Critiques of surveys, or of the CTS, are fine and needed to make your point, and I will indeed address those critiques, and more adequately than you will likely care for, within the deadline on my next post, as well as the DOJ stats, etc. But it needs to be clear from the beginning, you are putting Greenpeace on trial and trying to stack the jury with whaling execs. I won’t let it pass without calling you out on it.
Get some real research, David, and some untainted, credible critique. And if, perhaps, you have a hard time finding anyone but gender ideologues that are challenging the soundness of the research in question, then you will have stumbled on yet another reason to rethink your position.
__________________________
Futrelle responds:So, Paul, instead of actually responding to anything substantive, you:
*attack feminist scholarship that I didn’t actually cite
*rehash a tiff you had with one of the experts I quoted
*attack someone else completely irrelevant to the debate at hand because he happens to belong to an organization the the guy you had the tiff with also belongs to
*list a bunch of researchers that I do actually cite, but that you’ve somehow decided are evil ideologues and not to be trusted, without actually examining any of their work, simply because they have described themselves as “feminists.”
I guess your modus operandi is simple: when you have no ammunition, you start flinging bullshit.
___________________________
Elam Response:
Ah, no. What I have done is reveal the fact that the authors of your sources are biased, in fact that all gender ideologues are biased, and that their reaction to any non patriarchal, and thus not exclusively male model of domestic violence is predictably negative. It is called research bias, and it is fair game here.
Remember this?
*attack feminist scholarship that I didn’t actually cite
One of your most prominent sources was from your main squeeze Kimmel. Your claim here about attacking scholarship you didn’t cite is bogus.
Now, regarding the critiques of CTS specifically, and aside from the fact that your “source,” Michael Kimmel, is clearly biased, yes, there are some limitations and difficulties with the information gathering. That has been pointed out by Gelles and Archer, so there is no secret about it. But let’s take a closer look at the objections you raised. Or at least for what you are passing off as objections.
You say:
As a result, one critic notes, the CTS 'equates a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs. It labels a mother as violent if she defends her daughter from the father’s sexual molestation. It combines categories such as “hitting” and “trying to hit” despite the important difference between them. Because it looks at only one year, this study equates a single slap by a woman to a man’s 15 year history of domestic terrorism.'This is about as poor an example of the problem with CTS that can be found. Let’s try that statement with simple sex reversal.
As a result, one critic notes, the CTS 'equates a man pushing a woman in self-defense to a woman pushing a man down the stairs. It labels a father as violent if he defends his son from the mother’s sexual molestation. It combines categories such as “hitting” and “trying to hit” despite the important difference between them. Because it looks at only one year, this study equates a single slap by a man to a woman’s 15 year history of domestic terrorism.'
I am sure you don’t get this David, but both of these descriptions are equally valid. The only problem you can come up with is if you enter the analysis, as your quoted reference here clearly did, assuming that the male MUST be viewed as the default perpetrator." ( ... )
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2010/10/28/dv-debate-david-futrelle-fulminates-loses-temper-and-debate/
No comments:
Post a Comment