googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
What's the matter E ric ? Do you have to sign in under all your various usernames to repair your precious stars ?
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
WhosTheCutest
enthusiast
Reged: 08/20/07
Posts: 285
|
|
Who Gets The Children ?
The Mothers. (only 98% of the Time)
What Do The Fathers Get?
Life Long Confiscation of Income, Unenforceable Court Visitation Orders, and an Increased Risk of Severe Depression, Alcoholism and Suicide.
Who Gets The Money?
Lawyers, Mediators, Assessors, Social Workers, Real Estate Agents, Mothers, and the Children. (if there is any money left)
What Do You Call a Divorced Father Who Has Lost Everything?
A Deadbeat Dad!
--------------------
Who's The Cutest?
That hater and slayer of feminazi PIGS!
Off with their freak'n heads!
|
WhosTheCutest
enthusiast
Reged: 08/20/07
Posts: 285
|
|
Researchers Do it for Money, not for Findings of Fact.
Nojustice.info| Research | Researchers Do it for Money, not for Findings of Fact
Dr Nico Trocmé, the pricipal author of the Ontario (OIS 1993 and 1998) and Canadian (CIS) incidence studies of reported child abuse and neglect, has emerged as one of the foremost government funded researchers on child abuse and neglect. It is no wonder, considering that he religiously follows the gender based analysis directives as designed by the few dozen “gender analysis specialists” at the Department of Justice Canada, under the leadership of the Status of Women Canada. Though the correct name of the UN headed program is "Gender Based Analysis" (GBA), the Department of Justice Canada, and other such feminist agencies, incorrectly call it under the loaded name "Gender Equality (or Equity) Analysis.
In Canada , the government is in [censored] control of all research. The policies are made and enforced by the Status of Women Canada whose vision of a femocracy, ruled by state feminists, became close to completion on Dec. 12, 2003 when Paul Martin, the newly appointed Prime Minister, chose Anne McLellan as the new super-minister of “Public Security” [see also my "Collecting Information for Propaganda is not Research"]
Accordingly, the prime requirement for anyone wishing to land one of the lucrative government contracts is that the researcher will conduct the study under careful government scrutiny and with a predetermined outcome in mind, namely that men are, and have always been, a danger to women and children.
The Department of Justice Canada asks:
Why does gender equality analysis focus on women?
And answers:
Given the historical and continuing reality of women's inequality, gender equality analysis is primarily aimed at illuminating and addressing the barriers that women continue to face in our society.
In its “Gender Equality Analysis in Research: Step by Step”, the Department instructs those who apply for funding:
Researchers have an important role in framing and reframing program or policy objectives to allow an assessment of potential impacts on women, i.e. environmental scanning. The task includes acknowledging that men and women have different realities, and that different groups of women also have differing realities … Researchers can use the results/findings of their research to encourage policy development in a particular direction
It is important to keep in mind that there is a difference between the outcomes of the research, which support policy development, and the outcomes of the policy itself. In posing the question "How will the outcomes of this research positively benefit or negatively impact on women?", the researcher can make sure the question is raised, but it is the formulation of the policy that will determine the impact.
Research Contracting Procedures: The Gender Equality Initiative aims to have all professional service contracts for policy and policy-related research and evaluation contracts contain gender specific language and service requirements. For details of contracting procedures, refer to the Department of Justice manual Contracting for Services – Guidelines and Procedures. The following is to be read in conjunction with the manual.
CONTRACTING: When we have identified potential differential impacts on women or particular groups of women in the evaluation framework stage, any contractors we retain for subsequent evaluation activities should have experience in gender equality [read "based"] analysis.
Finally, the contractors are told to ask themselves:
What are the impacts (negative or positive) on women or a group of women of a particular policy or program?
In short, contractors have to promise to abandon their code of professional ethics in order to serve the ideological state feminist propaganda. In the words of Status of Women Canada, the sole purpose of the state feminsts is to usher in the new era of Canadian Femocracy. The only way this can be achieved is to rewrite the democratic constitution and replace it with the feminist manifesto. [see: "Women's Representation in the House of Commons: vox populis, Ottawa, ON, October 31, 2003" Centre for Research on Women and Politics at femocracy @ femocracy .ca and "Women's Movements and State Feminism: Integrating Diversity into Public Policy"]
Accordingly, in order to serve the state feminists, who now are in full command in every government department, and to create ideologically motivated perceptions rather than disseminate facts, Dr. Trocmé uses the confusing new-speak phrase “child investigations” though his statistics refer to investigated incidents. In spite of the contradiction, he gives his ratios as “per 1,000 children”. That, of course, is an impossibility as we do not know how many children have been investigated. Thus, he conforms to the expected “gender based analysis” principles and is a good candidate for funding, as are Peter Jaffe, David Wolfe, etc. Ironically, though billions are wasted in propaganda in order to herald in the new era, the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, has whipped up a political storm about the squandering of mere hundred million in advertising.
Every ideologue knows that in order to gain power one has to begin with the indoctrination of children. In his keynote address, called The importance of process in developing outcome measures to the National Outcomes Symposium (Ottawa, February 20-21, 2003), Dr. Trocmé, speaking on behalf of the Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare, which is yet another blatantly anti-father, anti-family agency, admitted that his research is designed according to the outcome that the funders anticipate:
[p.2]
The development of an outcome-based approach has been further complicated by the fact that service providers are keenly aware that funding will be determined by the types of outcome that are measured. Service providers, from front-line staff to senior managers, worry that the measures that are selected will not document the impact of the services they provide. The principle of “what gets measured gets done” can be interpreted to mean “what gets measured gets funded” (Grasso, 1988; Traglia et al., 1996).
Though this particular paper is concerned about the removal of the child from the family, it is equally applicable to all research, especially if we consider that it is in accordance with the Dept. of Justice directives:
Research approach: make a careful choice about which indicators are going to be applied, because you want the indicators to reflect the gendered approach you are developing. [in : Diversity and Justice: Gender Perspectives IV. Gender Equality Analysis in Research and Statistics]
A good sample of Dr. Trocmé’s own work is the following comment that he used in both OIS editions as well as in the CIS:
The over-representation of biological mothers in … should be interpreted with caution, given that 43 per cent of investigations involved female-parent families (see Table 7-1) 1998 Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (OIS 1998)
One is at a loss to understand why that should be interpreted with caution. The fact that most investigations involved female-parent families is due to the fact that most abuse is happening in female-parent families. What follows is difficult to decipher, as he also issues the following cautions:
“Some caution is required in interpreting OIS findings. Ratings provided by investigating workers could not be independently confirmed, specifically for types and level of maltreatment. These are not observable events, rather judgments made by the worker at the end of the investigation period. The 1993 and 1998 OIS document incidents that were reported to a child welfare authority. Child maltreatment not reported, reported only to the police or made about cases already being served by a child welfare agency are not included in the data.” [Source: Responding to changes in reported child maltreatment: Federal program and policy implications (OIS 1993/1998)]
In Chapter 3, p. 37 of the 1993 edition of OIS Dr. Trocmé says:
A case is considered substantiated if it is the worker's professional opinion that there is sufficient evidence that abuse or neglect probably has occured (i.e., prepared to testify in court as an expert witness, even though worker may be uncertain whether the evidence meets all legal evidentiary requirements)
In chapter 4, p. 64: "Characteristics of Maltreatment" he doubts the validity of some results:
Twenty five percent of substantiated cases involved observable harm, 18 percent were considered to involve non-observable but probable harm and an additional 24 percent involved situations where a child had been at substantial risk of harm. Nevertheless, 23 percent of substantiated cases were classified as involving no harm or risk of harm, and in an additional 9 percent of cases, the severity of harm was unknown. This relatively large number of substantiated cases with no evidence of harm or risk of harm is difficult to explain . The guidelines set by Section 37 of the CFSA clearly require evidence of harm or substantial risk of harm before court-ordered intervention is allowed.
One is almost tempted to read between the lines and interpret the comments to mean that he might be trying to send the message that one should read carefully and take what he says with a pinch of salt.
OIS 1998:
[p. XVI]
Alleged Perpetrators Most child investigations involved allegations against parents: biological mothers (an estimated 38,228 child investigations), biological fathers (an estimated 24,617 child investigations), stepfathers/common-law partners (an estimated 6,498 child investigations), or stepmothers/commonlaw partners (an estimated 1,172 child investigations (see Figure 5). It should be noted many nonfamilial allegations of abuse are investigated by the police, not by children’s aid societies. Furthermore, there is a significant overlap between alleged perpetrator classifications, as multiple perpetrators were identified for the primary category of maltreatment in 22 per cent of child investigations. Other than parents, relatives were the most frequently suspected perpetrators (an estimated 3,395 child investigations).
Substantiation rates for alleged perpetrators ranged from 27 per cent for acquaintances to 51 per cent for other relatives and 58 per cent for stepmothers. [see below where it states that 58% for stepmothers were unsubstantiated. Both the tables correlate this]
[P. 56]
As shown in Table 4-4(a), most investigations involved allegations against parents: biological mothers (59 per cent), biological fathers (38 per cent), tepfathers/common-law partners (ten per cent), or stepmothers/common-law partners (two per cent). … One or both parents were alleged perpetrators in 88 per cent of maltreatment investigations (see Appendix H, Table 4).
The last sentence is further proof of an intentional attempt to mislead the reader as he writes on p. 60 [see below]:
Biological mothers were investigated in 88 per cent of neglect cases ...
Another curious aspect is that he gives the whole numbers and the percentages in separate paragraphs. For certain data he only gives the percentages or whole numbers of investigations without mentioning the substantiation rate, at times he includes biological parents and stepparents in one category, at other times he treats them as separate entities.
[P. 57]
Thirty-four per cent of investigations identifying biological mothers as the alleged perpetrator were substantiated, while 23 per cent remained suspected, and 43 per cent were unsubstantiated. Similarly, cases involving biological fathers were substantiated in 39 per cent of the investigations, with 21 per cent remaining as suspected, and 40 per cent unsubstantiated. Thirty-nine per cent of investigations involving stepfathers as the alleged perpetrator were substantiated, 25 per cent remained suspected, and 36 per cent were unsubstantiated. Investigations identifying stepmothers as the alleged perpetrator for the primary category of maltreatment were most [should read least?] likely to be substantiated (25 per cent), while 17 per cent remained suspected, and 58 per cent were unsubstantiated.
The above, once more, can be seen to be an intentionally misleading statistic when taken out of context without divulging the actual numbers to which these percentages refer. The intent obviously is to create the perception than fewer incidents involving mothers than fathers were eventually substantiated. The estimated number of investigated mothers was 38,228 and the estimated number of investigated fathers was 24,617. Thus, the inescapable fact is that far more mothers than fathers perpetrate child abuse, no matter what Dr. Trocmé’s funders would want him to conclude. His use of whole numbers, percentages or ratios, either in combination or alone, is an obvious attempt to blur the real data.
[P. 57]
Physical Abuse : Cases of physical abuse were fairly evenly split between mothers and fathers. Female parents were investigated in 49 per cent of cases (46 per cent biological mothers and three per cent stepmothers), while male parents were investigated in 54 per cent of cases (biological fathers in 42 per cent and stepfathers in 12 per cent of investigations). This distribution is somewhat biased by the fact that 43 per cent of investigated families were female-parent families (see Table 7-1). The alleged roles of mothers and fathers in two-parent families is somewhat different, with fathers being investigated in 69 [8,521] per cent of physical abuse cases, and mothers in 41 per cent [4,996](see Appendix H, Table 5, p. 203).
All the data must be read and interpreted carefully, as advised by Dr. Trocmé himself. We must keep in mind that all those who are doing the investigations are trained in feminist theory, and thus may begin their evalutions with the mandatory predetermined ideological outcome of the faultless female parent in mind. Curiously, though Dr. Trocmé has been questioned about the fact that the data on two-parent families (these could be intact families or families where one parent co-habits with a partner who is not the biological parent of the child) is only given as “investigated” without giving the substantiation rates, he still insists on not only using it but also citing it as a finding of fact in his propaganda hand-outs:
In two-parent families nearly three quarters of perpetrators [of abuse caused by physical punishment](73%) are fathers, and in most instances fathers on their own. Fathers are also overrepresented as perpetrators in other cases of physical abuse but are equally likely as mothers to be perpetrators in other forms of maltreatment. Source: CIS 1998 [in: Physical abuse of children in the context of punishment]
How to blur the data so that biological fathers are always seen to be the perpetrators has been problematic for the feminist inspired compilers. Nowhere does Dr. Trocmé indicate how many of the incidents where the biological father was the alleged perpetrator in two-parent families are substantiated. On the other hand, in spite of his best efforts to convince us otherwise, he has provided ample data that show that mothers are the main perpetrators of “other forms” of maltreatment. Read on:
[P. 60]
Neglect: Biological mothers were investigated in 88 per cent of neglect cases, and biological fathers were investigated in 31 per cent of these cases. The over-representation of biological mothers in the neglect category should be interpreted with caution, given that 43 per cent of investigations involved female-parent families (see Table 7-1). In two-parent families, fathers/stepfathers were investigated in 68 per cent [6,112] of neglect cases, and mothers/stepmothers in 91 per cent [8,206](see Appendix H, Table 6, p. 203). Thirty-one per cent of cases involving biological mothers and biological fathers were substantiated respectively while 43 per cent of investigations for step fathers were substantiated.
Once more, we have the illogical note about the “over representation of the biological mothers”. Note further that Dr. Trocmé does not tell how many of the 6,112 “fathers” and of the 8,206 “mothers” in the “two-parent” families were the biological parents of the children. Yet, though the actual number is given under the generic headings “fathers” and “mothers”, the percentages refer to biological and step parents separately. Thus, the 31% of cases involving biological fathers obviously refers to a number lower than 6,112, but the same percentage of cases involving biological mothers could well be 8,206, as the substantiation rate for step-mothers is not mentioned.
[P. XXI]
Household Structure: An estimated 19,022 child maltreatment investigations involved children who lived with their two biological parents, and an estimated 10,783 investigations involved children who lived in a two-parent blended family (Figure 12). An estimated 30,746 investigated children lived in a family led by a lone parent: an estimated 27,437 in a female-parent household, and an estimated 3,309 in a male-parent household. Rates of substantiation ranged from 32 per cent (biological parent and other) to 37 per cent (two-parent blended). Somehow the difference between “biological parent and other” and “two-parent blended” is not clear. Neither of them refer to an intact family headed by two biological parents.
Most research documents that abuse by mothers is usually long lasting whereas that by fathers is a one time occurrence. Thus, means had to be devised to give mothers a way out. In his address called “ Child Maltreatment Investigations in Canada: Judicial Implications ” to the National Judicial Institute Seminar “Child Protection and the Law” (Ottawa, ON Sept. 25-27, 2002) Dr. Trocmé suggested that one time incidents should be dealt immediately, though clearly these incidents do not pose an ongoing risk to the children. He recommends that chronic maltreatment cases, which by far are the most damaging, should be put on the backburner, thus exposing the child not only to ongoing psychological, and maybe physical harm, but which at times prove to be lethal. We can only think of the long and tragic abuse of little Randal Dooley in the hands of his stepmother, which only ended when his stepmother battered him to death on Sept. 25, 1998 . Although he died from a brain injury, his emaciated, battered body was covered in marks and bruises. An autopsy concluded he had a lacerated liver, 14 broken ribs, three other brain injuries and a tooth in his stomach. Only one of his teachers made a feeble effort to take note and informed the CAS. The Children's Aid Society twice refused to get involved when told that the 6-year-old boy's arms and back were covered in welts and bruises. Neither the CAS nor the police took the warning seriously. A doctor who had earlier examined him for suspicious injuries did it in front of his tormentor. That is against his professional ethics. The same applies to the police, the CAS, the teachers and principals. Randal, just like so many others, did not make the 1998 OIS child abuse statistics as his case was “screened out”. Dr. Trocmé claims that in 1998 there were no reported child abuse fatalities in Ontario. Randal simply did not exist.
Dr. Trocmé cites OIS 1998 when he tells the judges that:
Table 4-3 shows that 33 per cent of substantiated or suspected investigations (an estimated 12,118 child investigations)involved situations of multiple incidents that had been ongoing for more than six months, while 30 per cent of investigations involved single incidents, and 20 per cent involved multiple incidents for less than six months in duration.
The courts can play a central role in supporting the development of a dual response system by requiring different types of evidence and interventions for child protection cases compared to chronic maltreatment cases. In protection cases, the question of evidence specific to the alleged incident and the short-term safety of the child are paramount. In chronic maltreatment cases, the courts should only become involved after thorough psycho-social and parenting capacity assessments have been completed, and after attempts have been made to involve community resources in a non-adversarial fashion. Once the courts are engaged with families facing chronic maltreatment problems, it is critical they remain engaged until there is evidence that the family’s circumstances identified in the initial assessments have been addressed. In other words, serious mental health, parenting or family functioning problems, not soiled diapers and dirty kitchens, should be grounds for court-ordered intervention in chronic maltreatment cases. Consequently, the resolution of such concerns should be the only acceptable grounds for disengaging the courts.
Needless to say, Dr. Trocmé has exposed his bias more than once. In fact, his entire life’s work is fraught with contradictions and the desire to create perceptions. By bowing to the demands of a corrupt government he, just like most of his peers, is willing to sacrifice his professional integrity at the expense of suffering to millions of children. Like Randal Dooley, Jordan Heikamp and Matthew Vaudreuil.
On February 2, 2001, Christie Blatchford wrote in her National Post article called "Mother reassured as baby slowly died; Shelter boss says workers not to blame for Jordan 's death":
In the stand from midday Monday through yesterday, and still not finished, was Catherine Brooks, the boss of Anduhyaun, the shelter for native women where baby Jordan and his teenage mother, Renee, were living for the last 25 days of the baby's brief life.
This, in other words, was the place where, in June, 1997, Ms. Heikamp and Jordan spent a good deal of time. Anduhyaun has an important role in this case; the Anduhyaun witnesses, of whom Ms. Brooks is the first, are key. [cut]
Indeed, it has become evident at the inquest that reassuring Ms. Heikamp was a goal not only of Ms. Brooks' staff, but also of just about everyone who came into contact with the young mother. In the language of the helping professions, this is deemed "supporting" her. (If I had a nickel for every time the word "support" or its myriad variations have been unctuously uttered these last four weeks, I would be rich beyond bearing.)
The workers at the youth shelter where Ms. Heikamp lived while pregnant and to which she often returned with the wasting baby in tow by and large saw themselves as her advocates; notes made by Ms. Martin, who hasn't testified here yet, reveal that she too was sympathetic to Ms. Heikamp and inclined to believe her. [cut]
About the mother, Ms. Brooks said blithely, no worries at all, no sireebub. Why, they ought to have a good hard look at the man in Ms. Heikamp's life, she told the police.
The night of Jordan 's death, there was a healing circle at Anduhyaun to "support" Ms. Heikamp and the traumatized counsellors. In the house logbook, someone wrote, "Baby Jordan went to the Spirit World. Our prayers go with him." The next day, Ms. Heikamp was duly "smudged" in a native ceremony.
Baby Jordan would have looked increasingly the way he did at death in the last 10 to 14 days of his life. He went to the spirit world weighing four pounds, two ounces, every single tiny rib standing out in stark relief, not a trace of food in his sunken tummy.
His mummy, though, was supported by all and sundry until the chickens came home to roost. [cut]
Jordan died when he was only five weeks old in June, 1997, despite his then teenage mother's frequent encounters with nurses, social workers and workers at Anduhyaun, right under the eyes of Ms. Brooks who admitted that she advised police officers investigating Jordan's death that "the person who is probably most guilty in this death of this child" was the infant's father.
Although the father was not to blame in any way for his death, Ms. Brooks later said she acted because the shelter's role, "was to support the client [Ms. Heikamp]. That's what we do."
Only one month after a coroner's inquest found that Jordan's starvation death was a homicide, Cartherine Brooks received an honorary degree from Queen's University (Kingston, Ontario).
"People have to look beyond the recent news coverage to see the long-term contributions Catherine Brooks has made to women, and in particular, aboriginal women. She's done tremendous work for women in need of shelter" Queen's University principal, Bill Leggett, said.
Ms. Brooks was recognized for her commitment to developing programs geared toward stopping violence against women, the need for early childhood education and promoting healing through crisis intervention. [source: The National Post, May 8, 2001 "Queen's to honour head of shelter where baby died Jordan Heikamp starved"]
In stark contrast a shelter worker in British Columbia, who in 1998 reported her suspicion that a nine year old girl was being abusedby her mother in a shelter that received 300,000 a year in government assistance, was forced to resign. [Source: The National Post, Nov. 16, 1999: "Shelter in a storm: Sandra Cliffe thought she was doing her job as a women's shelter worker when she reported a suspected child abuser. Her co-workers disagreed" by Donna Laframboise]
Donna Laframboise, who was the lone voice crying against these outrages in the media wilderness, has also lost her job.
This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the face of the Canadian femocracy that the researchers are paid to construct.
http://www.nojustice.info/ResearchersdoitforMoneynotforFindingsofFact.htm
--------------------
Who's The Cutest?
That hater and slayer of feminazi PIGS!
Off with their freak'n heads!
|
WhosTheCutest
enthusiast
Reged: 08/20/07
Posts: 285
|
|
Collecting Information for Propaganda is not Research
“Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action.” Goethe
I have spent all my free time during the last 9 years collecting data, both valid and invalid, on research relating to family law.
I have seen how the time honoured tenet of equal justice for all has degenerated to the ideological concept of selective judgements delivered on the somewhat hazy concept of the need to remedy past injustices, based on the equally hazy concept of gender. Even when race, disability or any other such distinction is referred to, the ultimate reference is always to the ubiquitous, fog shrouded “gender”.
The crutches that are used to support the lame judgments are provided by unlimited volumes of so called research. It has become mandatory to apply “Gender Based Analysis” to all research, be it then on health, education, justice, labour or housing. The instructions to all researchers are that their survey methodologies are to be based on the preconceived outcome that women are, and have always been, victims of male dominated policies. If, for example, the irrefutable result is that women are the main perpetrators of child abuse and equally, if not more, likely to initiate and perpetrate intimate partner violence, then an explanatory note has to be included that this is only so because women themselves have been victims of male dominance in some undefined past.
In Canada , the government is in [censored] control of all research. The policies are made and enforced by the Status of Women Canada whose vision of a femocracy, ruled by state feminists, became close to completion on Dec. 12, 2003 when Paul Martin, the newly appointed Prime Minister, chose Anne McLellan as the new super-minister of “Public Security”.
According to Status of Women Canada
The research also interrogates how issues of diversity and difference can be integrated into public policy through collaboration between women's movements and state feminism. Using the arena of violence against women as an analytic lens ... the realignment both of state feminist institutions, and government structures more broadly, is precipitating a profound recasting of the linkages between women's movements in Canada and their government ... regularizing access to governments through both federal and provincial/territorial channels of state feminism can prove critical to achieving meaningful policy results ... State femocrat projects are successful to the extent that they obtain a favourable institutional position, develop strategies to circumvent the potency of neutrality as a core bureaucratic value and transcend levels of government and ideology to co-ordinate and co-operate strategically across government levels.
New policy networks need to be established to link activists, women's groups, service providers, academics, femocrats and interested politicians ...
Feminists ... also believe that what they do to achieve change for women is as "political" as what members of Parliament do; that is, they believe that women's groups, movements, shelters and other service providers are engaged in "doing politics".
The Legal Education Action Fund (LEAF) developed the strategy of approaching "change incrementally, by using victories in one area as building blocks...and then the next stage of developing law is undertaken " (Leaf Litigation Year One, 1986 as quoted in Chappell, 1998)…
Since 1998, Canadian researchers have been able to get funding only if they comply with the following guidelines (note that "gender based analysis" is changed to "gender equity analysis", which are not synonymous, nor are "equity" and "equality" as the Department of Justice itself explains, yet uses them interchangeably). The Department tells that The Starting Point is Women's Inequality.
For more see
Diversity and Justice: Gender Perspectives. A Guide to Gender Equality Analysis, 1998.
IV. Gender Equality Analysis in Research and Statistics.
In posing the question "How will the outcomes of this research positively benefit or negatively impact on women?", the researcher can make sure the question is raised, but it is the formulation of the policy that will determine the impact
... make a careful choice about which indicators are going to be applied, because you want the indicators to reflect the gendered approach you are developing ... The integration of gender equality analysis into the research and evaluation work of the Department implies a departure from traditional research methodology. It does not start with a premise of neutrality, nor limit its investigation to sex disaggregated data. A gender research approach begins with women’s experience as they see it. Both quantitative and qualitative information sources are required. (See Appendix G for a list of sources of statistical information.)
Contractor qualifications:
It is not assumed that all policy contractors will have developed expertise, or have experience in gender equality analysis per se. A contractor should, however, understand the importance of the analysis, and be prepared to use this guide and other gender-sensitive research methods.
VI. Gender Equality Analysis in Communications.
For example, you may develop two different information brochures on domestic violence: one relating to victims, largely women, and one relating to abusers, largely men.
In addition to guides how to conduct feminist oriented research the Department also distributes a directory of feminist oriented contacts, called Integrating Gender Perspectives: a Directory of Academics.
Thus, rather than adhering to scientific principles, Canadian research is driven by ideology which produces results that are formulated with a predetermined outcome in mind. These results are disseminated in "customized" reports, using "innovative" (another favourite newspeak word) interpretations.
My latest experience, and maybe one of the more revealing ones, happened a few days ago when I received a reply to my question why the Network for Research on Crime and Justice at Queen’s University, Kingston , refers to the 1997 edition of the annual “Family Violence in Canada ” though six later editions of the document are available.
Here is the reply to my query:
-----Original Message-----
From: Irving Kulik
Sent: December 30, 2003 14:17
Cc: Irving Kulik
Subject: Stats relating to family family [sic].
Thank you for your detailed e-mail. The report you refer to is dated 1997 and was provided by Statistics Canada. It should not be considered as the most recent statement on the subject but rather serves as an archived record.
Thank you again for sharing your comments.
Irving Kulik
Mr Kulik's explanation that the reference was for archival purposes is nothing short of baffling as the home page of the Network claims that its mission is "To develop, conduct and communicate superior quality research on crime and justice and to provide policy relevant advice" (see the instructions from the Dept. of Justice above), and that its “Research In Brief” page, where the summary of the report in question is based, claims that
This section summarizes some of the most recent research carried out by members of the Network or their home organizations.
Submissions are entirely voluntary but will assist in strengthening research knowledge, avoid duplication and build upon existing findings.
Putting together the Dept. of Justice criteria, the mission statement and the rationale for the selection of research material, which for the sake of “strengthening research knowledge” can either be current or “serve as archived record”, depending how they fulfill their role vis-à-vis gender, one can only conclude that the Network’s function is to serve as yet another government sponsored platform to virulent Marxist-feminist ideology.
That, by definition, is no different from inciting hate on the Internet, ordered by the Dept. of Justice and directed against an identifiable group, namely heterosexual men who are, or have been, in an intimate relationship with women. Thus the hate is based on sex as well as on social condition.
The Network concludes that
According to data reported to 179 police forces in six provinces including Ontario and Quebec , women accounted for about nine out of 10 victims (88%) of spousal violence ...
According to police-reported data, women were more likely to be victimized by a spouse, either married or common-law, than were men. About 31% of all female victims of violence in 1997 were attacked by a spouse, compared with only 4% of all male victims of violence. As a result, 88% of spousal assault victims were women.
And:
Violence against children: fathers most frequent offenders
Fathers, more often than mothers, were the reported offenders in cases of assaults against children and youth, regardless of the type of abuse or the child's age. In 1997, in incidents involving parents, fathers were accused in 97% of sexual assaults and 71% of physical assaults.” [my emphasis]
The fact that fathers were more often the reported and accused offenders does not mean that fathers were “most frequent offenders”, as the heading claims.
Below are some excerpts from my letter to Irving Kulik, who is given as the contact person and whose reply I have posted above:
“First of all, let’s keep in mind that no data were collected from men until during the 1999 GSS. Second point to remember is that females constitute only a small minority of victims of all assaults, therefore percentages, without giving actual numerical data, do not present an accurate picture. Considering the above, your numbers simply do not tally.
Again, fathers were not the main perpetrators of child abuse, rather, fathers were most often accused of being the perpetrators.
The 1998 edition of the "Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect” illustrates how misleading percentages of reported incidents are:
Child maltreatment statistics can end up measuring very different things, depending on who collects them and how they are collected.
Police investigations occurred in an estimated 14,110 child maltreatment investigations, and charges were laid in an estimated 4,734 of these cases and considered in 2,149 (Figure 9). Eighty-five per cent of cases where charges were laid were substantiated, while seven per cent remained suspected, and eight per cent were unsubstantiated.
Thirty-four per cent of investigations identifying biological mothers as the alleged perpetrator were substantiated, while 23 per cent remained suspected, and 43 per cent were unsubstantiated. Similarly, cases involving biological fathers were substantiated in 39 per cent of the investigations, with 21 per cent remaining as suspected, and 40 per cent unsubstantiated. Thirty-nine per cent of investigations involving stepfathers as the alleged perpetrator were substantiated, 25 per cent remained suspected, and 36 per cent were unsubstantiated. Investigations identifying stepmothers as the alleged perpetrator for the primary category of maltreatment were most likely to be substantiated (25 per cent), while 17 per cent remained suspected, and 58 per cent were unsubstantiated.
This begs the question: how many incidents involved the investigation of biological mothers, fathers, stepfathers and stepmothers? The answer:
• biological mothers:
38,228 investigated: 34% Substantiated; 23% suspected; 43% unsubstantiated;
• biological fathers:
24,617 investigated; 39% substantiated; 21% suspected; 40% unsubstantiated,
[The numbers of stepfathers/common-law partners (an estimated 6,498 child investigations) and stepmothers/common-law partners (an estimated 1,172 child investigations) were not included in my letter to Mr. Kulik but they illustrate how misleading percentages are without the actual numbers that they refer to. Considering that some of the incidents which remained "suspected" could actually have taken place, biological mothers could have been responsible for 13,000 to 21,800 (estimated) incidents, and the corresponding number of biological fathers is between 9,600 and 14,800. Similarly, substitute fathers could have been responsible for 2,500 to 4,100 (estimated) incidents and substitute mothers for 293 to 493 (estimated) incidents. No matter which way we look at the numbers, biological fathers clearly were not the main perpetrators (all figures are rounded). The findings are even more striking when we consider the fact that all social workers are trained to conduct their research according to feminist methodology]
Furthermore, only the numbers of investigations were given in intact families, thus making it appear as if fathers were the main perpetrators. See how the totals overlap the lines between biological parents and parent substitutes.” [end quotes from my letter]
Though the information on the Network webpage claims that fathers also are the main perpetrators of child homicides it does not differentiate between the number of children killed and the number of parents who are the perpetrators.
The actual data for 1997 statistics about known perpetrators of child homicide given to me privately by the then manager of the Homicide Survey, Orest Fedorowycz, are:
21 biological fathers and 3 step-fathers were known to be responsible for 37 deaths and ten fathers also committed suicide (the "Family Violence in Canada ... 1997" claimed that 37 fathers killed their children), the number of mothers is somewhat clouded: it may be 23, 24 or 25 (including one step-mother). I wish to emphasize the word “known” as, according to Marlene Dalley, RCMP, a substantial number of the perpetrators was not known. Also, neonatacidal deaths, as well as many other child deaths are either not known or are misdiagnosed as accidents or SIDS. The need for "Baby Banks”, where mothers can dispose of their newborn infants anonymously, would prove the extent of the problem. Whatever the limitations of the data worldwide, they would seem to prove that both fathers and mothers were equally responsible for the known homicides, mothers somewhat more than fathers.
A U.S. document called “National Crime Victimization Survey. Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates” (April 1997, NCJ-164381) shows how, if scientific methodology does not produce required results, the methodology will be changed to include suggestive and leading questions. That, of course, will increase the number of respondents who have a personal axe to grind, or who do not comprehend the ulterior motives, or who wish to embellish their experiences. Below are a few quotes from the report:
While the [former] survey was found to be an effective instrument for measuring crime, reviewers identified aspects of the methodology and scope of the NCS that could be improved. The Academy proposed that researchers investigate the following:
• an enhanced screening section that would better stimulate respondents' recall of victimizations, thus reducing underreporting due to forgotten incidents
• screening questions that would sharpen the concepts of criminal victimization and diminish the effects of subjective interpretations of the survey questions
• additional questions on the nature and consequences of victimizations that would yield useful data for analysis.
More recently, the issue of specifically improving the measurement of sex crimes and domestic violence resulted in the formation of a special committee associated with the American Statistical Association's Committee on Law and Justice Statistics. The special committee developed enhanced questions and clarification queries on rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence to get better estimates of these crimes that are difficult to measure.
In general the redesigned procedures achieved their intended effect of producing higher estimates of crime rates than had the previously used procedures. Estimated rates for the following categories were higher: personal crimes (44% higher), crimes of violence (49%), rapes (157%), assaults (57%), property crimes (23%), burglaries (20%), and thefts (27%). A statistically significant difference could not be found for robbery, personal theft, and motor vehicle theft.
In light of these changes in the design, it is understandable that respondents, in general, recounted more victimizations in the new design than the old. They were given a larger number of cues to assist in the recall and recounting of eligible crime events.
The increased cueing for gray-area events and the subsequent higher rates of recounting in the new design may also explain the apparent differences in the effect of the design for different types of respondents.
The observed differences between the old and the new design suggest that the changes in the design had the desired effects .
Let us not forget that all research, including purely physiological brain research, document that men are more likely to forget past events than women, and that researchers who are duly trained in feminist methodology may offer different cues to male and female respondents.
Elizabeth Loftus (Wells & Loftus 1984), a psychologist at the University of Washington has demonstrated that totally false memories can be implanted and come to be fully believed by subjects, particularly when they are suggested by individuals who are known and respected by the subject.
Even some of the leading researchers themselves have begun to caution us about the validity of their own findings. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes say in their report, called “ Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence ” (July 2000 NCJ 181867 National Institute of Justice Centers for Disease Control and Prevention):
Studies are needed to determine how different survey methodologies affect women’s and men’s responses to questions about intimate partner violence.
Billions are spent each year in the futile effort to prove the hypothesis that we are in the midst of an all-out epidemic of male violence against their intimate female partners and children. The various departments of the various levels of governments, beginning at the UN and filtering down to state governments, issue document after document to this effect, each regurgitating the same information. The most common phrase used is “some researchers (studies, etc.) show that ...”
U.S. injury related data are found in a Special Report by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (August 1997, NCJ-156921 Revised 7/9/98 Michael R. Rand BJS Statistician), called " Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital emergency Departments "
Of all persons treated for violence related injuries -- 7% had been injured by a spouse or ex-spouse; 10%, by a current or former boyfriend or girlfriend; 8%, by a parent, child, sibling, or other relative; 23%, by a friend or acquaintance; 23%, by strangers.— Females accounted for 39% of the hospital emergency department visits for violence-related injuries in 1994 but 84% of the persons treated for injuries inflicted by intimates.—Among those treated for violence-related injuries and with a known relationship to the offender, about 50% of the women and 8% of the men had been injured by an intimate. In almost 30% of all cases in the study, the relationship of the person inflicting the injury to the patient was not recorded for the study. Because the patient-offender relationship was unknown in about a third of all injuries of males, compared to a fifth of injuries of females, this finding should be regarded with some caution ... For female victims of violence, strangers and friends or acquaintances rather than intimates were responsible for the highest rates of crime.
Note the definitive "had been injured" though the victim-perpetrator relationship was unknown for more than a third of the male victims and for about one fifth of the female victims.
When we read the fine print in various reports, we learn that the figures quoted as “national” estimates are actually results obtained from not-so-random subjective and non-verified interviews with a few women who may have a personal agenda. Just like in the above mentioned report relating to ER data, Tjaden and Thoennes in their "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence ” caution:
there were an estimated 322,230 intimate partner rapes committed against U.S. women during the 12 months preceding the survey. (This national estimate is based on only 16 women who reported being raped by an intimate partner in the previous 12 months and should be viewed with caution.[the caveat is original, emphasis is mine.]
Another example is a document by the Department of Justice Canada , called " Charging And Prosecution Policies In Cases Of Spousal Assault ":
Cases where the accused partner was acquitted, which accounted for 3% of all dispositions, resulted in re-assault 100% of the time (note: due to the small number of cases this represents 2 women re-assaulted after acquittal) [p. 2] [the caveat is original, emphasis is mine.]
For the latest U.S. victimization data see the Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002, Statistical Tables.
The posting of “archived records” that contradict current ones can only be justified if they are accompanied with a caveat that they are posted for the explicit reason to demonstrate how faulty research methodology produces faulty results. If not, they are clearly intended to be used as factual data.
Data from “research” organizations like the one at the Queen’s are used to justify the draconian family laws which allow fathers and husbands to be driven away from their children and homes on a mere unsubstantiated allegation by the female partner, who also is the mother when there are children from the relationship. The results are devastating to the children who are caught in the web of political advocacy. In many cases not only are they separated from a loving parent but they may be exposed to real harm as the necessary safety net that two parent provide is effectively removed [see also my "Cycle of Violence or PMDD" ].
Queen’s University is one of the leading academic institutions which conduct “research” that is reminiscent of the various hysterical episodes that have taken place at various stages of history. Some of the notable ones are the Medieval witch hunts, the hunts for communists during the fifties' McCarthy era, and the more recent prosecutions of alleged child ritual and sexual abusers.
No matter where one is, one is bombarded about “facts” of “violence against women”. The walls of public transport vehicles, doctors’ and dentists’ offices, community centres, shopping malls and schools are plastered with posters that read “Woman abuse, it hurts” (varies from place to place). Let’s not forget that all abuse hurts. It is no wonder that some women who see these messages over and over eventually begin to see themselves as victims as well.
The feminist mantra goes:
Did you know that:
• An estimated 90% of domestic violence victims are women who are abused by their male partners;
• Domestic violence causes more injury to women than car accidents, muggings and rapes combined;
• As many as 74% of working women who are domestic violence victims are harassed by their batterers on the job; [In: Joint Hearing of the New York City Council on General Welfare and the Women’s Issues Committee Ja. 26,2000 “ Domestic Violence in the Workplace Factsheet ”]
• Did you know: Battering is the single major cause of injury to women -- more frequent than auto accidents, muggins and rapes combined? [ Hubbard House, Jacksonville, Florida ]
The National Trauma Registry data by CIHI show that in 1999 the injury related hospital admissions for Canadian women were: 9,885 for motor vehicle traffic, 1,026 for motor vehicle non-traffic, and 849 for “other road vehicle”accidents. All intentional injuries accounted for 1,792 (379 victims were girls from birth to 19 years old, and 89 were women over the age of 70, and thus most likely widowed) admissions.
According to Health Canada data, as released by Canadian hospitals, just over three percent of all injury related visits to hospital ER by females 15 years of age and above were due to all “aggression”, or intentional injuries, irrespective of the victim-perpetrator relationship. Age group 25-44 had the highest at 5.83%. These data refer to the number of admissions, not to the number of individuals who may have been seen more than once.
Leaflets that tell women that they may already be abused if their male partners read their mail (CLEO “ Do youknow a Woman Who is Being Abused ?”) are scattered around public places and given as handouts by family doctors, legal aid lawyers, and other divorce industry workers. Yet, if we are honest, how many women do we know who would not read their partner’s mail?
An excellent example about the accepted double standard is the interpretation of the perceived difference between men's and women's anger as described in the Correctional Service of Canada paper called “ Literature Review on Women's Anger ”. According to the CSC, men’s anger is to be condemned as it is seen to emanate from a position of power and control over those whom they consider to be inferior. Women’s anger is to be commended as being a positive and healthy expression of empowerment and self protection. The fact that there are no generic “men” or “women” but that both groups are composed of individuals with diverse characteristics, who live under diverse socioeconomic conditions, is of no concern to the GBA specialists.
The examples are unending. It is somewhat shocking that the Department of Justice of a nation, which hitherto has claimed to conduct its affairs according to democratic principles, instructs the academic research establishments to device their methodology with a preconceived outcome in mind.
Throughout ages universities have been places where the search for truth and independent thought was paramount. However, we now have reached a stage in human development where perception becomes fact, where myth becomes history and where "archived" becomes "most recent".
Brave New World or an Orwellian nightmare?
http://www.nojustice.info/CollectingInformationforPropagandaisnotResearch.htm
--------------------
Who's The Cutest?
That hater and slayer of feminazi PIGS!
Off with their freak'n heads!
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7947
|
|
[quote]Who Gets The Children ?
The Mothers. (only 98% of the Time)
What Do The Fathers Get?
Life Long Confiscation of Income, Unenforceable Court Visitation Orders, and an Increased Risk of Severe Depression, Alcoholism and Suicide.
Who Gets The Money?
Lawyers, Mediators, Assessors, Social Workers, Real Estate Agents, Mothers, and the Children. (if there is any money left)
What Do You Call a Divorced Father Who Has Lost Everything?
A Deadbeat Dad! [/quote]
Guess the guy should have made a better choice in who he chose to marry. If 50% of men can get it right, why can't these losers?
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
I would put the percentage at 75%. Of course if you never endeavor to try you also never succeed.
|
Gr8Flash
newbie
Reged: 02/08/08
Posts: 40
|
|
Let's also remember that second marriages have worse rates of divorce than first marriages.
There are just to many pitfalls to marry and/or have children-ever.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
