Racism Saves Lives #RacismIsLove #4Racism Racism is Love #RacismIsLove #4Racism
 • Anti-Racism is Anti-Science

#TheTruthIsRacist • #BlackLivesMatter2RacistsSite MapDisclaimer 

Politically Correct Science Fraud!

Elaborate systematic corruption of academic research deceive the gullible public into believing politically correct falsehoods.

Ultimately such falsehood leads to enactment of one sided sexist laws like "violence against women act". 

A leading researcher in the domestic violence field shows the trickery that lends fake science support to the faulty feminist narrative.

Systematic fraud by feminist researchers gives the false impression that solely men are to blame for domestic violence.

Are similar mechanisms at work to repress the knowledge about race differences in IQ and violent crime?

See also Psychology findings all wrong

Note:  men also suffer from

  • violence by proxy (other parties that commit violence on behalf of the woman):[&&& needs links] 
    • friends and relatives who commit violence on the woman's behalf
    • violence by government:
      • police and courts who kick a man out of his own home, often for small transgressions or false accusations
      • confiscation of income to provide for much more than a woman's basic necessities

 

"Violence against Women" Laws are consequence of scientific fraud

Such falsified results have helped to enact unjust laws that openly discriminate on the base of gender in favor of violent women.

"Violence against women act" does not even try to hide the one-sidedness in favor of one sex only.  Such laws are enacted world wide, from the United Nations down to most of the world's governments.

This fraud hides the scientific fact that domestic violence is a two way street, where women are about as often to blame as men. && proof needed &&&

See also Interracial domestic violence is high

Scientific Fraud explained

A top researcher in the field of domestic violence unveils, in all detail, all the methods how the feminist science fraud is perpetrated.

We can learn, by analogy, how anti-racist fraud might be perpetuated in academia.

The truth does not prevail. Not even in scientific research. What are the reasons, that the entire world, United Nations. the US government, European Union and many other nations often sincerely believe patently wrong fact? Then, in profound self deception, believing in politically correct falsehoods, patently unjust, wrong and detrimental laws get enacted. [HS]

 

See Anti-Scientific Anti-Racism

Science Fraud by PC (Political Correctness) (=this file)

Literature Links at HBD#Fraud

 

 

Harm caused by feminist junk science

Immense harm is caused by hiding that women commit about half of the domestic violence. 

  1. Our legal system is corrupted by inverting the burden of proof and doing away with the presumption of innocence of men accused of domestic violence, rape, child abuse
  2. Men suffer unjust persecution, like false rape accusations
  3. women get injured because it is not allowed to tell them the most efficient method not to become victim of male violence: do not attack the man

Bringing up all the evidence is beyond the scope of this site. Please consult Mens Rights sites like AngryHarry, TheAntifeminist, A Voice for Men, r/mensrights.

 


How feminists corrupt Domestic Violence research

Please read the full  original paper by distinguished academic researcher Dr. Murray Straus with method 8 added by Nicloa Graham-Kevan.[1 2 3 4] We will cite only a few points:

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

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

 

 

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

Method 1. Suppress Evidence

Among researchers not committed to that ideology, many (including me and some of my colleagues) have withheld results showing gender symmetry to avoid becoming victims of vitriolic denunciations and ostracism (see Method 7 below). Thus, many researchers have published only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberately omitting data on female perpetrators and male victims

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

In survey research, this method of concealment asks female participants about attacks by their male partners and avoids asking them if they had hit their male partner.


Method 3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration

I could list a large number of journal articles showing selective citation, but instead I will illustrate the process with official document examples to show that this method of concealment and distortion is institutionalized in publications of governments, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization.

 

Method 4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not

The studies cited above, in addition to illustrating selective citation, there are also examples of the ability of ideological commitment to lead researchers to misinterpret the results of their own research.

 

Method 5. Create Evidence by Citation

 The Kernsmith study, the World Health Organization report, and the pattern of selective citation show how ideology can be converted into what can be called “evidence by citation” or what Gelles (1980) calls the “woozle effect.” A woozle effect occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence mislead us into thinking there is evidence.

 

Method 6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research That Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance Is the Cause of PV

I have documentation for only one case of publication being blocked, but I think this has often happened. The more frequent pattern is self-censorship by authors fearing that it will happen or that publication of such a study will undcrn1ine their reputation, and, in the case of graduate students, the ability to obtain a job.

An example of denying funding to research that might contradict the idea that PV is a male-only crime is the call for proposals to investigate partner violence issued in December 2005 by the National Institute of Justice. The announcement stated that proposals to investigate male victimization would not be eligible

 

 

Method 7. Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs

Suzanne Steinmetz made the mistake of publishing a book and articles (Steinmetz 1977, 1977-1978) which clearly showed about equal rates of perpetration by males and females. Anger over this resulted in a bomb threat at her daughters’ wedding, and she was the object of a letter writing campaign to deny her promotion and tenure at the University of Delaware. Twenty years later the same processes resulted in a lecturer at the University of Manitoba whose dissertation found gender symmetry in PV being denied promotion and tenure. My own experiences have included having one of my graduate students being warned at a conference that she will never get a job if she does her PhD research with me. At the University of Massachusetts, I was prevented from speaking by shouts and stomping.

Amazing listing. We are awe-struck. With such faulty research based dirty methods, world politics are changed. The legislation of nations and continents are changed. Victimization theories, harassment laws, rape legislation, and sexist laws like Violence against WOMEN act are justified. Family courts victimize men and prevent the healthy development of their offspring. All this justified by systematical falsification of research!

Concluding Comments

 
The seven methods described above have created a climate of fear that has inhibited research and publication on gender symmetry in PV and largely explain why an ideology and treatment modality has persisted for 30 years, despite hundreds of studies which provide evidence on the multiplicity of risk factors for PV, of which patriarchy is only one.

 

 

Method 8: Playing with numbers

As statistical rigor becomes more important in the design of official surveys, so the bias' evident in many older data sets are eliminated. This has the effect of making the results more valid. This is a problem if the author is motivated by ideological beliefs, as methodologically-sound studies consistently find parity in the use of partner violence by men and women. In the case of official data, the authors charged with writing up reports can not merely ignore the findings (Straus' methods 1 and 2). In these cases ideologically driven authors manipulate the figures in such a way as to make women's victimization more visible while obscuring men's. The US Department of Justice reports are a good place to look to find examples of playing with numbers (although you could equally look on many other official statistic websites e.g., the UK Home Office site).
Using 1998 figures we are told that 3.7% of all murders of men are by intimate partners, whereas 33.5% of murders of women were by intimate partners. In the same report we are told "[I]intimate partner violence made up 20% of violent crime against women in 2001. By contrast, during the year intimate partners committed 3% of all nonfatal violence against men." (p. 2). The implication is that intimate partner violence and homicide are overwhelmingly a concern for female victims, and that male victimization is so unusual it can be ignored. This is not the case as well designed studies, using nonbiased sampling procedures find that men and women are equally likely to be subjected to violence from an intimate partner. Which begs the question: how can the figures above appear in governmental reports? The answer lies in the way statistics are routinely manipulated to misrepresent the nature of partner violence. For example, if you go to the US Department of Justice website you can calculate the proportions of all homicide victims that are men. Here we are informed that male victims constitute 74.5% of all victims of homicide, with both male and female perpetrators being more likely to target male rather than female victims. Interestingly you do not get his information in any of the US update documents for homicide, you have to calculate it. What this tells us is that men are more vulnerable to becoming a victim of homicide than are women per se. Men are three times more likely to be killed than women, by a more diverse range of perpetrators. A more honest figure, therefore, is the proportion of all intimate homicide victims that are men. Now this figure is not given, but if you go back to the document on intimate violence in 1998, you can work out that in 28% of all intimate partner homicides the victims are men. This proportion undermines claims that men are not victims of partner violence and so such figures are not presented.
This type of reporting appears to be a deliberate attempt to distort findings to either support preexisting beliefs or avoid the wrath of those that do hold such beliefs. While some advocates may be unaware of the empirical literature on domestic violence, this excuse is not available to academics who by the very nature of their profession have a duty to be aware of conflicting evidence within their research areas. The reason for this suppression cannot, therefore, be the result of simple omission. The methods detailed by Straus and above suggest active suppression and subversion. Such behaviors have no place in academia or governmental responses to the problem of family violence. [EJF: And are a disgrace to the concept of scientific research!]

Please read the full  original paper by distinguished academic researcher Dr. Murray Straus with method 8 added by Nicloa Graham-Kevan.[1 2 3 4]

see also her scientific publication Distorting Intimate Violence Findings: Playing with Numbers

 

 


 


Intimate Partner Violence in Interracial Couples:
A Comparison to White and Ethnic Minority Monoracial Couples

Rachel A. Fusco

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,

Abstract

The number of interracial couples in the U.S. is growing, but they often receive little support. Although previous studies have explored the relationship between low social support and decreased relationship satisfaction in interracial couples, there are few studies on intimate partner violence (IPV) in these couples. To better understand IPV in interracial couples compared to monoracial couples, all police-reported IPV events across a municipality were examined. Odds ratios showed differences between interracial and ethnic minority monoracial couples. Interracial couples were more likely to have a history of prior IPV (OR = 2.60), engage in mutual assault (OR = 2.36), and result in perpetrator arrest (OR = 1.71) than ethnic minority monoracial couples. Victims of IPV in interracial couples were also more likely to be injured (OR = 1.37). There were no significant differences between the couples in terms of substance use or children present during the IPV event. Differences between IPV in interracial and White couples also emerged. Interracial couples were more likely to have children present (OR = 1.84), to have a prior report (OR = 1.98), to result in victim injury (OR = 1.73), and to result in perpetrator arrest than White couples (OR = 2.18). Interracial couples were more likely to engage in mutual assault than White couples (OR = 2.94). However, interracial couples were about 50% less likely than White couples to use drugs or alcohol before or during the IPV event. Research is needed to better understand the unique challenges and needs faced by interracial couples to help them sustain healthy partnerships.


 

 

 

Across Racial/Ethnic Boundaries: Investigating Intimate Violence Within a National Sample J Interpers Violence January 1, 2013 28: 3-24    Abstract    Full Text (PDF)

 

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Police-Reported Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: A Mixed Methods Approach J Interpers Violence July 1, 2012 27: 2144-2162    Abstract   Full Text (PDF)

 


Intimate Partner Violence and Alcohol Problems in Interethnic and Intraethnic Couples J Interpers Violence June 1, 2012 27: 1780-1801   Abstract   Full Text (PDF)

Mounting evidence points to interethnic couples as a high-risk group for IPV. Interethnic couples may be at greater risk for IPV because of their younger age, binge drinking, and alcohol problems.

It must not be that certain ethnicities have higher crime rates in general and thus  are likely to perpetrate more domestic violence

Past-year prevalence rates for any occurrence of IPV and acts of severe IPV were higher for interethnic couples relative to intraethnic couples.

 

Mixed couple rate  [intra partner violence] IPV rates

are higher than

mono-racial Black couple IPV rates

that are much higher than

mono-racial White or Asian couple IPV rates.

Hence

A white or Asian person dating a Black person immensely increases her/his exposure to domestic violence, to even higher levels than the already high rates of mono-racial Black couples

 

It must also not be said that Whites dating interracially increase their IPV (inter partner violence) exposure immensely.

 

 



Site Map

4Racism.org

4Racism.org Logo