In questo articolo il prof. Murray Straus, uno dei
massimi esperti mondiali in materia di violenza domestica, descrive i metodi
criminali usati da femministe per far credere che gli uomini siano più violenti
delle donne.
Grazie a questa totale falsificazione della realtà una donna
violenta può assumere una spietata avvocata nazifemminista, accusare
falsamente il marito di violenza, guadagnarsi un processo dove la vittima
rischia di venire condannata sulla base del nulla, mentre la criminale, con
l’aiuto della giustizia deviata, può alienare ed abusare dei figli.
L’articolo è pubblicato su European Journal on Criminal
Policy and Research 13 (2007) 227-232.
Metodo 1. Nascondere l’evidenza.
Fra i ricercatori non allineati all’ideologia molti
(incluso aime alcuni colleghi) hanno nascosto risultati che mostrano che uomini
e donne sono violenti in egual misura per evitare di diventare vittime di
accuse al vitriolo ed ostracismo. Quindi molti ricercatori hanno
pubblicato solo dati su maschi violenti e femmine vittime, omettendo
deliberatamente maschi vittime e femmine violente
Metodo 2. Evitare di ottenere dati inconsistenti
con la teoria della “dominazione patriarcale”.
Nelle indagini statistiche, questo metodo di
manipolazione consiste nel chiedere alle donne delle violenze subite da uomini,
ma evitare di chiedere se hanno commesso violenze.
Metodo 3. Citare solo studi in cui gli uomini
sono violenti.
Potrei elencare moltissimi articoli che hanno citato
articoli in maniera selettiva, ma invece mostrerò come questo processo di
inganno e distorsione è istituzionalizzato in documenti ufficiali di
governi, ONU, OMS.
Metodo 4. Concludere che i risultati supportano
l’ideologia femminista quando ciò è falso.
Gli studi citati sopra, oltre ad illustrare la citazione
selettiva, contengono anche esempi di adesione ideologica che porta i
ricercatori a interpretare falsamente i propri dati.
Metodo 5. Creare evidenza per citazione.
È quello che Gelles ha chiamato “effetto woozle” [un
animale inesistente dei cartoni animati di Winnie the Pooh]: si crea quando
numerose citazioni di pubblicazioni passate che non contengono evidenze
scientifiche ci ingannano nel credere che questa evidenza esista.
Metodo 6. Ostruire pubblicazioni e levare i fondi a
ricerche che potrebbero contraddire l’idea che la dominanza maschile sia la
causa della violenza domestica.
Ho documentato un caso in cui una pubblicazione è stata
bloccata, ma credo che capiti spesso. Il caso più frequente è la
auto-censura di autori che temono che i risultati possano danneggiare la
propria reputazione, e, nel caso degli studenti, la possibilità di trovare un
lavoro.
Un esempio di blocco di fondi è la proposta di
investigazione del 2005 del National Institute of Justice: il bando diceva che
non era permesso studiare la violenza sugli uomini.
Metodo 7. Minacciare, assalire e penalizzare i
ricercatori che producono risultati scientifici contrari all’ideologia
femminista.
Suzanne Steinmetz fece l’errore di pubblicare un libro ed
articoli che chiaramente mostravano come uomini e donne fossero violenti in egual
misura. L’odio si concretizzò in minacce di bombe al matrimonio di sua
figlia, è stata vittima di una campagna per negarle il posto e stroncarle la
carriera universitaria. 20 anni dopo lo stesso è accaduto ad un
ricercatore la cui tesi dimostrò che uomini e donne sono violenti in egual
misura: gli hanno impedito la promozione ed il posto. Nella mia
esperienza, una delle mie studentesse è stata minacciata ad una conferenza che
mai avrebbe trovato un posto se avesse fatto il dottorato con me. All’università
del Massachusetts, mi hanno impedito di parlare con urla e violenze.
CONCLUSIONI
I 7 metodi sopra descritti hanno creato un clima di paura
che ha inibito la ricerca e la pubblicazione dei dati che mostrano che uomini e
donne sono violenti in egual misura, e spiegano come mai l’ideologia femminista
ed il loro modo di agire ha persistito per 30 anni, nonostante centinaia di
studi che dimostrano la molteplicità dei fattori di rischio per la violenza.
Murray Straus
L’autore è professore di sociologia e
co-direttore del Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
Fonti:
▪
Originale in inglese
PROCESSES EXPLAINING
THE CONCEALMENT AND DISTORTION OF EVIDENCE ON GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER
VIOLENCE
Graham-Kevan’s paper fully documents overwhelming
evidence that the “patriarchal dominance” theory of partner violence (PV from
here on) explains only a small part of PV. Moreover, more such evidence is
rapidly emerging. To take just one recent example, analyses of data from 32
nations in the International Dating Violence Study (Straus, 2007) Straus and
International Dating Violence Research Consortium 2004) found about equal
perpetration rates and a predominance of mutual violence in all 32 samples,
including non-western nations.
Moreover, data from that study also show that, within a
couples relationship, domination and control by women occurs as often as by men
and are as strongly associated with perpetration of PV by women as by men
(Straus 2007) Graham- Kevan also documents the absence of evidence indicating
that the patriarchal dominance approach to prevention and treatment has been
effective. In my opinion, it would be even more appropriate to say that what
success has been achieved in preventing and treating PV has been achieveddespite the
handicaps imposed by focusing exclusively on eliminating male-dominance and
misogyny, important as that is as an end in itself.
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.
Although there are many causes of the persistence of the
patriarchal dominance focus, I believe that the predominant cause has been the
efforts of feminists to conceal, deny, and distort the evidence. Moreover,
these efforts include intimidation and threats, and have been carried out not
only by feminist advocates and service providers, but also by feminist
researchers who have let their ideological commitments overrule their
scientific commitments.
At the same time, it is important to recognize the
tremendous contribution to human relationships and crime control made by
feminist efforts to end violence against women. This effort has brought public
attention the fact that PV may be the most prevalent fom1 of interpersonal
violence, created a world~wide detem1ination to cease ignoring PV, and take
steps to combat PV. It has brought the rule of law to one of the last spheres
of life where ‘self-help’ justice (Black 1983) prevails by changing the legal
status of domestic assaults, by changing police and court practices from one of
ignoring and minimization PV to one of compelling the criminal justice system
to attend and intervene.
In addition, feminists have created two important new social
institutions: shelters for battered women and treatment programs for male
perpetrators. However, the exclusive focus on male perpetrators and the
exclusive focus on just one of the many causes has stymied this extension of
the rule of law and the effort to end domestic violence. Ironically, it has
also handicapped eff0rts to protect women from PV and end PV by men (Feld and
Straus 1989; Medeiros and Straus 2006; Straus 2007; Straus and Scott, in
press). Consequently, information on how this could have occurred can be
helpful in bringing about a change. This commentary identifies seven of the
methods.
Methods Used to Conceal and Distort Evidence on Symmetry
in Partner Violence
Method 1. Suppress Evidence
Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea
that men are almost always the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that
contradicts this belief. 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.
This practice started with one of the first general
population surveys on family violence. The survey done for the Kentucky
Commission on the Status of Women obtained data on both men and women, but only
the data on male perpetration was published (Schulman 1979). Among the many
other examples of respected researchers publishing only the data on assaults by
men are Kennedy and Dutton (1989); Lackey and Williams (1995); Johnson and
Leone (2005); and Kaufman Kantor and Straus (1987).
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. The Canadian Violence against Women survey (Johnson
and Sacco 1995), for example, used what can be called a feminist version of the
Conflict Tactics Scales to measure PY. This version omitted the questions on
perpetration by the female participants in the study. For the US National
Violence against Women Survey (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000), the US Department of
Justice originally planned the same strategy. Fortunately, the US Centers for
Disease Control added a sample of men to the project. But when Johnson and
Leone (Johnson and Leone 2005) investigated the prevalence of “intimate
terrorists” among the participants in that study, they guaranteed there would
be no female intimate terrorists by using only the data on male perpetrators.
For a lecture in Montreal, I examined 12 Canadian studies.
Ten of the 12 reported only assaults by men. The most recent example occurred
in the spring of 2006 when a colleague approached the director of a university
survey center about conducting a survey of partner violence if a recently
submitted grant was awarded. A faculty member at that university objected to
including questions on female perpetration, and the center director said he was
not likely to do the survey if the funds were awarded.
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. For example, US Dept. of Justice publications almost
always cite only the National Crime Victimization study, which shows male
predominance (Durose et al. 2005). They ignore the Department of Justice
published critiques, which led to a revision of the survey to correct that
bias. However, the revision was only partly successful (Straus 1999), yet they
continue to cite it and ignore other more accurate studies they have sponsored
which show gender symmetry.
After delaying release of the results of the National
Violence against Women for almost two years, the press releases issued by the
Department of Justice provided only the “life- time prevalence” data and
ignored the “past-year prevalence” data, because the lifetime data showed
predominantly male perpetration, whereas the more accurate past-year data
showed that women perpetrated 40% of the partner assaults.
The widely acclaimed and influential World Health
Organization report on domestic violence (Krug et al. 2002) reports that “Where
violence by women occurs it is more likely to be in the form of self defense.
(32, 37, 38).” This is selective citation because almost all studies that have
compared men and women find about equal rates of self-defense. Perhaps even
worse, none of the three studies cited provide evidence supporting the quoted
sentence. Study #32 (Saunders 1986) shows that 31% of minor violence and 39% of
severe was in self defense, i.e., about two-thirds of female perpetrated PV was
not in self defense. Study #37 (DeKeseredy et al. 1997) found that only 7% of
women said their violence was in self defense. Study #38 (Johnson and Ferraro
2000) is a review paper that has no original data. It cites #32 and #37,
neither of which supports the claim.
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. A study by Kernsmith (2005), for example, states that “Males and
females were found to differ in their motivations for using violence in
relationships and that “female violence may be more related to maintaining
personal liberty in a relationship than gaining power” (p. 180). However,
although Kernsmith’s Table 2 shows that women had higher scores on the
“striking back” factor, only one question in this factor is about self defense.
The other questions in the factor are about being angry and coercing
the partner. So, despite naming the factor as “striking back” it is mostly
about anger and coercion. Therefore, the one significantly different factor
shows that women more than men are motivated by anger at the
partner and by efforts to coerce the partner. In addition, Kernsmith’s
conclusion ignores the fact that the scores for men and women were
approximately equal in respect to two of the three factors (“exerting power”
and “disciplining partner”). Thus, Kernsmith’s study found the opposite of what
was stated as the finding.
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. For
example, subsequent to the World Health Organization study and the Kernsmith
study, papers discussing gender differences in motivation will cite them to
show that female violence is predominantly in self-defence, which is the
opposite of what the research actually shows. But because these are citations
of an article in a scientific journal and a respected international
organization, readers of the subsequent article will accept it as a fact. Thus,
fiction is converted into scientific evidence that will be cited over and over.
Another example is the claim that the Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus et al.
1996) does not provide an adequate measure of PV because it measures only
conflict related violence.
Although the theoretical basis of the CTS is conflict
theory, the introductory explanation to participants specifically asks
participants to report expressive and malicious violence. It asks respondents
about the times when they and their partner “[...]disagree, get annoyed with
the other person, want different things from each other, or just have spats or
fights because they are in a bad mood, are tired or for some other
reason.” Despite repeating this criticism for 25 years in perhaps a hundred
publications, none of those publications has provided empirical evidence
showing that only conflict-related violence is reported. In fact, where there
are both CTS data and qualitative data, as in Giles- Sims (1983), it shows that
the CTS elicits malicious violence as well as conflict-related violence.
Nevertheless, because there are at least a hundred articles with this statement
in peer reviewed journals, it seems to establish as a scientific fact what is
only an attempt to blame the messenger for the bad news about gender symmetry
in PV.
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 thcir 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. Another example is the objection by a
reviewer to a proposal a colleague and I submitted because of our “[...] naming
violence in a relationships as a ‘human’ problem of aggression not a
gender-based problem.” When priority scores by the reviewers are averaged, it
takes only one extremely low score to place the proposal below the fundable
level. Others have encountered similar blocks; for example Holtzworth-Munroe
(2005). Eugen Lupri, a pioneer Canadian family violence researcher, has also
documented examples of the resistance to funding and publishing research on
female perpetrated violence (Lupri 2004).
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. The chairperson of the Canadian Commission on Violence against
Women stated at two hearings held by the commission that nothing that Straus
publishes can be believed because he is a wife-beater and sexually exploits
students, according to a Toronto Magazine article. When I was elected President
of the Society for the Study of Social Problems and rose to give the
presidential address, a group of members occupying the first few rows of the
room stood up and walked out.
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. Because of space
limitations and because I am a researcher not a service provider, I have not
covered the even greater denial, dist0l1ion and coercion in prevention and
treatment efforts. An example is the director of a battered women’s shelter who
was tern1inated because she wanted to ask the residents whether they had hit
their partner and the context in which that occurred. An example of
governmental coercion of treatment is the legislation in a number of US states,
and policies and funding restrictions in almost all US states that prohibit
couple therapy for PV. Finally, it was painful for me as feminist to write this
commentary.
I have done so for two reasons. First, I am also a scientist
and, for this issue, my scientific commitments override my feminist
commitments. Perhaps even more important, I believe that the safety and
well-being of women requires efforts to end violence bywomen
and the option to treat partner violence in some cases as a problem of
psychopathology, or in the great majority of cases, as a family system problem
(Straus and Scott, in press; Hamel and Nicholls 2006).
References
Black, D. (1983). Crime as social~control. American
Sociological Review, 48(1), 34—45. DeKeseredy, W. S., Saunders, D. G.,
Schwartz, M. D., & Shahid, A. (1997). The meanings and
motives for women’s use of violence in Canadian college dating relationships:
Results from a National Survey. Sociological Spectrum, 17,
199-222.
Durose, M. R., Wolf Harlow, c.. Langan, P. A.• Motivans, M.,
Rantala. R. R., & Smith, E. L. (2005). Fami(v violence statistics
inell/ding statistics on strangers alld acquaintances (No. NCJ 207846). Washington,
DC.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofjustice Programs, Bureau of lustic
Statistics.
Feld, S. L, & Straus, M. A. (1989). Escalation and
desistance ofwife assault in arriage.Crimif101ogy,
27 (1),141-161.
Gelles, R. J. (1980). Violence in the family: A review of
research in the seventies. JournalofMarriage and the Fami(v, 42,
873-885.
GilesMSims, J. (1983). W{fe batlering: A :,~vstems theo’}’
approach. New York: Guilford Press. Hamel. 1., & Nicholls, T.
(Eds.). (2006). Family approaches in domestic violence: A ractitioner’s guide to gender~inclusive
research and treatment: Springer.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2005). Female perpetration of
physical aggression against an intimate partner: A controversial new topic of
study. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 251~259.
Johnson, H., &
Sacco, V. F. (1995). Researching violence against women: Statistics canada’s
national survey. Canadian Journal 0.( Criminology, 281-304,
July.
Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on
domestic violence in the 1990′s: Making distinctions. JOl/rnal ofMarriage and
the Fami(v, 62(4). 948-963.
Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential
effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence – findings from
the national violence against women survey. Journal OfFamilyIssues,
26(3), 322-349.
Kaufman Kantor, G., & Straus, M. A.
(1987). The dnmken bum theory ofwife beating. Social pJ’oblems, 34, 213-230.
Kennedy, L. W., & Dutton, D. G. (1989). The incidence of
wife assault in alberta.Canadian JOl/mal of Behavioral Science. 21( I). 40-54.
Kemsmith, P. (2005). Exerting power or striking back: A
gendered comparison of motivations for domestic violence perpetration. Victims
and Violence, 20(2), 173~I85.
Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy. J. A., Zwi. A. B.,
Lozano, R., & World Health Organization. (2002). World
report 011 violence and health. Geneva: World Health
Organization.
Lackey, c., & Williams, K. R. (1995). Social bonding and
the cessation of partner violence across generations. Journal o
f Marriage and the family, 57, 295~305.
Lupri, E. (2004). Institutional resistance to acknowledging
intimate male abuse, Counter-Roundtable Conference
on Domestic Violence. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Medeiros, R. A, & Straus, M. A. (2006). Risk factors for
physical violence between dating partners: Implications for gender-inclusive
prevention and treatment of family violence.
In J. C. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family
approaches to domestic violence: A practioners gUide to gender-inclusive
research and treatment. Springer (also available at http://pubpages.unh.edu/-mas2).
Saunders, D. G. (1986). When battered women use violence:
Husband-abuse or self~defense?Violence and Victims, 1(1),47-60.
Schulman, M. (1979). A survey of spoIlsal
violence aqains! lvomen il/ Kentucky.Washington, DC: U.S.
Govemment Printing Office.
Steinmetz, S. K. (1977). The cycle o
f violence: Assertive, aggressive, and abusive fami(v illtaaction. New
York: Praeger.
Steinmetz, S. K. (1977-1978). The battered husband
syndrome. Victim%gy. 2, 499-509.
Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence
by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In
X. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp.
17..-44).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Straus, M. A., (2007) Dominance and
synnnetry in partner violence by male and female University
Students in 32 nations, Children and YOUtl1 Services Re,iew
, do; 10.lOl6/j.childyouth.2007.1O.004
Straus, M. A., & International Dating ViOlence Kcsearch
ConsortIUm. (2004). Prevalence ot VIOlence against dating partners by male and
female university students worldwide.Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790-811.
Straus, M. A., & Scott, K. (In press). Gender symmetry
in partner violence: The evidence, the denial, and the implications for primary
prevention and treatment.
In J. R. Lutzker & D. J. Whitaker (Eds.), Prevention ofpartner violence. Washington
D.C. : American Psychological Association.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy. S.• &
Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development
and preliminary psychometric data. Journalof Fami(v
Issues, 17(3), 283-316.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full
report (~(the prevalence, incidence, and
consequences ofviolence against women: Findings fiv11I the national
violence against women survey (No. NCJ 183781). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Fonte: visto su Centri antiviolenza e Femminismo del 31 dicembre 2013
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento