The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:

Master’s Project

EmasculationOfAmerica.com
Text Box: INO Major: Psychosocial Studies Gender Violence, Abuse, and Aggression: In Dating and Partnering Relationships A Comprehensive Literature Review (Initial Proposal and Project Combined) Doug Baker Consolidated and Reedited: 2/05/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Research Abstract (Summary) and Implications – webpage 1 B. Acknowledgements – webpage #1 Project Proposal/Background – webpage 1 Are the sexes similar and equal? – webpage 1 Are the sexes different and unequal? – webpage 2 What are the answers to the contradictions? – webpage 2 Project Scope, Purpose, Significance, and Objectivity – webpages 2-3 Project Introduction/Overview – webpage 3 Introduction – webpage 3 Methodology and Content – webpage 3 Key Terms/Definitions – webpages 3-4 Project Overview – webpage 4 Discussion of Research – webpage 4 National Family Violence Surveys (NFVS) – webpages 4-5 Subsequent Analysis of the NFVS Data – webpage 5 General Value of the NFVS Studies – webpage 5 Related Research – webpage 5 Early Marriage Partner Aggression Survey – webpage 5 Related Research – webpage 5 Birth Cohort Partner Abuse Survey – webpages 5-6 Related Research – webpage 6 Dating Conflict Survey – webpage 6 Related Research – webpage 6 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) – webpages 6-7 Related Research – webpage 7 National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAW) – webpage 7 Army Spouse Abuse Survey (1989-97) – webpage 7 Some Problems With This Type of Survey – webpage 7 General Discussion/Conclusions – webpage 7 Summary – webpage 7-8 Why are females and males equally aggressive? – webpage 8 Implications for the Future – webpage 8 H. Bibliography – webpage 8 I. Appendices – “A” through “L” (Not available on website.) RESEARCH ABSTRACT This literature review surveys research that has generally remained unreported and/or misreported with respect to violence, abuse, and aggression in dating and partnering relationships – i.e. including cohabitation, marriage, and separation or divorce. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that there is little if any difference between the sexes in the frequency of either the milder or more severe forms of physical aggression in such relationships. The data indicates that perpetuating and maintaining such aggression tends to exist equally in both sexes while dating, and then continues thereafter – though on an increasingly diminished basis – into the partnering and even separation stages of relationships. In other words, both sexes typically know what they are getting into before making longer term commitments, but proceed regardless. This study suggests that the most meaningful and reliable forms of research: 1) includes both sexes simultaneously, if practical as dyads involved in the same incidents, 2) investigates diverse forms of physical or psychological aggression concurrently – i.e. spans a wide spectrum of abuses or aggressions in each category, and 3) uses sampling techniques that allow the data to be generalized to the entire population. Studies of isolated or selective populations – i.e. from single sex research or data from medical, shelter, or criminal sources – was universally unrepresentative. Four valid and extensible studies are reviewed; the NFVS, Early Marriage, Birth Cohort, and Dating surveys. Dozens of similar major studies are directly referenced, and scores of secondary sources are cited. The most comprehensive and reliable study remains Straus and Gelles National Family Violence Surveys, which is conducted each decade since1975. Three additional investigations (NCVS, NVAW, and Army surveys), each of which offers results that appear, on the surface, to demonstrate that males are significantly more aggressive than females are explored at length as well. These surveys represent the service provider, law enforcement, and as well as “crime-victimization” based research most often cited in academic publications. The fallacy of generalizing such data to both sexes and the entire population is discussed at length. In addition to survey results, theoretical and literature-based commentary is cited in this presentation, as deemed appropriate. It seems vital to note that this study does not address overall comparative gender aggression. In the course of conducting the research, however, the broader implications of its findings could not be ignored. The more basic question this study obviously raises is: “In general, is either sex innately more physically and psychologically abusive and aggressive? While this topic warrants further study, sufficient supplemental data was informally explored to hypothesize that: When all forms of abuse and violence, and there results are considered, males and females are equally aggressive and harmful to other people. If aggression is one of humanity’s basic attributes, such equality would be totally consistent with the preponderance of evidence, which indicates that significant differences between the sexes fundamental characteristics do not exist – e.g. intelligence, achievement motivation, emotionality, sexuality, and competitiveness. While physiology certainly includes certain innate distinctions, it seems clear that the sexes are roughly equal in almost all other basic respects. For example, males are about twice as physically aggressive in their non-intimate relationships; especially between the ages of 15 and 25. But females are also about twice as psychologically abusive in all relationships; particularly with intimates. It is proposed that emotional devastation is far more harmful than bodily injury because it often remains unhealed and relived repeatedly, while the sensations from physical injuries are not. Women also inflict about 50% more violence on children, and are twice as abusive with elders as men. Finally, for every three to four girls reporting molestation by men, one boy reports being molested by women. Considering the way males are acculturated and stereotyped and the absence of cultural sensitivity, the existence of actual gender differentials in this area are unlikely. In sum, while there are substantial distinctions in the way in which basic attributes become manifest or are expressed between the sexes (i.e. up to 95% differences), holistic evidence does not support the contention that significant differences (i.e. greater then 5%) in the innate aggression and violence exist. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document is a master’s degree literature search. It explores violence, aggression, and abuse between the sexes. Its findings contradict conventional wisdom within the academic community, and, through them, the general public. In other words, its conclusions contradict perhaps the most fundamental tenant of the feminist sociopolitical movement, and thus are politically incorrect. Perhaps more importantly, the results of this work run contrary to the deeply held beliefs of most of the University of Illinois committee members accountable for assuring its scientific validity. Yet every reviewer ultimately evaluated the study on the basis of its factual content, individual merit, and scientific validity. This required an extraordinary level of open-mindedness, professionalism, and even courage. Thus I would like to recognize these contingencies, the personal qualities of objectivity, and express my appreciation to each member, including Professors ________, __________, _________, and, my Chairperson, ________, as well as peer member, ______. Professor ______ offered especially valuable advice with respect to the new field of gender psychology. I would also like to express special appreciation to Professor ___________, who worked with me at great length on the Project Proposal, as well as the delivery of this project. Professor _______ put forth effort far beyond the call of duty in these endeavors due to my very limited understanding of how to effectively present and communicate a topic like this in an academic setting. What transpired in these processes would certainly have "Tried the Patience of Job;" and even Professor ________ obviously high level of human understanding. Finally, I deeply appreciate U.I.S. and the I.N.O. program leadership for allowing me to participate in this very special developmental and learning experience. I particularly want to recognize _______ ’s continued support under especially controversial and challenging circumstances, as well acceptance of results incompatible with the prevailing intellectual belief system. PROJECT PROPOSAL/BACKGOUND In the process of pursuing my learning objectives at U.I.S., I became aware that there is considerable disagreement among professionals in the social sciences on the issue of the fundamental similarities, differences, and equalities between the sexes. In some cases, a clear position would be taken that men and women were inherently the same in terms of their respective capacities and potential. Yet others would claim great differences in the most basic of human characteristics and attributes, as well as distinctions in many specifics traits and detailed stereotypical behaviors. So, which interpretation is most likely valid? Are the Sexes Similar and Equal? In the more general social science courses and texts, like developmental psychology and basic counseling theory, the sexes were presented as being innately and/or potentially equal in virtually every significant fundamental attribute or dimension. Sigelman (1999, p. 298) states, “We would be very mistaken, then, to credit any differences… between boys and girls (or women and men) to biological causes.” And even feminists editors like Anselmi & Law (1998, p. 295 & 357) add that “research reveals that sex differences in behavior are inconsistent and generally unstable… there were very few attributes on which the average values for the two sexes differed consistently… (and) when consistent differences were found, the amount of variance accounted for by sex was small. In general… personality traits measured as characteristics of individuals do not appear to differ systematically.” In stating that both sexes are similar and roughly equal, these sources are referring to the idea that “only 5% of the variation” on almost any trait “can be traced to whether a person is a male or a female, (and) the remaining 95% is due to other differences.” In other words “It is impossible to predict accurately how aggressive a person will is simply by knowing their gender,” and the same would apply to almost any other quality. (Sigelman, 1999, p. 299). Over the last several decades, other authors have report the same 95% similarity and 5% differences as applying to comparisons between the races and other large groups as well. Stated another way, this means that 95% of people in two large populations will fall in the same normal range of distribution of variation in virtually any realm of the human qualities and potentialities. In other words, “When the two groups overlap considerably, most of the scores for men and women will fall within the same range of ratings,” in this case 95%, while 5% will be out of the range shared by of both groups (Anselmi & Law, 1998, p. 59). One question is just how important a 5% difference is on any particular fundamental attribute. On the one hand, 95% of both groups would equally share the same basic strengths and/or weakness in all such characteristics (with very, very few falling at either the highest or lowest extremes of ability). On the other hand, 2.5% of both groups would be somewhat more capable and 2.5% more limited; a measurable and significant advantage or concern for those individuals. Preliminary research suggests that females are at least as violent, abusive and aggressive (VAA) in their intimate relationships as males. If consistent and predictable differences between the genders exist, the balance appears to be tipped toward greater female VAA when corporeal punishment or child and elder abuse are included with dating and partner violence, abuse, and aggression (the latter seem to be more or less equally distributed). Males are about twice as physically aggressive with non-intimates and females twice as psychologically or emotionally aggressive in all relationships, which seem to more or less counter-balance one another. Early exploration also suggests that the span of types of violence, abuse, and aggression is equally broad for both sexes, from essentially harmless to lethal. Thus, like men, for those females outside the shared range of VAA, similar portions of them inflict the more severe forms of violence, while like numbers commit the more normal forms of physical and non-physical abuse, and still others comparably perpetrate the milder forms of all types of aggression. The principle finding of this similarity and equality between the sexes applied to most of the more comprehensive research reviewed to date. The broader the scope of the study, the more often the data tended to conclude that men and women were essentially similar and equal in the most fundamental attributes and characteristics. If the survey covered a large population, included both sexes, probed multiple races, made cross-cultural comparisons, or included diverse sources of information, it tended to produce results that were very similar for both men and women. I think of this class of literature or surveys and meta-surveys as being more holistic or “generalizable” in their orientation and scope. The more representative the source was of the population, the more consistently it supported the conclusion that most differences between the sexes – beyond those relatively few distinctions caused by genetics, physiology, and reproductive differences – are either acculturated or self-developed (i.e. learned or acquired). In other words, each individual forms their perspectives and behaviors under the powerful influence of gender roles and other cultural expectations, - all of which derive from a foundation of basic attributes, competences, and potentialities shared relatively equally by both sexes. In other words, those sources that took a more panoramic view tended to find consistently measurable differences in the most fundamental characteristics and foundational attributes between the sexes were effectively non-existent. The exception was a relatively limited number of qualities related to a very narrow range of basic distinctions, most of which were linked directly or indirectly to differing hereditary factors and/or obvious physiological or reproductive considerations. Thus, the fact that men tend to be larger, and impregnate women who ovulate and give birth to, then need promptly breastfeed children, is meaningful in creating gender-differences. And the reality that women are impeded physically, and their bodies automatically respond to the unrelenting immediate demands of a developing embryo, and that men can but stand by, and provide food, shelter, and protection during this period, is all quite significant in fostering gender-distinctions. Such inherent physical and functional differences lead to certain basic ways of being that characterize each sex almost universally, and establish consistencies in specific traits and detailed behaviors among members of the same sex. Yet, both sexes learn to express a common core of basic attributes that are fundamentally equal, they just do so in different ways. In other words, what these texts and research suggested is that it is the way in which each gender learns to express the qualities they both share in common in differing contexts that leads to what only appears to be more fundamental dissimilarities. Those gender-differing ways of presenting distinct behaviors repetitiously in various settings emerges not so much due to genetic programming, but is attributable far more to broadly consistent gender-role distinctions, differing social standards, or self-learned ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving in ways similar to others of one’s same sex. For example, each sex might differ in how they most typically show affection in a relatively consistent manner in various situations, but both genders are still fundamentally equally affectionate.

Website http://EmasculationOfAmerica.com/ — Copyright © 2000-06. Doug Baker. All rights reserved.