Religion ‘Submit to your husbands’: Women told to endure domestic violence in the name of God

[medusala]

I'm a teetotaler Meds.....So unless Moffy is slurping the Earl Grey, then I don't think so.

Good man. Used to be an English Breakfast chap but I've switched to the Earl

Milk first mind you!

 

[kwikfix]

One ABC presenter admits - grudgingly - I am right: the ABC told an untruth that smears Christianity.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

One ABC presenter admits - grudgingly - I am right: the ABC told an untruth that smears Christianity.

The backfire of this thread really is spectacular. There is enough dislike of religion on this site that more people have not given it to Chief over this.

Heck I am agnostic and disagree with various sects Christianity on a number of things. Creating an environment that causes more violence against women is not a slur that can apply. In fact if everyone in the country was a devout christian attending church regularly evidence suggests intimate partner violence against women would decrease dramatically.

Some of the information in the OP failed the sniff test dramatically. Hence why the very first reply to the thread accurately called it out and the further stats dismantling the narrative were posted in the first few pages of this thread.

 

[Toump Ass]

Hmmm, it appears I may have been a bit quick to disregard this Christianity thing.

 

[Garlic muncher]

The backfire of this thread really is spectacular. There is enough dislike of religion on this site that more people have not given it to Chief over this.

Heck I am agnostic and disagree with various sects Christianity on a number of things. Creating an environment that causes more violence against women is not a slur that can apply. In fact if everyone in the country was a devout christian attending church regularly evidence suggests intimate partner violence against women would decrease dramatically.

Some of the information in the OP failed the sniff test dramatically. Hence why the very first reply to the thread accurately called it out and the further stats dismantling the narrative were posted in the first few pages of this thread.

So i was correct, the second post which was mine stated that reading the OP was abuse in itself.

Common sense tells us that men who go to Church are less abusive than those who don't, you can see it with your own eyes - they are making an effort to do the right thing for family, wives or themselves - outliers aside of course.

 

[Chief]

One ABC presenter admits - grudgingly - I am right: the ABC told an untruth that smears Christianity.

Lol! Smears Christianity!



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Cooldude]

Yes, the more you attend the church, the less likely you are to be abusive, in fact just become a priest, then you're home free forever

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Yes, the more you attend the church, the less likely you are to be abusive, in fact just become a priest, then you're home free forever

With the thread being about intimate partner violence your attempt to make a witty point and take a shot at the religion fails.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Lol! Smears Christianity!



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Are you willing to conceed that more time spent around the church environment by men results in dramatically lower rates of intimate partner violence from these men compared to those who never attend church.

Is this an example of christianity being a force for good?

Or are you such a hateful extremist that you will consider spewing your disdain even when something very positive results ftom the belief system you disagree with.

 

[Shai]

Where does domestic violence begin and end.? It is far more than physical or theological, though both play a part.

Just watched the 'sanctioned' waffle on 7 about Diana.

IMO she was brought into the royal family as a well bred broodmare, they didn't count on her having a mind of her own. For mine she was a clear case of DV.

In life, few people will touch your heart. I was at Boggy Creek Hunt Club when news of Diana's death was announced, will remember that day until my last.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Prof Steven Tracy speaks his own words:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-...tianity-to-call-out-domestic-violence/8751856

He does not think his research has been misquoted or misrepresented. Nor does he think it was an attack on Christianity as much as a call for reform:

Was I misquoted or misrepresented? Quite simply, no. Baird and Gleeson cited precisely what I found in the published research.

I utterly fail to see how this makes the article an attack on Christianity​

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Prof Steven Tracy speaks his own words:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-...tianity-to-call-out-domestic-violence/8751856

He does not think his research has been misquoted or misrepresented. Nor does he think it was an attack on Christianity as much as a call for reform:

Was I misquoted or misrepresented? Quite simply, no. Baird and Gleeson cited precisely what I found in the published research.

I utterly fail to see how this makes the article an attack on Christianity​

Recycling a post here.

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/50/50-3/JETS_50-3_573-594_Tracy.pdf
Steven Tracy wrote this.
"These studies do find a link between conservative religion and domestic violence, but it is not the simple causal relationship the feminist model would predict. Rather, there is an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence. Conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly are found to be the least likely group to engage in domestic violence, though conservative Protestant men who are irregular church attendees are the most likely to batter their wives.44 Thus current research disproves the feminist hypothesis that patriarchy is the single underlying cause of all abuse against women, though it strongly suggests that patriarchy plays some role in domestic violence."


Footnote 44 referred to this.
"44 Christopher G. Ellison and Kristin L. Anderson, “Religious Involvement and Domestic Violence among U.S. Couples,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40 (2001) 269–86; Merlin B. Brinkerhoff, Elaine Grandin, and Eugen Lupri, “Religious Involvement and Spousal Violence: The Canadian Case,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31 (1991) 15–31; Christopher G. Ellison, John P. Bartkowski, and Kristin L. Anderson, “Are There Religious Variations in Domestic Violence?” Journal of Family Issues 20 (1999) 87–113; W. Bradford Wilcox, Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004) 181–83. Similar trends were noted in an earlier non American study which found that the husband’s church attendance was an identifiable risk factor for wife assault: 11.2% of husbands who never attended church assaulted their wives. But only 2.2% of husbands who attended church at least monthly assaulted their wives, while 6.2% of husbands who attended church sporadically assaulted their wives: David M. Fergusson et al., “Factors Associated with Reports of Wife Assault in New Zealand,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 (1986) 410.

The most likely to batter their wives comment was in comparison of regular to irregular church goers.

Irregular can be broken down into the categories of sporadic, and never. The never attend church were the highest and nearly double that of sporadic attendees who themselves were nearly 3 times more likely to assault their wives than those who attended church at least once a month.

The following claim by Chief in the OP is fake news.
"Research shows that the men most likely to abuse their wives are evangelical Christians who attend church sporadically."

 

[Chief]

Recycling a post here.

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/50/50-3/JETS_50-3_573-594_Tracy.pdf
Steven Tracy wrote this.
"These studies do find a link between conservative religion and domestic violence, but it is not the simple causal relationship the feminist model would predict. Rather, there is an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence. Conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly are found to be the least likely group to engage in domestic violence, though conservative Protestant men who are irregular church attendees are the most likely to batter their wives.44 Thus current research disproves the feminist hypothesis that patriarchy is the single underlying cause of all abuse against women, though it strongly suggests that patriarchy plays some role in domestic violence."


Footnote 44 referred to this.
"44 Christopher G. Ellison and Kristin L. Anderson, “Religious Involvement and Domestic Violence among U.S. Couples,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40 (2001) 269–86; Merlin B. Brinkerhoff, Elaine Grandin, and Eugen Lupri, “Religious Involvement and Spousal Violence: The Canadian Case,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31 (1991) 15–31; Christopher G. Ellison, John P. Bartkowski, and Kristin L. Anderson, “Are There Religious Variations in Domestic Violence?” Journal of Family Issues 20 (1999) 87–113; W. Bradford Wilcox, Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004) 181–83. Similar trends were noted in an earlier non American study which found that the husband’s church attendance was an identifiable risk factor for wife assault: 11.2% of husbands who never attended church assaulted their wives. But only 2.2% of husbands who attended church at least monthly assaulted their wives, while 6.2% of husbands who attended church sporadically assaulted their wives: David M. Fergusson et al., “Factors Associated with Reports of Wife Assault in New Zealand,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 (1986) 410.

The most likely to batter their wives comment was in comparison of regular to irregular church goers.

Irregular can be broken down into the categories of sporadic, and never. The never attend church were the highest and nearly double that of sporadic attendees who themselves were nearly 3 times more likely to assault their wives than those who attended church at least once a month.

The following claim by Chief in the OP is fake news.
"Research shows that the men most likely to abuse their wives are evangelical Christians who attend church sporadically."

Just change sporadically to irregularly. A simple transposition of words.

It still says nothing about members of other cults and clubs.

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Just change sporadically to irregularly. A simple transposition of words.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Actually no. Because never attend church is much higher than sporadically and grouping them together can mislead with such a significant difference.

11.2% of husbands who never attended church assaulted their wives. But only 2.2% of husbands who attended church at least monthly assaulted their wives, while 6.2% of husbands who attended church sporadically assaulted their wives.

 

[Chief]

Actually no. Because never attend church is much higher than sporadically and grouping them together can mislead with such a significant difference.

11.2% of husbands who never attended church assaulted their wives. But only 2.2% of husbands who attended church at least monthly assaulted their wives, while 6.2% of husbands who attended church sporadically assaulted their wives.

That is how the study referred to them.

But Ok: subjects of that study who were in that religion but didn't attend church.

Remember: the author of the (US?) study said the article matched his findings. Media Watch called it a compelling and valuable report.

And still: is this a factor of community? Is it replicated in other geographical areas and religious congregations? Is it replicated in secular community groups?

It is also still the case that studies found a major factor in DV is a culture of male domination and control of females.

You seem to simply want to say "you're wrong and that's it".

That's ok if you don't want to explore it further.

You've had your say now.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

That is how the study referred to them.

But Ok: subjects of that study who were in that religion but didn't attend church.

Remember: the author of the (US?) study said the article matched his findings. Media Watch called it a compelling and valuable report.

And still: is this a factor of community? Is it replicated in other geographical areas and religious congregations? Is it replicated in secular community groups?

It is also still the case that studies found a major factor in DV is a culture of male domination and control of females.

You seem to simply want to say "you're wrong and that's it".

That's ok if you don't want to explore it further.

You've had your say now.

Here is the actual study those statistics came from.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/352408.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:ed53336add76c47d679d7da5968f55ec

Parental Social and Demographic Characteristics

Maternal and paternal age: In whole years, at the birth of the child.

Maternal and paternal education: Parents were classified into three groups, corresponding to ma- jor divisions in the New Zealand education sys- tem: parents lacked formal educational qualifica- tions; parents had secondary qualifications (e.g., school certificate, university entrance); parents had tertiary educational qualifications (e.g., university degree, tertiary technical qualifica- tions).

Parental ethnic status: Caucasian (white) or Polynesian (nonwhite).

Parental church attendance: Annual frequency of church attendance for mother and father.

Family socioeconomic status: This was based on the Elley and Irving (1976) classification of socioeconomic status for New Zealand. This sys- tem categorizes families into six social classes on the basis of male occupation.

These variables were selected for analysis because they had been used in a previous analysis of family breakdown in this birth cohort and had been shown to be significantly correlated with the risk of breakdown (Fergusson, Horwood, and Shannon, 1984).

The first bolded part is incorrect. The study merely references church attendance with no reference to what religion or if someone is even religious at all. You pushing your barrow of hate continues. It seems like a case of a journalist badly misquoting an academic who misquoted an earlier study. Learn to analyze a little deeper and you will look less foolish.

As for the second bolded part lets have a look at the results from the study.

Husband's social characteristics
Socioeconomic status
Levels 1, 2-professional, managerial 1.4
Levels 3, 4-clerical, technical, skilled 6.4
Levels 5, 6-semiskilled, unskilled 17.2

Husband's education
No formal qualifications 11.2
Secondary qualifications 7.9
Tertiary qualifications 0.0

Husband's ethnic status
White 7.1
Nonwhite 16.9

Husband's church attendance
At least once per month 2.2
Less than once per month 6.2
Never attends 11.2

This paints a clear picture of the less power and privilege a male has in a society the greater likely hood of him being violent toward an intimate partner. Two major factors not covered by the aging study include substance abuse and mental health both of which would be likely to be more prevalent in the groups of people with lower socioeconomic status and lower education levels.

This video would also be of interest.

 

[Chief]

Barrow of hate.

Lol!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[chelseacarlton]

Are you willing to conceed that more time spent around the church environment by men results in dramatically lower rates of intimate partner violence from these men compared to those who never attend church.

Is this an example of christianity being a force for good?

Or are you such a hateful extremist that you will consider spewing your disdain even when something very positive results ftom the belief system you disagree with.

I'm willing to if you are!?

 

[darth_timon]

You looked for a study to match already held views of yours to give you a reason to post a thread expressing your hate of a religion.

What do you have to say about the culture of certain remote indigenous communities where women are abuse at astronomical rates compared to non aboriginal women?

Do you deny the levels of abuse suffered by Aboriginal women?

If not where do you assert most of that abuse is coming from?

Why is it that whenever someone points out the incitements to violence or ill-treatment of women from one religion, someone has to make the subject about another religion/culture?

 

[Garlic muncher]

Why is it that whenever someone points out the incitements to violence or ill-treatment of women from one religion, someone has to make the subject about another religion/culture?

Because it is used to point out the OP's post is flat out wrong, in fact 100% wrong.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Why is it that whenever someone points out the incitements to violence or ill-treatment of women from one religion, someone has to make the subject about another religion/culture?

It's useful, because it helps elucidate (albeit unintentionally in most cases) the fact that the problem is all religion, not any particular religion.

 

[Procrastinator35]

It's useful, because it helps elucidate (albeit unintentionally in most cases) the fact that the problem is all religion, not any particular religion.

Oh?....Really?.....You mean it has nothing to do with culturally engendered behavior (Alcohol being a huge factor) or the physical overall strength differences between males & females.

My mistake.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Oh?....Really?.....You mean it has nothing to do with culturally engendered behavior (Alcohol being a huge factor) or the physical overall strength differences between males & females.

My mistake.

That's OK, but I'm sure it's not the first one you have to live with.
Irrelevance not being the least of them.

 

[Procrastinator35]

That's OK, but I'm sure it's not the first one you have to live with.
Irrelevance not being the least of them.

LoL.....Yes, I'm sure that physiologically gendered differences are irrelevant to the topic.

 

[FredLeDeux]

LoL.....Yes, I'm sure that physiologically gendered differences are irrelevant to the topic.

The post to which I replied dealt solely with religion.

Which is why mine did the same.

Which is why your reply was irrelevant to both.