Since his message is that women can be violent also, I'll be assuming that Sue will find him "not credible" as well).
Several studies, including large and nationally representative samples, have found that female-only violence is as prevalent as or more prevalent than male-only violence, and that the most prevalent pattern is mutual violence. The 1975 and the 1985 National Family Violence Surveys both found that about half of the violence was mutual, one quarter was male-only, and ne quarter was female-only (Gelles & Straus, 1988; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). The National Comorbidity Study (Kessler, Molnar, Feurer et al., 2001) found similar percentages. Other studies showing similar results include (Anderson, 2002; Capaldi & Owen, 2001; McCarroll, Ursano, Fan et al., 2004; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter et al., 2001; Williams & Frieze, 2005). In all of these studies, the predominant pattern was mutual violence.
Not a Dutton to be found.
Stets and Straus - 825 respondents:
49% reported reciprocal violence
28% reported that only the wife was violent
23% reported that only the husband was violent.
The men reported:
men struck the first blow 43.7% of the time...they reported women hitting first 44.1% of the time
The women reported:
women striking first 52.7% of the time...men hitting first 42.6% of the time.
Women are more likely to hit back (24.4% vs. 15%)
Stets and Straus (1992) combined the 1985 US National Family Violence Resurvey (N = 5,005) with a sample of 526 dating couples to generate a large and representative sample of male-female relationships, in which they reported incidence of intimate violence by gender. Using a subset of 825 respondents who reported experiencing at least one or more assaults the authors found that in ½ (49%) of the incidents the couples reported reciprocal violence, in 1/4 (23%) of the cases the couples reported that the husband alone was violent and 1/4 (28%) reported the wife alone was violent. Men (n = 297) reported striking the first blow in 43.7% of cases and that their partner struck the first blow in 44.1% of the cases. The women (n = 428) reported striking the first blow in 52.7% of the cases and that their partner struck first in 42.6% of the cases. Stets and Straus (1992) concluded that not only do women engage in a comparable amount of violence, they are “at least as likely” to instigate violence. The results also indicated that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%) than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus & Gelles, 1992). This latter result is difficult to explain from the patriarchal view that women are more afraid of male violence than the reverse. Stets and Straus also analyzed for level of violence x gender. They concluded that equal levels of violence by both men and women were the most common form of violence (40% of married couples). The second most frequent form was women using severe violence against men who were either completely non-violent or who used only minor violence (about 16 % of married couples). The stereotypical pattern (male severe, female none or minor) was found for only 8% of married couples. (emphasis mine) (Donald G. Dutton)
So offensive, in fact that I refuse to return to a site that has the button in the sidebar.
Personally, I would not compare a spiritual sibling to a religion that condones violence and death as a means to an end...that end being the silencing of anybody who disagrees with them.
I have in my personal library, the book "Infidel" by Hirsi Ali.
Ms Ali is Muslim; she is Somali born, and was circumcised as a child.
As an adult, she worked with Theo Van Gogh to make the film "Submission" (she wrote the screen play). The film was not "anti-Islam", it was anti-violence-against-women and decried those Muslims who supported that violence.
As a result, Van Gogh was murdered and a note containing a death threat against Ali was pinned to his chest. Ali has received numerous death threats and some of them have come close to succeeding.
This is the Islam that uses violence as a means to the end.
Christian girls on the way home from school: ahhh...the photos were here...a young girl's body...her head laying beside her...the World Trade Center...Danial Pearl, his head laying on his belly....
This is the religion that some egalitarians compare complementarians to...and nobody objects.
I will say again...if a picture says a thousand words...that says volumes.
Both of my kids appear to be on the "education track" and the I'm remembering the psychology professor I had last year. He knew his stuff; he was also an adjunct who happened to be the head of the special education programs for the country next to mine. With years of service under his belt, he was very unlike the academics who were getting their information out of a book.
These "parenting styles" have also applied to many teachers I've known so it's a good discussion to have with somebody on the teaching track.
The first (and worst) is "neglectful" parenting. The basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) are met, but other than that, the kid is mostly on their own.
Next is "permissive" parenting. There are few expectations of behavior and the child is rarely (if ever punished). At the end of the day, the parent caves. Children raised in "permissive" homes grow up unable to take responsibility for their own actions and immature.
The next two sound alike but in practice are not. And they are the most interesting because they can apply to so many different parts of life. From a job manager, to a teacher/college professor, to a board president, to a neighborhood association.
Of all the "parenting" styles, psychologists say "authoritative" is the ideal. An authoritative parent (or manager, or board member or elder) will clearly state boundaries and expectations, while giving those supervised the freedom to explore and learn within those boundaries. There are consequences that are known ahead of time for breaking the "rules" (if applicable) and two-way communication is not only welcome, but encouraged.
"Authoritarians" are just as good (or even better) at making rules and handing out consequences. The difference, however, is huge. Instead of discussion, the rules are stated with a "my way or the highway" attitude that discourages opinions that may affect the style of the manager/parent/board member.
The differences between "authoritative" and "authoritarian" (outside of the parenting arena) can be roughly illustrated by two difference church boards.
1) says that "X" is a good program and is recommended for personal growth. "Y" is also a good study guide and church 1) urges members and attenders to choose the group and study that best fits their needs.
2) drops everything that all small groups, studies, age groups and classes are doing for (whatever period of time) so that every single person that attends the church within that time frame will be doing "Z" program. Period.
In volunteer boards, this can mean a president who holds every bit of information close to the vest, so that other board members have a difficult time making informed decisions, vs. a president who distributes spread sheets and letters so that everybody who has to vote also has all the information available.
The "authoritative" v. "authoritarian" has a big impact on those who sit under these types of managers (or what ever authority structure a person is under). From a philosophical point of view, as a parent and educator, it bears thinking about what sort of authorit... I am.
Energy is going to play a larger part in the 2008 election than I think anybody suspected it would a year ago. Suddenly, non-fossil-fuel is at the forefront.
How serious are we?
Amid the rolling hills and verdant pastures of south central Virginia an unlikely new front in the battle over nuclear energy is opening up. How it is decided will tell us a lot about whether this country is willing to get serious about addressing its energy needs.
In Pittsylvania County, just north of the North Carolina border, the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the United States -- and the seventh largest in the world, according to industry monitor UX Consulting -- sits on land owned by neighbors Henry Bowen and Walter Coles. Large uranium deposits close to the surface are virtually unknown in the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. And that may be the problem.
It seems to me that safe and reliable nuclear energy is going to have to play a larger role in our energy supply than it has previously. Instead of "puddle jumper" aircraft that move from regional airports to the hubs, we may have to develop an electric (nuclear powered) train system for that segment of the journey. That, all by itself, would release jet fuel to be used by the hub-to-hub larger planes that would still be forced to use fossil fuels.
Even if coast-to-coast trains were made more "attractive" to the general user (yes, it would take LOTS more time...but it could be made more feasible. An iPod charger, wireless [satellite] internet, a curtain placed around the seat row for night-time sleeping, etc.)
As a society, we might have to slow down a little bit. We might have to buy more locally grown crops. We might have to start to ride bikes...I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.
The war on men:
A man is called a "pervert" for taking photographs of his own children on an amusement park slide.
Advertisement by the Southern Nevada Water Authority: the Man is watering lawn at the wrong time...(man bad), woman notices and rings his doorbell (woman good)...man gets good hard kick in the "groin region" (violence against men acceptable to our society). DON'T MAKE US TELL YOU AGAIN (see the video and listen to the last line)
False allegations of abuse during a divorce...big surprise...children being used as pawns...another "surprise".
Dick Cheney's house (google maps)
Dick Cheney's house (yahoo maps)
Nothing significant...just interesting. Inside the circle of the google map, details are digitally altered - on the yahoo map, they are not. Look closer at the area inside the circle.
I remember the exact moment I had my first serious doubts about whether I was 100 percent right that the U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq and the take-out of Saddam Hussein was a serious mistake. (...)
I just know I can’t get out of my mind that lady with the purple finger held up, smiling into the camera. If getting in was a mistake, then getting out — how and when — is not so simple as long as there is hope that she can some day live in a democratic Iraq that can help America in the war against terror.
(cross-posted on MzellenReads)
"In Violent Partners, Linda Mills continues to ask dangerous questions - about women's propensity to violence; about the murky powers stirring partnerships; about the ways in which the flaws and failures of the women's movement's response may have unintentionally sustained some of our collective risk. In addition, she bravely confronts her own complicity in the violence that helped shape her life: (Adrian Nicole LeBlanc, author of "Random Family")
Even the introduction is packed with information. Mills asks,
"(...)But has this enormous revolution in both public perception and public policy made America less violent? Are there fewer batterers than before? Are batterers learning to take responsibility for their behavior? Are women safer or more in control of their own lives?"
She begins to answer:
"(...)the ideology and rhetoric of the anti-domestic violence movement have become so rigid that they have created a new set of myths - or, at the very least, a new set of highly partial truths - that can be as pernicious as those we fought so hard to dispel years ago."
The book is about realities:
- the popular perception of domestic violence (...)represents only a small fraction of the American couples struggling with violence today
- Yesterday's victims often become tomorrow's criminals. Most researchers (...) now agree that child abuse if far more responsible for creating batterers than sexist attitudes and beliefs, and yet most batterer intervention programs fail to acknowledge this troubling legacy
- Violence is dehumanizing not only for the victim for for ther perpetrator as well. When we treat the batterer as a pariah, we may be discouraging them from seeking help
- Women frequently strike out - and not only in self-defense; in 24% of American marriages only the woman is abusive
Mills (in the introduction) makes it clear that she is not trying to demonize the movement, but rather expand it and adjust it to include the greater needs that have been covered up to this point (unintentionally, but unnoticed just the same)
When people hear "Reformed", what pops into their head is "TULIP"...well, a lot of times what pops in it "predestination" and that can end the conversation right there.
And it is true that when I first started looking at Reformed theology, TULIP is the first thing that I found and the first thing I looked at. Who can argue with the "total depravity of man"?
But just beyond "TULIP" are the Solas. The Solas are the "love of my Reformed life". They have become much more central to my "state of being" than TULIP ever was.
Soli Deo Gloria...for the Glory of God alone. The God that I belong to is so great, so vast, so everything that is...is there anything or anybody else that deserves glory? Is there anything that tries to get into the limelight of glory? It is this understanding of the Glory and centrality of God that should drive all other theology.
When looking at a theology, ask: does it glorify God, or does it glorify man, or does it glorify creation?
Solus Christus...Christ alone. It is only through Christ - and Christ on the cross - that we can be saved.
Here's something I wrote when my tatoo a while ago...
My tattoo is a week old today! I recently took stock of where I am, what I've done and how I've changed and/or grown. And something that might seem out of character underscores the change. This tattoo is a celtic-style cross, only instead of knot work on the crossbar, there are Greek letters, Christos - Christ on the cross. For me, in my Reformation from Arminianism, Christ alone on the cross means that there is no room there for my works, my filthy rags (righteousness). It's all Christ on there. My son designed it (so it's not exactly professional, but I'll probably end up going back to have it shaded later) and the letters are in Greek because Manda and I are taking a Greek class together. So both my kids are "in" the design.
Sola Fide/Sola Gratia...by grace alone, through faith alone. The gift of grace, by the gift of faith. The knowledge that there is nothing that I can do that will make me worth being "saved". There is no despair at not being able to measure up; no pride in the thought that I can do it myself.
That freedom to believe...
Sola Scriptura...The authority of Scripture as the only infallible guide of faith and conduct. Not SOLO, but Sola...Scripture is the "rule" (measuring stick) by which all other authoriy is examined and either submitted to or rejected.
To me, the "Solas" are the beautiful expression of our attitudes toward God.
TULIP is sotierological. How God saves.
The Solas are about how God IS.
If we look at our teaching and ask, how does this reflect Christ? Does it reflect how we (either as the church or as individuals) relate to the Prince of Peace?
Does it point to the glory of Christ? The glory of God? Does it pull the rug of self-righteousness out from under us, leaving us with only Christ on the cross for our salvation?