Misleading researches and information about the ‘1 in 3 women”
The IT’S NOT OK CAMPAIGN which is run by the MSD appears to have deliberately misquoted the research of the NZ violence clearing house. I have been struggling to get clear information and stats from the NZ violence clearance house which is run by two feminists – Ms. Gay Richards and Ms Nicola Paton.
On the It’s not OK campaign website its stating that
** 1 in 3 women experience physical and/or sexual violence from a partner in their lifetime***
On the NZ violence clearing house its stating that;
**** 1 in 3 (35.4%) ever-partnered New Zealand women REPORT having experienced physical ****
There is a significant difference between what one experiences and what one reports experiencing. Its obvious that the Its Not OK campaign have deliberately misquoted the research to make it more appealing for the public and ensure the message that 1 in 3 women are definitely experiencing violence in NZ.
It is NOT OK campaign It is NOT OK campaign
NZ Violence clearing house NZ Violence clearing house
Ho Humm. We know why they will not run the same questions past males. And we know too many males will be too proud to admit to what is going on too. And then nobody listens/believes us anyway. That item is more of the same old same old, and its unlikely to change. I cannot respect the people who create and promote this stuff as my equal. Nor can I have any less contempt for all those who know its not accurate, but they sit aside and mumble something like ” The sun is shining” or “We can’t do anything about it” – such persons give gender genocide their silent or even willing consent.
I must insert a little disclaimer however. That is that there are females whose abuse does no credit to the feminist agenda. I have seen a number of FEMALE NON-WOMEN who have had to become honary males in order to be recognised.
And this hi-lights the blatant hypocracy and lie in White-Ribbon and “Not-OK” – they apply only to selected females – not all females as they claim. Who does the selecting, and by what criterion?
In for a penny, in for a pound. Those orchestrating these official and prejudiced policies and campaigns reall belong with the most vile examples of humanity history has ever produced. I cannot respect them as persons at all. Why pick out victims by gender? and not by religion, race, colour, age, socio-ecconomic status and so on. Why only females count?
Maybe Russia is right in decriminalising Domestic Violence – Assault, manslaughter, murder apply to all and should protect all, including women.
it’s a way to get the tax payers money, with real world stats of what’s happening they don’t think that will get them the levels of income they squeeze out now.
like the stat they use that goes something like 90% of all domestic violence goes unreported. If it’s un-reported is it real? (Tree falls in the woods right?)
If we advertised levels of non-violence, non criminal behaviour and other positive life interactions the pyramid of fear mongering would fall and many lefties would loose their jobs. No one wants to hear how good things are that isn’t click bait or sales intuitive.
Sure 90% of family violence does go unreported, just its violence against males. So its not helpful to their propaganda to identify it by demographic. If women’s violence is recorded, its excused, the male is blamed even if entirely innocent, and the female is protected from rightful adult consequences. I looked at old movies, they address women as “child” and maybe they are right. Certainly womyn are excused being responsible in an adult sense.
The It’s Not OK campaign was one of those who published fallacious figures about the gender numbers of family violence deaths. It’s good to see that their wording now seems to avoid gender-specific terms, but a quick look under the surface shows an ongoing gender bias. For example, their roadshow involved a man speaking as a past perpetrator of family violence and a woman speaking, and getting many other women to speak with her, as victims of family violence. No attention given to female violence or male victimization and of course no interest in the discrimination against men that is rife throughout our systems paid to intervene in and to address family violence.
Don’t forget lessons from the past, important lessons:
New Zealand Homicides of Male Intimate Partners Committed by Women 2009-2010
Somebody said in NZ, nearly 10 years ago, that women vote for their gender’s self interest and men vote for their family’s best interest. So, election results should be no surprise.
But, the sleeping giant may wake from slumbers……. I sure hope so!
The same gamesmanship and “cultural blindness” also occurs regarding reporting and prosecution of women for sexual abuse of children. As a society we pay a large price for not constructively addressing women perpetrators.
But the largest price is paid by the victims of women perpetrators. Only in the last few years, have these victims had reasonable access to appropriate counselling and support. Even then, it is still patchy access. Many counsellors still refuse to accept that women can be perpetrators and are unsympathetic to these victims.
familycaught$ judges are not the only white nights around.
It is said that most rapists are untreated and unsupported victims of sexual abuse by women. We need to face all violators of vulnerable people, not just women victims.
All government supported agencies ignore the realities of domestic violence.
All agencies are constantly busy fixing the blame instead of fixing the problem.
Who could I have voted in 2014 that would bring attention to this issue and other Mens rights issues?
Who can I vote for this year?
Is there ANY mp anywhere in NZ that has calls for action against the false equalities of feminism.
Voices – I agree on every count, unfortunately.
It seems that NZ is drifting into the same political system corruption and voter distrust, as USA and UK are so deeply mired in.
I guess that makes it all the more important, that all interest groups lobby politicians and ask for clear, honest policies, that will work in the real world.
Failing that, we can descend into absolute kaos.
Here is another version of misleading research.
The first thing that’s obvious is there is no mention of violence ever occurring were females are the offender.
Including in the statistics they present.
Just a story of a male pretending to be a victim.
“While Blake was mentally abusive before the pregnancy, the physical violence only started once Rachel was expecting.”
Firstly they were hardly together when she got pregnant. Did he consent to the pregnancy?
Why would a person get pregnant to someone being abusive?
“And for women who’ve experienced domestic abuse while pregnant with a current partner, “three out of five (61.4 per cent) experienced violence for the first time during pregnancy.”
An extremely strong piece off evidence that pregnancy is a cause of males being domestically violent.
“The vast majority of women who leave an abusive partner leave safely,” she says.
Where the hell did that come from. I thought all women leaving a partner, violent or not violent needed a protection order.
Reflecting on the hundreds of stories she’s heard from woman who have been abused during pregnancy, Dr Campbell says the partner was often “pathologically jealous” and against the evidence “thought the baby was somebody else’s.”
Against the evidence?
The evidence is that if a male thinks the baby is not his around 30% of the time he will be correct.
So it is against the evidence. 70% of the time he will be wrong.
This issue can be solved by making paternity testing compulsory.
Then no women can get pregnant to another man and blame it on her partner knowing she will get away with it.
Instead of this systematic sex crime being committed against men and men responding to there fears with violence. Maybe they can sit back and relax. Enjoy life knowing they can never be stitched up with another mans child.
“After a few months of living together things seemed to settle down into “a really good period where we were discussing our future and … we were talking about having a child,” Rachel says, and “about three months later I fell pregnant.”
This is just insane.
They were only together 5 months and she stitched him up.
We were talking about having a child.
I suspect all couples talk about having children.
It did not say.
We agreed to having a child together.
That’s totally different to talking about it.
So she got pregnant without his consent.
No wonder this mentally abusive man lost it and became physically violent.
“More than a decade ago, Dr Campbell and her colleagues drew an important link between violence during pregnancy and femicide. The researchers called for “the immediate need for universal abuse assessment of all pregnant women.”
Subsequently, experts at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing’s Domestic Violence have clinically tested a home visitation program called “DOVE.” The program has been proven to reduce domestic violence exposure among pregnant women.”
The whole article was a sales pitch for the domestic violence industry.
IE no intent to stop the development of domestic violence, just reduce the exposure once it starts.
When things can be done to punish the male.
No stopping the violence in the first place.
Because that would involve holding women to account.
For sex offending.
DJ Ward @9: The figures, such as that 61.4% of women who experienced domestic violence first experienced it whilst pregnant, are based on a self-report survey with no attempts to check reliability or validity of the responses. We don’t know the questions that elicited these figures, but information provided about this ABS survey includes the following:
Ah, so what was experienced included the belief that a partner or family member ‘attempted’ to commit assault or that there was a ‘threat’ of assault. That considerably expanded the range of situations that could be chalked up as experiences of violence. It also allowed for a great deal of interpretation and assumption. Women when pregnant are likely to feel more vulnerable both psychologically and physically (e.g. with morning sickness or fatigue) and this will affect their interpretations of events and communications, and even more so their memories of historical events and communications. So a man’s angry response to her complaint that he hasn’t been considerate enough of her as a pregnant woman (over some trivial oversight on his part) is remembered as a threatening experience and, “yes, he looked angry and I felt like he wanted to push me”.
For Dr Campbell to imply that the study measured actual violence was misleading, but it’s typical for feminists to misrepresent self-report surveys as if they measured real events. Such researchers could easily do some random probes for validity and reliability, for example, checking the medical records of some who alleged physical assault and injury, but they never do this because it would show how unrealistic the self-report data are.
‘…a threat or suggestion of intent to inflict physical harm…’ is a very broad definition allowing maximum mind-reading by the ‘victim’. Suggestion of intent? What on earth does that mean? For many women this would include their partner ‘looking angry’ and perhaps even ‘daring to disagree with me’. Never mind, let’s quickly add that to the tally for ‘violence’.
‘…where the person believes it was able and likely to be carried out.’ shows how much this survey was based on assumption and belief rather than actual events. It’s very misleading to report such data as if they were a valid measurement of actual violence.
Firstly, this defined other people’s behaviour as violence on the basis of their assumed ‘intent to harm of frighten’. How would the survey respondents have known the other person’s ‘intent’? To know someone’s intent requires mind-reading. Even the other person’s verbally expressed intent can be disregarded here (and in the survey there was no indication that any such verbally expressed intent was even asked about, much less given any weight), and the respondent can simply decide that the other person had whatever intent she imagines him to have.
Secondly, the broad range of behaviours included here as acts of violence meant that many non-violent events were likely to have been counted. For example, ‘pushed’ or ‘shoved’ could include that time when she stood blocking the doorway whilst berating him and demanding he agree with her criticisms of him, and after asking her several times to move he then pushed her out of the way or even just pushed his body past her to escape her emotional violence. And ‘grabbed’ could include that time during an argument when she tried to storm off manipulatively whilst clothed inadequately for the cold night and he grabbed her arm in the hope she would come to her senses. In both of these scenarios she was angry with him and pretty well anything he did or said she would have interpreted as intended to ‘harm or frighten’ her, so, great, some more violent incidents to be counted.
Thirdly, ‘or any other type of physical assault which involved the use of physical force with the intent to harm or frighten a person’ is a very broad and vague definition. Aside from the ‘intent’ thing which really can be disregarded as so subjective as to be irrelevant, this definition could include banging the table with a fist to emphasize a point, slamming a door, throwing a lawyer’s letter down on the floor or many other trivial behaviours for which the term ‘violence’ would be a massive stretch.
This stuff is typical of such research. The use of ‘semi-structured interviews’ allows maximum opportunity for the interviewers to suggest, encourage and manipulate in order to extract the desired responses that can be counted as ‘violence’. Informing respondents of ‘the sensitive nature of the upcoming questions’ will have significant effect on the subsequent responses; for example, implying that such events might be difficult to recall because they were so unpleasant (“so think hard and you’re sure to reinterpret some remembered situation to view it retrospectively as a threat of violence, and I will just help you here with a few suggestions about how to think”.)
‘Specially trained interviewers’ so that ‘the relevant concepts and definitions could be explained as necessary’; yeah right, trained to encourage respondents, especially the female ones (“speak up against the patriarchy, sisters”) to provide stories that can interpreted and distorted to be chalked up as ‘violence’.
Most such research involves either entirely or predominantly female interviewers and you can be sure they will mostly have strong feminist beliefs and are keen to contribute to this ‘research’ to forward the femaleist cause. The ABS survey was said to be based on earlier women-only surveys and the ‘women victimhood’ ideology will have been carried over to some extent.
So the purse strings for the research were firmly held by those with sexist, male-bashing attitudes. It must have been very traumatic for the researchers to feel forced to question males as well as females because of (valid) criticism of the earlier female-only surveys. Strangely enough, Dr Campbell didn’t think it important to mention any of the male data. For example, it would have been interesting to know what proportion of self-reported male victims of domestic violence said they first experienced violence from their partners while those partners were pregnant. That would put quite a different slant on how we might think about such figures.
I had an interesting converstaion with a mid aged woman yesterday. It was interesting because she was incapable of seeing the definitions of violence clearly. As a mother of two sons, she imagined that what her sons decided was “law” for their female partners. I informed her of the definitions of violence “Duluth-Wheel, Ministry of Women’s affairs and Refuge Feminist definitions which are incorporated in legislation and practice. She was utterly incapable of understanding that the imagined authority of her sons would be their downfall.