Balloon child

[RonBoyd]

Back on topic <Yawn>

Colo. law could prevent Heenes from making profit off 'hoax'

State law bars convicted criminals from profiting from their criminal actions. Money they make must be set aside for possible restitution.

 

[FUEGO]

I think that was his point!

No comment.

 

[TromboneAl]

I think that was his point!

Oops, you're right, I missed it. I need to work on my listening skills.

 

[growing_older]

Lawyer for parents of balloon boy says they now want to avoid the public spectacle of an arrest. It is perhaps a little late for avoiding public spectacle.

 

[Milton]

Can we get over the massive generalizations! Please?

They really don't help further any argument.

I could be wrong but I don't believe anyone is suggesting (let alone arguing) that the generalization/stereotype is accurate. Quite the contrary.

 

[kyounge1956]

Can we get over the massive generalizations! Please?

They really don't help further any argument.

Sorry! rant off.

Audrey

I could be wrong but I don't believe anyone is suggesting (let alone arguing) that the generalization/stereotype is accurate. Quite the contrary.

That depends on which "massive generalization" Audrey was hoping we'd get over. If it was the gender stereotypes, I think you're right. But possibly Audrey was referring to the generalization that

(snip)The media?

and/or

Religion?

are responsible for the counterproductive thought patterns that afflict the human race, rather than individual human beings (with strong influence from their upbringing) being responsible for their own ways of thinking.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Lawyer for parents of balloon boy says they now want to avoid the public spectacle of an arrest. It is perhaps a little late for avoiding public spectacle.

Yeah, I liked that too! He wants to avoid the media being able to be there for the perp walk. Give me a break.

 

[audreyh1]

But somehow we are socialized to believe that women are invariably nuturing and passive, and men are aggressive and domineering.

To me this implied that everyone must think this way. Otherwise why bother making a point about socialization?

It also strongly implies that everyone is socialized the same way.

Plus this one:

From national leaders down to petty criminals, pretty much no one is accountable for anything these days.

which is another sweeping generalization that I can't quite see is grounded in fact. I don't know how tongue in cheek that one was supposed to be.

But just ignore me, OK Milton? Seriously

I'm just strident and bitchy today.

best

Audrey

P.S. the Paul Farrell thread also got to me.

 

[RonBoyd]

P.S. the Paul Farrell thread also got to me.

My Zen link didn't help?

 

[Shawn]

Excellent cite. Thank you. However,

Spousal abuse at AllExperts

It may be pointed out, however, that while the simple tally of violent acts might be similar, studies show that men's violence usually does much more damage than women's1; women are much more likely to be injured and/or hospitalized, wives are much more likely to be killed by their husbands than the reverse, and women in general are more likely to be killed by their spouse than by all other types of assailants combined.2 In their study of severely violent couples, Neil Jacobson and John Gottman3 conclude that the frequency of violent acts is not as crucial as the impact of the violence and its function, when trying to understand spousal abuse; specifically, they state that the purpose of battering is to control and intimidate, rather than just to injure.

Much of the quoted link misleading. The injury rates between male and female victims of domestic violence is not that different. In homicide cases (the worst form of domestic violence), men account for at least 30-35% of all victims. The actual rate is undoubtedly higher due to the statistical way relationships are computed between assailant and victim. Also, while men tend to be bigger and stronger, women are more likely to use weapons. Weapons can be guns or knives, or they can be household items such as dishes. And no, the vast majority of women who are violent towards their partners aren't acting in self defense. In fact, men are slightly more likely to act in self defense (perhaps because women are slightly more likely to initiate domestic violence).

The statement "women in general are more likely to be killed by their spouse than by all other types of assailants combined" is factually incorrect (the link references a 1989 article - a wee bit out of date). Depending on the source, about 30% of women homicide victims are killed by their male partners, whereas about 6% of men homicide victims are killed by their female partners. Sounds grim for women, which is what these people want you to think. But this is a misleading way to present the data because men are *significantly* more likely to be victims of all homicide. That is, just because 30 is a lot bigger than 6, doesn't mean that 30% of a small number is bigger than 6% of a large number. The fact that people (the linked article) report statistics in this way is an indication that they are trying to be deceitful.

The statement attributed to Jacobson and Gottman ("the purpose of battering is to control and intimidate, rather than just to injure") is telling. First, this statement comes from a book, not a peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal. Second, the title of the book is "Why Men Batter Women" (not exactly objective). Third, the Jacobson and Gottman statement is not supported by the scientific data. In fact, the actual data suggest an opposite conclusion. That is, the primary predictors of domestic violence are factors such as drugs and alcoholism, poverty, unmarried cohabitation, youth, etc. Control and intimidation have little if anything to do with it. This is why the lowest rates of domestic violence are found in white, married, religious, middle to upper class couples who do not abuse alcohol or drugs (but this isn't politically correct so we better not talk about it). The concept of "control and intimidation" comes from "The Duluth Model." However, the Duluth Model has no scientific basis. It was invented by (radical) women's advocates when, due to mandatory arrest laws, the number of women being arrested for domestic violence began to sky rocket. Simply put, a principle behind the Duluth Model is to "arrest the man." Let's focus on control and intimidation (almost always in reference to partriarchy) and completely ignore the actual causes of domestic violence.

I apologize for the long response. Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with balloon boy (although admittedly I started it), except that I believe balloon boy's mom should be held accountable for her actions. Women are not inherently good just because they are women. I would love to chat more about this issue, but since I'm not yet ER'ed, my time is limited. Unfortunately, work does that to people. I probably will not be able to further respond.

 

[RonBoyd]

'Balloon Boy' father sentenced to 90 days in jail