series of traumatic events, and immensely complicated patterns of social behaviour.
“Recovered Memory” in the context of sexual abuse, is the claimed emergence of an apparent recollection of childhood sexual abuse of which the individual had no previous knowledge. That must not be confused with normal memory functions, such as ordinary forgetting and remembering of genuinely encoded memory of events.
A False Memory is fairly defined as the claimed recollection of an event which did not occur but which the individual subsequently strongly believes. This is also called pseudo-memory or illusory memory.
“Recovered Memory Therapy” is a label used to describe the practices of a heterogeneous group of clinicians who share a particular set of beliefs. They accept the basic proposition that present symptoms are caused by past traumatic sexual abuse and that the memory of these events has been lost to consciousness through robust repression.
But science has established that any effects due to sexual abuse are idiosyncratic and therefore unpredictable. Moreover, no evidence or proof has yet been presented to show that sexual abuse is a direct cause of any specific psychiatric, psychological or behavioural conditions, thus, a “sexual abuse syndrome” does not exist.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Sun 14th November 2010 @ 9:36 am
Firstly, it is not clear that this man broke any rule. In the published Stadium Policy for this Christchurch venue there is no mention of any such rule. The news article stated that the man was unaware of any policy prohibiting or limiting photographs and there was no mention of the complaining woman pointing to any sign about photographs, so one can assume that any such policy was not well publicised or signposted. There is no law in society against taking photos and no general law protecting us from being photographed, so the man could not be expected to assume any such rule applied. In the absence of clearly and prominently displayed information about such a rule in the premises, there is probably no legal way that he could be held responsible for adhering to it or breaking it.
Secondly, according to the news article there was a policy in place at the venue “prohibiting the taking of photographs without the consent of management, players or their legal guardians”. As a legal guardian he was giving himself consent, and no doubt his daughter (a player) also gave consent, therefore he was not breaking any rule. Whether he was breaking the rule by capturing peripheral images of other players around his daughter would depend upon the exact wording of the policy.
Thirdly, should we tolerate any such policy on ethical grounds and is it even legal under human rights legislation? The social impacts of such a policy will include:
– adding to destructive and unwarranted stereotypes about men particularly and parents generally being untrustworthy, sexually perverted and exploitative;
– promoting a fearful, untrusting society that will degrade life for all;
– impeding parent-child bonding;
– impeding the reasonable wish of parents to photograph their children’s activities and achievements for the benefit of their family, those children and future offspring;
– interfering with the social good of maintaining historical records of the era, and comprehensive records of individual children that may be of interest should those children, for example, die early or become famous in the future.
The individual impact of such a policy was clearly shown in this case. A father stressed and humiliated, a daughter frightened, having the memory of her activity sullied and her view of her father damaged with notions that he might be a wrongdoer, untrustworthy and may have sexually perverted interest in her. Great achievement huh?
As an analogy, venues may wish to have policies to ban wheelchairs, walking sticks, breast-feeding, speaking foreign languages or showing/wearing any religious symbols, but perhaps we should not tolerate such policies because of the stereotyping, discriminatory attitudes they would promote in society not to mention individual offence and erosion of individual freedoms. Each of those policies would reduce risks of various kinds but those risks may be small and the undesirable consequences of such policies may far outweigh any advantages.
The risk that a legal guardian photographing his daughter competing in a sport will be doing this for nefarious purposes will be quite small, the nefarious purposes he could get away with would be limited (e.g. if he distributed them in a paedophile network he would easily be associated with one of the players that day), and perhaps his status as a legal guardian should be enough to qualify him to take photos. Indeed, from the news article that was the venue’s policy, sufficient to stop random paedophiles from coming to the matches to obtain salacious images.
Finally, was the behaviour of the woman who complained acceptable? According to the news article, she incorrectly accused him of doing something illegal, she got in the man’s face, she cast aspersions on his character by making specific reference to her discomfort with him photographing “girls playing netball”, even after he made it clear that he was the girl’s father she continued to harass him and to call the police, and even when he left the venue holding his daughter’s hand she followed them and prevented their departure. In my opinion her vigilante violence amounted to serious sexism, abuse on the basis of gender, and was NOT OK. If during an argument a man prevented a woman’s departure he would likely be charged with unlawful restraint or something similar. Indeed, if the gender roles were reversed in this incident the aggressive man would almost certainly have been given a warning and there’s a good chance he would have been charged with something. This woman cannot justify her behaviour as a citizen’s arrest because the man had not broken any law, and her ignorance of the law was no excuse. The fact she was not charged or at least warned for harassment, kidnapping, wasting police time simply reflects the gender bias we so frequently see in law enforcement.
Why did this woman believe that it was illegal for a father to photograph his daughter and that she was entitled to abuse his privacy and freedom of movement? And why would anyone tolerate her behaviour? Because of the extent to which discriminatory attitudes towards males have been promoted in our society. Unbalanced, inaccurate social science research has done a lot to bring this situation about.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 14th November 2010 @ 10:31 am
“standards of evidence”
deigns to tell us that “The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.”
Please don’t try those silly tactics here. Your remark is a Red Herring of Brobdignagian proportions. Fact and conjecture are different. We were NOT talking about the matter of rape-related pregnancy !
My earlier comment was “I cannot recall even one case where the so-called “victim” got pregnant as a result of the immense amount of alleged sexual intercourse.” and this is related directly to the alleged “victims” who claimed to have “recovered their memories” of childhood sexual abuse by fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, cousins…… ad infinitum.
If such vast amounts of sexual intercourse (measured in millions of claimed events) did in fact occur, it would be reasonable to suppose there would be at least one pregnancy.
Of my earlier comment “The USA FBI completed an in-depth study over more than 12,000 alleged satanic ritual abuse cases. None were verified.” you said that “The FBI never completed a study, but one of its members wrote a paper on their own. This member apparently never talked to any of the victims of these crimes.”
I apologise. I have similar difficulties in four other languages. I made a wrong source attribution. The sources were actually La Fontaine J.S. (1994) The extent and nature of organised and ritual abuse : Research findings. London : Department of Health, HMSO.
As well, Goodman, Qin, Bottoms and Shaver (1994) Characteristics of allegations of ritualistic child abuse. This was the final report to the national Centre on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington D.C. Their research identified more than 12,000 accusations of group cult sexual abuse based on satanic ritual. None were verified or substantiated.
Ever so sorry. I promise I will try to concentrate more.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Sun 14th November 2010 @ 10:37 am
I wonder how many women have forgotten getting pregnant and bearing a child? It is, after all, a highly traumatic event. It may be so traumatizing as to call upon the brain’s willingness to forget the whole thing. Unlike sexual abuse, the bearing of a child is nearly always provable with independent corroboration and documentation.
I would certainly be interested to know how frequently women forget having a baby, but can have the memory brought back to consciousness via therapy.
Comment by rc — Sun 14th November 2010 @ 12:50 pm
Since when are the Police called to enforce anything but the law? Rules of a private facility are not the jurisdiction of the Police.
I would’ve given the fanatical terrorist b!tch a taste of my bumper and then promptly lodged a Police complaint against her. As long as she wasn’t injured we’d both just get a warning but I’d have my satisfaction.
Comment by Wayne — Sun 14th November 2010 @ 1:38 pm
God forbid tha day when all fathers taking photos of their daughters in public should be subject to this kind of vigilantism.
I have taken hundreds – nay, thousands of photots of my daughter. Should I hand them all over to the police to ‘review’?
Imagine the world where I can take photos of *only* my daughter – precluding any other children – in sports like situations.
Imagine the day I must censor out all other children from photos I take at my daughter’s birthday parties; or school events, graduations etc.
Yes, I might still end up with a good selection of photos representing my daughter’s upbringing – every single one of them being of her singular, no other children whatsoever!
This is not about a vouyer attending an event of girls in short skirts – lord knows many of them walk down the street like that every day.
This is not about a vouyer secretly filming his daughter with a pen-cam (as reported a few days ago in the news).
This is about a man photographing his daughter in an everyday event, her playing sport one saturday.
The woman concerned needs to wake up and take stock of the message she has sent regarding her actions, to her own daughter. She needs to grow up.
Comment by Back from the dead — Sun 14th November 2010 @ 2:29 pm
This ” standards of evidence” correspondence is bit of a character !
He/she commented “It is incredible that a poster would compare child abuse self help and autobiographical books to a book connected to the inquisition.
Obviously they have nothing in common.”
Good bl**dy grief !! Can’t see the connection ? Oh dear. Do open your eyes.
At least give yourself a minimalistic education by reading Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” and consider the effect of the trials in the 1600’s in Salem, Massachusetts.
You also said “There is no real proof that any moral panic ever spread or that any one country was influenced by another on this issue. One would have to show that the accusers knew about the other cases and this has never been done. I already posted an article from the Ellis website from the victims’ point of view on his case.”
What is “real” proof ? Is there some other kind(s) of proof ?
It is as plain as the nose on your face that the moral panic on CSA. MPD, SRA, and the idiocy of “repressed/recovered memories” etc spread into Canada, UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and other places by word of mouth and by books and other documentary means. For example, the whacko outfit calling itself Doctors for Sexual Abuse Care (DSAC), and other organisations, have brought many speakers to NZ to give lectures, presentations and workshops on those and similar topics.
That speaker list includes amongst others Astrid Heger, Roland Summit, Judith Herman, Arno & Marianne Bentovin, Mary Koss, Bessel van der Kolk, Christine Courtois, Cherly Lanktree, Constance Dalenberg, Judith Meyers-Avis, William Friedrich, and so on. All are known to be True Believers and advocates.
It goes without saying that many books, so-called “research papers and studies, TV docos etc were imported into New Zealand and other countries. The book list included those horrid things called “The Courage to Heal”, “Michelle Remembers”, “Sybil” and others.
It is plainly ignorant or deliberately blind to claim “There is no real proof that any moral panic ever spread or that any one country was influenced by another on this issue.” What drivel !
In the more than 400 years in which the Malleus Malificarum was in vogue, the moral panic about witches and witchcraft spread into many countries.
Your claims about these, and other issues above, are daft.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Sun 14th November 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Thank-you for the above also Gordon. I found another link from your information that is also interesting.
Thanks for the clarification. It’s about recovering memories specifically through therapy. Yes/No?
Comment by julie — Sun 14th November 2010 @ 4:34 pm
This thread has been an eye-opener.
I thank you, and wish you all well.
Comment by sam smith — Sun 14th November 2010 @ 6:12 pm
“It is as plain as the nose on your face that the moral panic on CSA. MPD, SRA, and the idiocy of “repressed/recovered memories” etc spread into Canada, UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and other places by word of mouth and by books and other documentary means.”
There are no scientific studies showing this to be true. There are no cases of cause and effect showing how one victim of abuse was influenced by any sort of “panic.” As I wrote before, the increased awareness of child abuse could be the real cause for the data now coming out in the last 20 years.
*
“He/she commented “It is incredible that a poster would compare child abuse self help and autobiographical books to a book connected to the inquisition.
Obviously they have nothing in common.”
Good bl**dy grief !! Can’t see the connection ?”
The difference is that there is clear evidence that child abuse cases occur and many of these cases have been substantiated. I have not heard of a case where the existence of witches were substantiated.
*
“We were NOT talking about the matter of rape-related pregnancy !
My earlier comment was “I cannot recall even one case where the so-called “victim” got pregnant as a result of the immense amount of alleged sexual intercourse.” and this is related directly to the alleged “victims” who claimed to have “recovered their memories” of childhood sexual abuse by fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, cousins…… ad infinitum.
If such vast amounts of sexual intercourse (measured in millions of claimed events) did in fact occur, it would be reasonable to suppose there would be at least one pregnancy.”
Child sexual abuse is rape. The vast majority of recovered memories are from children under the age of ten. So it would be unlikely to find evidence of a pregnancy.
*
“Goodman, Qin, Bottoms and Shaver (1994) Characteristics of allegations of ritualistic child abuse. This was the final report to the national Centre on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington D.C. Their research identified more than 12,000 accusations of group cult sexual abuse based on satanic ritual. None were verified or substantiated.”
Quote from the book Memory Trauma Treatment and the Law “Bottoms, Shaver, and Goodman in their 1993 study to evaluate ritual abuse claims found that in 2,292 alleged ritual abuse cases, fifteen percent of the perpetrators in adult cases and thirty percent of the perpetrators in child cases confessed to the abuse.”
*
“This has nothing to do with “the abuse industry” but it is about taking pictures in a private business without permission of the private business against the private business’ rules (I am not stating whether I agree or disagree with these rules).”
reply
This has everything to do with the abuse industry. It is only in recent years that restraints like this have appeared in our society”
The rules around photographing people in private places have more to do with litigation and privacy issues than child abuse concerns.
Comment by evidence — Mon 15th November 2010 @ 7:45 am
Then why would Kendall state that he was made to feel like a pervert?
You seem to be stuck on the whole private property concept rather than the reality of what happened. I hope this link helps you. It’s interesting in that it covers Kendall’s situation to a tee, including the unidentifiable extra character in the picture.
http://www.netsafe.org.nz/keeping_safe.php?pageID=179§ionID=Library&menuID=179
What are the privacy parameters?
The Privacy Act only applies to “personal information”. This is defined as information about an identifiable individual. So, the requirements of the Privacy Act would not apply where someone is photographing or filming a person in a way that means they are not identifiable. It is unlikely to be a collection of “personal information” under the Privacy Act. Moreover, nothing in the privacy principles applies to personal information which is collected or held by an individual “solely or principally for the purposes of, or in connection with, that individual’s personal, family, or household affairs” (section 56).
What if the person is at work?
The effect of section 56 is that a commercial photographer taking photos of a client in a studio would be bound by the privacy principles, but a parent taking photographs of their child at a school sports day would not. The personal trainer photographing others at the gym would be covered by the privacy principles, but the gym member doing the same would not be.
Comment by Grant Waghorn — Mon 15th November 2010 @ 9:12 am
julie says:
“It’s about recovering memories specifically through therapy. Yes/No?”
It’s not black-and-white, but leans very heavily towards a “yes” answer. The reference you pointed to is sensible work. One of the major difficulties is that many aspects of human behaviour have been “psychologised”, but that process has led to convenient misinterpretation and misuse by advocates to manufacture “victims” for their power mill. Such advocates have appointed themselves to be “experts” and awarded themselves the Cloak of Superior Knowledge.
At a practical level, a useful approach is to first determine by evidential tests whether the alleged event actually did occur. Only then can it be decided whether a “memory” is of a real event, or is a pseudo-memory of a believed-in or imagined event.
But “Counsellors” claim they are not detectives and it’s not their job to determine whether the client was in fact sexually abused. Their job, they say, is to build up trust with the client and heal the client’s damaged mind. So sweet ! The effect of that is to make the client more pliable and trusting, so as to believe whatever the “counsellor” tells them. That used to be called brainwashing.
In the absence of credible, external, independently corroborated evidence of sexual abuse (derived from evidential tests) how do counsellors KNOW a client was sexually abused ? People don’t often go to “counsellors” and declare when they first put their foot inside the door that they were sexually abused. Rather, they go to “counsellors” because they experience difficulties of various sorts eg. anxiety, relationship difficulties, low self esteem, depression, sexual difficulties. Those, and many others, are things resulting from normal life experiences, and the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
Counsellors steeped in the belief-system of “repressed/recovered memory” then wrongly assume that such effects are being caused by “repressed memories” (or otherwise hidden, buried, inaccessible memories) having an effect on present day behaviour. They proceed to excavate “memories” by a range of unscientific, unproven, unethical and unsafe techniques. Whatever “memories” might be dredged up – be they genuine or imagined – are a result of the intervention of the counsellor.
But there are huge problems ! If their theory about robust repression is valid, such locked-away “memories” aren’t supposed to leak out by themselves to be able to affect behaviour. If alleged events did not occur, then no memory could be encoded to later have any such behavioural effects. But counsellors uncritically believe the untested narratives which clients might relate as an outcome of counselling interventions.
The blunt fact is that in the absence of testable evidence, counsellors CANNOT know whether a client was sexually abused.
After all, counsellors, psychotherapists – whatever they like to call themselves – only have one intervention, and that is to talk. Aptly named “talk therapy”. The client talking to grandparents, parents, siblings, friends, cousins etc, or just sitting on the beach counting seagulls or navel-gazing, would be just as effective as any “counselling”. Remember “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me !” ? We have to learn to put our life experiences into sound perspective, and family and friends are often better at helping to do that than any truck-load of counsellors.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Mon 15th November 2010 @ 9:51 am
rc, do I get an apology? You have falsely accused me of making incorrect statements. The quote you used, shows it to be a question.
An earnest person would have no problems apologising.
Comment by sam smith — Mon 15th November 2010 @ 12:17 pm
You make a lot of sense. I believe there is such a thing as ‘recovered memory’ because it happened to me and I do beleive you ‘block out traumatic events’ because it happened to me. You can’t deny something when you’ve experienced it. But there were no counsellors involved, instead an event triggered the event (hope you get that)and family confirmed it was a real event and filled in the gaps of the part that was blocked. I don’t think I will ever remember it and it has played on my mind and I got very ill at the time.
………..
What I do know is that someone gets on their high horse about one aspect… say, one mental health issue, and they go around training doctors, nurses, school teachers, and more as to the disorder and the signs. Everyone, including parents want to pick up on the signs before something bad happens like suicide.
In the same way counsellors, lawyers, community workers, judges, police, doctors, nurses etc and told about the signs of rape and as you say there are around 700 signs that could mean the client has been raped so it wouldn’t be unusual for them to refer the client i.e school child on to a counsellor or mental health worker who will determine if they have infact been harmed by using the training they were given, i.e “How many of the 700 signs exist?”.
I can imagine many counsellors putting 2 and 2 together, feeling terrific that this modern discovery enter their life and gave opportunity to become famous (no matter how small the promotion).
Comment by julie — Mon 15th November 2010 @ 1:32 pm
Julie, the definitions cited earlier are important for you. Because you checked with family who confirmed your recollection, and because recall of one event triggered a memory of another event, strongly suggests that those events were genuine.
At arm’s length and without any firsthand knowledge of the details, it is difficult to know what to say to you. Hey ! I’m certainly not a “counsellor” just an ordinary bloke doing ordinary things !
But could I point out to you in the gentlest of ways that what you describe sounds more like a memory deliberately put out of mind. Not “repressed”, but “suppressed. “Suppressed” is not the same as “repressed”, nor are they interchangeable. Suppression is considered to be a normal, ordinary function, whereas repression is a social construct predicated on imagination and fairy tales. I would not like to see you label yourself as a “believer in repressed memories”. With that in mind, would you take another look at it ?
As an example only, perhaps if you compared the matter to what happens at a School Reunion held many years after you left. Memories of people and things (some not too pleasant, perhaps) have not been recalled for years, but come flooding back when at such a reunion. Lots of bits of them are missing, and the brain fills them in as you go. For good reasons, some of those memories might well have been deliberately set aside, put out of mind, suppressed, “blocked out”.
As I said, it’s not a black-and-white situation. People who have never been to “counselling” have also claimed to have “recovered their memories” of CSA. This is usually a “Me Too” matter arising from being exposed to external influences eg. a TV doco, a book, a magazine article, a radio program or the like. But it is most often found amongst the sex abuse industry operatives. I absolutely detest the counselling charlatans who peddle this sort of vicious, destructive snake-oil codswallop.
Whichever way you decide to handle your personal experiences, I do hope you can settle the matter to your own satisfaction. Luck comes in two varieties, Julie. I wish you the good kind.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Mon 15th November 2010 @ 2:57 pm
The “evidence” person comments (Mon 15th November 2010 at 7:45 am) are still daft. Not worth a response.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Mon 15th November 2010 @ 3:01 pm
Thanks for your comment Gordon and the way you wrote it. I think if you are ‘just’ an ordinary man, you bring ordinary men up a few notches. (tis a cheeky remark but, hey, there’s an lol on the end)- lol. Good on you for bringing all this to reader’s attention.
I was 10 when I remembered an event when I was 3. Golly gosh, it’s had a huge impact on my life and you could say – it’s MY baggage. It’s a waste of time arguing certain things with me but if you’re pro family, we wouldn’t end up arguing.
………
You bring up a good example – school reunion. Another is photo albums – they trigger memories.
……….
I feel very sorry for innocent parents who have been thrown in prison because of this. If readers don’t know about the Peter Ellis case, now would be a good time to learn of it.
I think I’ll write an email to Justice Minister Simon Power asking what’s stopping him from doing the just thing.
Comment by julie — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 9:16 am
At the commencement of this debate, the alter ego “Recovered Memories” on 28 October referred us to a blog consisting of opinions and previously published news articles. Forgive me if I didn’t read every word, but in a skim through the blog I couldn’t find anything referring to recovered memories. Surely it is reasonable to expect a contributor who comes making strident claims to ensure that references claimed to support those claims actually do, and indeed to provide specifically relevant references, quotes or excerpts rather than simply pointing to large bodies of literature? Otherwise, as in this case, the reference to research is really just false pretences.
The blog referred to did give voice to various opinions about high-profile child sex abuse cases in pre-school centres and/or involving satanic sex abuse rituals or organized paedophile rings, mostly against pre-school aged complainants. For what it’s worth, my view is that some of these allegations were probably true, there may have been some individuals and/or groups who abused children through some kind of occult ritual, and there may have been some groups of two or more that offended together. However, in considering such cases it will always be important to consider issues such as repeated and leading questioning, interviewer demand characteristics, selective reinforcement by interviewers of children’s responses only when consistent with a “disclosure” interpretation, false memory formation, coaching, and the moral panic phenomenon that will lead to well-intentioned manipulation of children. Epidemics of alien abduction experiences and some of the spreading epidemics of satanic ritual sexual abuse have almost certainly been based on moral panic and hysterical cognitive distortion, generously assisted through careless manipulation by ideologically captured counsellors and psychotherapists.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 12:45 pm
I have never been convinced that Peter Ellis was innocent of all charges. Even in his era, a male working in a crèche would have known that taking children to his home unsupervised was unacceptable, so why did he do it? However, because the children’s evidence had been so contaminated by parental suggestion, repeated questioning and other influences, I doubt that his conviction was safe. In my opinion it was not reasonable to allow the prosecution to select a few credible-sounding bits of children’s statements while withholding from the jury all the fantastic bits. In science this would be selecting only the data that supported the experimenter’s desired findings, clearly not a reliable way to identify the truth. Because of contaminated evidence it was not possible to be sure which bits of the children’s statements represented false vs accurate memories or what Peter Ellis exactly did or didn’t do.
At the time of the Ellis trial there was still heated scientific debate against the possibility of false memories, but we now know they are easily created and moreover maintained with resolute certainty even after the method of their false creation has been explained. Young children are especially vulnerable to false memory creation through suggestion. Although there are modestly reliable techniques for identifying deliberate falsehoods, there is as yet no reliable way to distinguish true from false memories experienced as genuine.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 12:46 pm
Early in this debate on 28 October, alter ego “Recovered Memory Corroboration” provided links, the first link being to research purported to discuss corroboration and accuracy of recovered memories. This first link actually referred to numerous references many of which don’t consider recovered memories at all. It’s inconsiderate and somewhat dishonest for a contributor here to throw at as a lot of unsorted research references many of which don’t actually support the case that contributor claims they support. In order to evaluate the evidence, other readers then have to waste a lot of time trawling through irrelevant stuff, in this case much of it quite old and now outdated.
For example, the first reference given in the first linked document referred to a 2002 book offering “treatment principles and guidelines” for professionals dealing with recollections of sexual abuse. I was not prepared to invest in that book or to spend my time reading this relatively old text in a rapidly developing field, and I think it reasonable to expect that “Recovered Memory Corroboration” provide relevant excerpts if (s)he wants us to accept that any real evidential support exists therein. The second reference was Whitfield CL, Silberg J, Fink P (eds) (2001). Exposing Misinformation Concerning Child Sexual Abuse and Adult Survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 9(3-4):1-8. This article and others in that edition of the journal mainly considered the effects of CSA and tried to debunk research into false memory; in the abstracts there was little mention of content evaluating the reliability of “recovered memories”. I was not prepared to spend $US30 a pop to read the full text of each of these 2001 journal articles to see if, as “Recovered Memory Corroboration” claimed, they provided anything useful concerning the reliability of recovered memories. My efforts to assess the poster’s references ceased at that point.
However, out of interest I note that false memory research has progressed a lot since 2001, showing that memory retrieval is a reconstructive process in which errors often occur, rather than the replaying of a stable recording. I have prepared a short piece on this as a new posting.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 12:52 pm
At the outset of this debate, “Recovered Memory Corroboration” stated on 28 October:
Well, I’m not sure that any such belief exists, mythical or otherwise. Of course recovered memories exist; the question is how accurate are they? The alter egos of “Recovered Memory Corroboration” have been ambiguous in their claims, but have implied that “recovered memories” should be accepted as accurate and that sceptical consideration is uncalled for. Certainly, the poster identified by those alter egos has rejected all suggestion that “recovered memories” might be suspect due to various influences as described. Other contributors here have reacted strongly to the poster’s position, not always fairly, but it is also unclear whether they are implying that all “recovered memories” should be rejected out of hand. It seems to have been a battle between the ideology promoted by the abuse industry and the sceptical position of many in the men’s movement. But despite such strong polarized positions taken, it’s unclear exactly what the parties agree and disagree about.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 1:23 pm
Hans, I wonder whether you are comparing today with yesterday. It’s not the same and we did in fact raise children as a community especially when we lived in towns or neighbourhoods being built up. We bought teachers/childcare workers Christmas, Birthday and Easter presents, we invited them around to have dinner in our homes and our children adored them and always visited their homes.
The women at the creche were also accused yet they didn’t end up in prison like Peter. Some say this was a ‘gay attack’ cross ‘man attack’.
Comment by julie — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 1:25 pm
Good question.
Just to add, I wonder whether we need to look to see if there is a memory at all. What these believers are saying is that an event occurred but because it’s tragic, it’s blocked.
What they are doing is guessing what the event is and saying it’s sexual abuse.
Comment by julie — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 1:33 pm
Oh, I should have read all your comments before making a comment. 😉 It will be good to know more.
Comment by julie — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 1:35 pm
Many western universities have for some decades now provided “women’s studies” and “feminist studies” courses, later disguising the same stuff by renaming it as “gender studies”. There has been little or no corresponding dissemination of men’s issues and perspectives.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 1:42 pm
Fathers and Families has a piece on the Meredith Maran case too, and also refers to an ABC 20/20 documentary about policeman Ray Spencer who spent 25 years in jail on the basis of false allegations that his young children were manipulated to provide. When I tried to view the documentary I was directed to a page that told me I couldn’t see it because I was outside the US. Does anyone know of a way we could see it?
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 2:26 pm
Ray Spencer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKtLaKfyUQE
Comment by Grant Waghorn — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 3:47 pm
“Exposing Misinformation Concerning Child Sexual Abuse and Adult Survivors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 9(3-4):1-8.”
Here’s the google books link requested above
http://books.google.com/books?id=CZmPet1s07AC&pg=PA1&dq=Exposing+Misinformation+Concerning+Child+Sexual+Abuse+and+Adult+Survivors&hl=en&ei=0QXiTOaWAYHGlQeF7KHnAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Exposing%20Misinformation%20Concerning%20Child%20Sexual%20Abuse%20and%20Adult%20Survivors&f=false
*
This one is free at:
The “False Memory” Defense:
Using Disinformation and Junk Science in and out of Court
Charles L. Whitfield, M.D., F.A.S.A.M.
Special Issue on Disinformation, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 9(3 & 4)
“This article describes a seemingly sophisticated, but mostly contrived and often erroneous “false memory” defense, and compares it in a brief review to what the science says about the effect of trauma on memory. Child sexual abuse is widespread and dissociative/traumatic amnesia for it is common. Accused, convicted and self-confessed child molesters and their advocates have crafted a strategy that tries to negate their abusive, criminal behavior, which we can call a “false memory” defense.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070914163211/http://childabuse.georgiacenter.uga.edu/both/whitfield/whitfield1.phtml
*
“It’s inconsiderate and somewhat dishonest for a contributor here to throw at as a lot of unsorted research references many of which don’t actually support the case that contributor claims they support.”
I believe that the journal articles I presented support the position I have presented. However, the links I presented may have information on various other topics also.
Comment by studies - 1 — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 4:52 pm
About the Ellis case, two of the victims still claimed they were abused years later.
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2003/2003-0816_DominionPost_IAmSickOfBeingCalledALiar.htm
The Dominion Post
August 16 2003.
‘I am sick of being called a liar’
by Linley Boniface
A decade after the Christchurch Civic Creche sex abuse trial, two of the children whose evidence has now been called into question by supporters of Peter Ellis tell Linley Boniface why they feel betrayed.
“Katrina’s dad, Gavin, says he finds it frustrating that transcripts can be taken out of context, without any of the intense scrutiny that occurred during the judicial process. “The jury was able to see the children giving evidence on video. They watched very young children go through the anxiety of remembering things that were very painful to them. They didn’t just hear the words; they were able to see the children’s body language. They were also able to see that the children backed up each other’s stories.”
“Many of the children involved in the case were said to have suffered behavioural problems, including nightmares, tantrums, bedwetting, separation anxiety, fear of men, sexual disorders and toileting problems. For a year and a half before the abuse was uncovered, Katrina was terrified of going to the toilet. She also lost her coordination.”
“Like Katrina, Tom was frightened of going to the toilet – the smell of toilets was, for a long time, unbearable to him. He had eating problems, insisted on being fully dressed at all times and became a perfectionist. He was terrified of baths–Ellis was convicted of abusing him in a bath – and found large groups of children and certain children’s games extremely frightening.
But is it the memory of the abuse that frightened him, or just the recollection of being told he had been abused? Now, at 17, can he honestly say that he remembers the abuse itself?
“Yeah. I remember lots of it vividly,” says Tom.
Tom’s testimony was the most controversial of all the children’s because some of it was so bizarre and disturbing. His allegations of ritual abuse in particular have become a focus of attention for Ellis’ supporters. Does Tom still believe everything he said was true? Yes, says Tom. “I stand by everything I said when I was little. I didn’t make anything up.”
“Both families ask repeatedly why everyone seems to believe Ellis, despite the fact that his case has already been through a jury trial, two appeals and a ministerial inquiry And they ask why so many journalists seem happy to report everything Ellis and his supporters say without bothering to ask the victims’ families for comment.
They also point out the irony in the fact that Ellis has a well-run and well-bankrolled campaign behind him, while the families don’t even have a legal representative.
The families believe A City Possessed tells only half the story –Ellis’ half…”
Comment by Ellis case — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 4:54 pm
“Not “repressed”, but “suppressed. “Suppressed” is not the same as “repressed”, nor are they interchangeable. Suppression is considered to be a normal, ordinary function, whereas repression is a social construct…”
Either a memory is forgotten and later retrieved or it isn’t. I have never seen any studies on the “suppression” of memories.
*
This is a more recent study on memory.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-01/su-rrb010604.php
Research reveals brain has biological mechanism to block unwanted memories
For the first time, researchers at Stanford University and the University of Oregon have shown that a biological mechanism exists in the human brain to block unwanted memories.
The findings, to be published Jan. 9 in the journal Science, reinforce Sigmund Freud’s controversial century-old thesis about the existence of voluntary memory suppression.
“The big news is that we’ve shown how the human brain blocks an unwanted memory, that there is such a mechanism and it has a biological basis,” said Stanford psychology Professor John Gabrieli, a co-author of the paper titled “Neural Systems Underlying the Suppression of Unwanted Memories.” “It gets you past the possibility that there’s nothing in the brain that would suppress a memory — that it was all a misunderstood fiction.”
The experiment showed that people are capable of repeatedly blocking thoughts of experiences they don’t want to remember until they can no longer retrieve the memory, even if they want to, Gabrieli explained.
“People’s memory gets worse the more they try to avoid thinking about it,” Anderson said.
Comment by more studies — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 4:58 pm
I found several websites on men’s studies. But there needs to be a lot more. http://mensstudies.org/
This websites has many resources on men’s studies.
*
http://www.trauma-pages.com/a/vanderk4.php
The Body Keeps The Score:
Memory & the Evolving Psychobiology of Post Traumatic Stress
by Bessel van der Kolk
This study shows a psychobiological basis for a different mechanism for the storage of traumatic memories.
Comment by men's studies — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 4:59 pm
I deleted 2 comments on this. I think I get sick of third parties getting involved. It’s not just the third party using the article but the way the media never says what you say in the first place. I think I’ll come back after Christmas when we need to make new progress plans. 🙂
Comment by julie — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 6:43 pm
I would advise everybody to stay well away from “mensstudies.org”. It’s a feminist front.
http://www.malestudies.org/ is far more appropriate.
Comment by gwallan — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 8:13 pm
Reading through the comment thread, there is debate over the validity of one groups subjective interpretation of events, and their associated feelings. So, why should is this statement given any weight?
If you discount that someone can feel sexually harassed through a look, language or gesture; how can you accept that someone made this man feel like a pervert? This man had the media spotlight on him, a large incentive to exaggerate his reaction and feelings about the event.
Comment by M — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 9:50 pm
If you don’t want third parties getting involved, why open commenting up to the public at all? If you closed comments to the registered users, you wouldn’t have to censor the comments, and you’d never be bothered by others opinions.
Comment by M — Tue 16th November 2010 @ 9:56 pm
Perhaps M you should read the comments on the Campbell Live piece.
The vast majority of posters to that piece are women. And they are absolutely clear on the motives of the woman.
My statement carries weight because it’s a factual event involving the public humiliation of the victim. I might feel differently if the story was about a man who was looked at strangely and complained about being sexually harassed.
Maybe M can explain why women are never called out for taking photographs of children in public?
Comment by Grant Waghorn — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 8:13 am
I wouldn’t go this far, lol and don’t have the power. This thread has been a real eye-opener especially having so much research shown to be corrupted, which wouldn’t have happened if the thread was closed. I’m actually grateful to the multi-named poster for adding articles and research links and other posters looking them over and showing the corruption.
I get the feeling the multi-named poster thinks if they can provide just one article or one piece of research that isn’t corrupt, somehow all the rest become non-corrupt. It’s annoying to me because it’s time consuming having to look over research and write how it’s corrupt only to have more put online. I’d rather take what’s been given and research more myself on other threads.
But in saying all this, ‘welcome’ (if you’re new). I hope you enjoy your time here giving and receiving opinions and knowledge. 🙂
Comment by julie — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 10:00 am
This is where corrupt feminist lies over-inflating statistics on abuse lead us (comment from Angry Harry for more go here and scroll down to headline) –
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 11:22 am
Well spotted Julie.
There’s also the tactic of deliberately feeding an adversary a diet of nonsense so that he begins to dismiss everything you say. Once an opponent is trained to expect nothing but lies, it’s then very easy to make him look foolish by stating an undeniable truth, worded with a little art.
Comment by rc — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 12:26 pm
The latest comments by the coven of anonymous posters shows the sort of inane tactics they use. I am singularly unimpressed. Most of what they are now claiming is arrant nonsense, too silly for words.
Ye Gods and Little Fishes ! Bessel van der Kolk ! He of the wondrous theory that the hippocampus in abused people is smaller than in non-abused people.
And – WAIT FOR IT !! – for what must be his seminal work :
“The Body Keeps The Score:
Memory & the Evolving Psychobiology of Post Traumatic Stress
by Bessel van der Kolk. This study shows a psychobiological basis for a different mechanism for the storage of traumatic memories”
Am I really expected to believe such stupidity ?
I wish these anonymous odd-ball people good fortune when continuing to travel in their alternative, trapezoidal-cum-duodecahedronic-cum- five dimensional universe. And may their Gods and Theories go with them into the infinity of the uncharted, virgin, interstellar void where they might hear sound of one hand clapping.
Cheers,
Gordon
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 12:54 pm
By deleting comments which you think point to irrelevant or corrupt research, you don’t allow the research to be shown to be so. By removing it, it appears as if it is a threat to your viewpoint. What was it about those pieces of research that made them so special?
No one said that you had to personally debunk each piece of research julie, others seem to be doing that for you.
Comment by M — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 2:31 pm
To M,
You seem to have the impression I’ve deleted someone’s comment. I changed the wording on MY comment twice (very quickly in the hope it wouldn’t upset the thread).
How do you know what no one said or didn’t say, to me? And why the personal attacks? Do you have an opinion or knowledge to share about the subject? Anyways, there’s more comments on this thread than what you see in front of you. Like this one of mine. And yet, sure, others have done a great job debunking research and say they appreciate the opportunity. I wouldn’t delete comments and take that away from them.
To RC,
Hey, thanks. I think this also means you agree.
Comment by julie — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 3:09 pm
“Bessel van der Kolk”
Bessel A. van der Kolk MD
Title: Founder and Medical Director, Trauma Center, Brookline, MA USA
Professor of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine,
Director, Complex Trauma Network, National Child Traumatic Stress Network Education and Employment: MD. University of Chicago, 1978-82 Staff psychiatrist, Boston VA Outpatient Clinic. Associate professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Associate professor of Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Director, Trauma Center, 1982- 2004.
Bessel A. van der Kolk M.D. is Professor of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Medical Director, the Trauma Center, Boston, MA, Past President, the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies.
Dr. van der Kolk is one of the pioneers in traumatic stress studies. He has written over a hundred scientific research articles on the topic and two leading textbooks. He has taught across the US, in Europe, China, Japan, Israel, South America and South Africa.
His current research focuses on 1) Memory functions in a range of traumatized populations, including children exposed to violence, post-surgery patients, and torture victims; 2) The effects of theater groups and other action- oriented interventions on resolving traumatic stress in children and adolescents 3) Functional changes in brain activity, utilizing various neuroimaging techniques.
Comment by about Bessel van kolk — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 4:29 pm
“mensstudies.org”. It’s a feminist front.”
It appears that mensstudies wants all people to be treated fairly.
Where to begin a history of the American Men’s Studies Association (AMSA)? Although AMSA is a relatively young organization, founded in 1991, its philosophical roots reach back to the early 1980?s (circa 1982) and the work of a small number of men’s studies scholars. These early men’s studies pioneers (e.g., Martin Acker, Shepherd Bliss, Harry Brod, Sam Femiano, Martin Fiebert, and Mike Messner; (see “Who We Are,” 1984) formed the Men’s Studies Task Group (MSTG) of the National Organization for Men (NOM). As NOM renamed itself the [National] Organization for Changing Men (NOCM) and finally the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS), MSTG became the Men’s Studies Association (MSA). So, let’s begin our history there, with the early years of MSTG/MSA.
The Men’s Studies Task Group
From its beginning NOM encouraged its membership to form affinity groups (called “Task Groups”) composed of people with similar personal and/or professional interests. NOM organized Men and Masculinity (M&M) conferences, which over the years have become annual events attended by mostly men supportive of an anti-sexist political and personal agenda. At these conferences NOM members affiliated with the various task groups could meet and share their work and common interests.
*
malestudies.org
The fundamental objective of the Foundation for Male Studies is to foster intellectually rigorous and groundbreaking research on the state of males around the world. The discovery and communication of new knowledge is the core of its mission.
Through the creation of comprehensive programs and curricula at major research universities, the Foundation will address the gap in scholarship and scientific research that exists between the study of males and females, while investigating, reporting on, teaching about and leading an international dialogue regarding the state of males within disciplines including biology, sociology, literature, economics, law, political science, public policy, psychology, anthropology, medicine and education.
Innovation and Transformation: By adding the study of men and boys as males to the existing canon, the Foundation fills critical gaps in knowledge, advances the body of knowledge for all people, and encourages women, men, boys and girls to fulfill their human potential.
*
In regard to this website posted above by another poster
angryharry.com
quotes from the website (which I don’t agree with):
“Equality Between Men And Women Is Not Achievable”
“Men are More Intelligent than Women?
Are men more intelligent than women?
Well, the evidence seems to suggest that this is so.”
“Welcome to Angry Harry
I don’t know who you are, Sir, but I can tell you what you are worth. If your partner was to cut off your p_nis tonight, the world would laugh. What a Piece of Sh*t is Man”
*
“I get the feeling the multi-named poster thinks if they can provide just one article or one piece of research that isn’t corrupt, somehow all the rest become non-corrupt.”
None of the research is “corrupt.” Repeating ideas like this doesn’t make them true. The research is from scientific studies. These studies (like all studies) have limitations. This doesn’t negate the research or statistics presented. The large amount of studies showing high rates of child abuse shows the studies have been replicated.
Comment by websites — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 4:39 pm
Very strange,
I’ve been reading Angry Harry for years and never come across any quote ascribed to him say he though men were more intelligent than women. I have read him saying that there are more men geniuses and low IQ whereas women’s intelligence tends to cluster in the middle of the bell curve.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 5:02 pm
Yes, I do agree, and you’re welcome.
Comment by rc — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 7:10 pm
So if “mensstudies.org” wants all people to be treated fairly, is it lobbying to get rid of unjust protection order legislation that cause numerous men to be thrown out of their own homes on nothing but uncorroborated allegations by women? And is it lobbying to get police to stop discriminating against men when women offend against them? And is it lobbying to protect men as a group from sexist campaigns that imply women never commit violence and that violence against men is not worth worrying about? And is it lobbying to stop the hate speech that feminists and feminist researchers so frequently utter?
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 7:19 pm
M: This story was not about anyone who felt sexually harassed, but about a woman who stereotyped a man, treated him as though he was a pervert, harassed him verbally, unlawfully interfered with his freedom of movement and emotionally abused his daughter.
Then you suggest that this man exaggerated his reaction and feelings at being treated like a pervert, having the police called to harass him as well, and even suffering the indignity the police failing to hold the criminal offending woman accountable for her behaviour but instead pressuring him to delete perfectly legal photos from his camera. Your suggestion highlights your degree of misandry. Nearly anyone going through such an experience would feel shaken up, offended, stressed, abused, and losing trust in their society.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 7:36 pm
I think Julie’s earlier mention of deleting 2 comments referred to her own comments that she had prepared and decided not to publish. I’m not aware that anyone else’s comments have been deleted. It’s possible that someone’s comment has been automatically withheld by the WordPress system for moderator approval. Some of my comments end up that way. This happens when a comment contains many links, but I have had others end up in the same situation even when there were no links.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 7:40 pm
Thanks Hans, I did mean my own comment and looking back, can see how my explanation could have meant someone else’s comment. My apology to M.
To RC,
Ouch, just like that (click of fingers) you can go from hero to zero (so to speak). I’m looking for online news about a Russian Communist spy program titled …. something to do with Sparrows….. that Helen Clarke and other NZ feminists attended and stumbled onto this web page. It’s about psychological warfare ending with a writer’s words, “Japan was hopelessly beaten in psychological warfare, not because of any particular adroitness on the part of the Allies, but because the Allies based their propaganda on truth – whereas Japan was unwilling to deal in truth, almost from the outset.”
Comment by julie — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 9:47 pm
Here’s a start on the Russian “Sparrows” from hubpages. I’m on to a lead, lol. Please excuse being off topic. I might get to write a post about it.
Comment by julie — Wed 17th November 2010 @ 10:28 pm
Bessel van der Kolk ? Great CV. Dazzled to the point of blindness by his self-belief in his own apparent brilliance. Goes down really well with brigade of feminists and advocates. Desperately short of common sense. One might say about his form of “science” and “research” that he sets himself abysmally low standards and consistently fails to achieve them.
Comment by Gordon Waugh — Thu 18th November 2010 @ 9:10 am
This comment was prompted by the recollection of an old fishing trick, where some road-kill is hung in a tree hanging over a river or lake. After a few days, the flies have done their work and juicy big maggots are dropping on a regular basis. The fish no longer show any caution – they snatch at anything falling in the familiar drop zone. This is when you bait your hook, throw in your line, and go home with a full catch a few minutes later.
For those posting using their own names, a single slip up becomes copy-and-paste material, or linkage, for discrediting anything that person may say in future. Angry Harry’s entertaining, logical and ironical discourse on why ‘Men Are More Intelligent Than Women’ being a prime example of how readily our recent commenter seeks out names and prior commentary to cobble together an assault on someone’s credibility.
I notice that through the use of meaningless names that are continuously altered, there is no danger of our new guest’s future credibility being harmed by the content and claims being posted now.
Comment by rc — Thu 18th November 2010 @ 10:50 am
No. I’m sorry. You are incorrect about AMSA.
I have communicated with AMSA and a number of other, similar organisations, on behalf of male victims of abuse. The responses have been to suggest dishonesty on our part even hinting we were viewed as perpetrators.
This is not an organisation devoted to the welfare of men and boys. It operates strictly to feminist theory and will not tolerate any departure from that orthodoxy. It baulks at any suggestion that any issue confronting men and boys may have women as it’s source. As such it is not well placed to perform any adequate analysis of any of these issues.
Note how they betray their own thought processes. Women will always come first with AMSA.
Comment by gwallan — Thu 18th November 2010 @ 12:46 pm
http://mensstudies.org/?page_id=5
“AMSA’s leadership did reject the tenet that men’s studies must be guided exclusively by feminist principles (see Brod, 1987). The leadership argued that given the “pluralistic nature of men’s studies,” AMSA would be committed to “providing a forum of open and inclusive dialogue which involves a spirit of mutual respect for our common humanity” (“Mission Statement,” n.d.).”
This page describes the split between NOMAS and AMSA.
*
“For those posting using their own names, a single slip up becomes copy-and-paste material, or linkage, for discrediting anything that person may say in future. Angry Harry’s entertaining, logical and ironical discourse on why ‘Men Are More Intelligent Than Women’ being a prime example of how readily our recent commenter seeks out names and prior commentary to cobble together an assault on someone’s credibility.”
What one writes does reflect on their credibility. If angryharry makes statements at its website, those statements should be taken into account.
The fact that Bessel van der Kolk’s work is described as “stupidity” yet angryharry is described as “logical” shows there are two different standards for research and writing, depending on their philosophical leanings.
*
An “us vs them” philosophy on either side doesn’t work. Feminists that attack men’s rights and men that attack women’s rights only hurt each other’s rights. Men and women both deserve to be treated with respect and without a fear of violence from either gender. This includes in the courts, in society and in relationships.
Comment by philosophies — Thu 18th November 2010 @ 4:36 pm
No argument there.
btw, AngryHarry is a man, not an organisation. Anyone familiar with his writing would have referred to ‘his website’, not ‘its website’.
Your credibility as his critic doesn’t strike me as significant.
Comment by rc — Thu 18th November 2010 @ 6:04 pm
You bring up a good point IMO. I saw the words on his site, but if I remember correctly, it was part of a paragraph showing young men how they can change society through writing on the internet. Like a pep talk. It would be sad to see people think a few words taken out of context make a worthwhile quote.
Comment by julie — Fri 19th November 2010 @ 8:06 am
I wonder rc. If you, as a men’s online advocate, start listening to every dig readers can find on another men’s online advocate, where do you draw the line? And is it also not taking up you time that could be used to progress?
Angry Harry must have a million words on his site, all typed from his fingers. Will the moaners discredit 999,990 of them because 10 of them aren’t perfect? Maybe it’s the message people don’t like, so they look for excuses to not take it on board.
Comment by julie — Fri 19th November 2010 @ 8:13 am
Isn’t this advice better practised than preached?
Comment by rc — Fri 19th November 2010 @ 11:11 am
To RC,
Not sure. I get the feeling I may have come across ‘preaching’ to you with my comment. Sorry about that.
Yep, practice is powerful alright. 😉
Comment by julie — Mon 22nd November 2010 @ 10:41 am
Yet another woman who offers NOTHING but a bit of ego padding and wants to get something of value which a man has had to toil hard to procure simply by asking.
First rule of human relationships – they’re based on reciprocity.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 22nd November 2010 @ 11:24 am
Well first you’ll need a large cadre of people that have the snot kicked out of them in the Family Court……
It’s best you look for people that have been told for years that they are the cause of all that is evil in the world.
Hope this is a good start for you.
Comment by Grant — Mon 22nd November 2010 @ 12:45 pm