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.)
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:
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.
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.
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?
Who's The Cutest?
That hater and slayer of feminazi PIGS!
Off with their freak'n heads!