The corruption of research on domestic violence

[Queen Titania]

Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence

Graham-Kevan’s paper fully documents overwhelming evidence that the “patriarchal dominance” theory of partner violence (PV from here on) explains only a small part of PV. Moreover, more such evidence is rapidly emerging. To take just one recent example, analyses of data from 32 nations in the International Dating Violence Study (Straus 2007; Straus and International Dating Violence Research Consortium 2004) found about equal perpetration rates and a predominance of mutual violence in all 32 samples, including non-Western nations.

Moreover, data from that study also show that, within a couple relationship, domination and control by women occurs as often as by men and are as strongly associated with perpetration of PV by women as by men (Straus 2007). Graham-Kevan also documents the absence of evidence indicating that the patriarchal dominance approach to prevention and treatment has been effective. In my opinion, it would be even more appropriate to say that what success has been achieved in preventing and treating PV has been achieveddespite the handicaps imposed by focusing exclusively on eliminating male-dominance and misogyny, important as that is as an end in itself.

Graham-Kevan’s paper raises the question of how an explanatory theory and treatment modality could have persisted for 30 years and still persists, despite hundreds of studies which provide evidence that PV has many causes, not just male-dominance. The answer is that it emerged from a convergence of a number of different historical and social factors. One of these is that gender symmetry in perpetration of partner violence is inconsistent with male predominance in almost all other crimes, especially violent crimes. Another is the greater injury rate suffered by female victims of PV brings female victimization to public attention much more often.

Although there are many causes of the persistence of the patriarchal dominance focus, I believe that the predominant cause has been the efforts of feminists to conceal, deny, and distort the evidence. Moreover, these efforts include intimidation and threats, and have been carried out not only by feminist advocates and service providers, but also by feminist researchers who have let their ideological commitments overrule their scientific commitments.

At the same time, it is important to recognize the tremendous contribution to human relationships and crime control made by feminist efforts to end violence against women. This effort has brought public attention to the fact that PV may be the most prevalent form of interpersonal violence, created a world-wide determination to cease ignoring PV, and take steps to combat PV. It has brought the rule of law to one of the last spheres of life where ‘self-help’ justice (Black 1983) prevails by changing the legal status of domestic assaults, by changing police and court practices from one of ignoring and minimization PV to one of compelling the criminal justice system to attend and intervene.

In addition, feminists have created two important new social institutions: shelters for battered women and treatment programs for male perpetrators. However, the exclusive focus on male perpetrators and the exclusive focus on just one of the many causes has stymied this extension of the rule of law and the effort to end domestic violence. Ironically, it has also handicapped efforts to protect women from PV and end PV by men (Feld and Straus 1989; Medeiros and Straus 2006; Straus 2007; Straus and Scott, in press). Consequently, information on how this could have occurred can be helpful in bringing about a change. This commentary identifies seven of the methods.

Methods Used to Conceal and Distort Evidence on Symmetry in Partner Violence

Method 1. Suppress Evidence

Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea that men are almost always the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that contradicts this belief. Among researchers not committed to that ideology, many (including me and some of my colleagues) have withheld results showing gender symmetry to avoid becoming victims of vitriolic denunciations and ostracism (see Method 7 below). Thus, many researchers have published only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberately omitting data on female perpetrators and male victims.

This practice started with one of the first general population surveys on family violence. The survey done for the Kentucky Commission on the Status of Women obtained data on both men and women, but only the data on male perpetration was published (Schulman 1979). Among the many other examples of respected researchers publishing only the data on assaults by men are Kennedy and Dutton (1989); Lackey and Williams (1995); Johnson and Leone (2005); and Kaufman Kantor and Straus (1987).

Method 2. Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory

In survey research, this method of concealment asks female participants about attacks by their male partners and avoids asking them if they had hit their male partner. The Canadian Violence against Women survey (Johnson and Sacco 1995), for example, used what can be called a feminist version of the Conflict Tactics Scales to measure PV. This version omitted the questions on perpetration by the female participants in the study. For the US National Violence against Women Survey (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000), the US Department of Justice originally planned the same strategy. Fortunately, the US Centers for Disease Control added a sample of men to the project. But when Johnson and Leone (Johnson and Leone 2005) investigated the prevalence of “intimate terrorists” among the participants in that study, they guaranteed there would be no female intimate terrorists by using only the data on male perpetrators.

For a lecture in Montreal, I examined 12 Canadian studies. Ten of the 12 reported only assaults by men. The most recent example occurred in the spring of 2006 when a colleague approached the director of a university survey center about conducting a survey of partner violence if a recently submitted grant was awarded. A faculty member at that university objected to including questions on female perpetration, and the center director said he was not likely to do the survey if the funds were awarded.

Method 3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration

I could list a large number of journal articles showing selective citation, but instead I will illustrate the process with official document examples to show that this method of concealment and distortion is institutionalized in publications of governments, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization. For example, US Dept. of Justice publications almost always cite only the National Crime Victimization study, which shows male predominance (Durose et al. 2005). They ignore the Department of Justice published critiques, which led to a revision of the survey to correct that bias. However, the revision was only partly successful (Straus 1999), yet they continue to cite it and ignore other more accurate studies they have sponsored which show gender symmetry.

After delaying release of the results of the National Violence against Women for almost two years, the press releases issued by the Department of Justice provided only the “life- time prevalence” data and ignored the “past-year prevalence” data, because the lifetime data showed predominantly male perpetration, whereas the more accurate past-year data showed that women perpetrated 40% of the partner assaults.

The widely acclaimed and influential World Health Organization report on domestic violence (Krug et al. 2002) reports that “Where violence by women occurs it is more likely to be in the form of self-defense. (32, 37, 38).” This is selective citation because almost all studies that have compared men and women find about equal rates of self-defense. Moreover, it also illustrates Method 4 (conclusions that contradict the results) because reference 32 (Saunders 1986) reports that 70% of the minor violence and 60% of the sever violence was not in self-defense. Reference 37 (Dekeseredy, Saunders, Schwartz et al. 1977) used a similar method, and got similar results: 37% of the minor violence and 43% of the severe violence was initiated by women. In addition neither of these studies had data on self-defense by men, so neither provides a basis for concluding that violence by women differs from violence by men.




continue ---

 

[Queen Titania]

continued ---

• 
  Method 4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not
  
  The studies cited above, in addition to illustrating selective citation, are also examples of the ability of ideological commitment to lead researchers to misinterpret the results of their own research. A study by Kernsmith (2005), for example, states that “Males and females were found to differ in their motivations for using violence in relationships” and that “female violence may be more related to maintaining personal liberty in a relationship than gaining power” (p. 180). However, although Kernsmith’s Table 2 shows that women had higher scores on the “striking back” factor, only one question in this factor is about self-defense.
  
  The other questions in the factor are about being angry and coercing the partner. So, despite naming the factor as “striking back” it is mostly about anger and coercion. Therefore, the one significantly different factor shows that women more than men are motivated by anger at the partner and by efforts to coerce the partner. In addition, Kernsmith’s conclusion ignores the fact that the scores for men and women were approximately equal in respect to two of the three factors (“exerting power” and “disciplining partner”). Thus, Kernsmith’s study found the opposite of what was stated as the finding.
  
  Method 5. Create “Evidence” by Citation
  
  The Kernsmith study, the World Health Organization report, and the pattern of selective citation show how ideology can be converted into what can be called “evidence by citation” or what Gelles (1980) calls the “woozle effect.” A woozle effect occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence mislead us into thinking there is evidence. For example, subsequent to the World Health Organization study and the Kernsmith study, papers discussing gender differences in motivation will cite them to show that female violence is predominantly in self-defense, which is the opposite of what the research actually shows. But because these are citations of an article in a scientific journal and a respected international organization, readers of the subsequent article will accept it as a fact. Thus, fiction is converted into scientific evidence that will be cited over and over.
  
  Another example is the claim that the Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus et al. 1996) does not provide an adequate measure of PV because it measures only conflict-related violence. Although the theoretical basis of the CTS is conflict theory, the introductory explanation to participants specifically asks participants to report expressive and malicious violence. It asks respondents about the times when they and their partner “[…]disagree, get annoyed with the other person, want different things from each other, or just have spats or fights because they are in a bad mood, are tired or for some other reason.”
  
  Despite repeating this criticism for 25 years in perhaps a hundred publications, none of those publications has provided empirical evidence showing that only conflict-related violence is reported. In fact, where there are both CTS data and qualitative data, as in Giles-Sims (1983), it shows that the CTS elicits malicious violence as well as conflict-related violence. Nevertheless, because there are at least a hundred articles with this statement in peer-reviewed journals, it seems to establish as a scientific fact what is only an attempt to blame the messenger for the bad news about gender symmetry in PV.
  
  Method 6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research That Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance Is the Cause of PV
  
  I have documentation for only one case of publication being blocked, but I think this has often happened. The more frequent pattern is self-censorship by authors fearing that it will happen or that publication of such a study will undermine their reputation, and, in the case of graduate students, the ability to obtain a job.
  
  An example of denying funding to research that might contradict the idea that PV is a male-only crime is the call for proposals to investigate partner violence issued in December 2005 by the National Institute of Justice. The announcement stated that proposals to investigate male victimization would not be eligible. Another example is the objection by a reviewer to a proposal a colleague and I submitted because of our “[…] naming violence in a relationship as a ‘human’ problem of aggression not a gender-based problem.” When priority scores by the reviewers are averaged, it takes only one extremely low score to place the proposal below the fundable level. Others have encountered similar blocks; for example Holtzworth-Munroe (2005). Eugen Lupri, a pioneer Canadian family violence researcher, has also documented examples of the resistance to funding and publishing research on female-perpetrated violence (Lupri 2004).
  
  Method 7. Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs
  
  Suzanne Steinmetz made the mistake of publishing a book and articles (Steinmetz 1977, 1977-1978) which clearly showed about equal rates of perpetration by males and females. Anger over this resulted in a bomb threat at her daughter’s wedding, and she was the object of a letter writing campaign to deny her promotion and tenure at the University of Delaware. Twenty years later the same processes resulted in a lecturer at the University of Manitoba whose dissertation found gender symmetry in PV being denied promotion and tenure.
  
  My own experiences have included having one of my graduate students being warned at a conference that she will never get a job if she does her PhD research with me. At the University of Massachusetts, I was prevented from speaking by shouts and stomping. The chairperson of the Canadian Commission on Violence against Women stated at two hearings held by the commission that nothing that Straus publishes can be believed because he is a wife-beater and sexually exploits students, according to a Toronto Magazine article. When I was elected President of the Society for the Study of Social Problems and rose to give the presidential address, a group of members occupying the first few rows of the room stood up and walked out.
  
  Concluding Comments
  
  The seven methods described above have created a climate of fear that has inhibited research and publication on gender symmetry in PV and largely explain why an ideology and treatment modality has persisted for 30 years, despite hundreds of studies which provide evidence on the multiplicity of risk factors for PV, of which patriarchy is only one. Because of space limitations and because I am a researcher not a service provider, I have not covered the even greater denial, distortion and coercion in prevention and treatment efforts. An example is the director of a battered women’s shelter who was terminated because she wanted to ask the residents whether they had hit their partner and the context in which that occurred. An example of governmental coercion of treatment is the legislation in a number of US states, and policies and funding restrictions in almost all US states that prohibit couple therapy for PV.
  
  Finally, it was painful for me as a feminist to write this commentary. I have done so for two reasons. First, I am also a scientist and, for this issue, my scientific commitments override my feminist commitments. Perhaps even more important, I believe that the safety and well-being of women requires efforts to end violence by women and the option to treat partner violence in some cases as a problem of psychopathology, or in the great majority of cases, as a family system problem (Straus and Scott, in press; Hamel and Nicholls 2006).
  

http://whiteribbon.org/domestic-violence-research/the-corruption-of-research-on-domestic-violence/

It isn't just men ---

 

[Queen Titania]

Papers by Nicloa Graham-Kevan

http://empower-daphne.psy.unipd.it/userfiles/file/pdf/Graham-Kevan N_ - 2007.pdf

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicola_Graham-Kevan/publication/10700463_Physical_aggression_and_control_in_heterosexual_relationships_the_effect_of_sampling/links/00b7d53749df421756000000.pdf




http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicola_Graham-Kevan/publication/26832011_Intimate_terrorism_and_common_couple_violence._A_test_of_Johnson's_predictions_in_four_British_samples/links/02bfe510a8c93bb2cf000000.pdf

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence

Graham-Kevan’s paper fully documents overwhelming evidence that the “patriarchal dominance” theory of partner violence (PV from here on) explains only a small part of PV. Moreover, more such evidence is rapidly emerging. To take just one recent example, analyses of data from 32 nations in the International Dating Violence Study (Straus 2007; Straus and International Dating Violence Research Consortium 2004) found about equal perpetration rates and a predominance of mutual violence in all 32 samples, including non-Western nations.

"Men's Rights" is a well-needed movement that is gaining steam.

Based on the media and conventional wisdom, most women and Liberal men scoff at the idea, but I've noticed a ton of discrimination in my life because I'm a man.

I tried to get into professional child care when I was just out of college to help pay bills, but men are shied away from because of a stigma that we're more likely to be sex offenders or something.

I've noticed women being obviously afraid of me just because I'm a man, like when the both of us are walking out of a store late at night at the same time, and our cars are parked nearby.

Off the top of my head, men have many issues that need addressed:

• Men get more jail time for the same sentence.
• Men make up over 90% of the prison system.
  
• Nearly all of the dangerous army positions are filled by men.
• Men are nearly always thwarted in domestic court cases involving children.
• Men are sent to jail for decades based on the testimony of a woman, even if she has her own agenda.

We live in a very female dominated society overall. Our culture is entirely feminized.

I heard a commercial the other day that was promoting a need to support WOMEN veterans... an emphasis on WOMEN.

Our VA is in shambles, veterans across America are being shafted, but it's the WOMEN we need to focus on?

Things are crazy here in america...

 

[Queen Titania]

"Men's Rights" is a well-needed movement that is gaining steam.

Based on the media and conventional wisdom, most women and Liberal men scoff at the idea, but I've noticed a ton of discrimination in my life because I'm a man.

I tried to get into professional child care when I was just out of college to help pay bills, but men are shied away from because of a stigma that we're more likely to be sex offenders or something.

I've noticed women being obviously afraid of me just because I'm a man, like when the both of us are walking out of a store late at night at the same time, and our cars are parked nearby.

Off the top of my head, men have many issues that need addressed:

• Men get more jail time for the same sentence.
• Men make up over 90% of the prison system.
  
• Nearly all of the dangerous army positions are filled by men.
• Men are nearly always thwarted in domestic court cases involving children.
• Men are sent to jail for decades based on the testimony of a woman, even if she has her own agenda.

We live in a very female dominated society overall. Our culture is entirely feminized.

I heard a commercial the other day that was promoting a need to support WOMEN veterans... an emphasis on WOMEN.

Our VA is in shambles, veterans across America are being shafted, but it's the WOMEN we need to focus on?

Things are crazy here in america...

Here too.

It is so damaging for society --- for it is true that the man is the protector of the family/group ---- when he is gone Gov becomes the protector of women and children --- and we are all stuffed!

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Here too.

It is so damaging for society --- for it is true that the man is the protector of the family/group ---- when he is gone Gov becomes the protector of women and children --- and we are all stuffed!

I've heard it say that Women who are getting these children through court cases are then "marrying" the government instead of further attempting to make the marriage work or remarrying.

The MGTOW movement is growing over here in the States. Men Going Their Own Way... it points out the heavy feminization of the culture, and the growing third-wave feminism that centers around man-hate and faith in a patriarchy.

Meanwhile, our culture encourages women to seek an unintelligent step-over, beta male who can provide things for her.

 

[Queen Titania]

I've heard it say that Women who are getting these children through court cases are then "marrying" the government instead of further attempting to make the marriage work or remarrying.

The MGTOW movement is growing over here in the States. Men Going Their Own Way... it points out the heavy feminization of the culture, and the growing third-wave feminism that centers around man-hate and faith in a patriarchy.

Meanwhile, our culture encourages women to seek an unintelligent step-over, beta male who can provide things for her.

I admire the young men who are opting out --- brave young things and so hard to do in youth. They will suffer/loose out in their lives, for their stance, but in the long term thank God for them.

There are men's groups, as you say, 'Fathers for Justice' ect --- but you have the whole of the Media and Political body and Law Courts agin ya. When there is one case of male violence against women and or children, it is held up as proof against all men, where as a case of a women battering her child and or hubby is held up to be an exception to the norm - and yet who is the main culprit when it comes to hurting children? Women are --

In other ways too, in reverse as it were, there is discrimination against the male of the species --- ie Circumcision, what ever your thoughts on it, why can boys be mutilated as babes but not girls, under the Law?

Ps, I am waiting for a group where men and woman stand together over this divide -- the divide of The Partnership.

 

[connieb]

I admire the young men who are opting out --- brave young things and so hard to do in youth. They will suffer/loose out in their lives, for their stance, but in the long term thank God for them.

There are men's groups, as you say, 'Fathers for Justice' ect --- but you have the whole of the Media and Political body and Law Courts agin ya. When there is one case of male violence against women and or children, it is held up as proof against all men, where as a case of a women battering her child and or hubby is held up to be an exception to the norm - and yet who is the main culprit when it comes to hurting children? Women are --

In other ways too, in reverse as it were, there is discrimination against the male of the species --- ie Circumcision, what ever your thoughts on it, why can boys be mutilated as babes but not girls, under the Law?

Ps, I am waiting for a group where men and woman stand together over this divide -- the divide of The Partnership.

This trend is so sad for me as a mom of both a boy and a girl.

I never grew up at all feeling I was "less than" a boy in anyway other than perhaps brute physical strength, and since having brute physical strength was nothing I ever aspired to, I didn't feel particularly bad about that. I guess that is what scrawny boys have to deal with all the time.

But, this trend to hyper-feminize society, so sad and frustrating. We are different, men and women. Our biologies are different. Our strengths, weaknesses and innate interests are different. In part, that is why you can tell when a young child, particularly a boy is likely to end up being gay, on an very untarnished innate level - they are "different" from other boys and more like girls. Anyone who has ever raised both and boy and a girl, will tell you that from birth, literally they were simply different in what drew their attentions and what sparked their interest and what motivated them. This drive to - unisex us all - mostly by masculating women and more sadly - emmasculating me... denies this innate difference and it is perpetatuated by "feminists" who instead of LOVING being a woman - actually do not celebrate or embrace their femininity. They reject it. On some level, I think they are sad they are women.

The ability to give life, to nourish that life from your own body and the physical and mental transformations that a woman goes through in that process are something uniquely woman. I am sad for my women friends who have not been able to experience that if their choice has been to do so, but biology did not cooperate. Being maternal doesn't mean you aren't fierce. Some of the most viscous killer animals are mothers guarding their young. But, being maternal, and having maternal responses - IS something that is unique to a woman. And, in today's world of feminizis it is degraded. And, people like Bruce Jenner, getting implants and putting on a dress and getting waxed, botoxed and growing long hair..... and proclaim themselves woman ACTUALLY further degrade what it means to be woman. What it means to be woman is not that you have tits, long hair, look hot in a dress ( because you squeeze your man parts between your legs). Being a woman - is not something you can replicate if biology wasn't a part.

And, the result of all this though.. has been to destroy that special connection between man and woman. Where we were help meets and compliments to each other. Where it WORKS to have different strengths and weaknesses and that is exactly why you would make a good partnership. I don't have the physical strength my husband has. And, if we had to hunt food I am GLAD I would have him there to do it. And, he would not have the patience to sit there and make the most out of the kill - but I would so that we could use everything for our survival.

And, the worse part to come out of this is the demonizing of men, particularly the ones that aren't girly men. I love men. I can't actually understand why some of my female friends don't like them. There is nothing better than having a rough and tumble kind of guy shed a tear over the birth of his child. Or watching a Daddy kiss a boo boo. And, having a person who wants to provide for you and care for you. That isn't insulting. I want to do the same things.... but in a different way. It doesn't make his way better or less than my way... just different. But, in this world... we aren't content to just be different. We have to to have a better. And, we have chosen that Feminist' ism is better. And, that being male - is to be frowned upon and infact, we continue to invent misleading and downright outrageous anti-male stance.

And, I will also say as a person that was sexually assaulted.. it is INSULTING when I hear people refer to other instances of it, as if the woman had no control and was an innocent lamb. ( assuming more "date rape" scenarios). Nothing robs a person of their ability to actually come to terms with what happened to them more than NOT acknowledging their own failures and their own mistakes in the process. I look back at no other bad event in my life and feel completely blameless.. because I am not. In any situation where I am there I more than likely could have done something different to have a different outcome. And, robbing me of that understanding of who is really in control of me... is and insult. I am so tired of teaching girls to not respect themselves enough to not PUT themselves in harms way, as if to acknowledge that a drunk boy and a drunk girl, alone in a room where they can have sex.. is not actually a gigantic failure of judgement on both their parts. That saying to a girl.... if you do not want to have sex with a guy.. perhaps you should not invite him to your dormroom and undress with him and lay on the bed. None of that gives the guy a pass if you say no, on the other hand... I think that in such a situation... the onus is on YOU to make YOUR opposition - after the myriad of signals saying you were good to go - is known and understood.

And, you know what... that attitude is empowering. This attitude of men are bad and we are still under their thumbs is one of victimhood. I don't subscribe to that. I want to know what I can do to take control over my own destiny. I can't control other people... but I can control ME. So instead of focusing on what others do.. how about we focus on women doing for themselves, taking responsibility for themselves. This idea that a man is entirely responsible for the sex act is simply another form of patriarchy passed on to us... by our feminizi friends.. and more evidence of their self hatred.

connie