Posted on 05/17/2006 2:54:55 PM PDT by okiecon
But domestic "violence" is not a disease and the CDC should not be reporting on it. Or, rather, activizing on the subject.
If they are using the domestic violence stats to track, say, the spread of STDS/AIDS/HIV then, it makes sense. But other than that? CDC obviously is in dire need of a funding cut.
But would you sanction taxpayer dollars to support yet another study to reveal that unprotected sex can render one with STDS and or an unplanned pregnancy?
This report is the equivalent of saying that "crime" exists in the world. But it points only at men as the perps.
Tell you what, I'm going to request the Moderator delete my post wherein you think I'm making light of "crimes against women" through my defense of pointing out the bias against men. Hope this helps you better understand that I don't like abuse. And especially when it masquerades as a "significant study" but never fully addresses the issue of "abuse".
Women have time to actually assess and collect information about the men they choose to love and be with. Obviously, you made a good choice and so did I. But it's not men's fault that women are choosing to put themselves repeatedly, and after trillions of taxpayer dollars, in harm's way.
Given the way the liberals usually operate, one would think they'd attempt to place penalties upon the women who choose to remain with an abuser, under some thought crime statute. But no. They continually only point at men as abusers.
This "study" is bogus and not meaningful nor ultimately productive nor will it produce remedies. It will only fuel those agencies determined to keep "domestic violence" as a thriving.. industry.
Alia, information is not a bad thing. No where in any of this has any one said that men are bad, that women are good?
There's been quite a bit of discussion in the domestic violence community about the "put you down" question. I'm surprised that it's still included, but that may be for the sake of consistency with other studies. The data is broken down and the discrete answers are available, somewhere. It may in the actual article, but I haven't paid $30 for the article. Hoping to access it later.)
In the meantime, when I ask women about sexual assault or abuse, 1 in 3 say yes. If there's chronic migraines, it's 1 in 2. For those who nearly come off the table during their pelvic exams, it's almost 100%. (The latter used to happen 3 or 4 times a year with only one "no" in 15 years. That "no" was after I routinely added a question *before* the exam. Still have a few revelations at/after exam.)
There's absolutely no reason for this study to be polarizing in this way. The (better) reports about the study discuss its flaws and biases.
(BTW, you missed the swift and unequivocal reaction to shotblue's report about his "shot" to his wife's thigh. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1633965/posts?page=7#7 )
"He didn't mow the lawn when I told him to. I'm abused."
"He said I've gained weight. I'm abused."
"He won't let my Mother in Law move in. I'm abused."
"He asked me to limit my credit card spending. I'm abused."
"He won't do exactly as I say the precise moment I say it, and thank me for my commanding direction. I'm abused."
In re your migraine's and women, I understand your anology but it is not comparable. To understand the "migraines" of which females do suffer moreso, as a higher stat, one must look at a myriad of data. It can be due to diet, hormones, family DNA, air, water, sleep, pills, medicines, stress, etc.
In the study, in question, it only studies women saying they were "abused". And it is not "diet, hormones, family DNA, air, water, sleep, pills, medicines, stress, etc" as the "target" of what is causing that abuse. The obvious is targeted in the question: "who" is abusing them. If they've received "abuse". It points out other humans be they straight or not-straight. And leaves the question mark in the air which in and of itself is hidious. The study doesn't ask if these women take drugs and come up with these ANSWERS. It doesn't ask WOMEN if they are prone to exaggeration or if there's a family history of it. It doesn't ask women if they are getting adequate rest.
The questions being asked are so nebulous and non-meaningful. It merely posits that "women are being" abused. And all readers are left with the assumption it is males. If people post disagreeing with the study, somehow they are "anti-female"? No.
I didn't miss the response to the "shot" jazz. I just didn't find it relevant.
I don't happen to hold the view that posters who say "things" not PC about the female sex are batterers. I don't hold that assumption. So, I didn't pay that blip in the thread much attention.
What has never ceased to amaze me throughout my life is that the very same women who claim to be raped, abused, mistreated -- return to their "batterer" or go on to find one just like him. This suggests something is wrong with "her", IMHO.
I've always seen it as sort of a "munchausen" sydrome by which some women cling to the attention they get reporting how horrid they are treated by males. This doesn't mean what they are saying is true.
This report is doing the same thing -- trying to draw attention to itself, but not necessarily the real story of "abuse".
And oh, Lord, yes I've read all of Nancy Friday's books. I don't think any amount of "psychologic help" helps women if they refuse to accept responsibility for themselves OR even want to change their "life" choices so they can live beter.
It started in the 1970s, and by the 1990s, it was the standard: every divorce includes a claim the man verbally abused the woman. You know why? Because any time a man tells his wife anything she doesn't want to hear, it's "verbal abuse" to the woman hearing it.
I'm afraid that you misunderstand the standard research method as well as the implication of the examples I gave. Research should not, and this study does not, "just take ONE SIDE." It attempts (and we've discussed the flaws) to isolate a narrow set of variables.
Part of the explanation that I was given for the offending "put you down" question is to measure recall bias and validity of the rest of the responses. I'm afraid that it's been part of the standardized questionnaire for so many studies that removing it would affect interpretation of subsequent studies.
Without studies, there is no justification for screening. Without evidence-based screening, diagnosis will always be impaired by the lack of knowledge of the etiology or root cause. Screening that can lead to the correct diagnosis is significant if there is treatment.
In this case, there is treatment, although we're still more at a stage that's more analogous to whole-body than directed, tight beam irradiation for cancer treatment, partly because we're at an early stage of discovery, both in pathology and epidemiology.
Yes, the abused do return to their abuser. That does not make screening less important.
it helps if you read the post you're replying to.
"Since it was founded in 1946 to help control malaria, CDC has remained at the forefront of public health efforts to prevent and control infectious and chronic diseases, injuries, workplace hazards, disabilities, and environmental health threats"
do you also object to the CDC reporting on anything falling into the category of "injuries, workplace hazards, disabilities, and environmental health threats" ?
I suppose you would have objected when the secret service was given the role of guarding the president, since thats got nothing to do with the treasury.
Statistical illiteracy (and methodological illiteracy, as well) is rampant in this country. And freepers react the same way that most people do when given the information. If they don't understand it, they assume you are wrong, or agenda-driven.
The CDC should be tracking diseases. And, if you read MY post, would you answer the question? Do you think "domestic violence" a DISEASE?
suppose you would have objected when the secret service was given the role of guarding the president, since thats got nothing to do with the treasury.
Got a link?
Why do you think they'd do that?
Would you suggest that the secret service should instead be guarding the Federal Reserve Chairman? Your analogy is most suspect, in bringing this matter up, in a thread about "domestic violence".
The real problem is the usual one: the media and what and how they report what they consider the "news." Not only have you not posted "the study," but you've posted the worst report about it I found on a Google search ("in 0.10 sec.")
Well, maybe the second worst:
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=37327
(The Kaiser reports are always slanted toward justification of nationalized health, "women's issues" and "reproductive health.")
Nevertheless, there are significant relationships between IPV and health. Doctors should screen, should be aware, and be prepared to help with what treatment we do have.
The Kaiser reports are always slanted toward justification of nationalized health, "women's issues" and "reproductive health.")
Full concurment with you. The "kaiser system" is used as the model for socialized healthcare. (dittos, "wellness" centers).
Nevertheless, there are significant relationships between IPV and health. Doctors should screen, should be aware, and be prepared to help with what treatment we do have.
Explain which IPV you are referring to. Search engines bring up many different acronyms concerning "IPV". Do you mean "Intimate Partner Violence"?
And please explain to me why you think it should be a "screening" standard, pls? I can understand it in re children; but not so-called adults.
(Asidem: Did you know in CA schools, it was, and may yet be that "having guns in the home" was a criterion for a possible investigation into the Home? Do you agree with this?)
More males than females show up in the ER's all across this country with curious wounds and injuries. Do you think the males should also be "IVP'd" for abuse from their Intimate Partners?
Sorry for the mistake on ID of the original poster.
Physicians should investigate - and need to know that they need to investigate - the cause of any trauma and should be aware that non-trauma complaints (such as migraines, dypareunia (pain on sex)and vague bodily complaints, as well as psychological problems) may be associated with "Intimate Partner Violence," the term used in the Kaiser note and in the better (in my opinion) media reports.The reason for screening is the sequelae, which will be better treated if the etiology is known.
As to the earlier question about why this report was published and why the press release. Justification of the grant, reporting significant data, job security and advancement, academic prestige, moma was abused or, possibly, someone on the team hates men (or violence of any kind). This is one of the largest studies I've ever seen and that makes the data better. Academics must "publish or perish." And, different researchers tend to have a specialty subject or interest - for all sorts of benign reasons as well as agendas.
I was not concerned with the study as much as the bad reporting, the majority of people will see the reporting and not the actual study.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.