🚀 go-pugleaf

gbourque@ix.netcom.com (Gary Bourque) writes:
> angusj@panix.com (Angus Johnston) writes: 
> >gbourque@ix.netcom.com (Gary Bourque) writes:

> >> it was a myth, a complete and total fabrication by
> >> extremist feminist groups having absolutely no basis in statistical
> >> fact.  At least one feminist leader finally admitted that they cooked
> >> the numbers on this; partly by including things like "my husband
> >> ignored me during the game" as incidents of abuse, partly by simply
> >> making incidents up.  I was a total lie.
> >
> >I shut the hell up on this thread a few days ago, but I'd just like to
> >note one thing --- although the Super Bowl wife beating story was, as
> >we all know, false, this six line "refutation" contains a half dozen
> >basic factual errors, each of which makes the feminist movement look
> >worse than is justified by the original sorry tale.
> 
> And just what are those "half-dozen basic factual errors"? 

I'll give you five...

1. "it was a myth, a complete and total fabrication"

No, it wasn't. It was based on independent research (by faculty in the
Sociology Department of Old Dominion University) that showed a rise in
women's domestic violence-related emergency room visits after certain
football games. The activists exaggerated the data, but they didn't
invent it.

2. "having absolutely no basis in statistical fact"

Also untrue. Two of the authors of the study, when interviewed during
the debunking frenzy, said that the data on days in which the home team
had won (the Redskins, in the 1992 season) showed a "significant"
increase in violence against women.

3. "including things like "my husband ignored me during the game"
as...abuse"

This appeared in none of the media accounts of the Super Bowl story.
You seem to have misremembered another of Christina Hoff Sommers'
bedtime stories.

4. "At least one feminist leader finally admitted" the above (#3).

Never happened.

5. "It was a total lie"

Nope. It was a stupid misreading of academic data, and a subsequent
exaggeration of the problem, but it was based on a kernel of truth. 

> Oh, and by the way, I never mentioned "the women's movement".  That was
> your error. 

My post made no reference to "the women's movement" either. I have no
idea what you're talking about.

> And I stand by the refutation.  If you have some evidence otherwise,
> say so, otherwise, pipe down and let the learned speak.

Yessir.

Followups trimmed.

--
Angus Johnston