Canadian Women's Foundation latest spot. Thoughts? Facts page in comments.

truthjusticeca · 2012-07-21T17:01:26+00:00

Although some people claim that men are too embarrassed to admit a woman has abused them, the reverse is actually true: in self-reported research, men tend to over-estimate their partner’s violence while under-estimating their own. At the same time, women over-estimate their own violence, and under-estimate their partner's. This explains why self-reported research often shows similar levels of violence by men and women, even though other research clearly shows that women are disproportionately the victims.

No source cited

Straus and Gelles (1992) broke down violence rates on the basis of who did the reporting, men or women. The largest discrepancy is for males under 25 years who underreport female perpetrated violence compared to wives reports of their own violence. Husbands reports of their own victimization are only 72% of wives perpetration reports for all assaults. Conversely, husbands’ perpetration reports are 79% of wives victimization reports (p. 553). If we assume that wives perpetration reports may themselves be an under representation, then men’s’ victimization reports are a gross under representation. Wives own perpetration reports are 208% of husband’s victimization reports. These data suggest men grossly underreport both perpetration and victimization by severe violence. Source

Results are routinely miscited in a direction favoring activist ideology, e.g., Arias, Dankwort, Douglas, Dutton and Stein (2002), DeKeseredy and Schwartz (1998), and Kimmel (2002). For example, Arias et al. (2002) describe how the “state of victimization among men is significantly lower” (p. 159). The authors state “Women were seven to fourteen times more likely to report that intimate partners had beaten them up, choked them, threatened or actually assaulted them with weapons, or attempted to drown them.” The source they cite for these data is Stets and Straus (1992a,b, p. 156). However, Stets and Straus reported equivalent rates of violence by gender and were making the point that women were ten times as likely than men to report violence to the police (p. 155). Source

theAnalepticAlzabo · 2012-07-21T15:58:26+00:00

I cant watch these anymore. The last one, with its message of 'we are all going to get raped by our brutish male overlords' sickened me so much i decided to spare myself the anger.

2012-07-21T17:39:55+00:00

[permanently deleted]

johntheother · 2012-07-22T00:44:21+00:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQl55eMt74g

Ted8367 · 2012-07-21T17:52:48+00:00

Give men rape vuvuzelas.

NWOslave · 2012-07-21T16:37:03+00:00

The reason why these adverts are so effective is by playing on womens thinking pattern. Horrible to say men and women think differently, I know. Take, anita sarkeesian for instance. Before her tropes cause, women as a whole didn't think any of it was sexist. After Anita was promoted as the sexual warden of gaming sexism, other women saw Anita felt offended. If Anita felt offended, the offense must be real, which translated into all women being offended. Now it's universal sexism.

Every cause is the same. Two girl are offended that airbrushing takes place in magazines. Everyone knew this and no one cared. Two girls, however, decided this was offensive. Women as a whole saw these girls were offended and were convinced the offensive feeling were legit, therefore all women should be offended and convinced this is an actual offense to all women. Women are once again universally oppressed by what any woman feels is oppression.

For anyone who doesn't believe this is exactly how women as a whole are manipulated into believing they're oppressed everywhere, due to their thinking pattern. Name me one modern example of womens percieved oppression that didn't start out as one woman feeling oppressed for some reason. And how women as a whole weren't convinced they too must be universally oppressed by feeling that one woman felt oppressed.

truthjusticeca · 2012-07-21T17:17:38+00:00

In addition, self-reported research does not clarify that men are far more likely to initiate violence, while women are more likely to use violence in self-defence

Using Kimmel as a reference

Response to Kimmel:

Kimmel's (2002) finding that “men who are assaulted by intimates are actually more likely to call the police, more likely to press charges and less likely to drop them” (p. 1345) needs examination. The claim, which is contradicted by large surveys, is based on three studies. One of these, Rouse, Breen and Howell (1988) was based on a small sample of 260 college students of whom males were slightly more likely to call police (4% vs. 0%) but also more likely to require medical help (5% vs. 2%). The second (Ferrante, Morgan, Indermaur, & Harding, 1996), was based on a small sample in Australia. The third (Schwartz, 1987), was based on a reading of National Crime Survey data for a sample of 1743. The focus of the study was on injuries (same for men and women) and the reference to calling police was as aside by the author but never reported in a data table. The representativeness of the sample is questionable, with 79.7% of the men reporting an injury. Kimmel does not report the data from the 1985 US National survey (Stets & Straus, 1992a,b) that found, for a sample of 6000+, that 8.5% of women and .9% of men called the police. Hence, some selective referencing, and ignoring the larger and methodologically superior studies allowed Kimmel to come to this dubious conclusion. The conclusion is politically important to the feminist view as it supports the “crime victim surveys” that show gender asymmetry for intimate partner violence perpetration.

Source

The most commonly reported proximate motivations for violence by both men and women are coercion, anger, and attempts to punish a partner for misbehavior, especially sexual infidelity (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 1991; Harned, 2001; Hettrich & O’Leary, 2007; Stets & Hammons, 2002). The motive of self-defense, which has often been put forward as an explanation for high rates of female violence, explains only a small proportion of PV perpetrated by women (Carrado, George, Loxam, Jones, & Templar, 1996; Felson & Messner, 1998; Sarantakos, 1999; Sommer, 1996). For example, Follingstad et al.’s (1991) study of college students found that PV perpetrators reported self-defense about 18% of the time (17.7% for men, 18.5% for women). Much other evidence on gender symmetry in motives and risk factors is summarized in Medeiros and Straus (2006).

Source

Bland and Orn (1986) in a survey conducted in Canada did ask who used violence first. Of the women who reported using violence against their husbands, 73.4% said they used violence first. Stets and Straus (1992a) reported that females said they struck first 52.7% of the time. Stets and Straus concluded that not only do women engage in a comparable amount of violence, they are “at least as likely” to instigate violence. The results also indicate that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%) than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus & Gelles, 1992) The latter result is difficult to explain from a feminist assertion that women are more afraid of male violence than the reverse. In all, these data do not support the argument that female violence is solely defensive

Source

Title	Canadian Women's Foundation latest spot. Thoughts? Facts page in comments.
Author	LallyMonkey
Upvotes	6
Comments	24
Date	July 21, 2012 3:37 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/wxce3/canadian_womens_foundation_latest_spot_thoughts/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/canadian-womens-foundation-latest-spot-thoughts.1017463 https://theredarchive.com/post/1017463

Comments